Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tackhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    428

    DT Comp vs. DT Super Comp spokes

    Would you be able to feel much of a difference between the 2? Would it be worth the extra money for the Supers Comps? The spokes in question will be laced to 719 rims.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: super jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    137
    I can not answer if you can feel the difference. As for cost, on a 29er wheel, my calculation is $0.50/gram so that's good value cost to weight savings over Comps

    Previous discussion:
    Spoke choices

  3. #3
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhammer
    Would you be able to feel much of a difference between the 2?
    No. Any miniscule differences in the deflection you get because of the slightly thinner spokes are DWARFED by deflections/flex in other parts of the bike. We're talking orders of magnitude (inches vs. minute fractions of millimeters).
    As to whether it's "worth it," the $/g analysis is pretty standard. Don't forget to take into account the differences in weight of 2.0mm and 1.8mm nipples.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Don't forget to take into account the differences in weight of 2.0mm and 1.8mm nipples.
    2.0's will be lighter but it is ridiculously negligible.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by HyperBowl
    2.0's will be lighter but it is ridiculously negligible.
    I've just weighed 32 brass nipples (2mm and 1.8mm), 12mm length.

    2.0mm 30g
    1.8mm 32g

  6. #6
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,894
    Quote Originally Posted by roger-m
    I've just weighed 32 brass nipples (2mm and 1.8mm), 12mm length.

    2.0mm 30g
    1.8mm 32g
    There ya go!
    One could interpolate that to mean that for aluminum nipples, the difference would be about 0.67g. Monstrous!
    That should definitely make the decision easier.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6
    The 2.0 nipple has a bigger hole drilled into it so more material is removed during manufacture. Therein is the weight savings. Think now that the hole is filled with stainless steel (the spoke). The larger hole will now have a larger fill of steel. Now where is the weight? Cut the threaded portion off 32 spokes with 1.8 ends and another 32 with 2.0 ends and then we'll have some weight shifts back from the 2g differential. I bet the shift is more than 2 grams.

  8. #8
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,894
    Quote Originally Posted by HyperBowl
    The 2.0 nipple has a bigger hole drilled into it so more material is removed during manufacture. Therein is the weight savings. Think now that the hole is filled with stainless steel (the spoke). The larger hole will now have a larger fill of steel. Now where is the weight? Cut the threaded portion off 32 spokes with 1.8 ends and another 32 with 2.0 ends and then we'll have some weight shifts back from the 2g differential. I bet the shift is more than 2 grams.
    I know that 2.0 nipples are lighter than 1.8 nipples. That's why I suggested accounting for that, just to be thorough. Turns out is negligible (hence the sarcasm in my response to Roger's weight report).
    Thanks, Roger, for the data point, btw.
    What's your point?
    That part of the spoke, along with all the other parts of the spoke, is included in the weight comparison of the spokes (318g for S.Comps vs. 382g for Comps). There's "no weight shift back from the 2g differential," because that differential is for nipples only.
    *disclaimer - I assume that most people know that SuperComps are lighter than Comps. That should have been fairly obvious from the OP's post, if it's not general knowledge.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    I know that 2.0 nipples are lighter than 1.8 nipples. That's why I suggested accounting for that, just to be thorough. Turns out is negligible (hence the sarcasm in my response to Roger's weight report).
    Thanks, Roger, for the data point, btw.
    What's your point?
    That part of the spoke, along with all the other parts of the spoke, is included in the weight comparison of the spokes (318g for S.Comps vs. 382g for Comps). There's "no weight shift back from the 2g differential," because that differential is for nipples only.
    *disclaimer - I assume that most people know that SuperComps are lighter than Comps. That should have been fairly obvious from the OP's post, if it's not general knowledge.
    My point is: there is no point in making a choice based on nipple weight *alone* because of other factors that, although assumed and obvious, went unstated. Sorry about your Kotex pinch. It sounds painful.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by HyperBowl
    The 2.0 nipple has a bigger hole drilled into it so more material is removed during manufacture. Therein is the weight savings. Think now that the hole is filled with stainless steel (the spoke). The larger hole will now have a larger fill of steel. Now where is the weight? Cut the threaded portion off 32 spokes with 1.8 ends and another 32 with 2.0 ends and then we'll have some weight shifts back from the 2g differential. I bet the shift is more than 2 grams.
    Brass is very close to the density of steel, so there's no net weight gain or loss by drilling bigger holes in brass nipples and filling them with a fatter spokes (discounting the weight of the rest of the spoke, of course, which would be silly). Aluminum is about 1/3 the density of brass or steel, so the difference in weight of the nipples would be even smaller. All fairly irrelevent, but that never stopped us from discussing something, here.

    I have no experience with Supercomps, but like Revs (2.0/1.5/2.0) for the weight savings, strong elbows, greater elasticity (where appropriate), and same size nipples as Comps. The wind-up when building is a bit of a PITA, though. It seems to me that the difference between 2.0/1.8/2.0 Comps, and 2.0/1.7/1.8 Supercomps, would be really negligeable (12% less cross-sectional area), but the weight should drop about 20g for 32 spokes.
    Last edited by fallzboater; 02-12-2010 at 05:16 PM.
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  11. #11
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,894
    Quote Originally Posted by HyperBowl
    My point is: there is no point in making a choice based on nipple weight *alone* because of other factors that, although assumed and obvious, went unstated. Sorry about your Kotex pinch. It sounds painful.
    Who suggested making a choice based on nipple weight alone? Is that really what you thought?
    Sorry about your reading problem.
    Don't worry, your comment didn't bug me. It was just dumb.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Who suggested making a choice based on nipple weight alone?
    Not *alone* but you suggested choice based on nipple weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    As to whether it's "worth it," Ö Don't forget to take into account the differences in weight of 2.0mm and 1.8mm nipples.
    Why would we take it into account at all when it is negligible? You canít demand and hold others to a literal standard and claim sarcasm on your own part. Although it is a great method for being intolerable. I'll give you that for sure.

  13. #13
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,894
    Quote Originally Posted by HyperBowl
    Not *alone* but you suggested choice based on nipple weight.
    i did nothing of the sort. read. understand. i just suggested taking it into account (along with the spoke weight differential) for the sake of thoroughness in a $/g calculation, not knowing what it would be.
    Quote Originally Posted by HyperBowl
    Why would we take it into account at all when it is negligible? You canít demand and hold others to a literal standard and claim sarcasm on your own part. Although it is a great method for being intolerable. I'll give you that for sure.
    dood... let's back up. like i said, i didn't know what the difference was when i suggested taking it into account. roger posted the 2g difference for brass and that's when i gave the sarcastic suggestion that it would make the choice easier.
    describing a 0.62g differential (interpolated for aluminum) as 'monsterous' i thought was pretty obviously sarcastic.
    your whole bit about cutting the threaded ends off was just silly, as well as irrelevant, and dead wrong for brass nipples, as fallzboater pointed out. that's what prompted my response. it also wasn't clear from your post what your point was, since nobody ever suggested using nipple weight to decide what spokes to get. hence my question.
    completely off-base kotex comments are certainly the epitome of tolerance and tolerability (that's sarcasm, get it?).
    good luck.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tackhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    428
    Thanks for the replys. I think I'll go with the Comps, it doesn't appear that it would make a huge difference. Thanks again.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6
    Now when you claim that you did not offer nipple weight as a factor of choice and that,

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    i did nothing of the sort. read. understand. i just suggested taking it into account (along with the spoke weight differential) for the sake of thoroughness in a $/g calculation
    Iím not sure what account youíre taking it into other than the account of it being a feature to be considered in making a decision. The thoroughness you speak of [ $/g ] is simply factors of choice. How can you be thorough without being thorough about something?

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    dood... let's back up. like i said, i didn't know what the difference was when i suggested taking it into account. roger posted the 2g difference for brass and that's when i gave the sarcastic suggestion that it would make the choice easier.
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    nobody ever suggested using nipple weight to decide what spokes to get [Emphasis mine].

    Kind of looks like you actually did suggest it, ďÖdecide what spokes to get.Ē Uhm, thatís pretty much what making a choice is Ė deciding between alternatives. And if sarcasm is your feint, then why should anyone take you seriously anyway - ever?

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    your whole bit about cutting the threaded ends off was just silly, as well as irrelevant, and dead wrong for brass nipples, as fallzboater pointed out. that's what prompted my response. it also wasn't clear from your post what your point was
    Point: the lighter (2.0) nipple will necessarily have a heavier spoke than a less light (1.8) nipple, ceteris parabus, which is Latin for just the threaded part. Therefore, nipple weight is not a criterion for choice. Neither DT Competitions nor Supercomps come with brass nipples. They come with aluminum alloy nipples. I didnít bring brass into this so I canít be dead wrong about a claim I never made. Brass nipples are irrelevant to this post aside from fallzboater's nice quantized 2g comparison. I do apologize for the pinching Kotex remark. I thought it was a humorous metaphor for your perceived unpleasant disposition. Obviously I was wrong. Youíre quite nice.
    If there is need to back up any further, you can do it alone. I'm done here. Have fun.

  16. #16
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,894
    Quote Originally Posted by HyperBowl
    Now when you claim that you did not offer nipple weight as a factor of choice and that,



    I’m not sure what account you’re taking it into other than the account of it being a feature to be considered in making a decision. The thoroughness you speak of [ $/g ] is simply factors of choice. How can you be thorough without being thorough about something?




    Kind of looks like you actually did suggest it, “…decide what spokes to get.” Uhm, that’s pretty much what making a choice is – deciding between alternatives. And if sarcasm is your feint, then why should anyone take you seriously anyway - ever?
    omfg. are you for REAL? you really don't get it, or you're just being an a$$?
    let me break it down (again), corky:
    deciding between spokes.
    $/g calculation is standard.
    i recommend looking at nipples to, since it is part of the "g"
    turns out nipples are negligible (and thus do not change the outcome of the calculation)
    at this point discussion of nipple weight has been rendered meaningless and is understood by all (but you) not to affect the decision
    enter jocular sarcasm
    enter your ridonkulous 'analysis'
    Quote Originally Posted by HyperBowl
    Point: the lighter (2.0) nipple will necessarily have a heavier spoke than a less light (1.8) nipple, ceteris parabus, which is Latin for just the threaded part. Therefore, nipple weight is not a criterion for choice. Neither DT Competitions nor Supercomps come with brass nipples. They come with aluminum alloy nipples. I didn’t bring brass into this so I can’t be dead wrong about a claim I never made. Brass nipples are irrelevant to this post aside from fallzboater's nice quantized 2g comparison. I do apologize for the pinching Kotex remark. I thought it was a humorous metaphor for your perceived unpleasant disposition. Obviously I was wrong. You’re quite nice.
    If there is need to back up any further, you can do it alone. I'm done here. Have fun.
    Earth to hyperbowl: your point is WRONG! S.Comps (1.8 nipples) are lighter than Comps (2.0 nipples). There is no "all else equal." Those are the spokes we're talking about and your theoretical BS is not flying.
    FYI: using latin, then translating it, although incorrectly, is douchey. just leave it out and you'd be better off. that or use it correctly and don't explain it.
    Neither Comps nor S.Comps come with anything. You can chose whatever nipples you want for them. Have you never bought a spoke before? You're the one making a ridiculous argument about the relative weight of material removed from a nipple and what it's replaced with. Since you didn't specify, fallzboater pointed out that the most common nipple material (brass) is very close to the density of stainless steel. Brass is, in fact, heavier than steel, so your theoretical 'point,' despite being a flawed comparison in the first place, falls flat on its face.
    I'm sure that if continue postings along these lines that you'll bring out the best in everyone you encounter.

  17. #17
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,680
    Shame on me for resurrecting this thread, but in layman's terms, how much weight difference can you expect between Supercomps and Competitions in a 650B (27.5) spoke length?

    The difference for a 26" wheel is easy to calculate from the weights listed on DT site, but I'm looking for someone who has weighed them or alike.

    Thanks!
    Check my Site

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •