Super-Butted spokes (myth or fact)- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 107 of 107
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    393

    Super-Butted spokes (myth or fact)

    Four years since I opted for the super-butted spokes instead of the standard double butted spokes. I weigh ~170 and ride aggressive single track & all day XC on a ridgid SS.

    I read many options and mad scientist theories on the limits of perpetual motion. I had to experience the supper-butted hardware.

    I don't know if having supper-butted spokes contribute to:
    • spokes kept thier tension 4yrs and counting
      no broken spokes
      very durable set up (Salsa Race rims w/WI hubs)
      No excessive flexing on turns, or if they do slightly, I use that flex to snap out of a hard turn.
      On climbs I don't notice any flex.


    Would I have notice any difference if I had standard double butted spokes?
    The double butted spokes weigh ~100 grams more per wheel set or 50/wheel. I know it takes more energy to create inertia but is 100 grams so small compared to our buffness.

    thanks g-ZO

  2. #2
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Super butted?!?

    Never heard of super butted before, and I've been building my own wheels for the last 10 years. Not that it means much... my wheels kinda suck.

    So what is Super Butted? I've heard of triple butted... like 14/15/13 ga... those are popular with the tandem crowd.

    As far as inertia goes.. it all depends on where the weight is. Hubs don't make any difference in inertia, but inner tubes make a huge difference... like that.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    673
    You think those are good? You should try super, duper butted. They are about a gillion times better, all other things being equal.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzo
    theories on the limits of perpetual motion
    stopped reading there

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    I'll consider answering your question when your buffness is equal to mine.
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Soupboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,040
    All I can finger out is these guys built the wheels?
    Professional Amateur

  7. #7
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzo
    ...I had to experience the supper-butted hardware...
    You should try dinner-butted and midnight-snack-butted next.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  8. #8
    Vaginatarian
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,685
    I prefer quantity over strength
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Super-Butted spokes (myth or fact)-untitled-1.jpg  


  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    393

    super butted - two guage difference

    What does supper butted mean?

    Its just like double butted except instead of being 15/14 or 14/13 the super butted are 15/13 or two gauge difference in spoke diameter thickness....

  10. #10
    Former Bike Wrench
    Reputation: mtnbiker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,976
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzo
    What does supper butted mean?

    Its just like double butted except instead of being 15/14 or 14/13 the super butted are 15/13 or two gauge difference in spoke diameter thickness....
    A 15/13 spoke would be thin at the ends and THICKER in the middle, and quite thick at that

  11. #11
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    Whatever turns your cranks. I also prefer super butts...makes my ride plenty stiff ....
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    378
    no no no, super butted spokes are extruded from pure unobtanium.

  13. #13
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    ... and if you want that stuff....

    Quote Originally Posted by thefuzzbl
    no no no, super butted spokes are extruded from pure unobtanium.
    .... you have to talk to these guys


  14. #14
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    single-butted (left); super-butted (right)
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  15. #15
    NMBP
    Reputation: gfs69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,158
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    single-butted (left); super-butted (right)
    I prefer the single-butted myself.

  16. #16
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    super butted spokes are double butted spokes of DT Revo, Sapim Laser, or Wheelsmith XL14 dimensions (2.0/1.5/2.0).
    Wheelsmith uses the term on their webiste here.
    Of course, reading the top 5 results in a google search would also answer that question, but why waste time getting answers when you can do it trying to be cute?

  17. #17
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzo
    Would I have notice any difference if I had standard double butted spokes?
    No.

  18. #18
    I'm attracted to Gravity!
    Reputation: campredcloudbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzo
    I read many options and mad scientist theories on the limits of perpetual motion.
    It is possible.


  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by campredcloudbikes
    It is possible.
    your science teachers failed you

  20. #20
    I'm attracted to Gravity!
    Reputation: campredcloudbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee
    your science teachers failed you
    Actually I got a D+

    From Wikipedia, Perpetual Motion. "The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more commonly refers to any device or system that perpetually (indefinitely) produces more energy than it consumes, resulting in a net output of energy for indefinite time. The law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, implies that such a perpetual motion machine cannot exist."

    A perpetual motion machine with a net output of energy cannot exist, but stellar bodies do continue in motion without slowing down for a very long time.

    Planets and stars have been in motion long enough to be considered perpetual. Astronomers can rewind star positions thousands of years with great accuracy, because their motions are constant and predictable.

    Recall Newton's First Law of Motion: "A body persists in a state of uniform motion or of rest unless acted upon by an external force."

    On the earth, perpetual motion is impossible due to friction and air resistance. In space, these external forces become zero, allowing bodies to move perpetually. The gravity of a nearby body could be considered an external force, causing the planet or satellite to orbit the larger body, but that force is constant. There is a large component of forward momentum, and a very small component of gravitational attraction causing the body to be pulled towards the object it is orbiting.

  21. #21
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    Quote Originally Posted by campredcloudbikes
    From Wikipedia, Perpetual Motion. "The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more commonly refers to any device or system that perpetually (indefinitely) produces more energy than it consumes, resulting in a net output of energy for indefinite time. The law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, implies that such a perpetual motion machine cannot exist." So, a perpetual motion machine with a net output of energy cannot exist.

    The gravitational force due to the attraction between objects (matter) is a force that causes celestial bodies to orbit one another. This force is not constant due to the varying distances between the objects because celestial objects move in elliptical orbits. The more massive of two objects also has an ellipcital orbit although it is not as appearant due to its inertia (newton's 1st law - Recall Newton's First Law of Motion: "A body persists in a state of uniform motion or of rest unless acted upon by an external force." Also called the law of inertia). The moon causes the earth to move just as the earth causes the moon to move becuase the force between them is equal but opposite (newton's 3rd law). When I go off a drop on my bicycle, I am being pulled towards the earth and the earth is being pulled towards me with the same force, but in the opposite direction. So, the earth is also falling towards me although the earth's inertia is so much greater that the distance it travels is immeasureable.

    On the earth, perpetual motion is impossible due to friction and air resistance. In space, these external forces are negligable, allowing bodies to move perpetually. IOW, celestial bodies can continue in motion forever without loosing energy. The attractive force of gravity, although is considered an external force, is not considered to be errosive of motion as is friction (friction always resists motion). The gravitational force between objects in orbit is cyclical and varying. During its orbit, the sun is slowing the planets down, or speeding them up, and 2 times during the orbit of each planet the sun has no affect on the planets's speed - once at the farthest point (where the speed is at a minimun) and once at the closest point (where the speed is at its maximum).
    Hope you don't mind I changed and added a few things.
    It's hard to belive you got a "D". Schnee on the other hand....

  22. #22
    I'm attracted to Gravity!
    Reputation: campredcloudbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet
    Hope you don't mind I changed and added a few things.
    It's hard to belive you got a "D". Schnee on the other hand....
    Excellent additions.

    I actually forgot what my grade was, but it was a bit better than a D+

    Right now I'm reading through the Cohen and Whitman translation (modern English) of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica. Not that I understand half of it, but a very good brain stretcher.

    Wheel building is fun. Take your pick of spokes. If you want the lightest and most expensive, I've heard good things about them. Personally, I've just used double butted and straight spokes myself, but would love the lighter spokes if weight was more a concern than cost.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    285
    I use double butted spokes for my

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    285
    I've been using double butted spokes on DH bikes for years and have had no issues on durability overall.all most two seasons on a set with over 40 races combined plus shuttling on 823's until I started breaking spokes.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    i use the dt alpines 14/15/13 on my dh wheels with hadley hub and mavic 729 rims,my only problem was that i tried to bling them out with gold nipples,i did manage to break one on the braking side of the back wheel. It didn't go that far out of true and replacing with a brass nipple fixed it. They do come only in fairly long lengths and i had to build 4x ,that is actually a good spoke pattern for dh a bit more complient vertically and a bit stiffer laterally. The 13 guage part is pretty short ,in by the hub,keeps them from breaking at the bend. 4x is stiffer side to side because the last crossing is further out,closer to the rim.

  26. #26
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Well, Newton was close...

    Quote Originally Posted by campredcloudbikes
    Excellent additions.

    I actually forgot what my grade was, but it was a bit better than a D+

    Right now I'm reading through the Cohen and Whitman translation (modern English) of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica. Not that I understand half of it, but a very good brain stretcher.

    Wheel building is fun. Take your pick of spokes. If you want the lightest and most expensive, I've heard good things about them. Personally, I've just used double butted and straight spokes myself, but would love the lighter spokes if weight was more a concern than cost.
    ... but Einstein was proven right.

    Newtonian math is close enough tho. He didn't account for the speed of space expansion and gravity's effect on space. I hear the Einstein theory of motion is more accurate, but is like a zillion times more complicated, and hardly yields any difference.

    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l.../einstein.html

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet
    Hope you don't mind I changed and added a few things.
    It's hard to belive you got a "D". Schnee on the other hand....
    very long time does not equal perpetual

    planets are constantly being acted upon by forces that increase entropy - gravity, solar winds, magnetic fields, interstellar gases, every single little bit counts

    it's like throwing cotton balls at a coasting battleship, it may take a lot of them to stop it, but hey, when you measure time over billions of years it ain't no thing

    so, no, the planets aren't perpetual motion and anyone who says so is sloppy - that may be fine for 'poetic license', creative writing or selling spokes but it is not science

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,797
    PS I got 'B's, because I never did homework but aced tests, but so what

    you'd be better off reading Feynman, getting the concepts of science explained to you by a scientist who knows how to articulate the really counter-intuitive stuff to us hobbyists, instead of diving in to the arcane technical source material with such a high learning curve it allows you to draw dumb conclusions like 'planets are perpetual motion machines'

  29. #29
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee
    very long time does not equal perpetual

    planets are constantly being acted upon by forces that increase entropy - gravity, solar winds, magnetic fields, interstellar gases, every single little bit counts

    it's like throwing cotton balls at a coasting battleship, it may take a lot of them to stop it, but hey, when you measure time over billions of years it ain't no thing

    so, no, the planets aren't perpetual motion and anyone who says so is sloppy - that may be fine for 'poetic license', creative writing or selling spokes but it is not science
    Just a FYI, the planets have been orbiting the sun for over 4 billion years and they will continue to orbit until our sun runs out of fission fuel. That is not poetically perpetual IMO. The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate as far as we know. Call it what you will....it is not slowing down, it is speeding up.

  30. #30
    U sayin' Bolt ?
    Reputation: knutso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,355
    The sun fuses atoms, big butts are better than small ones and gravity is not perpetual motion ...
    ... any more bababrain busters ? ?

  31. #31
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    Newton was a genius! Even Eistein saud that his theories would have never come to light if it weren't for the giants that came before him.
    Newton's Laws of Motion are still valid except for his 2nd law (a=F/m) when the object approaches light speed. It doesn't matter how much force you apply, an object will never attain light speed and so will not continue to accelerate.
    Newton's theory of Gravity also is valid except in very high gravitational fields, such as that experienced close to the sun.
    Newton's 1st Law (which is valid under any circumstance) can be considered the law of perpetual motion since it states that an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
    To be honest, to come up with any one of his laws of motion would have made him a genius, but to have come up with a complete system of Laws to decribe ordinary motion is beyond magnificant....not even mentioning the fact that he (with another mathmetician of his time - Leibniz from Germany i think) independently invented Calculus in order to make caculating problems using his Laws easier. That is the book campredcloudbikes is reading about.

    As far as spokes go, it is pretty simple problem really.
    The stiffness of a wheel is directly related to the cross-sectional area of the spoke (all else being the same).
    If you are light and don't hammer out of the saddle much you can use thin spokes and probably not ever feel much flex. OTOH, if you are massive with high power, you should use thicker spokes.
    When I design wheels, I look carefully at the angle that each spoke is going into the rim from the hub, the use of the wheel, and the mass of the rider before I decide on the spoke to use. I often use different spokes on each side of a wheel to maximize the stiffness to mass ratio and the longevity of the spokes. Like I said, not very complicated, but more analysis that most would consider.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet
    Just a FYI, the planets have been orbiting the sun for over 4 billion years and they will continue to orbit until our sun runs out of fission fuel. That is not poetically perpetual IMO.
    The phrase 'IMO' is a loophole big enough to swallow a Red Giant.

    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet
    The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate as far as we know. Call it what you will....it is not slowing down, it is speeding up.
    That is a completely different issue, and you know it.

  33. #33
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    went with alpine III's because the spoke holes in I 9 classics are about 2.55 MM

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation: cruso414's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by dan0
    I prefer quantity over strength
    that's Lance's bike, don't ask me how I know.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    single-butted (left); super-butted (right)
    LOL

    - Chris

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    what did you do for spoke lengths and how many crosses,i had to do 4x which i actually like, very stable laterally.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    4x is stiffer side to side because the last crossing is further out,closer to the rim.
    The location of the spoke crossings do not contribute to the lateral stiffness. The stiffness can be increased with a stiffer rim, thicker or more spokes, or increased bracing angle (wider flange spacing). For a given hub, rim, and spokes, you could increase lateral stiffness by lacing radial, heads in, but I wouldn't recommend this for a MTB, especially with disk brakes.
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  38. #38
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by fallzboater
    The location of the spoke crossings do not contribute to the lateral stiffness. The stiffness can be increased with a stiffer rim, thicker or more spokes, or increased bracing angle (wider flange spacing). For a given hub, rim, and spokes, you could increase lateral stiffness by lacing radial, heads in, but I wouldn't recommend this for a MTB, especially with disk brakes.
    I think 4x is a bit too extreme anyhow.
    IMO, a 3X generally crosses the hub flange at/around the optimum angle. (32/36H)
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    lateral is side to side,radial is the stiffest vertically,like on a roadbike when you hit a bump. two cross is less stiff and ...4x the spokes are nearly tangent to the hub,at a right angle to hub, this makes them exactly inline(and stiffest)against driving and braking forces coming from the hub. Spokes do gain side to side strength by leaning on each other, ie the reason for lacing spokes (2 over 1 under for 3 cross), why else would people lace spokes? The further out form the hub the spokes cross the more side to side rigidity is gained.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142

    optimum?

    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    I think 4x is a bit too extreme anyhow.
    IMO, a 3X generally crosses the hub flange at/around the optimum angle. (32/36H)
    How is it optimum?, and what's extreme about 4x ?the spokes lean against a longer section of the flange.Lacing spokes adds strength by the the spokes supporting each other. In establishing that spokes do actually support each other the next conclusion is that the further out(and closer to the middle of the spoke) the spokes support each other the more effective lacing the spokes would be.

  41. #41
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    4x is stiffer side to side because the last crossing is further out,closer to the rim.
    Measured data shows that 4X is the least stiff (radially and laterally) out of radial, 1X, 2X, 3X, and 4X. This is probably attributable to the longer spokes, however, IMO it would be undetectable to a rider on a trail.
    Since 4X is not really practical on a 32h wheel, and has a more optimum spoke angle in a 36h wheel (20° difference), I don't think it's 'extreme' for a 36h wheel. Remember, though, that most people think in terms of 32h.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 02-17-2010 at 03:32 PM.

  42. #42
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    lateral is side to side,radial is the stiffest vertically,like on a roadbike when you hit a bump. two cross is less stiff and ...4x the spokes are nearly tangent to the hub,at a right angle to hub, this makes them exactly inline(and stiffest)against driving and braking forces coming from the hub. Spokes do gain side to side strength by leaning on each other, ie the reason for lacing spokes (2 over 1 under for 3 cross), why else would people lace spokes? The further out form the hub the spokes cross the more side to side rigidity is gained.
    You are right about torsional stiffness, but you are wrong about radial and lateral stiffness. the difference is minimal, but the opposite of what you are saying. This is based on measured data. The torsional stiffness comes from the nearly tangential spoke angle (like you said). The lack of radial and lateral stiffness is probably attributable to the longer spokes, like I said.
    If wheels did gain stiffness (not the same as strength, btw) by crossing, radially laced wheels would not be the stiffest laterally, yet they are. They also have the shortest possible spokes.
    Why would you lace spokes? For the reason you stated: to transfer torque between the hub and rim (so you can pedal any bike and so you can stop hub-braked bikes).

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    lacing spokes,i'm talking about the over/under crossing of spokes, you can have laced and unlaced three cross wheels. Machine built wheels are not laced,well that's the way it used to be.

  44. #44
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    lacing spokes,i'm talking about the over/under crossing of spokes, you can have laced and unlaced three cross wheels. Machine built wheels are not laced,well that's the way it used to be.
    I know what lacing means.
    I'd be interested to see a picture/example of a commercially produced 3X, unlaced wheel.

  45. #45
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    How is it optimum?, and what's extreme about 4x ?the spokes lean against a longer section of the flange.Lacing spokes adds strength by the the spokes supporting each other. In establishing that spokes do actually support each other the next conclusion is that the further out(and closer to the middle of the spoke) the spokes support each other the more effective lacing the spokes would be.
    *in bold* - if anything, that application would make that configuration more compromised; a stress-riser (end of hub flange radially) from the 'outside' (head-in) spokes as they try to bend/flex against a rigid impediment (flange).
    I am not saying this has any super consequences in reality; just sayin...

    My statements are going off of my own common sense which is (chest thump) pretty decent given my background.
    Of course I might be wrong when/if some #'s come out. - and I'll happily agree,; as I love to gain more knowledge...

    'Feather is the dood who can geek-out on this...
    Last edited by highdelll; 02-17-2010 at 04:21 PM.
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  46. #46
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    One of the contributions of the lateral stiffness of a wheel is of the angle the spokes go from the hub to the rim (very common sense right?) A radially laced spoke has the largest angle that can be accomplished in this regard so it is the stiffest laterally. Also, the longer the spokes the more it can strain (i.e. the more it stetches under a certain load). With this is mind the more crosses the spokes have, the less laterally stiff the wheel will be.
    But, a mountain bike wheel has to have some torque resistance or radial stiffness because of disc brakes and in the rear drive power, so some angle from the hub must be given to the spokes for this. I prefer a 3-cross for a 32 hole 29" wheel as highdelll was saying since it is the best comprimise of both lateral and radial stiffness for both sides of the wheel - front and rear.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    Lacing spokes adds strength by the the spokes supporting each other. In establishing that spokes do actually support each other the next conclusion is that the further out(and closer to the middle of the spoke) the spokes support each other the more effective lacing the spokes would be.
    If I understand what you've written, I believe that you're confused about the spokes' role in the wheel structure. The bending stiffness is basically nil (like a string), and even if not, they are able to pivot at the ends (somewhat like the members of a pinned truss). So, the spokes can only act in tension or compression (up to the point that the tensile preload goes to zero). When you push laterally on the rim, the nearby spokes on one side pull back (increasing in tension), and the ones on the other side push back (compression, or decreased preload, if you prefer), equally. I realize these may not be easy concepts for the layperson to grasp.

    Crossing spokes tend to "share" tension, to some degree. One way that may help the wheel structure, is when the rim is locally deflected inward more than a particular spoke's elongation, the crossing spoke (still under tension) pushes sideways at the crossing point and may keep the first spoke from going completely slack.
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Measured data shows that 4X is the least stiff (radially and laterally) out of radial, 1X, 2X, 3X, and 4X. This is probably attributable to the longer spokes, however, IMO it would be undetectable to a rider on a trail.
    Since 4X is not really practical on a 32h wheel, and has a more optimum spoke angle in a 36h wheel (20° difference), I don't think it's 'extreme' for a 36h wheel. Remember, though, that most people think in terms of 32h.
    I don't disagree, but I'm curious about your measured data. Source?

    IIRC, 40 and even 48-spoke wheels used to be used for tandems and maybe some loaded touring bikes, and 4x was the recommended lacing pattern. Rim and spoke materials have improved to the point that 36 is the most any normal application should require.
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet
    One of the contributions of the lateral stiffness of a wheel is of the angle the spokes go from the hub to the rim (very common sense right?) A radially laced spoke has the largest angle that can be accomplished in this regard so it is the stiffest laterally.
    Sort of. Radial heads in has a larger bracing angle than alternating heads, and radial heads out has a smaller bracing angle. Once you're alternating heads, there's very little difference between radial and tangential, except if your hub flanges were very large.

    Also, the longer the spokes the more it can strain (i.e. the more it stetches under a certain load). With this is mind the more crosses the spokes have, the less laterally stiff the wheel will be.
    Again, with the common relatively small-flange hubs, the difference in spoke length with the various patterns is a small percentage of the total length.

    Nobody should be building MTB wheels without nearly tangential, interlaced spokes, anyway.
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  50. #50
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    FWIW, radial lacing IS heads in and no matter what the flange size, there is definite difference in brace angle although as you said on a MTB wheel, it makes no sense.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142

    unlaced.we're talking really cheap.

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    I know what lacing means.
    I'd be interested to see a picture/example of a commercially produced 3X, unlaced wheel.
    i'd have to check but walmart level wheels coincidently a company named wald used to make tons of them,i've seen radial front wheels on a lot of those lovely bikes.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    i guess it's old tech,butit's never let me down,4x seems like it requires spokes that are only 4% longer.I know it's softer to road bumps, i'd heard a long time ago you were trading the vertical complience for lateral stiffness,but i guess it could just be more axial(wind up) braking and driving strength. One other thing about 4x that i remembered because of this thread is that,because the spokes come off the hub at nearly perfect tangents,it makes the driving and braking spokes parallel, so at any moment there are two parallel spokes going straight up and down near the top of the rim,the only spokes that are at maximum tension at any moment(like the moment you hit the ground on a big drop off),it distributes/splits the stress more evenly. Anyway when i was building my wheels i wanted to use the DT alpines and bti only carries them down to 260mm and i was using mavic 729's and 3x wouldn't work i think 4x needed 264's or something like that. They've been really strong wheels ,no problems.So, build whatever you want. 4x needs to be a 36 spoke wheel, so it's a dh thing,heavy braking stresses.

  53. #53
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    The amount of force required of spokes to maintain a certain level of rigidity is directly related to its length if the center to flange distance is the same.
    I just did a comparison of 3X and 4X of a recent wheel build I did. The 4X spokes were 3.9% longer than the 3X. What this means is there will be 0.039 * 1.039 = 4.0% more flex in the 4X over the 3X.
    The difference in spoke length (as far as extra strain associated with the longer spoke) is negligable but the difference in spoke angle is not negligable.
    Going from 2X to 4X would be more drastic and so on. The difference between radial and any cross is more drastic since the radial angle is more than a cross spoked angle because of all the heads facing in.
    Last edited by yogiprophet; 02-17-2010 at 10:14 PM.

  54. #54
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by fallzboater
    ...IIRC, 40 and even 48-spoke wheels used to be used for tandems and maybe some loaded touring bikes, and 4x was the recommended lacing pattern.
    I just want to point out that a 4X on a 48 - the spoke is 'leaving' the hub at about the same angle* as a 36H 3X

    *=approximately
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  55. #55
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,157

    Actually, it was 9.9 jigawatts.

    Really though, Yogiprophet's response in #11 makes the most sense to me, though I'd prefer it in a larger file format.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by cruso414
    that's Lance's bike, don't ask me how I know.
    I remember that photo from some magazine article, now. Which one was it?
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by campredcloudbikes
    Excellent additions.

    I actually forgot what my grade was, but it was a bit better than a D+

    Right now I'm reading through the Cohen and Whitman translation (modern English) of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica. Not that I understand half of it, but a very good brain stretcher.

    Wheel building is fun. Take your pick of spokes. If you want the lightest and most expensive, I've heard good things about them. Personally, I've just used double butted and straight spokes myself, but would love the lighter spokes if weight was more a concern than cost.
    Then you will probably like this. "Easier" reading.
    http://fair-use.org/bertrand-russell...f-mathematics/
    Been awhile since I did studies like this, i give new meaning to the uncertainty principle.
    http://forums.myspace.com/t/3740092....ums.viewthread
    Last edited by ghawk; 02-18-2010 at 07:04 AM.

  58. #58
    Spear & Magic Helmet
    Reputation: JohnGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    I know what lacing means.
    I'd be interested to see a picture/example of a commercially produced 3X, unlaced wheel.
    Mavic.

  59. #59
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    i'd have to check but walmart level wheels coincidently a company named wald used to make tons of them,i've seen radial front wheels on a lot of those lovely bikes.
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    I'd be interested to see a picture/example of a commercially produced 3X, unlaced wheel.
    You said 3X unlaced, not radial, and that's what I was talking about being interested in seeing.
    Obviously I know that many rim-braked bikes use radial front wheels.

  60. #60
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGray
    Mavic.
    Sorry to have to ask this, but do you guys know what "3X" and "laced" mean?
    Mavic wheels are 2X front and 2X/radial rear. The 2X sides are all laced.
    I don't know if you thought the 2X sides were unlaced (even though I specified 3X), but they are. If you were referring to the 1/2 radial rear, that is unlaced by definition, but again, not 3X.
    What herbn said was that "3X, unlaced" is how machine-built wheels used to be.

  61. #61
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet
    FWIW, radial lacing IS heads in and no matter what the flange size, there is definite difference in brace angle although as you said on a MTB wheel, it makes no sense.
    Radial lacing is not heads in, it is however you lace it. In fact, most radially-laced road front wheels (the most common application for radial lacing) are heads out.

  62. #62
    Spear & Magic Helmet
    Reputation: JohnGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Sorry to have to ask this, but do you guys know what "3X" and "laced" mean?
    Mavic wheels are 2X front and 2X/radial rear. The 2X sides are all laced.
    I don't know if you thought the 2X sides were unlaced (even though I specified 3X), but they are. If you were referring to the 1/2 radial rear, that is unlaced by definition, but again, not 3X.
    What herbn said was that "3X, unlaced" is how machine-built wheels used to be.
    Chill dude. I got a dictionary. Take a better look at the Mavic wheels, not just the road or XC. Specifically the Deemax. 3X, unlaced. Check out Easton. The XC One 29 is 3x and also (I believe) unlaced (thus making it 29" specific and relevant to this forum).

    Now, let me help you out here. A better rebuttal would be to point out that while the Deemax is 3X only the rear is 32 spokes (the front is 28). The Easton is 24 spokes front and rear. Both are straight pull spokes.

    What I would really be interested in seeing is if lacing truly adds to stiffness or this is all mythology. I don't know. I'd always jonesed for a wheelset with soldered spokes - just building up a comfort level to do it myself - then I found Jobst Brandt's research on the subject. Doesn't really add stiffness in the bench testing. Say what you will about him, but I thought this was pretty well done. So, does anyone have bench testing on modern wheels showing increased stiffness with lacing?

  63. #63
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGray
    Chill dude. I got a dictionary. Take a better look at the Mavic wheels, not just the road or XC. Specifically the Deemax. 3X, unlaced. Check out Easton. The XC One 29 is 3x and also (I believe) unlaced (thus making it 29" specific and relevant to this forum).

    Now, let me help you out here. A better rebuttal would be to point out that while the Deemax is 3X only the rear is 32 spokes (the front is 28). The Easton is 24 spokes front and rear. Both are straight pull spokes.
    dooooood... chillax, bro.
    deemax is laced.

    xcone is also laced.

    look up "and" in your dictionary, bro dood.
    it means both, as in both 3x and unlaced.
    help me out? rebuttal? how's about FAIL?
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGray
    What I would really be interested in seeing is if lacing truly adds to stiffness or this is all mythology. I don't know. I'd always jonesed for a wheelset with soldered spokes - just building up a comfort level to do it myself - then I found Jobst Brandt's research on the subject. Doesn't really add stiffness in the bench testing. Say what you will about him, but I thought this was pretty well done. So, does anyone have bench testing on modern wheels showing increased stiffness with lacing?
    I'd also be interested to see some more testing. I've got nothing but respect for JB. Apparently we come off the same way online. Thing is, it's pretty tough to beat (from a performance standpoint) a conventional, wire-spoked, 3X bike wheel. I'm all for progress, technology, and advancement, but not for marketing gimmickry. R-SYS, anyone?

  64. #64
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    i guess it's old tech,butit's never let me down,4x seems like it requires spokes that are only 4% longer.I know it's softer to road bumps, i'd heard a long time ago you were trading the vertical complience for lateral stiffness,but i guess it could just be more axial(wind up) braking and driving strength. One other thing about 4x that i remembered because of this thread is that,because the spokes come off the hub at nearly perfect tangents,it makes the driving and braking spokes parallel, so at any moment there are two parallel spokes going straight up and down near the top of the rim,the only spokes that are at maximum tension at any moment(like the moment you hit the ground on a big drop off),it distributes/splits the stress more evenly. Anyway when i was building my wheels i wanted to use the DT alpines and bti only carries them down to 260mm and i was using mavic 729's and 3x wouldn't work i think 4x needed 264's or something like that. They've been really strong wheels ,no problems.So, build whatever you want. 4x needs to be a 36 spoke wheel, so it's a dh thing,heavy braking stresses.
    Yeah, I got nothing against 4X, and from a spoke angle perspective, 36h, 4X is as good as it gets.
    This is a whole 'nother animal, but it isn't the spokes at the top of the wheel that increase in tension to support it. The spokes at the bottom of the wheel decrease in tension, which is what supports the wheel. That's probably a discussion for another thread, though.

  65. #65
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Radial lacing is not heads in, it is however you lace it. In fact, most radially-laced road front wheels (the most common application for radial lacing) are heads out.
    OK meltingfeather, you can go ahaed and make your radial wheels heads out. I won't stop you, but it makes absolutley no sense at all.

  66. #66
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by fallzboater
    I don't disagree, but I'm curious about your measured data. Source?
    Gavin, Henri P. "Bicycle Wheel Spoke Patterns and Spoke Fatigue" ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol 122, no. 8, August, 1996. pp. 736–742.
    PM me if you'd like a pdf.

    Henri Gavin also did his CE undergraduate thesis at Princeton on bike wheels using a similar mix of FEA and measurements.

    Gavin, H.P. “Spoked Bicycle Wheels: A Comparative Experimental and Finite Element Analysis of Static and Dynamic Characteristics of Bicycle Wheels with Variable Spoking Patterns.” Undergraduate Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.

    Also:
    Price, D. and Akers, A. “Stiffness Characteristics of Bicycle Wheels.” Bike Tech. Emaus, PA: Rodale Press. Vol. 4, No. 3, June 1985. pp. 1-7.

    Quote Originally Posted by fallzboater
    IIRC, 40 and even 48-spoke wheels used to be used for tandems and maybe some loaded touring bikes, and 4x was the recommended lacing pattern. Rim and spoke materials have improved to the point that 36 is the most any normal application should require.
    Yeah. As the spoke count goes up, so does the cross pattern that gives the best spoke angle.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 02-18-2010 at 05:05 PM.

  67. #67
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet
    OK meltingfeather, you can go ahaed and make your radial wheels heads out. I won't stop you, but it makes absolutley no sense at all.
    It makes perfect sense if you're thinking about aerodynamics. I see your point and don't disagree, I was just pointing out that your statement that radial lacing = heads in is not exactly true. In fact, I think the majority of road bike front wheels on conventional hubs are radially laced, heads out. They are strong enough, stiff enough, have a slightly lower aerodynamic drag coefficient, adn look better to a lot of people.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    dooooood... chillax, bro.
    deemax is laced.
    From that picture, none of those spokes appear to physically touch as they cross. There's two 'rings' of spokes, and each ring points in the same direction, on a single 'plane'.

    .... or am I missing something?

  69. #69
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee
    From that picture, none of those spokes appear to physically touch as they cross. There's two 'rings' of spokes, and each ring points in the same direction, on a single 'plane'.

    .... or am I missing something?
    Don't know... looks like they touch to me. I guess you could say that the inside (on the hub) spokes stay inside of the other spokes, even if they do in fact touch. In any case, modern, proprietary, direct-pull wheels were not where this started and not what I was 'interested in seeing.' Herbn said machine-built wheels used to be unlaced. Not having seen or remembering this, I said I'd be interested to see an example. The conversation went off on tangents from there.
    Here's another photo:

  70. #70
    wrench
    Reputation: mattomoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by 105millimetersofpleasure
    Really though, Yogiprophet's response in #11 makes the most sense to me, though I'd prefer it in a larger file format.

    Yes 'nough said.

  71. #71
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    Quote Originally Posted by 105millimetersofpleasure
    Really though, Yogiprophet's response in #11 makes the most sense to me, though I'd prefer it in a larger file format.
    Someone needs to talk to those in charge of MTBR and let them know their rediculous file size limits are a bunch of BS.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet
    OK meltingfeather, you can go ahaed and make your radial wheels heads out. I won't stop you, but it makes absolutley no sense at all.
    I wouldn't lace any wheels radial, but a set of used road wheels I bought (I wanted the CK hubs) were radial heads out on the front and NDS. I rode them for a few seasons like that, and later relaced them 3x.

    One reasonable argument that could be made for radial heads out on the NDS is that it slightly improves the tension ratio, which might be a consideration for certain hubs. I still wouldn't do it.
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    those don't look laced, i looked at my mavic city speeds in my basement, they're not laced....cheap wheels, d-maxs are not cheap,it's sort of surprizing ,unless mavic feels lacing is un-needed .. but that could just be a convenient opinion to have. My I9 wheels are also not laced, but with those fat machined aluminum spokes lacing might cause some unnecessary stresses(that may be mavics opinion). How do the spokexperts here feel about crows foot lacing,i'm way over it ,along time ago,but i saw a thread a while back where it seems to be making a little comeback,combining the "ultimate lateral strength"of radial spokes with some crossed spokes to handle driving torque ,fsa is doing it but a bit different, i think. Imagine building them with super butted spokes if we need to stay on thread

  74. #74
    Spear & Magic Helmet
    Reputation: JohnGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    dooooood... chillax, bro.
    deemax is laced.

    xcone is also laced.

    look up "and" in your dictionary, bro dood.
    it means both, as in both 3x and unlaced.
    help me out? rebuttal? how's about FAIL?

    I'd also be interested to see some more testing. I've got nothing but respect for JB. Apparently we come off the same way online. Thing is, it's pretty tough to beat (from a performance standpoint) a conventional, wire-spoked, 3X bike wheel. I'm all for progress, technology, and advancement, but not for marketing gimmickry. R-SYS, anyone?
    Your pictures would tend to support my contention that the Deemax is, in fact, not laced. Lacing would mean that the spokes originating from the inside of the hub would then pass to the outside of those originating from the outside of the hub. The Deemax do not intersect or interact in that manner. Wanna rethink that fail? I can't make out the XC One photo well enough. Could very well be that they are laced (my old Velomax road wheels are on the drive side) thus my parenthetical "I believe". From what I can make out they also do not seem to be intertwined. From Sheldon Brown's on-line wheel building instructions:

    "Turn the wheel back around so that the freewheel side is toward you. Insert a spoke into any hole, but this time from the inside of the flange. Twist the hub clockwise as far as it will conveniently go. Since we are building a cross 3 wheel, this new spoke will cross 3 trailing spokes that go to the same flange of the hub.

    "The first two crosses, this spoke will pass outside of the trailing spokes, but for the outermost cross it should be "laced" so that it goes on the inside of the last trailing spoke. You will have to bend this leading spoke to get it around the last trailing spoke on the correct side." (Source: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html )

    The Deemax construction just doesn't match that description. Fail? Not!

  75. #75
    I wasn't Kung Fu fighting
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    152

    How interesting...

    When I started reading this post, I thought, what an incredible bunch of snob's and cock's... bashing this poor guy for his lack of knowledge. Everyone knows they are called ultra-butted spokes.

    But as I continued reading, I realized you were just a bunch of dorks and nerds. Which is much cooler.

    When I step back and then read the whole thing top to bottom, it makes me wish I'd taken some acid.
    Everyone has the right to be stupid, but you are abusing the priveledge.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by bykegnurd
    When I started reading this post, I thought, what an incredible bunch of snob's and cock's... bashing this poor guy for his lack of knowledge. Everyone knows they are called ultra-butted spokes.

    But as I continued reading, I realized you were just a bunch of dorks and nerds. Which is much cooler.

    When I step back and then read the whole thing top to bottom, it makes me wish I'd taken some acid.
    Well put.

    - Chris

  77. #77
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGray
    Your pictures would tend to support my contention that the Deemax is, in fact, not laced. Lacing would mean that the spokes originating from the inside of the hub would then pass to the outside of those originating from the outside of the hub. The Deemax do not intersect or interact in that manner. Wanna rethink that fail? I can't make out the XC One photo well enough. Could very well be that they are laced (my old Velomax road wheels are on the drive side) thus my parenthetical "I believe". From what I can make out they also do not seem to be intertwined.
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    I guess you could say that the inside (on the hub) spokes stay inside of the other spokes, even if they do in fact touch. In any case, modern, proprietary, direct-pull wheels were not where this started and not what I was 'interested in seeing.' Herbn said machine-built wheels used to be unlaced. Not having seen or remembering this, I said I'd be interested to see an example. The conversation went off on tangents from there.
    Here's another photo:
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGray
    From Sheldon Brown's on-line wheel building instructions:

    "Turn the wheel back around so that the freewheel side is toward you. Insert a spoke into any hole, but this time from the inside of the flange. Twist the hub clockwise as far as it will conveniently go. Since we are building a cross 3 wheel, this new spoke will cross 3 trailing spokes that go to the same flange of the hub.

    "The first two crosses, this spoke will pass outside of the trailing spokes, but for the outermost cross it should be "laced" so that it goes on the inside of the last trailing spoke. You will have to bend this leading spoke to get it around the last trailing spoke on the correct side." (Source: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html )

    The Deemax construction just doesn't match that description. Fail? Not!
    Sheldon's wheelbuilding instructions on that page are irrelevant to DeeMax construction.
    Your one-word "Mavic" response to my solicitation for an example of an 'old school', machine-built, 3X, unlaced wheel was as uninformative as it was smart @ss. You may be technically right about DeeMax (and I may have been wrong in my initial assessment), but basing your argument on Sheldon's wheelbuilding instructions is just retarded, specifically because Sheldon's instructions apply more to a wheel like what I was looking for, and not to DeeMax. In either case, DeeMax is not what I was looking for.
    Thanks for your effort, though.

  78. #78
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by bykegnurd
    When I started reading this post, I thought, what an incredible bunch of snob's and cock's... bashing this poor guy for his lack of knowledge. Everyone knows they are called ultra-butted spokes.

    But as I continued reading, I realized you were just a bunch of dorks and nerds. Which is much cooler.

    When I step back and then read the whole thing top to bottom, it makes me wish I'd taken some acid.

  79. #79
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    I am a dork - that has been confirmed...
    I think 'feather is a nerd - just look at the avatar Mike gave him
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  80. #80
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    I am a dork - that has been confirmed...
    Yup... I have a pie chart that proves it.
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    I think 'feather is a nerd - just look at the avatar Mike gave him

    I also like burgs (notice the heads-out, radially laced wheel, with revos, no less )
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 02-19-2010 at 09:56 AM.

  81. #81
    Gigantic Hawk
    Reputation: dubthang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,591
    Since this thread has veered into lacing, and since there are some very knowledgable folks in here...

    What would be the pros and/or cons of lacing a wheel 2 leading, 2 trailing over a 3x?


  82. #82
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by dubthang
    Since this thread has veered into lacing, and since there are some very knowledgable folks in here...

    What would be the pros and/or cons of lacing a wheel 2 leading, 2 trailing over a 3x?
    Any pro/con assessment would be from an aesthetic standpoint and therefore totally subjective. Competent, scientific work on bike wheels is not exactly easy to come by, and nothing that I have ever seen looks at 'just-for-looks' patterns like the 2L2T wheel you show.
    There is nothing wrong with them, but any theoretical advantages from a performance standpoint are without any credible evidence to support them that I've ever seen. That won't, of course, stop people from speculating.
    Here's one I built:
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 02-19-2010 at 11:52 AM.

  83. #83
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by dubthang
    Since this thread has veered into lacing, and since there are some very knowledgable folks in here...

    What would be the pros and/or cons of lacing a wheel 2 leading, 2 trailing over a 3x?

    I would offer that the tension might be less even on the rim/hub or spokes -
    a cross pattern necessarily has all the tensions closer...; pulling 'equally' around the circumference and radially
    maybe?? - what say you 'feather?
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,298
    If the rim is true, then tensions are equal.

  85. #85
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    ^^^spammin?
    *edit - spammer deleted
    Last edited by highdelll; 02-20-2010 at 08:02 AM.
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  86. #86
    Gigantic Hawk
    Reputation: dubthang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Any pro/con assessment would be from an aesthetic standpoint and therefore totally subjective. Competent, scientific work on bike wheels is not exactly easy to come by, and nothing that I have ever seen looks at 'just-for-looks' patterns like the 2L2T wheel you show.
    There is nothing wrong with them, but any theoretical advantages from a performance standpoint are without any credible evidence to support them that I've ever seen. That won't, of course, stop people from speculating.
    Here's one I built:
    I figured as much. We need to government to provide more money for kids to go to college so that one day, they can study all the different possibilities for wheel lacing, and then provide us with their results.

    Nice build. How well has that wheel held up? Is it as stiff laterally as a 3x?

  87. #87
    Spear & Magic Helmet
    Reputation: JohnGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Sheldon's wheelbuilding instructions on that page are irrelevant to DeeMax construction.
    Your one-word "Mavic" response to my solicitation for an example of an 'old school', machine-built, 3X, unlaced wheel was as uninformative as it was smart @ss. You may be technically right about DeeMax (and I may have been wrong in my initial assessment), but basing your argument on Sheldon's wheelbuilding instructions is just retarded, specifically because Sheldon's instructions apply more to a wheel like what I was looking for, and not to DeeMax. In either case, DeeMax is not what I was looking for.
    Thanks for your effort, though.
    No, your solicitation was:

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    I'd be interested to see a picture/example of a commercially produced 3X, unlaced wheel.
    I sincerely was trying to answer that. Not being a smart @$$ (well maybe a little ) but mostly just a bit lazy. Still, I feel the Deemax fit the parameters of the above quote. If you’d wanted only bent spokes you should have said so. I don’t have any examples of that. I do not think that referencing SB is retarded or irrelevant. Your insistence that Deemax was laced when even your own photos showed otherwise gave me pause to think that perhaps we were using different definition of lacing. I was using SB as a definition by example. A straight pull spoke can be laced in the same manner as a bent spoke. Relax with the insults.

    You’re probably a decent person and fine guy to ride with. Certainly you have a body of knowledge that I think I’d find interesting over a beer, but, as we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, I’ll bow out. If you are game, though, I do have one final request:

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Gavin, Henri P. "Bicycle Wheel Spoke Patterns and Spoke Fatigue" ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol 122, no. 8, August, 1996. pp. 736–742.
    PM me if you'd like a pdf.

    Henri Gavin also did his CE undergraduate thesis at Princeton on bike wheels using a similar mix of FEA and measurements.

    Gavin, H.P. “Spoked Bicycle Wheels: A Comparative Experimental and Finite Element Analysis of Static and Dynamic Characteristics of Bicycle Wheels with Variable Spoking Patterns.” Undergraduate Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.

    Also:
    Price, D. and Akers, A. “Stiffness Characteristics of Bicycle Wheels.” Bike Tech. Emaus, PA: Rodale Press. Vol. 4, No. 3, June 1985. pp. 1-7.
    PM me if you are still sharing this pdf. The references look very interesting.

    Ciao,
    John

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    32 spokes= 3x ,but for dh wheels 36 spokes are better(IMHO),some people feel you don't notice any improvement in strength and would rather loose the weight. I doubt very much that you actually notice the weight loss, but you're sure it's there because ,the spokes are gone ,for sure. Well i'm just as certain that the 4"extra" spokes are not hanging out doing nothing. One post mentions that with 36 spokes at 4x produces very close to optimum spoke angles,i believe that's when the driving and braking spokes of closest pairs are parallel,or closer to parallel = closer to optimal. If you take two things that may be individually inperceptable and add them to each other,36 spokes + 4x and some people might notice,even if it's only reliability. The wheels i built are; gold hadleys, mavic 729's, and dt alpine 3 spokes.I built with DT alloy spoke nipples in gold just for a bit of bling and that inperceptable weight loss, and i've ridden them for a couple of seasons hard enough to to shear off a spoke nipple at the rim,it was easy to fix but if it happens to much i may swap out the nipples.Right now my I9 wheels have my heavy tires on them so they'll see the real dh action.Well ,anyway ,the weathers looking up,warmer and rainy,winters' over soon it'll be time to actually ride, instead of arguing spoke ideologies on the web

  89. #89
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGray
    No, your solicitation was:
    If you read the quote from that post, I think it's clear. I also clarified it in my response to your "Mavic" post. Herbn said machine built, 3X wheels used to be unlaced. He clarified later by saying he was talking WalMart (cheap) bikes. Anyway, no matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGray
    I sincerely was trying to answer that. Not being a smart @$$ (well maybe a little ) but mostly just a bit lazy. Still, I feel the Deemax fit the parameters of the above quote. If you’d wanted only bent spokes you should have said so. I don’t have any examples of that. I do not think that referencing SB is retarded or irrelevant. Your insistence that Deemax was laced when even your own photos showed otherwise gave me pause to think that perhaps we were using different definition of lacing. I was using SB as a definition by example. A straight pull spoke can be laced in the same manner as a bent spoke. Relax with the insults.
    I get what you're saying. It didn't seem apparent that you were being genuine, or that you cared enough to read what I'd written.
    I also didn't insist that DeeMax were laced... after another poster questioned it, I clarified further (again, that DeeMax didn't fit the bill of my request, which must be read in the context of the conversation, or at least along with the quote in the post) and offered that I might be wrong. Again, didn't seem like you read it.
    If you repeatedly ignore/don't read what I say and continue to offer lazy and smart-ass comments trying to force your point home, it's a bit frustrating. I guess you still don't understand that DeeMax is not what I was looking for. Please read what I wrote and it might become apparent.
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGray
    You’re probably a decent person and fine guy to ride with. Certainly you have a body of knowledge that I think I’d find interesting over a beer, but, as we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, I’ll bow out.
    Likewise. No need to 'bow out,' it's usually easy enough to find common ground with effort on both sides of the ball.
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGray
    If you are game, though, I do have one final request:

    PM me if you are still sharing this pdf. The references look very interesting.

    Ciao,
    John
    PM me your e-mail address and I'll send it to you.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    where the heck is your post? you ever feels i'm ignoring you post, not reading them, or whatever,i clik on "this post is located at" and it goes to the bottom of my post , with your responce no where in sight,i scanned up for it and this thread is long and yes i'm to lazy to look througt the whole thing to answer at that spot. A) why do i have to find you an example of unlaced 3x, someone else answered that for me, it an old style of cheap wheel from way back that doesn't really apply, athough the mavic example seems good enough for me,but "its not what you were looking for" so i guess i've got my mandate from you, why don't you just do what i do and just scroll down to "unsubscribe" and read something else,8=o

  91. #91
    Spear & Magic Helmet
    Reputation: JohnGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    PM me your e-mail address and I'll send it to you.
    PM sent.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902

    How about a hub with a 14 hole ds flange laced with 15 gage spokes, and a 16 hole nds flange laced with 14 gage spokes to a 28 hole rim using a mix of radial, 2x, and 3x1l lacing, and 5 different spoke lengths.

    I've also done a heads-in radial ds with an all heads out 3x nds rear wheel - to reduce dish.

  93. #93
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable

    How about a hub with a 14 hole ds flange laced with 15 gage spokes, and a 16 hole nds flange laced with 14 gage spokes to a 28 hole rim using a mix of radial, 2x, and 3x1l lacing, and 5 different spoke lengths.

    I've also done a heads-in radial ds with an all heads out 3x nds rear wheel - to reduce dish.
    i suppose it's doable
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  94. #94
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    How about a hub with a 14 hole ds flange laced with 15 gage spokes, and a 16 hole nds flange laced with 14 gage spokes to a 28 hole rim using a mix of radial, 2x, and 3x1l lacing, and 5 different spoke lengths.
    If you think it looks cool, great. Your "3x1l" looks like crow's foot to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    I've also done a heads-in radial ds with an all heads out 3x nds rear wheel - to reduce dish.
    Sounds like you created a problem in trying to solve another one. Lower dish, true, but a drive side that can not transfer torque? How's that holding up?
    Damon Rinard's measurements showing no difference in lateral stiffness between the sides of a dished wheel are very interesting. I wonder how they play into the popular perceptions of dished wheels.

  95. #95
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    where the heck is your post? you ever feels i'm ignoring you post, not reading them, or whatever,i clik on "this post is located at" and it goes to the bottom of my post , with your responce no where in sight,i scanned up for it and this thread is long and yes i'm to lazy to look througt the whole thing to answer at that spot. A) why do i have to find you an example of unlaced 3x, someone else answered that for me, it an old style of cheap wheel from way back that doesn't really apply, athough the mavic example seems good enough for me,but "its not what you were looking for" so i guess i've got my mandate from you, why don't you just do what i do and just scroll down to "unsubscribe" and read something else,8=o
    I quoted and was addressing John Gray.
    You don't have to find me an example, nor does anyone else. Honestly, I don't care anymore. It turned into WAY more than it needed to. I said I'd be interested in seeing one of the machine-built, 3x, unlaced. wheels you described. Nobody answered for you. Like you said, DeeMax is not what you were talking about. I know that modern, direct pull, proprietary wheelsets do things contrary to design principles for conventional bike wheels.
    Once again, the post you seem to be responding to was not directed at you. Since I quoted John Gray, that's your clue. If I'm talking to you about something you said, I will quote you (like I did in this post).

  96. #96
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    I would offer that the tension might be less even on the rim/hub or spokes -
    a cross pattern necessarily has all the tensions closer...; pulling 'equally' around the circumference and radially
    maybe?? - what say you 'feather?
    Not sure I get what you're saying.

  97. #97
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Not sure I get what you're saying.
    not sure if I do either...
    basically, wouldn't having different 'groups' pulling from different directions be less desirable than all the spokes pulling 'symmetrically' (typical 3x - same spoke length, even distribution)
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by flargle
    If the rim is true, then tensions are equal.
    Only if the rim is sufficiently flexible. It's possible to build a pretty crappy, yet true, wheel with most rims.
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  99. #99
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by flargle
    If the rim is true, then tensions are equal.
    Not so. It is both possible to build a wheel that is true, yet with tension all over the place, as well as a super wobbly wheel with perfectly uniform tension.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    If you think it looks cool, great. Your "3x1l" looks like crow's foot to me.
    ... or a radial 3x...it was just a way to lace a 32h hub to a 28h rim - reuse an old Dura-Ace freewheel hub, and convert it to a disc SS wheel. The 15 gauge spokes on the ds was insufficient, and allowed the rim to go out of true relatively easily, replacing then with 14 gauge spokes fixed that.

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Sounds like you created a problem in trying to solve another one. Lower dish, true, but a drive side that can not transfer torque? How's that holding up?
    Damon Rinard's measurements showing no difference in lateral stiffness between the sides of a dished wheel are very interesting. I wonder how they play into the popular perceptions of dished wheels.
    I didn't create any problem, both wheels are still in use, and over 5 years old. But that probably just shows that a good wheel build is more important than optimal design.

    I find Chris King hubs problematic with certain light rims, they are dished more than usual, and do not allow proper tension without replacing the bearing with an over-sized cartridge. With certain rims (like SUN DS-XC1's), it's hard to keep them true. The little bit of un-dishing gained by the above lacing helped, in that the wheels stay true. However, my current CK wheels have standard 3x lacing, the above wheels were done with Shimano and DT Swiss hubs back when I was investigating a good way to keep certain light weight rims true on badly dished wheels. I prefer to use a slightly stronger rim, or an offset spoke bed with CK hubs.

    Torques is transferred through the hub shell to the nds spokes, something Mavic did (and a few others). Windup on the ds is inconsequential. The wheels I've laced that way have out lived a few frames.

  101. #101
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    not sure if I do either...
    basically, wouldn't having different 'groups' pulling from different directions be less desirable than all the spokes pulling 'symmetrically' (typical 3x - same spoke length, even distribution)
    Ah, I see what you're saying. The 2L2T wheel is symmetrical though... all the same spoke length. It is just a 2X wheel that, instead of skipping every other hole on the hub when lacing any group of spokes (by group I mean one of the four including: NDS trailing, DS leading, etc.), you put two together (on the hub), then skip two holes. It's probably the easiest 'exotic' pattern to build for that reason (and where it gets its name: 2 leading, 2 trailing).
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 02-24-2010 at 09:10 AM.

  102. #102
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    ... or a radial 3x...it was just a way to lace a 32h hub to a 28h rim - reuse an old Dura-Ace freewheel hub, and convert it to a disc SS wheel. The 15 gauge spokes on the ds was insufficient, and allowed the rim to go out of true relatively easily, replacing then with 14 gauge spokes fixed that.
    How did you use a Dura-Ace hub for a disc wheel?
    Your experience is interesting, but I don't think I would have come to the same conclusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    I didn't create any problem, both wheels are still in use, and over 5 years old. But that probably just shows that a good wheel build is more important than optimal design.
    Glad it worked out. It's certainly crazy looking.
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    I find Chris King hubs problematic with certain light rims, they are dished more than usual, and do not allow proper tension without replacing the bearing with an over-sized cartridge. With certain rims (like SUN DS-XC1's), it's hard to keep them true. The little bit of un-dishing gained by the above lacing helped, in that the wheels stay true. However, my current CK wheels have standard 3x lacing, the above wheels were done with Shimano and DT Swiss hubs back when I was investigating a good way to keep certain light weight rims true on badly dished wheels. I prefer to use a slightly stronger rim, or an offset spoke bed with CK hubs.
    Chris King hubs aren't especially dished compared to Hopes, Shimanos, or DTs (the ones I picked to compare quickly).
    After seeing that, the rest doesn't make any sense to me.
    Sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions.
    Flange offsets for comparison:
    Chris King ISO
    front: 22.5 - 30.4
    rear: 33.9 - 20.1
    Hope Pro II
    front: 19.5 - 34
    rear: 31.5 - 20.5
    DT Swiss 340 centerlock
    front: 22.3 - 32.5
    rear: 33.2 - 20.4
    Shimano XT (M770S)
    front: non-disc (undished)
    rear: 35.3 - 22.1
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    Torques is transferred through the hub shell to the nds spokes, something Mavic did (and a few others). Windup on the ds is inconsequential. The wheels I've laced that way have out lived a few frames.
    The distribution of torque transfer depends on the hub design and lacing. Making a general statement applicable to all hubs based on Mavic's isopulse lacing is just wrong. I have an FSA road wheel that is half-radial on the NDS, which is a much more common design. In that case, all torque is transfered through the DS flange. For a 3X wheel, the stiffness of the hub shell determines how much torque is transferred by each flange, and in most cases, both flanges transfer torque.

  103. #103
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Ah, I see what you're saying. The 2L2T wheel is symmetrical though... all the same spoke length. It is just a 2X wheel that, instead of skipping every other hole on the hub when lacing any group of spokes (by group I mean one of the four including: NDS trailing, DS leading, etc.), you put two together (on the hub), then skip two holes. It's probably the easiest 'exotic' pattern to build for that reason (and where it gets its name: 2 leading, 2 trailing).
    thanks
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  104. #104
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    I find Chris King hubs problematic with certain light rims, they are dished more than usual, and do not allow proper tension without replacing the bearing with an over-sized cartridge. With certain rims (like SUN DS-XC1's), it's hard to keep them true. The little bit of un-dishing gained by the above lacing helped, in that the wheels stay true. However, my current CK wheels have standard 3x lacing, the above wheels were done with Shimano and DT Swiss hubs back when I was investigating a good way to keep certain light weight rims true on badly dished wheels. I prefer to use a slightly stronger rim, or an offset spoke bed with CK hubs.
    One other thing that occured to me: if you tension wheels to the point that you can fit a larger cartridge bearing into a CK hub and also have problems with your wheels going out of true, it's very likely that you are over-tensioning your wheels.

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    How did you use a Dura-Ace hub for a disc wheel?
    Here's the old thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=80543


    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Chris King hubs aren't especially dished compared to Hopes, Shimanos, or DTs (the ones I picked to compare quickly).
    After seeing that, the rest doesn't make any sense to me.
    Sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions.
    Flange offsets for comparison:
    Chris King ISO
    front: 22.5 - 30.4
    rear: 33.9 - 20.1
    Hope Pro II
    front: 19.5 - 34
    rear: 31.5 - 20.5
    DT Swiss 340 centerlock
    front: 22.3 - 32.5
    rear: 33.2 - 20.4
    Shimano XT (M770S)
    front: non-disc (undished)
    rear: 35.3 - 22.1
    Yes, the number are not that different, but it is the differential between the DS and NDS side that is important, and you cannot tension the drive side too much without generating play in the bearings, which means the NDS tension is low, and that is where the elbows break. I was working on the universal hub back then, and eventually used an offset spoke bed.

    The funky lacing was an experiment with some other (cheaper) hubs, to see if it would hold up.

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    The distribution of torque transfer depends on the hub design and lacing. Making a general statement applicable to all hubs based on Mavic's isopulse lacing is just wrong. I have an FSA road wheel that is half-radial on the NDS, which is a much more common design. In that case, all torque is transfered through the DS flange. For a 3X wheel, the stiffness of the hub shell determines how much torque is transferred by each flange, and in most cases, both flanges transfer torque.
    The Shimano & DT Swiss hubs had no issues transferring torque to the NDS, not sure I would use some of the smaller diameter hubs, but it would be a neat experiment. I have some radial NDS wheels too that are still fine.

    Some local guy had a road bike with the rear wheel completely radial laced, and the wheel held up(!).

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    One other thing that occured to me: if you tension wheels to the point that you can fit a larger cartridge bearing into a CK hub and also have problems with your wheels going out of true, it's very likely that you are over-tensioning your wheels.
    This was a common problem with CK hubs back when we were using them, CK would replace the cartridge with an over-sized one for free. Nice hubs, but a nuisance to set up - needing preload adjustments for the first few rides before settling down, and after each service. But that's the price for lightness.

    I've never played with "super-butted" spokes though....

  106. #106
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    That's killer!
    I like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    Yes, the number are not that different, but it is the differential between the DS and NDS side that is important, and you cannot tension the drive side too much without generating play in the bearings, which means the NDS tension is low, and that is where the elbows break. I was working on the universal hub back then, and eventually used an offset spoke bed.

    The funky lacing was an experiment with some other (cheaper) hubs, to see if it would hold up.
    Dood. I like your style!
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    The Shimano & DT Swiss hubs had no issues transferring torque to the NDS, not sure I would use some of the smaller diameter hubs, but it would be a neat experiment. I have some radial NDS wheels too that are still fine.
    Interesting. Larger diameter mtb hub shells (as compared to say, that Dura-Ace you converted) have got to be much stiffer... stiff enough to transfer torque with radial DS lacing is interesting, and GTK.
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    Some local guy had a road bike with the rear wheel completely radial laced, and the wheel held up(!).
    Interesting as well... what hub?
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    This was a common problem with CK hubs back when we were using them, CK would replace the cartridge with an over-sized one for free. Nice hubs, but a nuisance to set up - needing preload adjustments for the first few rides before settling down, and after each service. But that's the price for lightness.

    I've never played with "super-butted" spokes though....
    I've definitely heard of the CK hub shell stretching issue.
    Super-butted are the best spokes for many applications, IMO.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Interesting as well... what hub?
    I don't know, I never checked. I saw him around on the bike for a few years, and I always assumed it would break soon. Have not seen him in a few years (!) I can ask the lbs that did it - probably shimano.

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    Super-butted are the best spokes for many applications, IMO.
    I've worked on DT revolution wheels, I always found them tricky to get just right.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.