Crow's foot for MTB?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 73 of 73
  1. #1
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752

    Crow's foot for MTB?

    I was reading BikeRadar's news on the new Ritchey wheels for '10 and they decided to lace their rear drive-side in a crow's foot pattern, 2X non-drive side for their road wheels. I don't dislike this idea but was wondering how good a MTB wheel would hold up with this pattern. Of course, if using a 32 hole wheel, one would have to go with a hybrid or double crow's foot and a 3X non-drive side would probably be better for disc wheels. I'm tempted to try it out on my next wheel build but would like some experienced builder's feedback first!!

    So have you tried it? How did it hold? If you haven't tried it, would you? Why or why not? Why don't we see more crow's foot lacing?

    Thx

    Beware the hucking bear!

  2. #2
    Training for vacation
    Reputation: gte819s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    Why don't we see more crow's foot lacing?
    Is it possible to do a crow's foot with evenly spaced holes or would you need to have the two intersecting spoke holes in the hub as shown in the picture? I would think that given the amplitude of the possible load cycle in MTB that even distribution of spoke tension aroud the hub is best.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    327
    I have a buddy who is a rather, erm, robust fellow, and not always the most graceful rider that rides crows foot laced wheels on his singlespeed HT and swears by them. Riding his bike around, they seem pretty stiff. Don't know if I would use them since I'm too lazy to lace them and the forces seem all wrong for disks, but for rim brakes I think they would be good.
    Canuck in the homeland

  4. #4
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    Quote Originally Posted by gte819s
    Is it possible to do a crow's foot with evenly spaced holes or would you need to have the two intersecting spoke holes in the hub as shown in the picture? I would think that given the amplitude of the possible load cycle in MTB that even distribution of spoke tension aroud the hub is best.
    It's perfectly doable on a "normal" spaced hub. The tensions would be even on the spokes, only the length of the spokes varies. On a 32H wheel, It would end up either like this



    or this

    Beware the hucking bear!

  5. #5
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    Quote Originally Posted by transient
    I have a buddy who is a rather, erm, robust fellow, and not always the most graceful rider that rides crows foot laced wheels on his singlespeed HT and swears by them. Riding his bike around, they seem pretty stiff. Don't know if I would use them since I'm too lazy to lace them and the forces seem all wrong for disks, but for rim brakes I think they would be good.
    As I said, disk side would be laced 3X, only drive-side rear would be crow's!!!
    Beware the hucking bear!

  6. #6
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    I was reading BikeRadar's news on the new Ritchey wheels for '10 and they decided to lace their rear drive-side in a crow's foot pattern, 2X non-drive side for their road wheels. I don't dislike this idea but was wondering how good a MTB wheel would hold up with this pattern. Of course, if using a 32 hole wheel, one would have to go with a hybrid or double crow's foot and a 3X non-drive side would probably be better for disc wheels. I'm tempted to try it out on my next wheel build but would like some experienced builder's feedback first!!
    My guess is that it would not last as long as a normal, 3X wheel. The "normal" way to put crow's foot into a 32h rim is to add a radial spoke to each crow's foot group, which ends up cutting the number of trailing spokes in half to 4... not a good idea, IMO, especially for mountain biking, where the rear hub can see pretty large torque due to low gearing.
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    So have you tried it?
    Yes, though for a fixed getter w/36h rims.
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    How did it hold?
    Fine for the asphalt bike it's on.
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    If you haven't tried it, would you?
    Not for mtb.
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    Why or why not?
    There is no reason other than the look to do it, the durability is a big question, and I don't care to have hybrid crow's foot lacing on my mountain bikes.
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    Why don't we see more crow's foot lacing?
    Because there is no benefit, it compromises durability, and it's more difficult to build due to the increased number of spoke lengths you need.

    My bottom line opinion is that it's a bad idea for this application.

  7. #7
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    Why did Ritchey decide to build their road wheels this way then? If it's not as durable, the same applies to road riding, no? They're supposed to be stiffer laterally but would that be a good enough justification to compromise durability?
    Beware the hucking bear!

  8. #8
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    I was reading BikeRadar's news on the new Ritchey wheels for '10 and they decided to lace their rear drive-side in a crow's foot pattern, 2X non-drive side for their road wheels. I don't dislike this idea but was wondering how good a MTB wheel would hold up with this pattern. Of course, if using a 32 hole wheel, one would have to go with a hybrid or double crow's foot and a 3X non-drive side would probably be better for disc wheels. I'm tempted to try it out on my next wheel build but would like some experienced builder's feedback first!!

    So have you tried it? How did it hold? If you haven't tried it, would you? Why or why not? Why don't we see more crow's foot lacing?

    Thx

    Bontrager tested 24-spoke crow's foot wheels with the Fisher team several years ago. Looked cool but I have not seen it since.

    With 24 spokes the tangential angle of the 2X spokes is about the same as 3X with 32 spokes.

    I think the goal of the Ritchey wheel is the radial spokes increase the lateral strength of the wheel while the left side spokes (usually understressed) take more of the torsional load. Mavic has been doing the same thing for years with driveside all radial.

    DT Swiss is doing a "open" crow's foot lacing on their new Tricon wheels (road and mtb).
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  9. #9
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    Is this your "open crow's foot"?

    Beware the hucking bear!

  10. #10
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    Is this your "open crow's foot"?

    Yup, and that is DT's name for it.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  11. #11
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    "I think the goal of the Ritchey wheel is the radial spokes increase the lateral strength of the wheel while the left side spokes (usually understressed) take more of the torsional load. Mavic has been doing the same thing for years with driveside all radial."

    That's pretty much what I thought but then I don't see a clear reason why the same couldn't apply to MTB wheels... Is it just a matter of # of trailing spokes as meltingfeather mentionned?
    Beware the hucking bear!

  12. #12
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    "I think the goal of the Ritchey wheel is the radial spokes increase the lateral strength of the wheel while the left side spokes (usually understressed) take more of the torsional load. Mavic has been doing the same thing for years with driveside all radial."

    That's pretty much what I thought but then I don't see a clear reason why the same couldn't apply to MTB wheels... Is it just a matter of # of trailing spokes as meltingfeather mentionned?
    It can. I have built rear disc wheels 1X drive/3X disc and they worked fine.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  13. #13
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    Crow's can't be much worse than a 1X if it's only on the drive side rear I guess...

    Maybe the front drive side would also be suitable. I'll stick with 3X for discs though. Those would be weird looking wheels!!! I'm kind of tempted to give it a try.
    Beware the hucking bear!

  14. #14
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    It can. I have built rear disc wheels 1X drive/3X disc and they worked fine.
    But a 1X drive side has twice as many trailing spokes as a crow's foot modified for 32h rims.

  15. #15
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    Crow's can't be much worse than a 1X if it's only on the drive side rear I guess...

    Maybe the front drive side would also be suitable. I'll stick with 3X for discs though. Those would be weird looking wheels!!! I'm kind of tempted to give it a try.
    It depends on the design, I guess. Remember too that prebuilt wheels or wheelsets designed around the crow's foot pattern have all their parts engineered specifically for the purpose... the same way Mavic gets around radial drive-side lacing in the rear. I think applying the same design to wheels w/out the parts engineered specifically for the system is apples to oranges.

  16. #16
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Bontrager tested 24-spoke crow's foot wheels with the Fisher team several years ago. Looked cool but I have not seen it since.
    I wonder why.
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    I think the goal of the Ritchey wheel is the radial spokes increase the lateral strength of the wheel while the left side spokes (usually understressed) take more of the torsional load. Mavic has been doing the same thing for years with driveside all radial.
    That very well may be the purpose, though I'd say stiffness instead of strength. It fits with their all-heads-in design.
    Mavic does it out of necessity for derailleur clearance.
    Remember too that the hub design dramatically affects the distribution of torque from left to right flange. It can vary from 0%-100% on either side.

  17. #17
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    But a 1X drive side has twice as many trailing spokes as a crow's foot modified for 32h rims.
    And VERY minimal tangential spoke angles. 1X is not very effective in transmitting torsional loads with more than ~12 spokes/per side.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  18. #18
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    Why did Ritchey decide to build their road wheels this way then? If it's not as durable, the same applies to road riding, no? They're supposed to be stiffer laterally but would that be a good enough justification to compromise durability?
    Road wheels usually don't see as much torque as mtb wheels because of the gearing. I think wheel companies make trade-off decisions like that all the time. I don't doubt that the marketability of a wheel that looks cool or is different played a role.

  19. #19
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    And VERY minimal tangential spoke angles. 1X is not very effective in transmitting torsional loads with more than ~12 spokes/per side.
    I see what you're saying. However, if the hub is not VERY torsionally stiff (i.e., designed to transmit torque by the NDS), the ineffectiveness of the 1X (and radial) spoke's ability to transfer torque directly equates to very large cyclical loading.

  20. #20
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather
    I see what you're saying. However, if the hub is not VERY torsionally stiff (i.e., designed to transmit torque by the NDS), the ineffectiveness of the 1X (and radial) spoke's ability to transfer torque directly equates to very large cyclical loading.
    Should be a non-issue with most disc hubs. The center barrels are quite large diameter by road hub standards.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  21. #21
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    So I should maybe ask Hadley what they think about all this before building?
    Beware the hucking bear!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    i've built a few sets of wheels over the years, i had a crows foot tied and solderd bmx wheel and came back to it a couple times,once for a regular mtn bike once for dh.It works ok,but it's not worth the trouble really,havn't thought of it in years, this thread was a real throwback for me. I don't think radial spokes have a place on mtn bikes,not since disc brakes, i guess up front rt side might be ok but why bother.Rims these days are a lot stronger and stiffer than they used to be and the stiffness you get from radial spokes is in the rim,or at least it should be. Cross four puts the spokes closest to in line with driving and braking tension from the hub,but with less than 36 spokes 4x doesn't work. My I9's have 3x, they count the crossing threadsin the hub, and they are pretty close to tangental.The last wheels i built were DH wheels,36 spokes i used dt revolutions which actually only come in fairly long lengths,i had to build 4 cross which was fine by me. I think revolutions were ment for road/cyclocross maybe , they're probabely good for 29ers too.

  23. #23
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    Rims these days are a lot stronger and stiffer than they used to be and the stiffness you get from radial spokes is in the rim,or at least it should be.
    Maybe it's not worth it. This is why I'm asking!
    Beware the hucking bear!

  24. #24
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    So I should maybe ask Hadley what they think about all this before building?
    Not a bad idea. My guess is that they'll say no to radial lacing, but it's worth a shot. Shig has some good points, and you may be able to get away with it, but I think the only justafiable reason to do it in your case would be the look.

  25. #25
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    When it comes down to "the look", I usually skip!
    Beware the hucking bear!

  26. #26
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by PissedOffCil
    Maybe it's not worth it. This is why I'm asking!
    I would do the crow's foot only with 36 spokes hubs for mtb. Maybe 24, like the Bonty team wheels, but just because I could and I would not expect long life.

    And not at all with 32 spokes. The double radial is just too much for me.

    Never do these "out-there" lacings for my main wheels, either.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  27. #27
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    I never considered any funky lacing pattern either before I saw that Ritchey was using one... and that got my hamster rolling
    Beware the hucking bear!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    Cross four puts the spokes closest to in line with driving and braking tension from the hub,but with less than 36 spokes 4x doesn't work. My I9's have 3x, they count the crossing threadsin the hub, and they are pretty close to tangental.
    Part of the reason I started making my own triplet laced hubs was to get the spokes as close to tangent as I could. As a manufacture you cannot build a wheel with tangent spokes or you risk a lawsuit from Campy as they patented tangent drive spokes.




    I have done a few crowsfoot wheels but mainly use them on front wheels for someone who wants a unique looking wheel. Jeremy at Alchemy did some testing years ago on crowsfoot driveside lacing and did find that it made the wheel slightly stiffer laterally but that it reduced chainring clearance. He determined that if you just designed the hub spacing better there was no need for any unusual pattern like the crowsfoot. Kind of makes you wonder why Ritchey choose to go the crowsfoot route instead of just designing a better spaced hub? Can you say marketing?


  29. #29
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Ligero
    Jeremy at Alchemy did some testing years ago on crowsfoot driveside lacing and did find that it made the wheel slightly stiffer laterally but that it reduced chainring clearance. He determined that if you just designed the hub spacing better there was no need for any unusual pattern like the crowsfoot. Kind of makes you wonder why Ritchey choose to go the crowsfoot route instead of just designing a better spaced hub? Can you say marketing?
    Very interesting! Thx
    Beware the hucking bear!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63

    24 spoke crowsfoot disc wheels

    ...working on a set of these for my 110lb. daughters' (120lb. rider weight limit ) Turner Burner. 1440g with rims-hubs-spokes-nipples. Gonna' tie and solder them for strength!

    I'll report back after they're done and tested.

  31. #31
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    ...working on a set of these for my 110lb. daughters' (120lb. rider weight limit ) Turner Burner. 1440g with rims-hubs-spokes-nipples. Gonna' tie and solder them for strength!

    I'll report back after they're done and tested.
    Adds nothing to the strength of the wheel.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  32. #32
    NWS
    NWS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,468
    My intuition says that if there's an advantage to lacing the drive and non-drive sides differently, it's only because the hub twists a lot when pedaling. My intuition also says that it's probably not hard to build a hub that's stiff enough to make it optimal to lace both sides in the same way.

    But I have to admit I know little about wheel building...

    Am I right or am I wrong?

    How much do decent hubs twist under pedaling loads? Braking loads?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Adds nothing to the strength of the wheel.
    Well, since I don't have any better source than Schaner's view that it improves strength through effectively increasing the hub diameter (thereby reducing the degree of individual spoke flexing) I'll ask the obvious question- other than your own opinion/individual experience, what do you base this statement on?

  34. #34
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    Well, since I don't have any better source than Schaner's view that it improves strength through effectively increasing the hub diameter (thereby reducing the degree of individual spoke flexing) I'll ask the obvious question- other than your own opinion/individual experience, what do you base this statement on?
    Stiffness and strength are not the same thing. Even then there is no proof that tie and solder increases stiffness by any significant degree.

    The original reason for tie and soldering spokes was to prevent the ends of a broken spoke from whipping around and causing a crash. Not really an issue with modern spokes.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63
    So....it's just your opinion vs. Schraner?

    Sorry dude, you lose!

    In the future, let's try to differentiate between "super moderation" and God-like pronouncements, shall we?

  36. #36
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    So....it's just your opinion vs. Schraner?

    Sorry dude, you lose!

    In the future, let's try to differentiate between "super moderation" and God-like pronouncements, shall we?
    Schraner's book, while a very good resource on many topics, is commonly known to contain some kind of antiquated and quirky ideas. Have a read of the Bicycle Wheel by Jobst Brandt for a description of Wheelsmith's controlled testing of tied-and-soldered wheels, which demonstrated no measurable benefit. the testing only measured stiffness, which as shiggy pointed out is different from strength, but a strength argument falls flat on its face before it gets to the starting line, so there wasn't really a point in trying to chase that down.
    Schraner was certainly no structural guru... on a very basic level the tied-and-soldered joint lacks anything that could be perceived as a reasonable structural connection, so it's not really a surprise that it's totally ineffective as a structural enhancement. If you have any doubt, why don't you tie and solder two loose spokes together in a rough approximation of the angle they'd see in a wheel and see just how strong that joint is, particularly against either of the spokes sliding through it, which is really the only way it could affect wire tension members in a wheel. You gotta give credit to the wahoos that think they feel something (how can that be argued with?), as they actually motivated some research on the topic.
    Broad-based research is best.
    I like it that the 25-post, one-source loudmouth is trying to call out a moderator who also happens to be an experienced and knowledgeable builder.
    fail status = high
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 08-09-2010 at 02:25 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  37. #37
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    So....it's just your opinion vs. Schraner?

    Sorry dude, you lose!

    In the future, let's try to differentiate between "super moderation" and God-like pronouncements, shall we?
    Moderators can express their views just like anybody else, and 99.99% of my posts are not in Mod-mode. I stand by my statement and hardly consider it a "pronouncement," let alone "God-like." If you read it as such, it was not my fault.

    Do as you wish if you think it will do anything.

    Other opinions:
    Jobst Brandt (he wrote a book, too)
    RIC HJERTBERG (he has built more than a few Wheelsmith)
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    So the tying and soldering doesn't really connect the spokes.What if you used high tension steel spokes instead of stainless and brazed them with a mini torch ,i think if you actually created an actual connection and triangulation,you'd see a benefit. I heard high tension spokes were quite the rage in freestyle bmx a while ago they've got a higher tensile strength than stainless , not sure about longevity and corrosion but apartently freestylers that are tough on their bikes don't have to worry about 5 or 10 year old wheels, it just doesn't happen. how about those really exotic carbon road wheels, are the crossed spokes bonded? It's hard to believe that actual triangulation of spokes wouldn't raise the strength or stiffness of the wheel.

  39. #39
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    So the tying and soldering doesn't really connect the spokes.
    Right... no sort of structural connection whatsoever.
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    What if you used high tension steel spokes instead of stainless and brazed them with a mini torch ,i think if you actually created an actual connection and triangulation,you'd see a benefit.
    Spokes are much too thin to be welded. Brazing would also be difficult and not really an appropriate connection for structural purposes. Surface area is key to brazing. Two cylinders touching doesn't provide that. Neither do bladed spoke designs, for that matter.
    Some sort of mechanical connection would be effective, and also probably weigh a ton.
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    I heard high tension spokes were quite the rage in freestyle bmx a while ago they've got a higher tensile strength than stainless , not sure about longevity and corrosion but apartently freestylers that are tough on their bikes don't have to worry about 5 or 10 year old wheels, it just doesn't happen.
    It's not the tensile strength of the spokes that limits the tension of a build, and with enough spokes, even low tension wheels can be strong and durable.
    Quote Originally Posted by herbn
    It's hard to believe that actual triangulation of spokes wouldn't raise the strength or stiffness of the wheel.
    If you were able to make a solid structural connection at the spoke crosses it absolutely would change a wheel's structural performance. The lack of structural connection is the issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63

    Actual data! (of a sort....)

    Always appreciated.

    Re; Brandt- it's interesting how he attempts to use the tie/solder joints destruction as a means to justify it's lack of effect , and the other link does nothing but to lay out a conditional case FOR tying and soldering. Strength vs. stiffness in any girder is like HP vs. torque- they relate.

    You guys can do what you like- I don't care- but don't spread ignorance and/or predjudice around under the guise of "expertise".

    If there's data (i.e., Wheelsmith), that's valuable conditionally as long as it's reproducible. If there isn't, just say so and call it "my opinion based on ....(whatever)."

    Schraner's more valid than the other two "in my opinion", and the main benefit of the Crow's Foot is that it allows for an excellent structure conditionally, given a tied and soldered joint- again, in my opinion.

    K?
    ...oh, and btw- meltingfeather?; 35000 of anything is just MORE.

  41. #41
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    Re; Brandt- it's interesting how he attempts to use the tie/solder joints destruction as a means to justify it's lack of effect
    I don't understand what you mean. We're talking about a two-paragraph section in the book that is very clear and does not mention destruction of the joint at all but measurements and computations (FEA).
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    , and the other link does nothing but to lay out a conditional case FOR tying and soldering.
    What's that case, exactly? Does nothing but lay out a case for tying and soldering? How about instruction on how to do it with a qualification that the practice is obsolete?
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    Strength vs. stiffness in any girder is like HP vs. torque- they relate.
    A spoke is not a girder by any stretch, and if you care to explain beyond an unbased simile why you think strength and stiffness are "related" in a bike wheel, I'd love to hear it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    You guys can do what you like- I don't care- but don't spread ignorance and/or predjudice around under the guise of "expertise".
    This is kind of a funny statement. Do what you like but don't do this?
    The consensus basis for the opinion that tying and soldering is useless from a structural standpoint is measurement and understanding of structures, which Schraner obviously didn't have. His whole argument for tying and soldering is predicated on the assumption of a strong structural connection, which is false.
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    If there's data (i.e., Wheelsmith), that's valuable conditionally as long as it's reproducible. If there isn't, just say so and call it "my opinion based on ....(whatever)."
    There is, which is why we referenced it. Citing a source for every statement made on an internet forum is an unecessary encumbrance. Your attempt to police this forum by telling a moderator what to do is laughable, frankly.
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    Schraner's more valid than the other two "in my opinion", and the main benefit of the Crow's Foot is that it allows for an excellent structure conditionally, given a tied and soldered joint- again, in my opinion.
    More valid because it is based on an assumption that can easily be reasoned to be and further has been proven to be false, rather than measurements and structural analysis? You are free to chose and espouse an opinion based on a false assumption, but it's kind of silly, don't you think?
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63

    w/e

    timewaster...

    read more (and CLOSER), talk less, and try not to get too vested in arguments about things that you don't really understand.

    (...thinks spokes refers to "girders")

  43. #43
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    read more (and CLOSER), talk less, and try not to get too vested in arguments about things that you don't really understand.
    funny coming from the guy who either completely misinterprets his sources or makes a bunch of stuff up that isn't in them and clearly doesn't understand even the premise he's trying to defend.
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    (...thinks spokes refers to "girders")
    I thought that was retarded too:
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    Strength vs. stiffness in any girder[...]
    like comparing strength and stiffness to Hp and torque... they're kinda like peanut butter and jelly too, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  44. #44
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    timewaster...

    read more (and CLOSER), talk less, and try not to get too vested in arguments about things that you don't really understand.

    (...thinks spokes refers to "girders")
    The real issue is nobody really understands exactly how the dynamic structure of a tensioned wire spoke wheel works. Lots of theories, seat-of-pants feeling, and some static tests. Very few hard data test of wheels in actual use. Look long enough and you can find "proof" to support your own point of view.

    Given the overall success of wheels built with current components, I consider tie and soldering for performance reasons to be a timewaster.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  45. #45
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    Always appreciated.

    Re; Brandt- it's interesting how he attempts to use the tie/solder joints destruction as a means to justify it's lack of effect , and the other link does nothing but to lay out a conditional case FOR tying and soldering. Strength vs. stiffness in any girder is like HP vs. torque- they relate.

    You guys can do what you like- I don't care- but don't spread ignorance and/or predjudice around under the guise of "expertise".

    If there's data (i.e., Wheelsmith), that's valuable conditionally as long as it's reproducible. If there isn't, just say so and call it "my opinion based on ....(whatever)."

    Schraner's more valid than the other two "in my opinion", and the main benefit of the Crow's Foot is that it allows for an excellent structure conditionally, given a tied and soldered joint- again, in my opinion.

    K?
    And I like how you are ignoring the test cited that does a direct comparison of normal and t&s wheels:
    ...low and high flange wheels were built by Wheelsmith, were
    measured, were tied and soldered by Wheelsmith, and were measured
    again. Only tying and soldering was performed on the wheels between
    the two measurements. There was no measurable change detected in
    torsional or lateral stiffness by micrometer dial gauges located
    around the wheel. The instrumentation for these measurements is shown
    in detail in "the Bicycle Wheel".
    A static test, but it is a test that produced hard data.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    The real issue is nobody really understands exactly how the dynamic structure of a tensioned wire spoke wheel works. Lots of theories, seat-of-pants feeling, and some static tests. Very few hard data test of wheels in actual use. Look long enough and you can find "proof" to support your own point of view.

    Given the overall success of wheels built with current components, I consider tie and soldering for performance reasons to be a timewaster.

    Excellent answer. Thank you. Just let me add the inverse; that if you look long enough you can also find enough "proof" to dispute anothers point of view. This is the root of my objection to your initial post.

    ...2 engineers = 3 opinions min.

    After the wheels are built, tested, and ridden I'll post back as to how they perform and feel under/to a 120lb. rider, according to her purely subjective perspective. THIS is why we do it- it's FUN "unbuilding" a bike to match it's performance/weight to someone who doesn't NEED 32 3x spoking.


    Next Argument; Want to hear about the *****in' 24 spoke (16 - 3x ti drive, 8 radial non ) rim brake rears she's racing on her hardtail?

    Scott

  47. #47
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    Next Argument; Want to hear about the *****in' 24 spoke (16 - 3x ti drive, 8 radial non ) rim brake rears she's racing on her hardtail?

    Scott
    I have two sets of 20" disc wheels, 24 spokes on 32 hole rims and hubs.

    Set 1: front, disc side, 8 radial straight 14g / nondisc, 16 3x 14/15.
    Rear, disc side, 16 3x 14/15 / drive side 8 radial straight 14g
    406 Velocity aeroheat on American Classic hubs

    Set 2: front, disc side, 8 1x straight 14g / non disc 16 3x 14/15.
    Rear, disc side 16 3x 14/15 / drive side 8 1x straight 14g.
    451 Alex A22 on Real disc front and Shimano Deore CL rear.

    Work fine. Were a bear to get trued.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63

    Radials On The Disc Side!!!!

    ...are you mad!!!!

    This will fail immediately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!+1

    Allow me to cite; "everyone".


    ....sounds like fun; ride on.

  49. #49
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    ...are you mad!!!!

    This will fail immediately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!+1

    Allow me to cite; "everyone".


    ....sounds like fun; ride on.
    Everybody except Mavic!

    I did it because I could.

    Same for my 36 spoke 29er mtb disc wheels:
    Front, 3x left, 4x right
    Rear, 4x left, 3x right

    And the 32 spoke disc 26ers
    Front, 2x left, 3x right
    Rear, 3x left, 1x right. Tried all heads in on the right but the RD hit the spokes.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: two-one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    And the 32 spoke disc 26ers
    Front, 2x left, 3x right
    Rear, 3x left, 1x right. Tried all heads in on the right but the RD hit the spokes.
    I thought about doing this for my 29er wheels as well, 1x with spokeheads on the inside... but also for the front disc-side.
    How did these tension? Difficult?

  51. #51
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by two-one
    I thought about doing this for my 29er wheels as well, 1x with spokeheads on the inside... but also for the front disc-side.
    How did these tension? Difficult?
    Tensions as usual.

    Watch out for cassette/RD clearance issues, as I mentioned above, with all heads-in. I relaced 1x alternating.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63

    don't know why I bother, but here goes....

    "If you were able to make a solid structural connection at the spoke crosses it absolutely would change a wheel's structural performance. The lack of structural connection is the issue."
    __________________


    This is what the TYING is for. Spoke deflection under compression or tension is minimized by tying it to an adjoining spoke not undergoing the same type and level of stress. This would be especially true with a radial spoke contained within a tied/soldered crowsfoot.

    Since you have no actual, conditionally valid data negating the value of tied/soldered joints, why don't you just let the anecdotal stand? Without the former, all you are doing is spreading your own prejudices. Perhaps that's what comes from an engineering degree-

    blather/rinse/repeat.

    Out

  53. #53
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    You bother because this stuff is interesting to you, like it is to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    "If you were able to make a solid structural connection at the spoke crosses it absolutely would change a wheel's structural performance. The lack of structural connection is the issue."
    __________________


    This is what the TYING is for. Spoke deflection under compression or tension is minimized by tying it to an adjoining spoke not undergoing the same type and level of stress. This would be especially true with a radial spoke contained within a tied/soldered crowsfoot.
    I see what you're saying, but a tied and soldered joint is not a solid connection. Make one on loose spokes and see how easy it is to dislodge the "connection."
    FYI: spokes aren't loaded in compression and the crosses do a far better job at sharing loads than tying & soldering, which isn't actually saying much, since t&s does arguably nothing at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    "Since you have no actual, conditionally valid data negating the value of tied/soldered joints, why don't you just let the anecdotal stand? Without the former, all you are doing is spreading your own prejudices. Perhaps that's what comes from an engineering degree-

    blather/rinse/repeat.

    Out
    I guess you've forgotten the discussion of the controlled testing Wheelsmith did precisely to answer this question. Aside from any and all explanations about why, there is data.
    It's not a prejudice. I have wheels that are tied and soldered, but I don't pretend they're magic. There's a difference.
    Personal attacks go nowhere. If that's what you're about, I don't know why you bother.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 09-02-2010 at 04:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63

    vocab. review

    re; Wheelsmith

    1. conditional
    2. validity

    If you don't know what these mean, forget about science. You might want to review "deflection" while you're at it. Even "Yahoos" (was that the phrase you used?) seem to know more about this than you do.

    Shiggy has it right- there's no conclusive scientific research regarding spoked wheels, just anecdote and prejudice. Pick which one you'd like to allow for and build what you want but PLEASE stop spouting "truth" that isn't there.

  55. #55
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49
    re; Wheelsmith

    1. conditional
    2. validity

    If you don't know what these mean, forget about science. You might want to review "deflection" while you're at it. Even "Yahoos" (was that the phrase you used?) seem to know more about this than you do.

    Shiggy has it right- there's no conclusive scientific research regarding spoked wheels, just anecdote and prejudice. Pick which one you'd like to allow for and build what you want but PLEASE stop spouting "truth" that isn't there.
    You were right. I don't know why you bother.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63

    Crowsfoots built and ridden

    24h-2x crowsfoot, set up to be tied and soldered (all rears inboard and front disc side spokes inboard, non-disc fronts outboard). Sun Equalizer 21 rims, DT 340 rear, Sun Disco Flea front, all DT db spokes and alloy nipples, 1500 grams even on my scale, with most of the pork in the hubs- where it does the least harm- and under 200.00 built and trued.

    .......the 110lb. test rider (my daughter) says they're great- no flex or dullness- noticeably light, and blingin' to boot. Maybe 20 hours of riding time on them to date with no need to retrue or retension after being built w/o threadlock. I'm going to wait until after they ride loose to do so, along with the tie-and-solder routine, but it's probably not neccesary.

    Scott

  57. #57
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49 View Post
    Maybe 20 hours of riding time on them to date with no need to retrue or retension after being built w/o threadlock. I'm going to wait until after they ride loose to do so, along with the tie-and-solder routine, but it's probably not neccesary.

    Scott
    Why would they ride loose?

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63
    I'd imagine they all ride loose or out of true eventually!

    First pair of wheels I laced, I didn't do the tension/retension thing before dishing/truing. They loosened up after 20-30 hours. Others since have been rock steady, but a light rim with light spoking on a pretty ruggedly ridden trail bike....well, let's just say I'm interested in seeing how long they'll hold.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    131
    how are any of these lacing patterns better than 3x?

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63
    ...because they're mine! Just like my bike, house, car, child, etc.

    Because it's fun. Because it's *****in'.
    Because life gets boring when surrounded by curmudgeons.

    That's why(!), and no other reason I've got the time and inclination to argue. If you'd like to, just read the entire thread and hook up appropriately.

  61. #61
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49 View Post
    ...because they're mine! Just like my bike, house, car, child, etc.

    Because it's fun. Because it's *****in'.
    Because life gets boring when surrounded by curmudgeons.

    That's why(!), and no other reason I've got the time and inclination to argue. If you'd like to, just read the entire thread and hook up appropriately.
    well... at least you're not claiming a strength benefit anymore.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63
    [QUOTE=meltingfeather;8278733]well... at least you're not claiming a strength

    .. and I see that you still don't bother to READ the posts before you respond!

    What an unbelievable ******bag you are!

  63. #63
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49 View Post
    .. and I see that you still don't bother to READ the posts before you respond!

    What an unbelievable ******bag you are!
    you can't reason out an issue without getting emotional, taking it personally, and calling names... and i'm the d'bag? that makes about as much sense as your other 'arguments.' you started this flame war because you couldn't handle someone contradicting you, and immediately went for the personal attacks and sarcasm... 'member?
    i can't blame you for looking for something to keep the wheels you build from going out of true so quickly.

    just for fun or because you can are great reasons to do it.

    for strength (like you said before) it is a waste of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  64. #64
    The Punk Hucker
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,752
    Now everyone shut up, we just want to see PICS and some LOVE!

    Beware the hucking bear!

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: misunderestimated's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108
    36h crow's foot is technically 12 radial + 24 crossed. Theoretically you get the advantages of both lacings.
    True or false?

    Anything less than 36 would be no-go for me. 30 hole rims anyone?

  66. #66
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by misunderestimated View Post
    36h crow's foot is technically 12 radial + 24 crossed. Theoretically you get the advantages of both lacings.
    True or false?

    Anything less than 36 would be no-go for me. 30 hole rims anyone?
    what are these 'advantages'? theoretically, of course.
    is it like how a 650b wheel has the advantages of both 26" and 29er, but none of the drawbacks? it's magical!!

    now... PICS!!

    disclaimer: all of the trick wheels i've built were built just for fun... no benefits claimed to the lacing... theoretical or otherwise.

    3x/1x Heads out:


    2L2T:
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: misunderestimated's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108
    Geez, ok the magical advantages are:
    Its different...
    Radial lacing maybe has improved lateral stiffness? I dunno. Certainly responds well to truing.

    Ok here's my pic:


    Sorry for the crud I commute.
    Freaky light vintage 80's Nisi tubulars, lasers, Paul hi flange - 4+ years of hard service (note: I haul kids on this) perfectly true... Paul says no to radial so this is a non-warrantable hub but I'll be fine; got no gears and the hubs are cheap. The radial spokes match perfectly to the flange windows; it's actually quite nice looking when clean. 3x rear, 2x front BTW...

    Anyway...
    My last mountain wheel build I thought about how to do the same lace, but the parts I really wanted were 32h. I find it interesting DT has their version on a disc wheel where the radials don't even get crossed- I guess it matters not. Probably heavy rims too.

  68. #68
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by misunderestimated View Post
    Geez, ok the magical advantages are:
    Its different...
    Radial lacing maybe has improved lateral stiffness? I dunno. Certainly responds well to truing.
    it's different is a great reason to do it. that's only an 'advantage' to the person that sees it that way.
    radial spokes can not transmit torque... that's a trade-off. net advantage? indeterminant.
    the only people that really care are those who claim some advantage... i guess because they feel like they need more justification than, "i felt like it," which is more than enough for me.
    what i do know is that the amount of stiffness gained from having 1/3 of the spokes radial laced is miniscule.
    Quote Originally Posted by misunderestimated View Post
    Ok here's my pic:
    nice!
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63

    re; meltingfeather

    Give it up guys- it's not worth it. He doesn't bother to read the posts before he responds, he doesn't understand the part he does, and then he blames you for attempting to correct his misunderstandings.

    Oh, and he trolls with fake names. Just block him out and hope he doesn't mislead anyone too badly.

    Cecil; I'll try to post some pics when I get the time. The "blingyness" comes from the radial spoking catching the light, the wheels themselves are pretty workmanlike.

    Misunderestimated; Nice set! - serious Paul fan myself, on a thoroughly normal set of black 32 spoke SS wheels on Sun CR's. Couldn't resist the pink alloy spoke nipples though!

    Scott

  70. #70
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49 View Post
    Give it up guys- it's not worth it. He doesn't bother to read the posts before he responds, he doesn't understand the part he does, and then he blames you for attempting to correct his misunderstandings.

    Oh, and he trolls with fake names. Just block him out and hope he doesn't mislead anyone too badly.
    utter ricockulosity.
    when logic and reason fails, try making stuff up.
    you've got a 110-lb. kid... i think it's time to grow up.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 07-28-2011 at 09:31 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63

    24h crowsfoot pics

    (Disclaimer; These pictures are provided as a service to anyone who cares to view them. No argument will be enjoined. Jobst Brant leg-humpers looking for assistance flagellating towards the object of their curmudgeonly worship are advised to read through the entire thread and hook up accordingly. Sorry to all for the lo-res camera, itís really not a big priority for us.)

    Pic one; Rear wheel disc caliper clearance on a Juicy Ultimate. Not much, even with the inboard mounted spokes.

    Pic two; Tried to show the cassette clearance, which is a lot. Had wanted to lace them on the outside of the flange to better balance the tensions, but didnít have the room for all three (Öwanted all three together in order to produce a tied/soldered joint). If you werenít looking to tie/solder, or were content with the radial excluded from the joint, Iíd say to run the radial spoke outboard, with the tangentials as shown. Probably a better setup overall to do so.

    Pic three; Front wheel disc caliper clearance on a Hayes El Camino.

    Pic four; Fork stanchion clearance on a Marzocchi Corsa.

    Pic five; rear wheel

    Pic six; front wheel

    Pic seven; as mounted on the bike

    Ö..Iím happy with them, as is the rider. Still like the idea of producing the effect of a high flange hub through tying/soldering a crowsfoot spoke joint, but havenít needed to do so yet and havenít had the time. As a man once said, ďLife IntrudesĒ.

    Scott

    Ö.and as a special P.S. for you lonely J-boys;
    The fronts are laced using spoke washers- something that should be done when using 1.8ís in a standard drilled hub. I read that in a book somewhere.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Crow's foot for MTB?-one.jpg  

    Crow's foot for MTB?-two.jpg  

    Crow's foot for MTB?-three.jpg  

    Crow's foot for MTB?-four.jpg  

    Crow's foot for MTB?-five.jpg  

    Crow's foot for MTB?-six.jpg  

    Crow's foot for MTB?-seven.jpg  


  72. #72
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49 View Post
    (Disclaimer; These pictures are provided as a service to anyone who cares to view them. No argument will be enjoined. Jobst Brant leg-humpers looking for assistance flagellating towards the object of their curmudgeonly worship are advised to read through the entire thread and hook up accordingly. Sorry to all for the lo-res camera, itís really not a big priority for us.)
    [...]
    Ö.and as a special P.S. for you lonely J-boys;
    The fronts are laced using spoke washers- something that should be done when using 1.8ís in a standard drilled hub. I read that in a book somewhere.
    just can't stay away from snarky insults, can ya?
    FYI: spoke washers are for hub flanges that are too thin. They do NOTHING for 1.8mm spokes in 2.6mm holes. Of course you'll probably jump into some incoherent diatribe (again). I'm just leading the horse to water.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  73. #73
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmartin49 View Post
    Jobst Brant leg-humpers looking for assistance flagellating towards the object of their curmudgeonly worship are advised to read through the entire thread and hook up accordingly.
    I am having difficulty parsing this statement.

    Still like the idea of producing the effect of a high flange hub through tying/soldering a crowsfoot spoke joint, but havenít needed to do so yet and havenít had the time.
    Tying/soldering won't produce the effects of a high flange hub. FYI

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.