American Classic doing a "Serotta?"

Quoted from a online dealer:

"American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are
different than our competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than
ordinary hubs. You'd think this would make the wheel weaker, but instead it
makes the wheel sturdier. The drive side flange is as close as possible to
the sprockets for the best triangulation. Our non-drive flange is closer to
center; therefore, the spoke tension is more balanced than in ordinary hubs.
Since the non-drive side spokes are tighter, they actually strengthen the
wheel. This means the non-drive side spokes are sharing a larger percentage
of the total load compared to designs using wider spaced flanges. This
increases the expected fatigue life of all the spokes and makes a lively,
responsive wheel. The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds a
better, stronger rear wheel."

Is this BS? Jobst?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
: Is this BS? Jobst?

we just went through this in " dishless wheels" in early October of this
year. look for my post which posts what you just did and jobst's response.
--
david reuteler

On 17 Nov 2003 03:02:30 GMT, David Reuteler may
have said:

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
: Is this BS? Jobst?

we just went through this in " dishless wheels" in early October of this
year. look for my post which posts what you just did and jobst's response.

You mean this:

(quoting post by David Reuteler with reply from Jobst Brandt)

David, quoting the A C website:
"American Classic Cassette Hubs make for a stronger wheel. Our rear
hubs differ from our competitor's hubs in that the flange spacing is
narrower. Logically, you would think this results in a weaker
wheel, but in actuality, this makes for a sturdier, stiffer wheel.

Jobst:
That is misleading. They didn't say how they meant that but laterally
the wheel is softer and radially it is no different, within a few
micro inches. It would do them good to try to substantiate such
claims so it doesn't sound like info from spin doctors in Washington.

David, apparently still quoting A C:
Bill Shook designed the drive side flange to be as close as possible
to the cogset for the best triangulation. The non-drive flange is
closer to centre, which results in the spoke tension being more
balanced when compared to our competitor's hubs. As the non-drive
side spokes are tighter, the wheel is much stronger. This means the
non-drive spokes are sharing a larger percentage of the total load
when compared to hub designs using wider spaced flanges. This
increases the expected fatigue life of all the spokes, and makes for
a lively and responsive wheel.

Jobst:
Yes? But how does this give the benefits claimed... and not realized?

David, still quoting A C:
The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds up as a
better, stronger, rear wheel."

Jobst:
In fact it may reduce spoke failure, but that is not an issue with
well built dished wheels, so who cares? Don't believe everything
manufacturers claim.

(end of quoting)

Distilled version, as I understand it: The claims for the American
Classic hubs are questionable. A hub with flanges closer together
will result in a wheel that is laterally softer, but radially
indistinguishable from a properly built dished wheel on a hub that has
flanges with a wider spacing. It *may* reduce spoke failure, but
since in the absence of an outside agency breaking the spokes, the
phenomenon is generally indicative of improper assembly or incorrect
component construction, this should not be a reason to favor the
American Classic hub..



--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

it sounds like you're confusing lateral with radial. lateral stability
is a function of the angle the spokes make with the hub. the closer the
angle to 90 degrees, the less lateral stability. the wider the hub
spacing, the more lateral stability.

as jobst says, radial is unaffected.

jb

Bruni wrote:
The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a
lateral vector equal to that on the right, which is the limiting factor due
to space. How you acheive that vector is the only issue. AC does this with a
higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under dynamic loads,
thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout and
allyou would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the same-not
softer, not stiffer, the same.

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"

The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a
lateral vector equal to that on the right, which is the limiting factor due
to space. How you acheive that vector is the only issue. AC does this with a
higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under dynamic loads,
thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout and
allyou would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the same-not
softer, not stiffer, the same.

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
Werehatrack wrote in message
...
On 17 Nov 2003 03:02:30 GMT, David Reuteler may
have said:

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
: Is this BS? Jobst?

we just went through this in " dishless wheels" in early October of
this
year. look for my post which posts what you just did and jobst's
response.

You mean this:

(quoting post by David Reuteler with reply from Jobst Brandt)

David, quoting the A C website:
"American Classic Cassette Hubs make for a stronger wheel. Our rear
hubs differ from our competitor's hubs in that the flange spacing is
narrower. Logically, you would think this results in a weaker
wheel, but in actuality, this makes for a sturdier, stiffer wheel.

Jobst:
That is misleading. They didn't say how they meant that but laterally
the wheel is softer and radially it is no different, within a few
micro inches. It would do them good to try to substantiate such
claims so it doesn't sound like info from spin doctors in Washington.

David, apparently still quoting A C:
Bill Shook designed the drive side flange to be as close as possible
to the cogset for the best triangulation. The non-drive flange is
closer to centre, which results in the spoke tension being more
balanced when compared to our competitor's hubs. As the non-drive
side spokes are tighter, the wheel is much stronger. This means the
non-drive spokes are sharing a larger percentage of the total load
when compared to hub designs using wider spaced flanges. This
increases the expected fatigue life of all the spokes, and makes for
a lively and responsive wheel.

Jobst:
Yes? But how does this give the benefits claimed... and not realized?

David, still quoting A C:
The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds up as a
better, stronger, rear wheel."

Jobst:
In fact it may reduce spoke failure, but that is not an issue with
well built dished wheels, so who cares? Don't believe everything
manufacturers claim.

(end of quoting)

Distilled version, as I understand it: The claims for the American
Classic hubs are questionable. A hub with flanges closer together
will result in a wheel that is laterally softer, but radially
indistinguishable from a properly built dished wheel on a hub that has
flanges with a wider spacing. It *may* reduce spoke failure, but
since in the absence of an outside agency breaking the spokes, the
phenomenon is generally indicative of improper assembly or incorrect
component construction, this should not be a reason to favor the
American Classic hub..



--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Vector. The left spokes can only pull leftward to balance the rightward
vector regardless of angle.Ex: at100kg tension a 10 deg spoke exerts 17.36
kg laterally, 98.5 radially. To balance this a 20 deg. spoke is tensioned at
approx 51 kg. This nets 48kg. radially. Indeed the radial is affected.
Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
jim beam wrote in message
...
it sounds like you're confusing lateral with radial. lateral stability
is a function of the angle the spokes make with the hub. the closer the
angle to 90 degrees, the less lateral stability. the wider the hub
spacing, the more lateral stability.

as jobst says, radial is unaffected.

jb

Bruni wrote:
The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a
lateral vector equal to that on the right, which is the limiting factor
due
to space. How you acheive that vector is the only issue. AC does this
with a
higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under dynamic
loads,
thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout
and
allyou would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the
same-not
softer, not stiffer, the same.

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"

Bruni writes:

The statement "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must
develop a lateral vector equal to that on the right, which is the
limiting factor due to space. How you achieve that vector is the
only issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes
for higher minimums under dynamic loads, thereby reducing fatigue.

I think you miss the significance of "laterally softer" which means
wheel collapse is more likely. Besides, when standing and leaning the
bicycle from side to side, the top of the wheel moves to the same side
as the bottom, in a classic taco initiation move. That is why rear
brakes drag on climbs and why the close spacing of a dual pivot brake
made racers open the QR (and fail to close it) on climbs. In wet
weather dragging rear brakes are audible as the grit gets between
brake pad and rim. This is the reason for the new Campagnolo single
pivot, lower mechanical advantage rear brakes.

Besides all that, rear wheel lateral collapse is more of a threat with
such narrow hubs. I'm sure you've seen riders skid the rear wheel in
a tight spot in a race and get crossed up. That's when the wheel can
and has collapsed.

You could put the left flange at the dropout and all you would have
is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the same-not softer,
not stiffer, the same.

You choose an extreme to make you point but it is invalid because no
practical person would choose to build a 4:1 (right-left) tensioned
wheel. Just the same, until the left spokes go slack, they are part
of the lateral stiffness to either side. It's another "standing on
the spokes" example. They are part of the elastic equation until
slack.

Jobst Brandt

Why would a practical person choose to build a2:1 wheel when they could
build a nearly 1:1 wheel (Ritchey). The claim that these wheels are more
prone to collapse is conjecture.
Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
wrote in message
...
Bruni writes:

The statement "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must
develop a lateral vector equal to that on the right, which is the
limiting factor due to space. How you achieve that vector is the
only issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes
for higher minimums under dynamic loads, thereby reducing fatigue.

I think you miss the significance of "laterally softer" which means
wheel collapse is more likely. Besides, when standing and leaning the
bicycle from side to side, the top of the wheel moves to the same side
as the bottom, in a classic taco initiation move. That is why rear
brakes drag on climbs and why the close spacing of a dual pivot brake
made racers open the QR (and fail to close it) on climbs. In wet
weather dragging rear brakes are audible as the grit gets between
brake pad and rim. This is the reason for the new Campagnolo single
pivot, lower mechanical advantage rear brakes.

Besides all that, rear wheel lateral collapse is more of a threat with
such narrow hubs. I'm sure you've seen riders skid the rear wheel in
a tight spot in a race and get crossed up. That's when the wheel can
and has collapsed.

You could put the left flange at the dropout and all you would have
is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the same-not softer,
not stiffer, the same.

You choose an extreme to make you point but it is invalid because no
practical person would choose to build a 4:1 (right-left) tensioned
wheel. Just the same, until the left spokes go slack, they are part
of the lateral stiffness to either side. It's another "standing on
the spokes" example. They are part of the elastic equation until
slack.

Jobst Brandt

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" wrote :

Quoted from a online dealer:

"American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are
different than our competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than
ordinary hubs...The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds a
better, stronger rear wheel."

Is this BS? Jobst?

Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do,
though. I find that minimizing dish, even at the expense of narrower
overall flange spacing, makes for longer-lasting wheels that stay
truer.

When I machined my own hubs, I researched attributes of
tandem-specific hubs. I found that many of them were symmetrical,
even at ordinary over-locknut sizes. I also found that no
tandem-specific hub of any kind was even close to as asymmetrical as
today's road bike hubs. There may be reasons other than sound
engineering practice that this is so, but tandem use is one of those
bicycle "tests of truth" that exposes weaknesses in components.

By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke
tension can increase, therefore the total sum spoke tension can
increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a heavier load.

I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have
increased the left spacing to well over 40mm. Thus I was able to
apply a high tension to both sides of the wheel, and I have not yet
had to touch that wheel even to true it in many thousands of miles.
The wheel may be more flexible laterally or more vulnerable to side
loads than if it had wider left spacing, but so far I've seen no ill
effects either from it or from a symmetrical Phil Wood tandem-hubbed
wheel I have with 25mm/25mm flange spacing.

Chalo Colina

Chalo Colina writes:

Quoted from a online dealer:

"American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are
different than our competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than
ordinary hubs...The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds a
better, stronger rear wheel."

Is this BS? Jobst?

Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I
do, though. I find that minimizing dish, even at the expense of
narrower overall flange spacing, makes for longer-lasting wheels
that stay truer.

That's a lot of belief but I'm not so sure it is backed up by
experience. My experience with wheels is that the rims wear out
several times before wheels are discarded for some new feature that
makes riders want to get new wheels. As I mentioned, I've been riding
the same pair of wheels for more than 20 years and have a backup set
that is equally old but doesn't get used much except for when the tire
or some other item called for it. On the other hand these wheels have
120mm spacing and are 1970's Campagnolo Record hubs.

When I machined my own hubs, I researched attributes of
tandem-specific hubs. I found that many of them were symmetrical,
even at ordinary over-locknut sizes. I also found that no
tandem-specific hub of any kind was even close to as asymmetrical as
today's road bike hubs. There may be reasons other than sound
engineering practice that this is so, but tandem use is one of those
bicycle "tests of truth" that exposes weaknesses in components.

I have seen people collapse rear wheels and when they do, it is
amazing how soft the structure looks. Bicycles are not subjected to
side loads of any significance being balanced machines. It is only
under sudden adverse conditions that laterally weak wheels come to
bear. As I pointed out, lateral flex isn't a ride comfort or control
problem but it is one for brake drag.

By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side
per-spoke tension can increase, therefore the total sum spoke
tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
heavier load.

Not so. The tension limit for wheels with a reasonable complement of
spokes is the rim. With 16 spokes and 750g aero rims this may not be
the case but then these wheels don't last worth a damn anyway.

I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have
increased the left spacing to well over 40mm. Thus I was able to
apply a high tension to both sides of the wheel, and I have not yet
had to touch that wheel even to true it in many thousands of miles.
The wheel may be more flexible laterally or more vulnerable to side
loads than if it had wider left spacing, but so far I've seen no ill
effects either from it or from a symmetrical Phil Wood tandem-hubbed
wheel I have with 25mm/25mm flange spacing.

This is a goal worth pursuing but with 10-speed clusters, the chain
line gets farther out and the chainwheels (right crank) get pushed
farther out. You can't have everything.

Jobst Brandt