Low spoke count wheels

"James" wrote in message ...
On 30/10/13 22:59, Graham wrote:

[snip]
Were the spoke heads seated in the hub flange well?

Yes

Were the spokes stress relieved?

Yes

Graham.

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 12:25:45 PM UTC-4, Graham wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:59:14 AM UTC-4, Graham wrote:

... Over the winter months I ride wheels with 32 spokes front and back with Open Pro rims. I have three sets of Shimano wheels - Dura Ace C24s, RS80 C24s and Dura Ace C50s. All have 16 front 20 back. Weights quoted by Shimano are approximately 1380g, 1530g and 1660g respectively. The 32 spoke wheels are considerably heavier.



I'm curious how much heavier.



I just weighed them and they weigh just over 1900g so compared to the Dura Ace C24s that's just over 500g or around 35%

Well, 35% if considering only the wheels themselves. Relative to the whole bike+rider system (which is really what counts) they're maybe 1.5% lighter.

Agreed but that counts when you are riding sportive events in Europe. Take the Marmotte for example in France 175kms with 5000m of climbing. As a rule of thumb I take 1kg to equate to about 1 minute per 1000m of climb so just the weight of the wheels saves me two and a half minutes. Add on the aero effect of the low spoke count and the fact they are bladed and that might be another 30 seconds to a minute on the descents. At my age (62) I need all the advantage I can get to get round in the gold standard time.

I have heard your comments many times about the marginal effects of modern technology but if you add enough of them together you get serious benefits. My winter training bike with the 32 spoke wheels is nearly 5kgs heavier than my CF race bike with its fancy wheels. The winter bike is a respectable Peugeot steel framed bike (Reynolds 531) the likes of which were ridden in the Tour in the late seventies but things move on. It even came equipped with a set of Leyotard pedals long since replaced. If you accept my rule of thumb riding that bike in the Marmotte would cost me 25 minutes which would easily make the difference between getting the gold standard for my age and not.

As many have said you pays your money and takes your choice but if your are at all serious about competing at whatever level then you need to embrace modern technology because your competitors are and those setting the standards for non gun to tape races like sportives and time trials are basing those standards on the times achieved using that technology.

Graham.

White's essay aims at directing the audience to their intended goal. 35% is another planet but when there doahn complain abt broken equipment. Is there breakage ? off course as posted herein.

Jobst strove toward a rational standard math wise. I doubted the approach but is true when practiced. The wheel is a bridge until tacoed.

The Jobst deal in rims is/was less spoking brings (then) heavier rims. And as for the box section, and cones, and spokes/hubs use able outback without heliarcing tiny tiny holes, box section are repairable, deep dish AFAIK are not.

Do you know where your going with your $$$ toward what you think you want ? I doahno ? why did the poster buy straight pull hubs and spokes ? curiosity ?

Our fiend in the Netherlands got SPS ?

Itsa dealer thing in a small town state of mind.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:09:18 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:35:42 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:


Oh gawd, from Peter White "If you're not racing, what the heck are you doing with a racing bike?"

Well, it's a mirror image of the remark I got, "Why do you have all that _stuff_ on your bike?" (Translation: Why aren't you riding a Cervelo like mine on a 50 mile ride to bring back imported beer?)

We each have our preferences. Some will spend hundreds of dollars to reduce their bike+rider weight by half a percent and hope that nothing breaks. Others will hang canvas saddlebags on their bikes and hope that they can still climb the steep hills.


Funny though how many spend the big bucks to buy the titanium seat
clamp bolt and save 1.27351 gms when just pushing themselves back from
the table would save them pounds in the Bike+Rider equation :-)


Jay, there's no danger that quasi-racing bikes are going to go away. For every Peter White or Grant Peterson article, there are hundreds of Buycycling articles on "Why you NEED this wheelset!!!" You can relax.

- Frank Krygowski
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:35:42 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:19:51 AM UTC-7, datakoll wrote:
Another cost effective solution to generic spokes and excessive disposable income.



http://r2-bike.com/bilder/produkte/g...m-cx-ray_3.jpg





https://www.google.com/#q=shimano+st...r+hub&tbm=shop



http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/wheels.asp

Oh gawd, from Peter White "If you're not racing, what the heck are you doing with a racing bike? And if you weigh over 200 pounds and have a racing bike and you keep trashing wheels, my best advice is to get rid of the damned thing and get a bike that's better suited to you, like this. Then talk to me about wheels." The "like this" links to this: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/rambouillet.asp

So, if my wheels are too light, I'm supposed to go out and buy a Rivendell with a triple crank and a 70s component group complete with quill stem? Why not a penny farthing or an eBike? Why don't I just get a sturdy set of wheels and skip the retro-bike. I may be over 200lbs, but my racing weight was within ten pounds of where I am now -- and I still ride with active racers. The likelihood that I'm going to go on their training rides on a boat anchor with bar-end shifters is zero.

-- Jay Beattie.

Peter White is opinionated , certainly. But he isn't an fool either.

Remember that Peter guarantees his wheels for ever and a day. If he
builds a super light "racing" wheel for a 200 pounder what is the
chances that he is going to get that wheel back and have to rebuild it
free.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:16:06 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/30/2013 1:16 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:59:14 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:59:14 AM UTC-4, Graham wrote:

... Over the winter months I ride wheels with 32 spokes front and back with Open Pro rims. I have three sets of Shimano wheels - Dura Ace C24s, RS80 C24s and Dura Ace C50s. All have 16 front 20 back. Weights quoted by Shimano are approximately 1380g, 1530g and 1660g respectively. The 32 spoke wheels are considerably heavier.



I'm curious how much heavier.





On the other hand the 32 spoke wheels have had a couple of spoke failures over the past three years both on the rear non-drive side at the elbow over about 7000 miles.



Given the likely cause of failure is fatigue what difference does the spoke material and spoke/hub design make. The Shimano wheels all have straight pull bladed spokes which look identical to and could well be Sapim C-Xrays (http://www.sapim.be/spokes/aero/cx-ray). Given they at higher tension and virtually all the weight bearing related forces are along the axis of the spoke and thus not subjecting it to bending as at an elbow as on a standard spoke does this contribute significantly to their expected life span.



This is when I really miss Jobst.

Why? So we can hear him say that everyone should ride a 36 hole MA2 on a 126mm rear hub with 15/16 DB spokes and brass nipples? The guy was a "one wheel quiver" kind of guy. He was a legend when I was growing up in the Bay Area, so I have all sorts of respect for his intellect and (former) physical prowess, but building according to the Book these days would result in considerable expense from replacing rims that deformed during building, e.g., determining maximum spoke tension based on soft deformation of the rim. I prefer to get the tension specs from the manufacturer's website.

I wonder if the elbow bend was somehow a bad match for the flange thickness. However, if both flanges are exactly the same thickness & shape, and if all spokes were exactly identical, seems the breaks should have occurred on the drive side.

Was there ever a chance that those spokes got accidental abuse? It was my left side rear spoke (or spokes, I forget) that broke after my friend fell riding my bike, then stepped on the rear spokes as he was getting up. The spokes broke long after that incident.

I've broken front spokes and left and right rear spokes in well built wheels, some of which I didn't even build -- like a Colorado Cyclist front wheel that had two or three broken spokes. It could be residual stress at the j-bend or the nipple threads. It could be bad manufacturing, and it could be mechanical damage. The fact is, spokes can break in well-built 32/36 hole wheels, although one would hope with low frequency. Spokes can also break in boutique wheels -- but it looks like the OP's experience has been better with the latter than the former, although we don't know exactly why. As usual, it doesn't really prove anything more than his individual experience.



http://www.wheelbuilder.com/sapim-cx-ray-spoke.html

An interesting site.... I read it and right off the bat they use the
term 18/8 to describe their spoke material. "CX-Ray aero spokes are
produced from high-tensile 18/8 stainless steel, which is ideally
suited for the rigorous demands of spokes..."

Now "18/8" is not a specific stainless designation as it simply
describes " the 18% chromium/8% nickel alloy mixture of the steel.
18-8 is not an actual specification, as it only refers to two
different alloys in the steel"

Now here is a site apparently dedicated to convincing its readers that
Their spokes are best and they can't even describe their spoke
material accurately? Makes for a lot of confidence, doesn't it?

Note: 18/8 stainless is often used to describe one or another of the
300 family of stainless steels however even that designation is less
then accurate. see
http://www.portlandbolt.com/faqs/18-...ainless-steel/
for details and particularly note the second to last paragraph.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:02:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:35:42 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie

wrote:



On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:19:51 AM UTC-7, datakoll wrote:

Another cost effective solution to generic spokes and excessive disposable income.







http://r2-bike.com/bilder/produkte/g...m-cx-ray_3.jpg











https://www.google.com/#q=shimano+st...r+hub&tbm=shop







http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/wheels.asp



Oh gawd, from Peter White "If you're not racing, what the heck are you doing with a racing bike? And if you weigh over 200 pounds and have a racing bike and you keep trashing wheels, my best advice is to get rid of the damned thing and get a bike that's better suited to you, like this. Then talk to me about wheels." The "like this" links to this: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/rambouillet.asp



So, if my wheels are too light, I'm supposed to go out and buy a Rivendell with a triple crank and a 70s component group complete with quill stem? Why not a penny farthing or an eBike? Why don't I just get a sturdy set of wheels and skip the retro-bike. I may be over 200lbs, but my racing weight was within ten pounds of where I am now -- and I still ride with active racers. The likelihood that I'm going to go on their training rides on a boat anchor with bar-end shifters is zero.



-- Jay Beattie.



Peter White is opinionated , certainly. But he isn't an fool either.



Remember that Peter guarantees his wheels for ever and a day. If he

builds a super light "racing" wheel for a 200 pounder what is the

chances that he is going to get that wheel back and have to rebuild it

free.

I don't disagree that a heavier rider needs a more robust wheel, but I would really like to know what light wheels fit the bill. I mean something that is lighter than 1800-1900g a pair, which I can build any night of the week in my basement. Duane recommended the HED. Frank recommends nothing except heavy.

Yes, I'm retired from racing. I don't need a really light wheel. I would like to try one though.

On 31/10/13 12:47, Jay Beattie wrote:

I don't disagree that a heavier rider needs a more robust wheel, but
I would really like to know what light wheels fit the bill. I mean
something that is lighter than 1800-1900g a pair, which I can build
any night of the week in my basement. Duane recommended the HED.
Frank recommends nothing except heavy.

Yes, I'm retired from racing. I don't need a really light wheel. I
would like to try one though.

Well, the Miche hubs I bought for $100 a pair weigh about 460g, add a
pair of Kinlin XR270 rims at 445g each (890g) would be a good start to a
relatively inexpensive, strong wheel set, at 1350g - minus spokes.

Brass nipples are about a gram each, and spokes are about 200g/32 for
competitions and 150g/32 for revolutions.

On the front you could probably go for 24x revolution spokes, ~137g inc
nipples.

On the rear you could build a 16, 3x on the drive side with competition
spokes for 116g, and 12, crows foot on the left with revolutions for
~68g. A 28 spoke rear wheel. I've been using a 24 spoke rear on a
XR300, but you're a little heavier I think, and you might want a few
extra spokes.

Add it all up to get 1350+137+116+68 = 1671 grams.

Nothing too exotic or expensive, and hopefully reasonably robust.

The only difficulty is getting a 24h front hub and 32h rear hub as a
pair from Miche.

You could build a 16 spoke front wheel on a 32 hole hub. Mine has been
fine for a few races and couple of training rides, with an XR300 rim.
It feels a _little_ more "springy" than a 32 spoke radial on Mavic Open
Pro, but seems to ride ok otherwise, and actually seems to ride quite
smooth.

--
JS

lingua franca



http://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-cap-screws/=p62um7

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:02:57 PM UTC-4, Graham wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 12:25:45 PM UTC-4, Graham wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...



On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:59:14 AM UTC-4, Graham wrote:



... Over the winter months I ride wheels with 32 spokes front and back with Open Pro rims. I have three sets of Shimano wheels - Dura Ace C24s, RS80 C24s and Dura Ace C50s. All have 16 front 20 back. Weights quoted by Shimano are approximately 1380g, 1530g and 1660g respectively. The 32 spoke wheels are considerably heavier.







I'm curious how much heavier.







I just weighed them and they weigh just over 1900g so compared to the Dura Ace C24s that's just over 500g or around 35%



Well, 35% if considering only the wheels themselves. Relative to the whole bike+rider system (which is really what counts) they're maybe 1.5% lighter.



Agreed but that counts when you are riding sportive events in Europe. Take the Marmotte for example in France 175kms with 5000m of climbing. As a rule of thumb I take 1kg to equate to about 1 minute per 1000m of climb so just the weight of the wheels saves me two and a half minutes. Add on the aero effect of the low spoke count and the fact they are bladed and that might be another 30 seconds to a minute on the descents. At my age (62) I need all the advantage I can get to get round in the gold standard time.

I have heard your comments many times about the marginal effects of modern technology but if you add enough of them together you get serious benefits. My winter training bike with the 32 spoke wheels is nearly 5kgs heavier than my CF race bike with its fancy wheels. The winter bike is a respectable Peugeot steel framed bike (Reynolds 531) the likes of which were ridden in the Tour in the late seventies but things move on. It even came equipped with a set of Leyotard pedals long since replaced. If you accept my rule of thumb riding that bike in the Marmotte would cost me 25 minutes which would easily make the difference between getting the gold standard for my age and not.

As many have said you pays your money and takes your choice but if your are at all serious about competing at whatever level then you need to embrace modern technology because your competitors are and those setting the standards for non gun to tape races like sportives and time trials are basing those standards on the times achieved using that technology.

To be clear, I don't doubt the benefits of small changes in weight if you're competing on climbs. It's a pretty straightforward percentage-wise thing. (Admittedly, I'm more skeptical about benefits from small aero improvements if one does most of one's riding in a tight pack.)

But around here, anyway, I see most of that "faster" equipment being used by people either riding fast and alone (for training, I suppose) or on friendly group rides, the kind where they're going to wait for the last person anyway. It's hard to see much benefit in those situations.

But you're right, you pays your money and you takes your choice. I'm older than you are, but on my touring bike with Carradice saddlebag, I can ride away from the friends my age and younger, even if they're on carbon fiber and aero wheels. Yes, I have much younger friends I can't climb with; but if my bike were 10 pounds lighter, that would still be true!

Aero spokes (which, BTW, I've tried) and carbon fiber don't seem to conquer date of birth, sad to say. I'm handling age by adjusting my self image. Eventually, I'll happily be the guy with the tweed cap and sit-up-and-beg handlbars, pottering along to the muffin shop. With 72 spokes, of course!

- Frank Krygowski