#1
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
Hi folks
At what point does a wheel have too many spokes? If you go above a certain number, I'm speculating that the increase in number of holes weakens the rim. clearly the spokes are under lower individual tension. Also more spokes equates to undesired extra mass and (some) more drag for a deminishing improvement in reliability. As a base for conjectu A front wheel for a road bike (20lbs) with rider of 170lbs 700C box rim such as Mavic Open Pro or something available with lots of holes. Eyelets or sockets fitted. No specific front hub, but something large-flanged enough to take lots of spokes. Drilled for the right number in each case. Spokes guage to be determined by number used. Brass nipples. Laced 3x. Built by the same guy. It's common belief that a wheel can have too few spokes, but how about too many? Skippy E&OE (Hope this won't start another rant-fest, and that it's not FAQ) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
Skippy wrote:
Hi folks snip If you go above a certain number, I'm speculating that the increase in number of holes weakens the rim. snip All else being equal, this sounds correct.. However, all else isn't equal. Take the extreme example of 40 hole tandem rims - although the extra holes nominally weaken the rim, the rim is almost certainly a heavy duty item, so overall, it comes out stronger. Likewise, 40 hole tandem hubs generally have larger hubs to keep a decent amount of material between the spoke hole drillings. Equally, where the spoke count is low, the rim has been designed to take that into account. clearly the spokes are under lower individual tension. Ummm - dunno if that's right.... you'd need to see the spec sheet for the hubs to see if they give different max. spoke tensions for the various drillings of the same rim. Also more spokes equates to undesired extra mass and (some) more drag for a deminishing improvement in reliability. Yep, but those using the higher spoke count wheels (typically tandemists, heavily laden tourists, those doing long distance unsupported rides, or the very large rider) see these trade offs as worthwhile. The loaded tourist is hauling luggage + extra kit (say 20-30kg) anyway, and probably at a relatively low average speed, so the weight and aerodynamic concerns are lower on their list of priorities that they are for the unladen day rider. As a base for conjectu A front wheel for a road bike (20lbs) with rider of 170lbs 700C box rim such as Mavic Open Pro or something available with lots of holes. Eyelets or sockets fitted. No specific front hub, but something large-flanged enough to take lots of spokes. Drilled for the right number in each case. Spokes guage to be determined by number used. Brass nipples. Laced 3x. Built by the same guy. snip Common range for that kind of wheel would be 28, 32 or 36 spoke. Looking as Sheldon's table at: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_sp-ss.html#spoke ..and taking the wheelsmith 2.0DB (2.0/1.8) as an example, the spokes weigh 193 g. for 32, so each spoke weighs about 6g, plus a nipple, say 1g. Each four extra spokes weighs an extra 7g x 4 = 28g - say 55g for eight, two wheels 100g. That's not nothing, but again, looking at: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/li...ype=roadwheels ....light end wheelsets seem to come in at 1500g . 100g / 1500g - approx. 7% - not huge. A more typical wheelset might come in at 2kg, or more - the difference is proportionally less in that case. Long experience has shown that conventional wheels with 28 to 36 spokes are a good reliable balance between longevity and performance for most riders. That doesn't mean that it can't be improved on,. As regards aerodynamics, I've no idea, but I would suggest that for the majority of bikes (my own included), the limiting factor is the engine, and the biggest gains are available by working on that, rather than saving 10% on wheel weight or wheel drag ;-) bookieb |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
Also realize that 40 gate stuff can be hard to find. 36/32 is a bit
more common. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
"bookieb" wrote in message ups.com... Skippy wrote: Hi folks snip If you go above a certain number, I'm speculating that the increase in number of holes weakens the rim. snip All else being equal, this sounds correct.. However, all else isn't equal. Take the extreme example of 40 hole tandem rims - although the extra holes nominally weaken the rim, the rim is almost certainly a heavy duty item, so overall, it comes out stronger. Likewise, 40 hole tandem hubs generally have larger hubs to keep a decent amount of material between the spoke hole drillings. Equally, where the spoke count is low, the rim has been designed to take that into account. clearly the spokes are under lower individual tension. Ummm - dunno if that's right.... you'd need to see the spec sheet for the hubs to see if they give different max. spoke tensions for the various drillings of the same rim. Sorry, I thought that generally, when the spoke count went down the tension went up (that's what the E&OE's for). Is this just that boutique wheels use deeper/stiffer rims? Does a 32 spoke wheel have similar tension to a 36 for example? Also more spokes equates to undesired extra mass and (some) more drag for a deminishing improvement in reliability. Yep, but those using the higher spoke count wheels (typically tandemists, heavily laden tourists, those doing long distance unsupported rides, or the very large rider) see these trade offs as worthwhile. The loaded tourist is hauling luggage + extra kit (say 20-30kg) anyway, and probably at a relatively low average speed, so the weight and aerodynamic concerns are lower on their list of priorities that they are for the unladen day rider. As a base for conjectu A front wheel for a road bike (20lbs) with rider of 170lbs 700C box rim such as Mavic Open Pro or something available with lots of holes. Eyelets or sockets fitted. No specific front hub, but something large-flanged enough to take lots of spokes. Drilled for the right number in each case. Spokes guage to be determined by number used. Brass nipples. Laced 3x. Built by the same guy. snip Common range for that kind of wheel would be 28, 32 or 36 spoke. Looking as Sheldon's table at: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_sp-ss.html#spoke .and taking the wheelsmith 2.0DB (2.0/1.8) as an example, the spokes weigh 193 g. for 32, so each spoke weighs about 6g, plus a nipple, say 1g. Each four extra spokes weighs an extra 7g x 4 = 28g - say 55g for eight, two wheels 100g. That's not nothing, but again, looking at: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/li...ype=roadwheels ...light end wheelsets seem to come in at 1500g . 100g / 1500g - approx. 7% - not huge. A more typical wheelset might come in at 2kg, or more - the difference is proportionally less in that case. Long experience has shown that conventional wheels with 28 to 36 spokes are a good reliable balance between longevity and performance for most riders. That doesn't mean that it can't be improved on,. As regards aerodynamics, I've no idea, but I would suggest that for the majority of bikes (my own included), the limiting factor is the engine, and the biggest gains are available by working on that, rather than saving 10% on wheel weight or wheel drag ;-) bookieb Agreed that the increased loads on tandems and tourists may warrant a tougher rim and more spokes. That's why I proposed the 'roadie' example. The point I'm trying to get to is that yes 40/48 spoke wheels are in practical terms no more reliable for the roadie. I'm just pondering whether 36 and then maybe 32 are too. I've got a 28 3x front wheel which seems to be as durable as the 32 3x wheels I've had before. We're not into 'boutique' silliness here, but is 32 the optimum? It seems to me that wheel components have got a bit better since it was common to have 32/36 in a road wheel. A comment from the guy who built my wheels was that 'well the rims are round to start off with these days. That helps!'. I'm fairly sure spokes are better too. So for the example roadie might we be 'over-building his/her wheels? I know it's not much, but it would be one in the eye for the box wheel enthusiasts to see a 24 spoker on proper hubs that looks as 'trendy' as theirs, costs less, but doesn't turn into a Pringle when you look at it funny. Would such a wheel be noticibly worse than 28, which seems no worse than 32 for me anyway. Just food for thought, not a crusade. Skippy E&OE |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
Skippy wrote: Hi folks At what point does a wheel have too many spokes? If you go above a certain number, I'm speculating that the increase in number of holes weakens the rim. clearly the spokes are under lower individual tension. Both points are not correct, I guess unless the rim had say 200 or so spoke holes. Also more spokes equates to undesired extra mass and (some) more drag for a deminishing improvement in reliability. As a base for conjectu A front wheel for a road bike (20lbs) with rider of 170lbs 700C box rim such as Mavic Open Pro or something available with lots of holes. Eyelets or sockets fitted. No specific front hub, but something large-flanged enough to take lots of spokes. Drilled for the right number in each case. Spokes guage to be determined by number used. Brass nipples. Laced 3x. Built by the same guy. It's common belief that a wheel can have too few spokes, but how about too many? Skippy E&OE (Hope this won't start another rant-fest, and that it's not FAQ) Right....nobody will argue about this...kinda of a non argumant-yes? In the world of what is available hole wise in hubs and rims, worry about not enough, not too many..36, what is currently available as a maximum for non tandem stuff, is not too many.. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
Skippy wrote:
If you go above a certain number, I'm speculating that the increase in number of holes weakens the rim. Let's assume a hole in a continuous structure has an influence on (say) 3 times its diameter, ie that at more than 3 times hole radius, stress is the same with or without the hole. If the above is correct, then with 8mm holes and 600mm ERD you can put as much as (600*3.14)/3*8=75 spokes on a 622mm rim. Of course, the "3time radius" hypothesis is rather optimistic, but the point is that as the stress is not uniform on a wheel, the stress concentration around the holes are a more weaker link that the general decrease in supporting matter, ie the wheel will more likely fail around a hole than elsewhere. clearly the spokes are under lower individual tension. Doesn't seem so clear to me... Spoke tension should be a compromise between two things: - on one hand, keep it lower than the weaker of the following limits : tensile strength of the spoke, or of the rim around spoke hole, or of the spoke nipple thread (a common problem with the special Mavic FORE nipples), - on the other hand, keep it higher than the load exerted on spokes by the sum of rider weight, shocks and pedaling or braking if any couples. The first high limit is relatively constant according to the above (at least around 36 spokes), as the second low limit is clearly linearly decreasing with spoke count. So, a higher-spoke-count wheel can be built with the same spoke tension, it will only make it stronger (or to be more correct, less prone to spoke slackening, which is the Big Bad Evil in a spoke-laced wheel, isn't it?) unless holes are close enough to have significant stress buildup between them. It can also be built with proportionnally less tension, decreasing stress arond holes. According to that, it would need the rim to be a real Emmental-cheese before having the wheel weaker because of too many spokes! It reminds me of trial rims sold here in France, that are largely hollow between spoke holes, made by (or sold by) Try All : http://www.peppl.com/media/product/i...fdfb02db1d.jpg Didn't hear complaints about these rims being too weak. Of course, the upper sectrion of the box is not hollow! That can make a difference, specially with a non-eyelet or single-eyelet rim. Practically, very high spoke count could have at least the disavantage of being difficult to lace, as the cross count shall increase with spoke count to keep spoke angles constant (ie a 24 spokes wheel built 2X has the same spoke angles as a 36 spokes 3X and as a 48 spokes 4X and so on) : the 6X needed for a 72-spokes wheel should not be easy to deal with. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
Skippy wrote:
If you go above a certain number, I'm speculating that the increase in number of holes weakens the rim. Let's assume a hole in a continuous structure has an influence on (say) 3 times its diameter, ie that at more than 3 times hole radius, stress is the same with or without the hole. If the above is correct, then with 8mm holes and 600mm ERD you can put as much as (600*3.14)/3*8=75 spokes on a 622mm rim. Of course, the "3time radius" hypothesis is rather optimistic, but the point is that as the stress is not uniform on a wheel, the stress concentration around the holes are a more weaker link that the general decrease in supporting matter, ie the wheel will more likely fail around a hole than elsewhere. clearly the spokes are under lower individual tension. Doesn't seem so clear to me... Spoke tension should be a compromise between two things: - on one hand, keep it lower than the weaker of the following limits : tensile strength of the spoke, or of the rim around spoke hole, or of the spoke nipple thread (a common problem with the special Mavic FORE nipples), - on the other hand, keep it higher than the load exerted on spokes by the sum of rider weight, shocks and pedaling or braking if any couples. The first high limit is relatively constant according to the above (at least around 36 spokes), as the second low limit is clearly linearly decreasing with spoke count. So, a higher-spoke-count wheel can be built with the same spoke tension, it will only make it stronger (or to be more correct, less prone to spoke slackening, which is the Big Bad Evil in a spoke-laced wheel, isn't it?) unless holes are close enough to have significant stress buildup between them. It can also be built with proportionnally less tension, decreasing stress arond holes. According to that, it would need the rim to be a real Emmental-cheese before having the wheel weaker because of too many spokes! It reminds me of trial rims sold here in France, that are largely hollow between spoke holes, made by (or sold by) Try All : http://www.peppl.com/media/product/i...fdfb02db1d.jpg Didn't hear complaints about these rims being too weak. Of course, the upper sectrion of the box is not hollow! That can make a difference, specially with a non-eyelet or single-eyelet rim. Practically, very high spoke count could have at least the disavantage of being difficult to lace, as the cross count shall increase with spoke count to keep spoke angles constant (ie a 24 spokes wheel built 2X has the same spoke angles as a 36 spokes 3X and as a 48 spokes 4X and so on) : the 6X needed for a 72-spokes wheel should not be easy to deal with. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
Ok, I was wrong about spoke tension being lower with a larger number of
spokes. I'd just picked that up from RBT.... Reduced spoke-count wheels using higher tensions being noted on a number of occasions. Skippy E&OE, as ever! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
Skippy wrote:
At what point does a wheel have too many spokes? Here's my take on the subject... it's a practical limit. In days gone by, a 36 spoke wheel would occasionally break spokes. That failure rate was deemed acceptable at the time. If you used fewer spokes of the same size and brought the wheel to the same tension, you would experience more broken spokes because the stress in the spokes was higher. One could possibly have used thicker spokes to compensate, but then you'd need a deeper rim since the unsupported spans were larger. As far as I can tell, deep section rims were not available in the 70s. More than 36 spokes of the same diameter would reduce spoke failures, but increase weight. Nobody wants to do that without good cause. Again, one could have compensated with thinner spokes, but spoke windup would be a problem during the build process. So 36 spokes became a de facto standard. Fast forward a few years... spoke quality improved, as did the understanding of the wheel building process. The standard 36 spoke wheel is now nearly immune to spoke failures. We can now use fewer spokes of the same diameter (1.8 or 2.0 mm) with a low failure rate. Rim cross sections have become deeper, allowing the larger unsupported spans required. The spoke windup problem has not changed; thin spokes are still a pain in the butt to build with. Note that this does not cover all of the pros and cons of different spoke counts (i.e. failure mode, heavier riders, aerodynamics, and the list goes on). It's my general opinion of the current state of affairs. -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and novelist (1811-1896) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Too many spokes
Skippy Peanut Butter writes:
At what point does a wheel have too many spokes? If you go above a certain number, I'm speculating that the increase in number of holes weakens the rim. clearly the spokes are under lower individual tension. Can't you just ask without blurting out misinformation to show that you really don't know much about it? This is a mix of MAS (male answer syndrome) and wanting to find an answer. MAS: Give an answer whether you know anything about it or not. The rim is as weak as its smallest cross section and it doesn't get worse with more spokes, spokes that give the rim radial rigidity. A bare rim can be deflected manually more than 100 times what it does in a wheel under heavy loading. As for spoke tension, it is only needed to keep spokes from going slack and the more of them the less individual loading they carry to become slack. With your argument, taken to the limit, the best wheel would have no spokes and no holes, not even a valve stem hole. Also more spokes equates to undesired extra mass and (some) more drag for a deminishing improvement in reliability. So get some 10-spoke wheels and use them. You seem to have reasons in favor of that. As a base for conjectu A front wheel for a road bike (20lbs) with rider of 170lbs 700C box rim such as Mavic Open Pro or something available with lots of holes. Eyelets or sockets fitted. No specific front hub, but something large-flanged enough to take lots of spokes. Drilled for the right number in each case. Spokes guage to be determined by number used. Brass nipples. Laced 3x. Built by the same guy. Spoke gauge is mainly a wheel building parameter. Too thin a spoke cannot be tightened without twisting off in the process, so when fewer spokes (that require higher tension) are used, they must be thicker. That's how we came to the 1.6mm diameter spoke shaft because 1.5mm ruptures when tightened for 36-spoke wheels. Causes and effects are so often misrepresented that repeating them once more only helps perpetuate these myths. Building with thin spokes is more difficult than with thick ones. It's common belief that a wheel can have too few spokes, but how about too many? So what's your point? BMX wheels with 72 spokes aren't unusual. Today, spoke count is fashion! Don't worry, the best number of spokes for durable 700c wheels was pragmatically determined a long time ago at 36. As you see, cracking rims are part of the landscape today (and formerly were not) with most riders believing that this is to be expected. Today many people with extra money are erasing the long development of reliable bicycle wheels. Mavic appears to be pandering to those people. (Hope this won't start another rant-fest, and that it's not FAQ) I'm not sure what you had in mind but by its nature this is a troll, starting as it does. Jobst Brandt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spoke tension question | Gary Robinson | Techniques | 55 | January 10th 06 11:24 PM |
Spoke tension meter | Ken | Techniques | 345 | July 28th 05 04:54 PM |
Snaping Spokes | [email protected] | Techniques | 82 | March 8th 05 04:34 PM |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Wheel Rebuilding | TheObieOne3226 | Unicycling | 16 | January 1st 04 10:55 AM |