A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Radial spokes?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 1st 15, 11:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Howard[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Radial spokes?

I got quite a nice $2 26" wheel from the tip salvage shop. Shimano HB
M-564 hub, 36 x DT 2mm straight gauge spokes laced to Sun Rims Rhyno Lite.
It even ran true to begin with though I believe it to be quite old as
that Shimano hub is a 1990's one that's labelled Parallax as they were
back then. The nice wide rim (22mm between bead seats) is not unduly
worn in the brake tracks and exhibits no cracking around the spoke ferrules.
However, the thing is radially spoked. I've never built a front wheel
other than three cross, believing that if I'm going to the trouble and
expense I might as well build it as "strong" as possible. I did some
googling for radial spoking and confirmed my recollection that you can
get away with it on a rim braked front wheel though some hub
manufacturers positively forbid it. My high powered x-ray vision detects
no cracking between hub spoke holes and I conclude that I could use the
wheel as it is on a commuter/grocery-getter bike. The slightly weird
Shimano hub has been cleaned, inspected, regreased and passed fit for
further service.
Can anyone who has built wheels tell me why anyone would want to
radially spoke a 26" MTB wheel using quite decent components when it's
just as easy to do two or three cross?
PH
Ads
  #2  
Old March 1st 15, 12:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Radial spokes?

On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:36:31 +1000, Peter Howard
wrote:

I got quite a nice $2 26" wheel from the tip salvage shop. Shimano HB
M-564 hub, 36 x DT 2mm straight gauge spokes laced to Sun Rims Rhyno Lite.
It even ran true to begin with though I believe it to be quite old as
that Shimano hub is a 1990's one that's labelled Parallax as they were
back then. The nice wide rim (22mm between bead seats) is not unduly
worn in the brake tracks and exhibits no cracking around the spoke ferrules.
However, the thing is radially spoked. I've never built a front wheel
other than three cross, believing that if I'm going to the trouble and
expense I might as well build it as "strong" as possible. I did some
googling for radial spoking and confirmed my recollection that you can
get away with it on a rim braked front wheel though some hub
manufacturers positively forbid it. My high powered x-ray vision detects
no cracking between hub spoke holes and I conclude that I could use the
wheel as it is on a commuter/grocery-getter bike. The slightly weird
Shimano hub has been cleaned, inspected, regreased and passed fit for
further service.
Can anyone who has built wheels tell me why anyone would want to
radially spoke a 26" MTB wheel using quite decent components when it's
just as easy to do two or three cross?
PH


Shorter, thus lighter, spokes, I suppose. And of course the fact that
a radial spoked wheel looks so much faster then a 36 spoke cross 3
wheel :-)

I recently broke several spokes in a wheel and decided to install
another wheel until I could get the correct spokes and re-spoke the
old wheel. The local bike shop had some wildly expensive wheels on
display so I asked the sales girl "have you got any cheap ones"?
"Sure", she says, "how's a hundred dollars a set sound?" "Gimmy", and
I took them home in the box. When I unpacked them I found that they
are a nice set of Shimano wheels with 20 radial in front and 24 cross
2 in the back. The spokes are. I guess you'd call them aerodynamic,
slightly flattened and perhaps started as 2.5 mm wire.

Anyway, they are a few grams lighter then the old wheels although I
did use light weight cartridge bearing hubs and fairly light rims and
spokes when I built the old ones.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #3  
Old March 1st 15, 04:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default Radial spokes?

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 4:36:37 AM UTC-6, Peter Howard wrote:
Can anyone who has built wheels tell me why anyone would want to
radially spoke a 26" MTB wheel using quite decent components when it's
just as easy to do two or three cross?
PH


Radial lacing is much simpler and easier than 2x and 3x. Once you figure out the correct length spoke to use, you just run the spoke straight up to the hole in the rim. No figuring out which ferrule to use. Unlike crossing where you have to decide is it the one 2 or 3 or 4 next on the rim. About the only thing you have to get right is make sure to use the ferrules on that side of the hub. As everyone knows ferrules are offset to one side of the rim or the other. No crossing the spokes over and/or under the first and second spoke and making sure you do it the same for every spoke. With radial lacing you just run the spoke straight up to the ferrule in the rim.

Even someone who has never built a wheel in their life can do this the first time they build a wheel. My guess is you ended up with a wheel built by a first time wheel builder. Someone who did not know how to build wheels. So they used fairly low cost, but good quality, parts to build up a functional wheel to get by. Professional, highly experienced wheel builders do not use low cost components to build wheels. Its not worth their time monkeying with low cost parts. They also don't do weird, almost nonsensical things like radial lacing on low cost mountain bike wheels.
  #4  
Old March 1st 15, 04:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Radial spokes?

On 3/1/2015 5:36 AM, Peter Howard wrote:

Can anyone who has built wheels tell me why anyone would want to
radially spoke a 26" MTB wheel using quite decent components when it's
just as easy to do two or three cross?


I think the theoretical benefits are a few grams less weight, since each
spoke is shorter; and very slightly less air resistance, since uncrossed
spokes present a smidgen less frontal area. I really doubt that either
benefit is detectable by the rider.

I think the real reason people do it is because they think it looks cool.

The detriment is more chance of tensile failure of the hub flange.
Whether that's theoretical or practical depends on the particular model
of hub.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #5  
Old March 1st 15, 05:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Radial spokes?

On 3/1/2015 6:49 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
...
I took them home in the box. When I unpacked them I found that they
are a nice set of Shimano wheels with 20 radial in front and 24 cross
2 in the back. The spokes are. I guess you'd call them aerodynamic,
slightly flattened and perhaps started as 2.5 mm wire.


When I was toying around with aerodynamic tricks on my bikes (nothing
radical, mind you), I re-spoked a front wheel with oval spokes,
replacing straight 14 gage. I made no other changes except the spokes.

Before disassembly, with the tire and tube removed, I did some
coast-down spins of the bare wheel, timing how long it took to stop. (I
forget now how I got it up to a consistent starting speed. I may have
used an electric drill with a rubber drive wheel, i.e. a rubber sanding
drum without the sandpaper cylinder.)

Anyway, I remember doing about ten trials with the straight gage spokes
and repeating with the oval spokes. To my surprise, the wheel stopped a
bit more quickly with the oval spokes.

The oval spokes were very slightly lighter (maybe 20 grams?), so the
wheel had less moment of inertia. That would lead to faster
deceleration. But I really expected the reduction in aero drag to
produce a bigger effect. I was disappointed.

Needless to say, I could never _feel_ any aero benefit from the spokes,
nor from any of the other minor aero tricks I tried.

I usually did outcoast my friends, and some of those side-by-side
coasting trials convinced me there was some aero value, especially with
the old Tailwind panniers. But as usual, the benefits didn't really
change the feel of the ride, my commuting time riding home from work, or
my enjoyment of just riding the bike.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #6  
Old March 1st 15, 05:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Radial spokes?

On 3/1/2015 10:08 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/1/2015 6:49 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
...
I took them home in the box. When I unpacked them I found
that they
are a nice set of Shimano wheels with 20 radial in front
and 24 cross
2 in the back. The spokes are. I guess you'd call them
aerodynamic,
slightly flattened and perhaps started as 2.5 mm wire.


When I was toying around with aerodynamic tricks on my bikes
(nothing radical, mind you), I re-spoked a front wheel with
oval spokes, replacing straight 14 gage. I made no other
changes except the spokes.

Before disassembly, with the tire and tube removed, I did
some coast-down spins of the bare wheel, timing how long it
took to stop. (I forget now how I got it up to a consistent
starting speed. I may have used an electric drill with a
rubber drive wheel, i.e. a rubber sanding drum without the
sandpaper cylinder.)

Anyway, I remember doing about ten trials with the straight
gage spokes and repeating with the oval spokes. To my
surprise, the wheel stopped a bit more quickly with the oval
spokes.

The oval spokes were very slightly lighter (maybe 20
grams?), so the wheel had less moment of inertia. That
would lead to faster deceleration. But I really expected
the reduction in aero drag to produce a bigger effect. I
was disappointed.

Needless to say, I could never _feel_ any aero benefit from
the spokes, nor from any of the other minor aero tricks I
tried.

I usually did outcoast my friends, and some of those
side-by-side coasting trials convinced me there was some
aero value, especially with the old Tailwind panniers. But
as usual, the benefits didn't really change the feel of the
ride, my commuting time riding home from work, or my
enjoyment of just riding the bike.


Ten tests of each is significant diligence for a home
project but may not expose small differences at actual race
speeds. Here's a paper on the subject

http://www.altairhyperworks.com/html...431_MNGodo.pdf

And I think the primary answer to 'why radial spoke a $40
front wheel?' is probably "looks cool, sells better'.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #7  
Old March 1st 15, 05:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default Radial spokes?


http://goo.gl/gTkZyS
  #8  
Old March 1st 15, 07:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default Radial spokes?

On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:36:31 +1000, Peter Howard
wrote:

Can anyone who has built wheels tell me why anyone would want to
radially spoke a 26" MTB wheel using quite decent components when it's
just as easy to do two or three cross?


Somewhat after the days of high flange hubs, I had accumulated a fair
collection of spokes that were only suitable for high flange hubs with
3 cross lacing. One day, I noticed that these spokes were fairly
close to the length required to build a wheel with a low flange hub if
I used radial lacing[1]. I had never ridden on a radial spoke wheel
and thought it worth trying. So, I built a front wheel, rode about 3
miles, and decided that radial spokes were a really bad idea on the
local rotten roads[2]. About a year later, I took it apart, bought
the correct length spokes, built the wheel correctly, and rode happily
for about 2 years[3].

[1] This was on a 27" or 700c wheel, not a 26" mountain bike wheel.
[2] There was another problem. The spokes weren't quite long enough
yielding only 2 or 3 threads on the spoke nipples. I didn't strip out
any threads, but probably might have given a few bumps and jumps.
[3] I had switched wheels and hung these wheels up in an unheated
room for storage. I apparently applied too much spoke tension. The
contraction of the stainless spokes from the cold temperatures broke
the spoke holes out of the (Specialized) hubs.

My wild guess(tm) is that a sprung front fork will take up most of the
shock of landing a mountain bike. 3 cross lacing isn't going to add
much cushioning to the ride when the springs and shock absorbers are
doing most of the work. Therefore, it is probably safe to use radial
spokes on a mountain bike with a sprung suspension.

The idea is similar to that of a folding bicycle with small diameter
wheels. It's difficult to tell from the small photos found by Google
Images, but some of the small wheel folders use radial spokes, either
because they have a springy frame, fork, or have an added shock
absorber.
https://www.google.com/search?q=small+bicycle+wheels&tbm=isch

Once deemed safe and justifiable, such wheels add to the "product
differentiations" aspect of selling bicycles, which appeals to
manufacturers that want to sell something different, and buyers that
want to look "cool".


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #9  
Old March 1st 15, 09:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default Radial spokes?

AE6KS -

the wheel is unsprung rolling impact weight...the frame/rider is termed sprung weight.

I had a naybor with a DIY electric bike who radialed the front...was big deal with max width custom equipment at rear then the rad front.... shooka muh head n opinioned this was a zero then asked why not lace 3X but he didnah know how ???!!

brong...short distance taco...I would imagine there's an online analysis program comparing the 2.

  #10  
Old March 2nd 15, 02:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Radial spokes?

On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 10:35:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/1/2015 5:36 AM, Peter Howard wrote:

Can anyone who has built wheels tell me why anyone would want to
radially spoke a 26" MTB wheel using quite decent components when it's
just as easy to do two or three cross?


I think the theoretical benefits are a few grams less weight, since each
spoke is shorter; and very slightly less air resistance, since uncrossed
spokes present a smidgen less frontal area. I really doubt that either
benefit is detectable by the rider.

I think the real reason people do it is because they think it looks cool.

The detriment is more chance of tensile failure of the hub flange.
Whether that's theoretical or practical depends on the particular model
of hub.


My God! You are flying in the face of all those millions and millions
and millions of bicycle riders who demand lighter (and thus faster)
bicycles. What will be next? A condemnation of the protective foam
hat?

Such heresy WILL be punished!
(the black helicopters will arrive tomorrow.... and if not, certainly
the next day, or perhaps the day after :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Funny spokes adn radial lacing and missing teeth and tying & soldering and drillium [email protected] Techniques 12 July 10th 10 11:30 PM
Wheel Building; Oval Spokes (AE15); Twist; Radial Truing Ron Ruff Techniques 8 February 16th 06 08:43 AM
Radial or cross spokes for front wheels, etc ? rs Techniques 36 December 3rd 05 08:21 AM
Radial 360 Coker airfoil rim upgrade. re-use the spokes? Chrashing Unicycling 4 November 12th 05 02:28 AM
Radial Spokes on Rear Wheel? JH Techniques 73 May 13th 05 06:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.