Have you ever relaced changing 14g to 15g?

I originally posted this question under a different topic. Although some
replies were useful, I never got an answer of the form I was looking
for. Since I notice Andrew Muzi has been active again in the past few
days, I am reposting in a manner I hope will catch his attention.

While replacing rims, I would also like to change the spokes from 14g to
15/16. I will retain the same cross pattern of course. I want to know if
the differently contoured enlargement of the spoke hole from the 14g-
compared to what would have occurred if I were simply replacing 15g
elbows with 15g elbows- will lead to any problems in fully stress
relieving the elbows, similar to what was described by Jobst in an old
post I reproduce below. I suspect it will not, because the 14g should
have produced a shallower, albeit wider indentation. But I want to have
some experience to back me up on this.

The answer I am looking for is something like either "I have rebuilt
hubs hundreds of time with this change with never any problem", or "no
one ever rebuilds with a change in gauge at the elbow, precisely because
of what you considered".

The hubs are original Shimano Dura-Ace (c. 1975), high flange 32H 3x
front and rear. The new rims are Araya RC-540, slightly lighter than
MA-2s but of similar design. Also, I would like opinions on Wheelsmith
2.0/1.7 as an alternative, should DT 15/16 prove inadvisable.
------------------old post by Jobst----------------------------------
From: (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Building bombproof wheel
Date: 25 Nov 1997 22:48:56 GMT

Wayne Pein writes:

Can you use the 1.8/1.6 spokes on a hub drilled for 14 ga (2.0mm))
spokes?

Yes but it isn't ideal.

What specifically is not ideal about doing this?

Just visualize what occurs as the hole in which the spoke hangs gets
larger. The cone of the spoke head will seat in the center of the
hole and the elbow will be in thin air until spoke tension pulls it
against the bottom of the hole. This brings the spoke to yield stress
as it unbends its elbow. This stress cannot be stress relieved by
stretching the spoke as usual, because you cannot over bend the elbow.

Fortunately, new spokes are underbent to an obtuse angle to make up
for this. If the mismatch is bad enough, this is not enough to make
up for the oversized hole. This is one of the reasons some wheels
keep breaking spokes until thicker spokes are used. This then
unfortunately proves that thicker spokes are less failure prone.

Jobst Brandt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 4/24/2013 10:27 AM, MK1000 wrote:
I originally posted this question under a different topic.
Although some replies were useful, I never got an answer of
the form I was looking for. Since I notice Andrew Muzi has
been active again in the past few days, I am reposting in a
manner I hope will catch his attention.

While replacing rims, I would also like to change the spokes
from 14g to 15/16. I will retain the same cross pattern of
course. I want to know if the differently contoured
enlargement of the spoke hole from the 14g- compared to what
would have occurred if I were simply replacing 15g elbows
with 15g elbows- will lead to any problems in fully stress
relieving the elbows, similar to what was described by Jobst
in an old post I reproduce below. I suspect it will not,
because the 14g should have produced a shallower, albeit
wider indentation. But I want to have some experience to
back me up on this.

The answer I am looking for is something like either "I have
rebuilt hubs hundreds of time with this change with never
any problem", or "no one ever rebuilds with a change in
gauge at the elbow, precisely because of what you considered".

The hubs are original Shimano Dura-Ace (c. 1975), high
flange 32H 3x front and rear. The new rims are Araya RC-540,
slightly lighter than MA-2s but of similar design. Also, I
would like opinions on Wheelsmith 2.0/1.7 as an alternative,
should DT 15/16 prove inadvisable.
------------------old post by
Jobst----------------------------------
From: (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Building bombproof wheel
Date: 25 Nov 1997 22:48:56 GMT

Wayne Pein writes:

Can you use the 1.8/1.6 spokes on a hub drilled for 14
ga (2.0mm))
spokes?

Yes but it isn't ideal.

What specifically is not ideal about doing this?

Just visualize what occurs as the hole in which the spoke
hangs gets
larger. The cone of the spoke head will seat in the center
of the
hole and the elbow will be in thin air until spoke tension
pulls it
against the bottom of the hole. This brings the spoke to
yield stress
as it unbends its elbow. This stress cannot be stress
relieved by
stretching the spoke as usual, because you cannot over bend
the elbow.

Fortunately, new spokes are underbent to an obtuse angle to
make up
for this. If the mismatch is bad enough, this is not enough
to make
up for the oversized hole. This is one of the reasons some
wheels
keep breaking spokes until thicker spokes are used. This then
unfortunately proves that thicker spokes are less failure
prone.

Jobst Brandt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Jobst already covered this (see above)
Could you? Sure.
Would I? No.

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

On Apr 24, 10:42*am, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/24/2013 10:27 AM, MK1000 wrote:









I originally posted this question under a different topic.
Although some replies were useful, I never got an answer of
the form I was looking for. Since I notice Andrew Muzi has
been active again in the past few days, I am reposting in a
manner I hope will catch his attention.

While replacing rims, I would also like to change the spokes
from 14g to 15/16. I will retain the same cross pattern of
course. I want to know if the differently contoured
enlargement of the spoke hole from the 14g- compared to what
would have occurred if I were simply replacing 15g elbows
with 15g elbows- will lead to any problems in fully stress
relieving the elbows, similar to what was described by Jobst
in an old post I reproduce below. I suspect it will not,
because the 14g should have produced a shallower, albeit
wider indentation. But I want to have some experience to
back me up on this.

The answer I am looking for is something like either "I have
rebuilt hubs hundreds of time with this change with never
any problem", or "no one ever rebuilds with a change in
gauge at the elbow, precisely because of what you considered".

The hubs are original Shimano Dura-Ace (c. 1975), high
flange 32H 3x front and rear. The new rims are Araya RC-540,
slightly lighter than MA-2s but of similar design. Also, I
would like opinions on Wheelsmith 2.0/1.7 as an alternative,
should DT 15/16 prove inadvisable.
------------------old post by
Jobst----------------------------------
From: (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Building bombproof wheel
Date: 25 Nov 1997 22:48:56 GMT

Wayne Pein writes:

* Can you use the 1.8/1.6 spokes on a hub drilled for 14
ga (2.0mm))
* spokes?

* Yes but it isn't ideal.

* What specifically is not ideal about doing this?

Just visualize what occurs as the hole in which the spoke
hangs gets
larger. *The cone of the spoke head will seat in the center
of the
hole and the elbow will be in thin air until spoke tension
pulls it
against the bottom of the hole. *This brings the spoke to
yield stress
as it unbends its elbow. *This stress cannot be stress
relieved by
stretching the spoke as usual, because you cannot over bend
the elbow.

Fortunately, new spokes are underbent to an obtuse angle to
make up
for this. *If the mismatch is bad enough, this is not enough
to make
up for the oversized hole. *This is one of the reasons some
wheels
keep breaking spokes until thicker spokes are used. This then
unfortunately proves that thicker spokes are less failure
prone.

Jobst Brandt * *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jobst already covered this (see above)
Could you? Sure.
Would I? No.

And why bother? Any of the DB 14G(/15/17) spokes are fine --
particularly with a 120mm(126mm?) hub with an MA2 clone. Jobst's
blessing of the 15/16 spoke doesn't make it the only option. I built a
lot of wheels for a local frame shop using ModE/E2 rims on Campy/Phil
with DT 14/15 spokes, and those wheels stayed plenty true, even under
heavy riders, with no spoke goop -- and prior to the publication of
the Book. There were lots of fine wheels built before 1981.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 24/04/2013 2:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Apr 24, 10:42 am, AMuzi
wrote:
On 4/24/2013 10:27 AM, MK1000 wrote:

Thanks for your replies-

Jobst already covered this (see above)

Yes, in general terms. The question is how to apply them in this case.

I think the hubs as new would have been fine for 15/16. Spocalc doesn't
have the exact model in the database, and I can't accurately measure to
..1mm, but I suspect the hole size is 2.4mm, versus 2.3mm for the
comparable Campagnolo, and 2.1mm as what Jobst has described as ideal
for 15/16. So I would think it is still acceptable, if the spoke elbow
was formed correctly at manufacture- about 100 degrees, unlike
apparently for DT at least a few years back. I don't know the situation
with DT spokes now, nor what the Wheelsmith elbow angle is.

Now comparing replacing a 14 with a 15, versus a 15 with a 15, the
latter, being narrower, would have made a narrower but deeper
impression, in effect a greater enlargement of the hole. So I would
think replacing a 14 with a 15 should still be fine, but maybe not the
other way around.

Could you? Sure.
Would I? No.

And why bother? Any of the DB 14G(/15/17) spokes are fine --
particularly with a 120mm(126mm?) hub with an MA2 clone.

Yes, I agree. But these are really fine hubs and likewise the rim, so it
would be nice to make the build as close to ideal as possible. By the
way as an original, it's a 5 speed/120mm set.

There were lots of fine wheels built before 1981.
Exactly. Also a lot of bad ones. Jobst sifted the good practices from
the bad, demonstrated what made each that way, distilled the good down
to their essences, and put it all into an efficient procedure that we
could all use. A mighty fine achievement.

On Apr 24, 8:46*pm, MK1000 wrote:
On 24/04/2013 2:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Apr 24, 10:42 am, wrote:

* On 4/24/2013 10:27 AM, MK1000 wrote:

Thanks for your replies-

* Jobst already covered this (see above)

Yes, in general terms. The question is how to apply them in this case.

I think the hubs as new would have been fine for 15/16. Spocalc doesn't
have the exact model in the database, and I can't accurately measure to
.1mm, but I suspect the hole size is 2.4mm, versus 2.3mm for the
comparable Campagnolo, and 2.1mm as what Jobst has described as ideal
for 15/16. So I would think it is still acceptable, if the spoke elbow
was formed correctly at manufacture- about 100 degrees, unlike
apparently for DT at least a few years back. I don't know the situation
with DT spokes now, nor what the Wheelsmith elbow angle is.

Now comparing replacing a 14 with a 15, versus a 15 with a 15, the
latter, being narrower, would have made a narrower but deeper
impression, in effect a greater enlargement of the hole. So I would
think replacing a 14 with a 15 should still be fine, but maybe not the
other way around.

* Could you? Sure.
* Would I? No.
*
* And why bother? Any of the DB 14G(/15/17) spokes are fine --
* particularly with a 120mm(126mm?) hub with an MA2 clone.

Yes, I agree. But these are really fine hubs and likewise the rim, so it
would be nice to make the build as close to ideal as possible. By the
way as an original, it's a 5 speed/120mm set.

*There were lots of fine wheels built before 1981.
Exactly. Also a lot of bad ones. Jobst sifted the good practices from
the bad, demonstrated what made each that way, distilled the good down
to their essences, and put it all into an efficient procedure that we
could all use. A mighty fine achievement.

The Bicycle Wheel documented pretty common building techniques --
except for stress relieving, which many were doing already under the
banner of side-loading, twist relieving and correcting spoke angle.
The Book did cover some interesting stuff and debunked certain myths
(hanging/standing on spokes), but wheel reliability increased in the
70s because of high quality spokes and not because of any sea change
in wheel building technique, IMO.

I would build your wheel on a 14g DB DT spoke. No fuss, no muss -- no
concern over OS holes, and on a 120mm hub with an E2 clone, you will
have a first-class wheel that will stay true if built right.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Apr 24, 9:58 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:46 pm, MK1000 wrote:



On 24/04/2013 2:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Apr 24, 10:42 am, wrote:

On 4/24/2013 10:27 AM, MK1000 wrote:

Thanks for your replies-

Jobst already covered this (see above)

Yes, in general terms. The question is how to apply them in this case.

I think the hubs as new would have been fine for 15/16. Spocalc doesn't
have the exact model in the database, and I can't accurately measure to
.1mm, but I suspect the hole size is 2.4mm, versus 2.3mm for the
comparable Campagnolo, and 2.1mm as what Jobst has described as ideal
for 15/16. So I would think it is still acceptable, if the spoke elbow
was formed correctly at manufacture- about 100 degrees, unlike
apparently for DT at least a few years back. I don't know the situation
with DT spokes now, nor what the Wheelsmith elbow angle is.

Now comparing replacing a 14 with a 15, versus a 15 with a 15, the
latter, being narrower, would have made a narrower but deeper
impression, in effect a greater enlargement of the hole. So I would
think replacing a 14 with a 15 should still be fine, but maybe not the
other way around.

Could you? Sure.
Would I? No.

And why bother? Any of the DB 14G(/15/17) spokes are fine --
particularly with a 120mm(126mm?) hub with an MA2 clone.

Yes, I agree. But these are really fine hubs and likewise the rim, so it
would be nice to make the build as close to ideal as possible. By the
way as an original, it's a 5 speed/120mm set.

There were lots of fine wheels built before 1981.
Exactly. Also a lot of bad ones. Jobst sifted the good practices from
the bad, demonstrated what made each that way, distilled the good down
to their essences, and put it all into an efficient procedure that we
could all use. A mighty fine achievement.

The Bicycle Wheel documented pretty common building techniques --
except for stress relieving, which many were doing already under the
banner of side-loading, twist relieving and correcting spoke angle.
The Book did cover some interesting stuff...

Is it too late to get an autographed copy? (where have you gone, Joe
Dimaggio?)

... and debunked certain myths
(hanging/standing on spokes), but wheel reliability increased in the
70s because of high quality spokes and not because of any sea change
in wheel building technique, IMO.

I would build your wheel on a 14g DB DT spoke. No fuss, no muss -- no
concern over OS holes, and on a 120mm hub with an E2 clone, you will
have a first-class wheel that will stay true if built right.


I've got a Phil / ModE front wheel with 40 spokes (bought on
Craigslist - probably stolen off a nice tandem, though that thought
didn't occur to me at the time - the guy seemed nice enough and needed
the money for baby formula) - as bulletproof as they come (empirical
evidence available on request).

On Apr 24, 10:08*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:58 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:









On Apr 24, 8:46 pm, MK1000 wrote:

On 24/04/2013 2:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Apr 24, 10:42 am, wrote:

* On 4/24/2013 10:27 AM, MK1000 wrote:

Thanks for your replies-

* Jobst already covered this (see above)

Yes, in general terms. The question is how to apply them in this case..

I think the hubs as new would have been fine for 15/16. Spocalc doesn't
have the exact model in the database, and I can't accurately measure to
.1mm, but I suspect the hole size is 2.4mm, versus 2.3mm for the
comparable Campagnolo, and 2.1mm as what Jobst has described as ideal
for 15/16. So I would think it is still acceptable, if the spoke elbow
was formed correctly at manufacture- about 100 degrees, unlike
apparently for DT at least a few years back. I don't know the situation
with DT spokes now, nor what the Wheelsmith elbow angle is.

Now comparing replacing a 14 with a 15, versus a 15 with a 15, the
latter, being narrower, would have made a narrower but deeper
impression, in effect a greater enlargement of the hole. So I would
think replacing a 14 with a 15 should still be fine, but maybe not the
other way around.

* Could you? Sure.
* Would I? No.

* And why bother? Any of the DB 14G(/15/17) spokes are fine --
* particularly with a 120mm(126mm?) hub with an MA2 clone.

Yes, I agree. But these are really fine hubs and likewise the rim, so it
would be nice to make the build as close to ideal as possible. By the
way as an original, it's a 5 speed/120mm set.

*There were lots of fine wheels built before 1981.
Exactly. Also a lot of bad ones. Jobst sifted the good practices from
the bad, demonstrated what made each that way, distilled the good down
to their essences, and put it all into an efficient procedure that we
could all use. A mighty fine achievement.

The Bicycle Wheel documented pretty common building techniques --
except for stress relieving, which many were doing already under the
banner of side-loading, twist relieving and correcting spoke angle.
The Book did cover some interesting stuff...

Is it too late to get an autographed copy? *(where have you gone, Joe
Dimaggio?)

... and debunked certain myths
(hanging/standing on spokes), but wheel reliability increased in the
70s because of high quality spokes and not because of any sea change
in wheel building technique, IMO.

I would build your wheel on a 14g DB DT spoke. *No fuss, no muss -- no
concern over OS holes, and on a 120mm hub with an E2 clone, you will
have a first-class wheel that will stay true if built right.

I've got a Phil / ModE front wheel with 40 spokes (bought on
Craigslist - probably stolen off a nice tandem, though that thought
didn't occur to me at the time - the guy seemed nice enough and needed
the money for baby formula) - as bulletproof as they come (empirical
evidence available on request).

If it's really a ModE, then it would be around '75-6ish, although the
were offered concurrently with the E2 through the end of the '70s
IIRC. Phil 40 hole hubs were popular with the touring set and used on
singles.

That really is kind of an odd wheel because back when the ModE hit the
market along with the Elan tire, it was considered "scary light" for a
clincher wheel -- and on a 40 hole hub, I would expect to see a
Weinmann Concave or a Super Champ Mod 58, or the equivalent Rigida.
You wouldn't go touring on a ModE -- not in '75, although there were
always the odd balls who did loaded tours on sew-up wheels, etc. -- so
who knows. Maybe this was some guy's credit-card touring wheel. It
was clearly the product of some thought and a rarity in the Portland
area at the time.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 25/04/2013 12:58 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:46 pm, MK1000 wrote:
On 24/04/2013 2:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Apr 24, 10:42 am, wrote:

On 4/24/2013 10:27 AM, MK1000 wrote:


Thanks again for replies. Given the answers, I reminded myself of what
may be the deciding factor: I have one of those black Park Tools
horseshoe-shaped spoke wrenches. It doesn't seem to fit the 14g DT
nipples I have, but I don't want to buy another. Is it made rather for
the size of DT 15/16, or maybe even Wheelsmith 2.0?

On 4/25/2013 2:25 PM, MK1000 wrote:
On 25/04/2013 12:58 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:46 pm, MK1000 wrote:
On 24/04/2013 2:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Apr 24,
10:42 am, wrote:

On 4/24/2013 10:27 AM, MK1000 wrote:


Thanks again for replies. Given the answers, I reminded
myself of what may be the deciding factor: I have one of
those black Park Tools horseshoe-shaped spoke wrenches. It
doesn't seem to fit the 14g DT nipples I have, but I don't
want to buy another. Is it made rather for the size of DT
15/16, or maybe even Wheelsmith 2.0?


Is the vinyl cover on your tool black or do you have the
wrong color?

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

On Apr 25, 1:25*pm, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/25/2013 2:25 PM, MK1000 wrote:

On 25/04/2013 12:58 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:46 pm, MK1000 wrote:
On 24/04/2013 2:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Apr 24,
10:42 am, wrote:

* On 4/24/2013 10:27 AM, MK1000 wrote:

Thanks again for replies. Given the answers, I reminded
myself of what may be the deciding factor: I have one of
those black Park Tools horseshoe-shaped spoke wrenches. It
doesn't seem to fit the 14g DT nipples I have, but I don't
want to buy another. Is it made rather for the size of DT
15/16, or maybe even Wheelsmith 2.0?

Is the vinyl cover on your tool black or do you have the
wrong color?

Must be the wrong color -- or not Park. I use the old green or black
on DT 3.23 nipples. The difference between the two colors doesn't seem
to be meaningful on brass nips at reasonable torque.

-- Jay Beattie.