Radial spokes?

On Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:34:32 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

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.

Well, all I can say is that the first wheel I ever built was a cross
three and other then starting over once with the first side I've had
no particular problems that I can remember.

As for low cost and functionally my considered opinion is that wheel
making plants building for the mass market probably do use the lowest
cost components available... and Walmart bikes seem to seldom need new
wheels.

In fact wheel failures seem somewhat rare. At least we seldom read
about "Oooo.. I was just riding down the road and my wheel tacoed".

I wonder if Mr Muzi can quantify that. How many bicycles and/or
complete wheels sold in, say the last 20 years, and how many wheels
returned due to breakage?
--
Cheers,

John B.

well, I'm negative on Michelins.....sometimes the M man comes round to bleat at me....


Mavic ? izzat the wheel ? ...there's a virulent anti-Mavic group

On 02/03/15 02:08, 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.


At 30 mph, the power used to turn a wheel in a wind tunnel decreases by
more than 10W going from round to CXray spokes.

http://www.echelonsports.com.au/down...poke-shape.pdf

Note also the claim that low spoke count has measurable effect.

--
JS

On 3/1/2015 8:31 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
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!

Oh, it already has been!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/1/2015 8:47 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


As for low cost and functionally my considered opinion is that wheel
making plants building for the mass market probably do use the lowest
cost components available... and Walmart bikes seem to seldom need new
wheels.

Perhaps that's true. But then, I suspect most Walmart bikes pass their
entire life peacefully parked in the garage.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/1/2015 10:16 PM, James wrote:
On 02/03/15 02:08, 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.


At 30 mph, the power used to turn a wheel in a wind tunnel decreases by
more than 10W going from round to CXray spokes.

http://www.echelonsports.com.au/down...poke-shape.pdf

Note also the claim that low spoke count has measurable effect.

I know the effects are measurable. I've never doubted that. I was an
aero freak as long ago as junior year in high school, which for me was a
long, long time ago! (I remember trying to discuss the Kamm effect with
my physics teacher back then, and he had no idea what it was.)

So I've read quite a bit on wind tunnel testing of bikes. I'm probably
the only person here who has built custom handlebar bags designed to be
more aero. I've used aero bars, flattened water bottles, aero panniers,
a Zzipper road fairing, rear wheel spoke cover disks and probably other
things I can't think of now.

I'm sure all the above had (or still have) measurable effects. But the
effects were never really noticeable except in side by side coasting
tests. Well, except for aero bars, and perhaps the Zzipper; but the
Zzipper had enough disadvantages that I used it only during winter commutes.

None of the tricks really made a "Wow!" difference in my riding. Aero
bars are nice in headwinds, or when working to catch other riders after
I've stopped to take a photo or gaze at some raptor. Unfortunately, the
biggest aero penalty is the rider's own body.

Going recumbent has big possibilities, but again, there are detriments.
So I've largely stopped experimenting with aero stuff. I eschew
loose, flappy clothes and I still use those old Tailwind panniers on
occasion, plus my custom-design aero bar.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 10:16:12 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 02/03/15 02:08, 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.


At 30 mph, the power used to turn a wheel in a wind tunnel decreases by
more than 10W going from round to CXray spokes.

http://www.echelonsports.com.au/down...poke-shape.pdf

Note also the claim that low spoke count has measurable effect.

--
JS

Ok Knarf, how many watts to stay at 30 ?

not too long ago, this claim was 'met with derision'

On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 23:41:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/1/2015 8:47 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


As for low cost and functionally my considered opinion is that wheel
making plants building for the mass market probably do use the lowest
cost components available... and Walmart bikes seem to seldom need new
wheels.

Perhaps that's true. But then, I suspect most Walmart bikes pass their
entire life peacefully parked in the garage.

Over here they generally are seen moving sedately down to the market
and back.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 23:40:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/1/2015 8:31 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
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!

Oh, it already has been!

:-) :-) :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
:On 3/1/2015 8:47 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
:
:
: As for low cost and functionally my considered opinion is that wheel
: making plants building for the mass market probably do use the lowest
: cost components available... and Walmart bikes seem to seldom need new
: wheels.

:Perhaps that's true. But then, I suspect most Walmart bikes pass their
:entire life peacefully parked in the garage.

The Y I go to has a residential section. The people who live there
have crappy walmart type mountain bikes. Most of them have mismatched
wheels. I don't know if that's the result of theft, or breakdown.
But those bikes get a lot more use than most of the ilk, which seem to
get bought, ridden for a week, and then collect dust.




--
sig 47