Drive-side Spokes

Bernie Sluzalek said:

I have recently observed an MA3 rim crack at a few eyelets in a
machine built wheel that came with a bike (I didn't choose or build
that wheel, I just hand finished it). Of course, this will surprise
nobody - I'm going to replace the spokes with 1.7/2.0mm ones (both
sides) and use a different rim when I replace this wheel because of
the following.

Quoted message said:

On dismantling the wheel I was reminded of how it had been built
with 2.0/2.3mm on the right and 2.0mm plain on the left - I am right
in believing thicker less-stretchy spokes are associated with
cracked eyelets in poor-quality rims more so than thinner ones?

The MA-3 is a miserable attempt at cutting manufacturing cost by not
using eyelets and sockets. It was a miserable failure from the start
and I don't believe you will find it in their lineup of rims anymore:

http://www.mavic.com/ewb_pages/r/route.php

A rim that is so close to failure with thick spokes is not a safe bet
with thinner spokes although thin spokes are better for any wheel with
a reasonable spoke complement. The reason for thick spokes is
generally for ease of build because they don't twist when approaching
final tension. It is not because they are stronger in most instances.
This is doubly true for straight gauge spokes.

Quoted message said:

Having seen this happen here, I am now worried about the touring
wheels that I have built for this coming summer with which I intend
to carry heavy loads. The rims are stocky Rigida Sputniks that are
unfortunately anodised - in this I didn't have a choice since
non-anodised rims were unavailable. They are socketed/double
eyeleted though, unlike MA3.

That ought to work. I think the manufacturers slowly got the message
that hard anodizing was a failure and cause failures, so most of the
current anodizing is thin enough to not cause problems.

Quoted message said:

The rear has very beefy plain gauge 2.3mm on the drive side (they go
to 2.0mm at the threaded end, but they are effectively plain gauge)
and 2.0/1.7mm on the left. And they're tight, of course.

That's not a good combination. Make sure you take along spare spokes,
just in case you get enough miles to get a failure on the road.

Quoted message said:

Is this wheel doomed to the dreaded cracking problem?

Who came up with 2.3mm spokes? I can't believe that wheel builders
asked for this but for what other reason would manufacturers offer
them. Consider that one set of 1.8-1.6mm diameter spokes have been
serving me well for more than 300,000 miles (with several rim
replacements for brake wear).

Quoted message said:

This is the first time I've built a touring wheel and it's also my
first wheel with thicker spokes on the right - normally I build
wheels with 1.7/2.0mm and they last till the rim wears down at the
braking surface (I've never actually broken a spoke in one of my own
wheels so far).

So why did you choose these spokes?

Quoted message said:

Would it be wise to replace the 2.3mm spokes with 2.3/2.0mm, 2.0mm
plain gauge or even 1.7/2.0m? Or am I justified in using 2.3mm?
Remember, I'll be carrying very heavy camping equipment etc.

I don't know what sort of hubs you have but the ones I am using had
flange holes just large enough to pass the threads of a 1.8mm diameter
spoke. Your flanges must have gaping holes to accept such large
spokes in the first place which is not a good start at the hub.

Quoted message said:

I'd be very grateful if someone practically experienced with this
*in the real world* could advise me.

I find this difficult because I don't know what sort of hubs are made
with reasonable spoke holes and could not find a rim that I would like
to use at the last InterBike trade show. Fortunately, good spokes are
still available.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is the first time I've built a touring wheel and it's also my
first wheel with thicker spokes on the right - normally I build
wheels with 1.7/2.0mm and they last till the rim wears down at the
braking surface (I've never actually broken a spoke in one of my own
wheels so far).

Quoted message said:

So why did you choose these spokes?

For me, it often comes as a recommendation by 'experts' (a bike
magazine, two of my LBSs and the CTC's website [UK]). I had no bad
experiences with my previous touring wheels (that had thicker spokes on
the RHS) and therefore no reason to stay away from that recommendation.

I often follow what is recommended from sources like this since in the
past it's paid off. I was prepared to accept the idea that a wheel
designed for carrying large loads may need a different design than my
wheels for day rides, spokes and all - a wider rim and bulkier tyres
for a start.

Quoted message said:

Your flanges must have gaping holes to accept such large
spokes in the first place which is not a good start at the hub.

This hub with gaping holes is a Deore LX M560 7-speed. The 2.3mm spokes
were a tight fit. With a hub like this and the said rim, what spoking
would you recommend?

Thanks,
Bernie Sluzalek

Bernie Sluzalek said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is the first time I've built a touring wheel and it's also my
first wheel with thicker spokes on the right - normally I build
wheels with 1.7/2.0mm and they last till the rim wears down at the
braking surface (I've never actually broken a spoke in one of my
own wheels so far).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why did you choose these spokes?

Quoted message said:

For me, it often comes as a recommendation by 'experts' (a bike
magazine, two of my LBSs and the CTC's website [UK]). I had no bad
experiences with my previous touring wheels (that had thicker spokes
on the RHS) and therefore no reason to stay away from that
recommendation.

Because spokes fail, the response has been to get thicker and thicker
spokes, requiring larger and larger flange holes so that they can be
rapidly built in assembly lines. We are not headed in the right
direction there but I suppose it works. You see that to solve these
problems, straight spokes with special hubs and spoke nipples are
being introduced brining in their own new problems in reliability and
replacement spokes specifically made for that wheel.

Quoted message said:

I often follow what is recommended from sources like this since in
the past it's paid off. I was prepared to accept the idea that a
wheel designed for carrying large loads may need a different design
than my wheels for day rides, spokes and all - a wider rim and
bulkier tyres for a start.

I don't know how large a load and on what sort of roads you plan to
use these. If I could get hubs with closely fitting spoke holes I
would use 1.8-1.6mm diameter spokes, as was the custom before wheel
building machines entered the scene.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your flanges must have gaping holes to accept such large spokes in
the first place which is not a good start at the hub.

Quoted message said:

This hub with gaping holes is a Deore LX M560 7-speed. The 2.3mm
spokes were a tight fit. With a hub like this and the said rim,
what spoking would you recommend?

I'm not familiar with either the rim or the hub so I can't give you
any advice other than that spoke failure is not caused by overloads
but rather by residual stress in elbows and threads of spokes. These
stresses are left over from manufacture and from lacing the wheel,
especially the outbound spokes of the rear wheel that must be bent to
align with their path. If these are not relaxed the spokes will fail
regardless of their thickness. Stress relieving is one of the more
important steps in building reliable wheels.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

I have recently observed an MA3 rim crack at a few eyelets in a machine
built wheel that came with a bike (I didn't choose or build that wheel,
I just hand finished it). Of course, this will surprise nobody - I'm
going to replace the spokes with 1.7/2.0mm ones (both sides) and use a
different rim when I replace this wheel because of the following.

On dismantling the wheel I was reminded of how it had been built with
2.0/2.3mm on the right and 2.0mm plain on the left - I am right in
believing thicker less-stretchy spokes are associated with cracked
eyelets in poor-quality rims more so than thinner ones?

possibly, but they help a little with shimmy, which may be an advantage
for your use.

Quoted message said:

Having seen this happen here, I am now worried about the touring wheels
that I have built for this coming summer with which I intend to carry
heavy loads. The rims are stocky Rigida Sputniks that are unfortunately
anodised - in this I didn't have a choice since non-anodised rims were
unavailable. They are socketed/double eyeleted though, unlike MA3.

fear of anodizing is ridiculous and based on false assumptions which are
in turn based on incomplete knowledge of the subject. anodizing is
useful because it prevents corrosion, pitting and subsequent fatigue
initiation in higher strength alloys.

Quoted message said:

The rear has very beefy plain gauge 2.3mm on the drive side (they go to
2.0mm at the threaded end, but they are effectively plain gauge) and
2.0/1.7mm on the left. And they're tight, of course.

what was your tension?

Quoted message said:

Is this wheel doomed to the dreaded cracking problem?

not if you use the rim manufacturer specified spoke tension. do NOT use
"tension as high as the rim will bear". use a tensiometer.

Quoted message said:

This is the first time I've built a touring wheel and it's also my
first wheel with thicker spokes on the right - normally I build wheels
with 1.7/2.0mm and they last till the rim wears down at the braking
surface (I've never actually broken a spoke in one of my own wheels so
far).

Would it be wise to replace the 2.3mm spokes with 2.3/2.0mm, 2.0mm
plain gauge or even 1.7/2.0m? Or am I justified in using 2.3mm?
Remember, I'll be carrying very heavy camping equipment etc.

2.3's are justified if the elbow shank length matches the flange width
for your hub. if however the shank is too long, you'll have fatigue
problems.

i wouldn't use the 1.7's on the drive side because of the shimmy problem.

Quoted message said:

I'd be very grateful if someone practically experienced with this *in
the real world* could advice me.

Thanks,
Bernie Sluzalek

bottom line, thicker spokes are recommended by wheel manufacturers for
high load applications, so don't be afraid to use them. rim cracking is
almost always either excess tension or a defective rim extrusion. not
all rims are equal. go with a higher spoke count if required. build
with a tensiometer to rim manufacturer spec. "stress relieve" to ensure
spokes bed in, the wheel stays true and spokes don't go slack in use.

jim beam wrote:
..........

Quoted message said:

2.3's are justified if the elbow shank length matches the flange width
for your hub. if however the shank is too long, you'll have fatigue
problems.

I've not had any problems with my DT Alpine III 2.3mm spokes *yet*,
despite the elbows looking too long for my flanges.

I'm interested to know if the extra thickness compared to 2mm makes up for
the difference fatigue resistance even when the elbow shanks are too long.
There may be no advantage to using 2.3 (with unsuitable flanges) in the
first place, but is it worth rebuilding an existing wheel? (And I don't
mean just to save weight).

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

jim beam wrote:
.........

Quoted message said:

2.3's are justified if the elbow shank length matches the flange width
for your hub. if however the shank is too long, you'll have fatigue
problems.

I've not had any problems with my DT Alpine III 2.3mm spokes *yet*,
despite the elbows looking too long for my flanges.

I'm interested to know if the extra thickness compared to 2mm makes up for
the difference fatigue resistance even when the elbow shanks are too long.
There may be no advantage to using 2.3 (with unsuitable flanges) in the
first place, but is it worth rebuilding an existing wheel? (And I don't
mean just to save weight).

~PB

theoretically, yes, it's worth rebuilding, but personally, i wouldn't
bother until failures start to occur. the reason spokes fatigue in the
first place is their lateral offset from their axial load, therefore the
elbow bends with each and every loading cycle. the longer the shank,
[offset] the greater the bending load and therefore the shorter the
fatigue life. you could try shimming your existing long shanks with
washers under the spoke heads, but i think that looks ugly, especially
with the numbers necessary in this case.

Pete Bigs said:

I've not had any problems with my DT Alpine III 2.3mm spokes *yet*,
despite the elbows looking too long for my flanges.
I'm interested to know if the extra thickness compared to 2mm makes up for
the difference fatigue resistance even when the elbow shanks are too long.
There may be no advantage to using 2.3 (with unsuitable flanges) in the
first place, but is it worth rebuilding an existing wheel? (And I don't
mean just to save weight).

Boy, Pete! That's a really good question!

I've wondered the same thing. Also a related question. DT spoke washers
are recommended when the hub spoke hole diameter is too large. Well it
seams that all recent Shimano hubs have 2.6mm holes. When I've tried to
use DT washers on 2.0 spokes w/ the correct "J" bend length, (such as
Sapim & older DT) the spoke comes out at an angle. The "J" bend, bend
inside radius area, is actually caught on the edge of the hub spoke
hole. I don't believe that it is possible to bend the spoke to so that
it would be pointed at the nipple rim line & keep any semblance of fig.
50 "Improving the spoke line at the hub" on page P.97 of "The Bicycle
Wheel". So I'm left to conclude that the only way to use washers to
help w/ o/s hub holes is to use spokes w/ excessively long "J" bend
necks. Which means DT. It's as if Shimano & DT are in cahoots to screw
non-mechanized wheel builders. No? John

Also I don't like using spoke washers. It may work & be effective, but
it strikes me as an inelegant, hokey assed way to do things, although I
have when necessary.

Quoted message said:

what was your tension?

I haven't a tensiometer. Unscientifically speaking, it's as tight as a
touring wheel with similar spec components that was referred to by the
LBS wheel builder as 'tight' (I keep this old worn-out wheel as a
tension benchmark because it never needed adjustment in 8000 miles of
loaded cycle touring and that satisfies me).

It's certainly tighter than at least two sets of machine-built touring
wheels that a friend owned; I use my fingers to pinch parallel pairs of
spokes and I judge the tension that way.

It's certainly not on the verge of being as tight as the rim can handle
: 2 spokes can be grasped together as hard I can (or dare?), displacing
the rim without the wheel buckling.

Quoted message said:

2.3's are justified if the elbow shank length matches the flange width
for your hub. if however the shank is too long, you'll have fatigue
problems.

They were a tight fit and difficult to get through the holes. I suspect
the shanks on those aren't too long since I have an example of a
'revised DT' spoke which I know is too long here.

- Bernie Sluzalek

Quoted message said:

For me, it often comes as a recommendation by 'experts' (a bike
magazine, two of my LBSs and the CTC's website [UK]). I had no bad
experiences with my previous touring wheels (that had thicker spokes on
the RHS) and therefore no reason to stay away from that recommendation.

Yeah, Chris Juden of the CTC always recommends mega-thick spokes (PG or
triple-butted) on the RH side, as does Paul Hewitt (who has a good
reputation as a wheelbuilder). Personally I just use DT Competition on
both sides, and have never had any breakages on my own wheels.

The only exception is a track front wheel I built with DT Revolution
spokes. It's a good wheel but was horrid to build. I had to mark all
the spokes to ensure they were untwisted at the end - Revs can twist
nearly 360 degrees when being tightened, which makes me wonder what
damage is being done in the process.

Quoted message said:

I have recently observed an MA3 rim crack at a few eyelets in a machine
built wheel that came with a bike (I didn't choose or build that wheel,
I just hand finished it). Of course, this will surprise nobody - I'm
going to replace the spokes with 1.7/2.0mm ones (both sides) and use a
different rim when I replace this wheel because of the following.

On dismantling the wheel I was reminded of how it had been built with
2.0/2.3mm on the right and 2.0mm plain on the left - I am right in
believing thicker less-stretchy spokes are associated with cracked
eyelets in poor-quality rims more so than thinner ones?

Mixed spoke gauges are an answer to a not asked question BUT the cracks
are mostly due to this crappy rim than anything else. They crack
regardless of spoke dimension.

Quoted message said:

Having seen this happen here, I am now worried about the touring wheels
that I have built for this coming summer with which I intend to carry
heavy loads. The rims are stocky Rigida Sputniks that are unfortunately
anodised - in this I didn't have a choice since non-anodised rims were
unavailable. They are socketed/double eyeleted though, unlike MA3.

The rear has very beefy plain gauge 2.3mm on the drive side (they go to
2.0mm at the threaded end, but they are effectively plain gauge) and
2.0/1.7mm on the left. And they're tight, of course.

Is this wheel doomed to the dreaded cracking problem?

Hard to predict but hard anodizing on eyeleted rims show more cracks
than unanodized ones.

Quoted message said:

This is the first time I've built a touring wheel and it's also my
first wheel with thicker spokes on the right - normally I build wheels
with 1.7/2.0mm and they last till the rim wears down at the braking
surface (I've never actually broken a spoke in one of my own wheels so
far).

Would it be wise to replace the 2.3mm spokes with 2.3/2.0mm, 2.0mm
plain gauge or even 1.7/2.0m? Or am I justified in using 2.3mm?
Remember, I'll be carrying very heavy camping equipment etc.

Strength of the wheel comes from strength of the rim and enough spokes
and a good build. Not necessarily spoke gauge. I would consider a
different rim before I would swap spokes Velocity Dyad and mavic A719
are both good choices, 36h.

Quoted message said:

I'd be very grateful if someone practically experienced with this *in
the real world* could advice me.

Thanks,
Bernie Sluzalek

Quoted message said:

I have recently observed an MA3 rim crack at a few eyelets in a machine
built wheel that came with a bike (I didn't choose or build that wheel,
I just hand finished it). Of course, this will surprise nobody - I'm
going to replace the spokes with 1.7/2.0mm ones (both sides) and use a
different rim when I replace this wheel because of the following.

If you haven't replaced the rim yet, I'm happy to report that Alex
Adventurer rims have a virtually identical ERD (608 mm vs. 607.5 mm).
Also they are very reasonably priced at about $24. They are reasonably
similair in weight (490g vs. 520g).

32 hole: http://store.airbomb.com/ItemDesc.asp?IC=RM7512
36 hole: http://store.airbomb.com/ItemDesc.asp?IC=RM7513

I've put about 3000 miles on the rear wheel that I rebuilt with these
with no problems so far. That's not enough for a decent test, but it's
better than the MA-3 rims did (1200 & 3000 miles) on this same wheel.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
Them: "Let me see when you bought that phone... boy, that's ancient."
Me: "What, December 1999 wasn't that long ago?"
Them: "For a phone, that's ancient."
Me: "The phone on my desk was built in 1937, and that still works fine..."
-- Shalom Septimus in the Monastery

I've already replaced it with a Rigida Chrina which has sockets and no
bad reputation.

Thanks,
- Bernie Sluzalek

<SNIP>Mixed spoke gauges are an answer to a not asked question... <SNIP>
Peter, you assert this opinion often.
What is your objective proof? .... or at least valid argument?

daveornee said:

<SNIP>Mixed spoke gauges are an answer to a not asked question...
<SNIP>
Peter, you assert this opinion often.
What is your objective proof? .... or at least valid argument?

--
daveornee

I'll take a guess as to Mr. Chisholm's answer. It probably goes
something like this, people made many millions of wire spoked wheels
during the 20th century using the same straight gauge or butted spokes
on both sides of the wheel and it worked just fine.

Did all of your wire spoked wheels fail on you because they had the
same gauge spoke on both sides of the wheel? Or did they work just
fine?

quote=''daveornee said:

<SNIP>Mixed spoke gauges are an answer to a not asked question...
<SNIP>
Peter, you assert this opinion often.
What is your objective proof? .... or at least valid argument?

--
daveornee

I'll take a guess as to Mr. Chisholm's answer. It probably goes
something like this, people made many millions of wire spoked wheels
during the 20th century using the same straight gauge or butted spokes
on both sides of the wheel and it worked just fine.

Did all of your wire spoked wheels fail on you because they had the
same gauge spoke on both sides of the wheel? Or did they work just
fine?[/QUOTE]
I rode a pair of steel rimmed wheels with zinc coated steel spokes for ~100,000 and they worked just fine in the middle of the 20th century.

Quoted message said:

I've already replaced it with a Rigida Chrina which has sockets and no
bad reputation.

Good to hear. It took me three 'lessons' to start avoiding the Mavic
rims. I am evidently not the sharpest knife in the block.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
"I only touch base with reality on an as-needed basis!"
-- Royal Floyd Mengot (Klaus)

daveornee said:

<SNIP>Mixed spoke gauges are an answer to a not asked question...
<SNIP>
Peter, you assert this opinion often.
What is your objective proof? .... or at least valid argument?

Or maybe the "question" is not being heard:

"How can I save weight and reduce chance of left spokes loosening
without compromising the right side?"

~PB