Measuring spoke length

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Robert Brown
Hi all,

Dan's question (see Spoke Lengths ... thread) got me wondering . . . how is the length of a spoke
actually measured?

a) from the tip (threaded end), to the centre of the spoke at the bend, or

b) from where the threads start, to the near end of the flange at the bend, or

c) from the tip to the crook of the bend (ignoring the flange), or

d) something else?

I've built lots of wheels, but always received spokes in hand, from LBS, and never bothered to ask
what lengths they've picked.

/Robert

d) Something else. It is very close to a), but instead of to center (or centre) of the spoke at the bend, it is to the edge nearest the theadead of the spoke at the bend.
The picture of Park's SBC-1 shows how the spoke is measured at URL:
http://www.parktool.com/tools/SBC_1.shtml
The edge of the spoke is the zero point; while the end of the threads is where you measure the length.

Robert Brown said:

Dan's question (see Spoke Lengths ... thread) got me wondering . . . how is the length of a spoke
actually measured?

I think spoke length is measured from the tip of the threaded end to the center of the radius at the
other end. DT recommends using their spoke length ruler.

It gets more complicated than that though. DT's web site now shows the following:

- All spoke lengths correspond to the use of 12 mm nipples (rims which need longer nipples are
marked correspondingly).
- When using 14 mm nipples (e.g. Mavic CXP 33) about 1 mm has to be deducted from the established
spoke length.
- When using 16 mm nipples (e.g. Mavic CXP 30) about 3 mm have to be deducted from the established
spoke length.

As I recall, the correct spoke length used to be independent of the nipple length.

They also say: "The calculated spoke lengths are based on manual lacing!!! For machine laced wheels
other lengths of spokes may be necessary."

I don't get that at all, unless they're saying machine built wheels are under tensioned.

FWIW, I always used Spocalc, and just order the lengths calculated. Never had a problem.

Art Harris

<< Dan's question (see Spoke Lengths ... thread) got me wondering . . . how is the length of a spoke
actually measured? >><BR><BR>

Wheelsmith measures from under the bend to the end of the threads. DT measures top of bend to end of
threads, Why a '298' DT spoke on a Wheelsmith ruler measres 'short'.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

<< Dan's question (see Spoke Lengths ... thread) got me wondering . . . how is the length of a
spoke actually measured? >><BR><BR>

Wheelsmith measures from under the bend to the end of the threads. DT measures top of bend to end
of threads, Why a '298' DT spoke on a Wheelsmith ruler measres 'short'.

Peter,

Just trying to see what you mean by "under the bend" contra "top of bend": I guess that's with the
threaded end downwards and the bend at the top?

. . . in which case a 298 DT spoke will be the same actual length as a 296 Wheelsmith?

/Robert

[email hidden] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

<< Dan's question (see Spoke Lengths ... thread) got me wondering . . . how is the length of a
spoke actually measured? >><BR><BR>

Wheelsmith measures from under the bend to the end of the threads. DT measures top of bend to end
of threads, Why a '298' DT spoke on a Wheelsmith ruler measres 'short'.

Peter Chisholm

Dear Peter,

DT measures top of bend to end of threads?

I'm puzzled, since my handy DT spoke ruler seems to have a nice hole to hang the spoke from and
seems to measure from under the bend.

Does DT sell spokes measured from the top of the bend as you say, but spoke rulers that measure from
under the bend?

Carl Fogel

dtswiss.comDAT EN 30430224207.pdfOpen ↗

scroll to the bottom left. shows all measurements.

Carl Fogel said:

[email hidden] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message news:<20031229091058.04365.00001943@mb-
m29.aol.com>...

Quoted message said:

<< Dan's question (see Spoke Lengths ... thread) got me wondering . . . how is the length of a
spoke actually measured? >><BR><BR>

Wheelsmith measures from under the bend to the end of the threads. DT measures top of bend to end
of threads, Why a '298' DT spoke on a Wheelsmith ruler measres 'short'.

Peter Chisholm

Dear Peter,

DT measures top of bend to end of threads?

I'm puzzled, since my handy DT spoke ruler seems to have a nice hole to hang the spoke from and
seems to measure from under the bend.

Does DT sell spokes measured from the top of the bend as you say, but spoke rulers that measure
from under the bend?

Carl Fogel

I measure the required spoke length in person at the bicycle shop by lacing two spokes directly
across the wheel using the same nipples to be used later, by trial, error, and yardstick, until they
are just right.

That is, I get the mechanic to let me verify the distance for the rim, having measured my hub and
dish if necessary, then return those two test spokes to the mechanic, do my calculations, and pay
bike shop prices for the spokes. If I'm lucky he'll be out of one, I will say sorry, and I will go
pay mail order prices for the spokes, knowing the lengths are just right.

I have the spoke ruler and it's zero is the inner face of the curve in the spoke, not the center of
the hole. There's a spoke length adjustment for that center hole distance because that is what you
measure with the trammel attachment for vernier calipers. These are two pointed rods with slots on
the center line. When clamped to your caliper jaws, the become like a calibrated compass with a
minimum of, say 3/8 inch.

I digress....

c) I would say.

My senior project at ODU: Google Groups, then "dgoncz" and some of: ultracapacitor bicycle
fluorescent flywheel inverter Equipped with BoBike Mini removable child seat, too!

Robert Brown said:

Hi all,

Dan's question (see Spoke Lengths ... thread) got me wondering . . . how is the length of a spoke
actually measured?

a) , b) c) etc . . .

Tnx to all repliers for your input. Now I have a better idea of what to ask the LBS for, when I
build my new wheels this spring.

FWIW my choice will probably be Mavic OP and Campag Rec. For front, 28 x 3 using 299mm spokes. For
back cassette side, 28 x 3 using 297mm, off-side 28 R using 281 mm. In all cases using DT or Sapim,
which are easiest to get here. Haven't decided on round or elliptical spokes so I'll read through
previous postings via Google and see what turf wars have been fought on this subject.

I'm a bit concerned about radial spoking on the front using these hubs, but radial should be OK on
the rear off-side since the tensions are so low.

Now can hardly wait for the snow to disappear . . .

/Robert

Robert Brown said:

FWIW my choice will probably be Mavic OP and Campag Rec. For front, 28 x 3 using 299mm spokes. For
back cassette side, 28 x 3 using 297mm, off-side 28 R using 281 mm. In all cases using DT or
Sapim, which are easiest to get here. Haven't decided on round or elliptical spokes so I'll read
through previous postings via Google and see what turf wars have been fought on this subject.

I'm a bit concerned about radial spoking on the front using these hubs, but radial should be OK on
the rear off-side since the tensions are so low.

Now can hardly wait for the snow to disappear . . .

/Robert

You didn't ask for any advice, but I have a question: Why radial?

Not intending to be critical of that choice, as I also have two wheels built radially. Looks cool,
but functionally neutral or slightly negative. Weight difference is essentially nothing(1) and some
hubs can, and do, break. I broke a Bullseye hub by lacing it radially.

(1) I know that "essentialy nothing" is not the same as *nothing*. Jeez.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

Robert Brown wrote: -snip spokes- Haven't

Quoted message said:

decided on round or elliptical spokes so I'll read through previous postings via Google and see
what turf wars have been fought on this subject.

I'm a bit concerned about radial spoking on the front using these hubs, but radial should be OK on
the rear off-side since the tensions are so low.

Now can hardly wait for the snow to disappear . . .

What is better about oval spokes? And what is better about a radial?

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

A Muzi said:

Robert Brown wrote: -snip spokes- Haven't

Quoted message said:

decided on round or elliptical spokes so I'll read through previous postings via Google and see
what turf wars have been fought on this subject.

---cutting--

What is better about oval spokes? And what is better about a radial?

Agreed, there are no significant advantages, even when examining factors such as weight and drag.

I've read through the reams of debate over this that have appeared in this NG the past years and I
see no point in reopening it and staking yet another claim one way or another. My statement was that
I had not decided what section spokes I would choose. I did not even claim that I was out after the
best possible solution, right?

Though there is one claimed advantage that I've *always* wanted to test:

"For showing off to girls it can't be beat" (by A. Muzi, 16 February 2002)

:-)

/Robert

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Ted-<< Mavic OP and Campag Rec.

Quoted message said:

For front, 28 x 3 using 299mm spokes. For back cassette side, 28 x 3 using 297mm, off-side 28 R
using 281 mm. In all cases using DT or Sapim, which are easiest to get here. Haven't decided on
round or elliptical spokes so I'll read through previous postings via Google and see what turf
wars have been fought on this subject.

I'm a bit concerned about radial spoking on the front using these hubs, but radial should be OK
on the rear off-side since the tensions are so low.

Now can hardly wait for the snow to disappear . . .

/Robert

You didn't ask for any advice, but I have a question: Why radial?

Not asking me either but sooper thin spokes, radial and radial left side rear, 28h...sounds like
approaching 'three strikes and you are out'.

OK, fair enough. I should probably explain a bit here. The wheels will be for long-distance (up to
300 km) rides, veteran competitions, on very smooth roads. Rider (me) weighs 70 kg / 155 lbs. Frame
is stiff aluminium (Colnago) so I want to try softish wheels, therefore I see the 28h Campag Record
/ Mavic OP as a viable combination.

I will of course retain my heavier 32h Campag Veloce / Mavic MA3 / Megamium wheels for training.

Back to the upcoming wheels. The idea was to use 3 cross on the front (that's what I meant when I
wrote "28 x 3" at the top). But you've given an alternative, see below.

Radial on off-side rear only - seems low-risk, as long as the drive side (which would be 3-cross) is
sufficiently strong to withstand the wind-up force without assistance from the opposite side.

Quoted message said:

I would recommend 14/15 all around in the rear, laced three cross if ya gotta do 28h,'

Yup. Either 14-15 DB (or possibly a heavier elliptical spoke).

Quoted message said:

laced head out or 'inside pulling'.

This is how I build my rear wheels already; my rationale with having pulling spokes on inside of
flange is to keep them away from a wandering chain. But maybe there's another more standard reason?

Quoted message said:

28/2 cross is okay on the front, even using thin spokes

That's the interesting alternative I hadn't thought of. Thanks Peter. But would 2-cross make the
spoke pull sufficiently tangential to the flange, to reduce the radial force?

Quoted message said:

but ride thinking 'light' thoughts.

Yes you have to ride wheels like that in a good mood. Dark clouds in the head weigh a few
kilos too much.

Quoted message said:

If laced radially, ya can say goodbye to your warranty, even if something not related to hub
flange happens.

The voided warranty I can live with ;-) But I want to avoid hub flange failure on the front at all
costs, so I'll try the cross-2 lacing.

I'm interested in trying other lacing configs (than the normal cross-3 and cross-4 that I've used so
far) because I have not built with them.

Just for some background - one source of inspiration for me is the display window of our LBS that
has a 1980's bike with 36h x 3 _wooden_ singles rims on it and what look like straight 15 gauge
spokes. The other one is in the next display window - one of Sean Kelly's old rides, with a 28h radially-
laced front and a 28h back with off-side radial and drive-side cross-1 - which gives 7 pairs of x's
- very weird. Aero spokes all around.

I can't believe it would have worked, and maybe he got the same idea, which may be why the bike got
left here in Sweden some years back. Does not appear to have been ridden much. That back wheel must
have wound up like a clock spring . . .

/Robert

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Robert Brown wrote: -snip spokes- Haven't

Quoted message said:

decided on round or elliptical spokes so I'll read through previous postings via Google and see
what turf wars have been fought on this subject.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

---cutting--

(am)>>What is better about oval spokes? And what is better about a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

radial?

Robert Brown said:

Agreed, there are no significant advantages, even when examining factors such as weight and drag.

I've read through the reams of debate over this that have appeared in this NG the past years and I
see no point in reopening it and staking yet another claim one way or another. My statement was
that I had not decided what section spokes I would choose. I did not even claim that I was out
after the best possible solution, right? Though there is one claimed advantage that I've *always*
wanted to test: "For showing off to girls it can't be beat" (by A. Muzi, 16 February 2002)
:-)

As good a reason as any and you seem to harbor no 'performance' illusions - enjoy!

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

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

---8<---cut--

Quoted message said:

robert<< This is how I build my rear wheels already; my rationale with having pulling spokes on
inside of flange is to keep them away from a wandering chain. But maybe there's another more
standard reason? >><BR><BR>

Lots of flange overlap with the spoke with 28 and 3 cross, so to reduce the stress/angle, I lace
28/3 cross inside pulling.

Would you recommend cross-2 on 28h wheels? Not having done 28-spoke wheels before - or cross-2
lacing for that matter - I have to ask ;-)

---8<---

Quoted message said:

[Robert] would 2-cross make the spoke pull sufficiently tangential to the flange, to reduce the
radial force? >><BR><BR>

Not sure what you mean-Radial force?

Sorry - I mean to ask whether cross-2 lacing gets the spoke to line up roughly with the tangent of
the hub, or whether it pulls more directly along the radius (the latter of course being more
dangerous since the flange can fail along the spoke holes, as you and many others have pointed out
in countless previous threads). And then I wonder if, in a cross-2 lacing, the hub will tend more to
rotate relative to the rim when accelerating (i.e. more easily than with a cross-3 lacing).

Of course what I'll do now is see if I can find a picture of a 28h cross-2 wheel on the 'net, as
soon as I finish posting this . . .

/Robert

Robert Brown wrote:

----8<-----

Quoted message said:

. . . see if I can find a picture of a 28h cross-2 wheel on the 'net, as soon as I finish posting
this . . .

/Robert

Can't find. Anybody have a link to a picture, preferably with LF hubs? /Robert

Robert Brown said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is how I build my rear wheels already; my rationale with having pulling spokes on inside of
flange is to keep them away from a wandering chain. But maybe there's another more standard
reason?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lots of flange overlap with the spoke with 28 and 3 cross, so to reduce the stress/angle, I lace
28/3 cross inside pulling.

Quoted message said:

Would you recommend cross-2 on 28h wheels? Not having done 28-spoke wheels before - or cross-2
lacing for that matter - I have to ask

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2-cross make the spoke pull sufficiently tangential to the flange, to reduce the radial force?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not sure what you mean-Radial force?

Quoted message said:

Sorry - I mean to ask whether cross-2 lacing gets the spoke to line up roughly with the tangent of
the hub, or whether it pulls more directly along the radius (the latter of course being more
dangerous since the flange can fail along the spoke holes, as you and many others have pointed out
in countless previous threads). And then I wonder if, in a cross-2 lacing, the hub will tend more
to rotate relative to the rim when accelerating (i.e. more easily than with a cross-3 lacing).

Quoted message said:

Of course what I'll do now is see if I can find a picture of a 28h cross-2 wheel on the 'net, as
soon as I finish posting this...

Cross three is as close to tangential as you can get with 28 spokes, the rule being INT(N/9) or
3.111 which gives 3 as the maximum cross number. The reason for this is not for torsional stiffness
or lowering stress on spokes for pedaling torque, but rather to prevent flange failure and to cause
interleaved spoke crossings to lie toward the midspan of spokes where they can do some good instead
of causing sharp bends.

On the other hand, I don't think you should use 28 spokes unless you already have hubs and rims of
that sort. The low spoke count fad is like spoilers on passenger cars, an allusion to world record
performance where the effect might cut a hundredth of a second off a kilometer TT. Forget it and
build durable wheels.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]