American Classic doing a "Serotta?"

Phil, Squid-in-Training <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Is this BS? Jobst?

we just went through this in "Re: dishless wheels" in early October of this year. look for my post
which posts what you just did and jobst's response.
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

David Reuteler may have said:

Phil, Squid-in-Training <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Is this BS? Jobst?

we just went through this in "Re: dishless wheels" in early October of this year. look for my post
which posts what you just did and jobst's response.

You mean this:

(quoting post by David Reuteler with reply from Jobst Brandt)

David, quoting the A C website:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"American Classic Cassette Hubs make for a stronger wheel. Our rear hubs differ from our
competitor's hubs in that the flange spacing is narrower. Logically, you would think this results
in a weaker wheel, but in actuality, this makes for a sturdier, stiffer wheel.

Jobst:

Quoted message said:

That is misleading. They didn't say how they meant that but laterally the wheel is softer and
radially it is no different, within a few micro inches. It would do them good to try to
substantiate such claims so it doesn't sound like info from spin doctors in Washington.

David, apparently still quoting A C:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Shook designed the drive side flange to be as close as possible to the cogset for the best
triangulation. The non-drive flange is closer to centre, which results in the spoke tension being
more balanced when compared to our competitor's hubs. As the non-drive side spokes are tighter,
the wheel is much stronger. This means the non-drive spokes are sharing a larger percentage of
the total load when compared to hub designs using wider spaced flanges. This increases the
expected fatigue life of all the spokes, and makes for a lively and responsive wheel.

Jobst:

Quoted message said:

Yes? But how does this give the benefits claimed... and not realized?

David, still quoting A C:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds up as a better, stronger, rear wheel."

Jobst:

Quoted message said:

In fact it may reduce spoke failure, but that is not an issue with well built dished wheels, so
who cares? Don't believe everything manufacturers claim.

(end of quoting)

Distilled version, as I understand it: The claims for the American Classic hubs are questionable. A
hub with flanges closer together will result in a wheel that is laterally softer, but radially
indistinguishable from a properly built dished wheel on a hub that has flanges with a wider spacing.
It *may* reduce spoke failure, but since in the absence of an outside agency breaking the spokes,
the phenomenon is generally indicative of improper assembly or incorrect component construction,
this should not be a reason to favor the American Classic hub..

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. Words processed in a facility that
contains nuts.

The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to that
on the right, which is the limiting factor due to space. How you acheive that vector is the only
issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under dynamic
loads, thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout and allyou would have
is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the same-not softer, not stiffer, the same.

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 Werehatrack <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Reuteler may have said:

Phil, Squid-in-Training <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Is this BS? Jobst?

we just went through this in "Re: dishless wheels" in early October of

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

year. look for my post which posts what you just did and jobst's

response.

Quoted message said:

You mean this:

(quoting post by David Reuteler with reply from Jobst Brandt)

David, quoting the A C website:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"American Classic Cassette Hubs make for a stronger wheel. Our rear hubs differ from our
competitor's hubs in that the flange spacing is narrower. Logically, you would think this
results in a weaker wheel, but in actuality, this makes for a sturdier, stiffer wheel.

Jobst:

Quoted message said:

That is misleading. They didn't say how they meant that but laterally the wheel is softer and
radially it is no different, within a few micro inches. It would do them good to try to
substantiate such claims so it doesn't sound like info from spin doctors in Washington.

David, apparently still quoting A C:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Shook designed the drive side flange to be as close as possible to the cogset for the best
triangulation. The non-drive flange is closer to centre, which results in the spoke tension
being more balanced when compared to our competitor's hubs. As the non-drive side spokes are
tighter, the wheel is much stronger. This means the non-drive spokes are sharing a larger
percentage of the total load when compared to hub designs using wider spaced flanges. This
increases the expected fatigue life of all the spokes, and makes for a lively and responsive
wheel.

Jobst:

Quoted message said:

Yes? But how does this give the benefits claimed... and not realized?

David, still quoting A C:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds up as a better, stronger, rear wheel."

Jobst:

Quoted message said:

In fact it may reduce spoke failure, but that is not an issue with well built dished wheels, so
who cares? Don't believe everything manufacturers claim.

(end of quoting)

Distilled version, as I understand it: The claims for the American Classic hubs are questionable.
A hub with flanges closer together will result in a wheel that is laterally softer, but radially
indistinguishable from a properly built dished wheel on a hub that has flanges with a wider
spacing. It *may* reduce spoke failure, but since in the absence of an outside agency breaking the
spokes, the phenomenon is generally indicative of improper assembly or incorrect component
construction, this should not be a reason to favor the American Classic hub..

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. Words processed in a facility that
contains nuts.

it sounds like you're confusing lateral with radial. lateral stability is a function of the angle
the spokes make with the hub. the closer the angle to 90 degrees, the less lateral stability. the
wider the hub spacing, the more lateral stability.

as jobst says, radial is unaffected.

jb

Bruni said:

The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to
that on the right, which is the limiting factor due to space. How you acheive that vector is
the only issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under
dynamic loads, thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout and
allyou would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the same-not softer, not
stiffer, the same.

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science"

Bruni said:

The statement "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to
that on the right, which is the limiting factor due to space. How you achieve that vector is the
only issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under
dynamic loads, thereby reducing fatigue.

I think you miss the significance of "laterally softer" which means wheel collapse is more likely.
Besides, when standing and leaning the bicycle from side to side, the top of the wheel moves to the
same side as the bottom, in a classic taco initiation move. That is why rear brakes drag on climbs
and why the close spacing of a dual pivot brake made racers open the QR (and fail to close it) on
climbs. In wet weather dragging rear brakes are audible as the grit gets between brake pad and rim.
This is the reason for the new Campagnolo single pivot, lower mechanical advantage rear brakes.

Besides all that, rear wheel lateral collapse is more of a threat with such narrow hubs. I'm sure
you've seen riders skid the rear wheel in a tight spot in a race and get crossed up. That's when the
wheel can and has collapsed.

Quoted message said:

You could put the left flange at the dropout and all you would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral
vector would be the same-not softer, not stiffer, the same.

You choose an extreme to make you point but it is invalid because no practical person would choose
to build a 4:1 (right-left) tensioned wheel. Just the same, until the left spokes go slack, they are
part of the lateral stiffness to either side. It's another "standing on the spokes" example. They
are part of the elastic equation until slack.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Vector. The left spokes can only pull leftward to balance the rightward vector regardless of
angle.Ex: at100kg tension a 10 deg spoke exerts 17.36 kg laterally, 98.5 radially. To balance this
a 20 deg. spoke is tensioned at approx 51 kg. This nets 48kg. radially. Indeed the radial is
affected. Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

it sounds like you're confusing lateral with radial. lateral stability is a function of the angle
the spokes make with the hub. the closer the angle to 90 degrees, the less lateral stability. the
wider the hub spacing, the more lateral stability.

as jobst says, radial is unaffected.

jb

Bruni said:

The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to
that on the right, which is the limiting factor

due

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to space. How you acheive that vector is the only issue. AC does this

with a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under dynamic

loads,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

allyou would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the

same-not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

softer, not stiffer, the same.

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science"

Why would a practical person choose to build a2:1 wheel when they could build a nearly 1:1 wheel
(Ritchey). The claim that these wheels are more prone to collapse is conjecture. Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bruni said:

The statement "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to
that on the right, which is the limiting factor due to space. How you achieve that vector is the
only issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under
dynamic loads, thereby reducing fatigue.

I think you miss the significance of "laterally softer" which means wheel collapse is more
likely. Besides, when standing and leaning the bicycle from side to side, the top of the wheel
moves to the same side as the bottom, in a classic taco initiation move. That is why rear brakes
drag on climbs and why the close spacing of a dual pivot brake made racers open the QR (and fail
to close it) on climbs. In wet weather dragging rear brakes are audible as the grit gets between
brake pad and rim. This is the reason for the new Campagnolo single pivot, lower mechanical
advantage rear brakes.

Besides all that, rear wheel lateral collapse is more of a threat with such narrow hubs. I'm sure
you've seen riders skid the rear wheel in a tight spot in a race and get crossed up. That's when
the wheel can and has collapsed.

Quoted message said:

You could put the left flange at the dropout and all you would have is loose spokes.
Left-lateral vector would be the same-not softer, not stiffer, the same.

You choose an extreme to make you point but it is invalid because no practical person would choose
to build a 4:1 (right-left) tensioned wheel. Just the same, until the left spokes go slack, they
are part of the lateral stiffness to either side. It's another "standing on the spokes" example.
They are part of the elastic equation until slack.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Quoted from a online dealer:

"American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are different than our
competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than ordinary hubs...The American Classic narrow
flange spacing design builds a better, stronger rear wheel."

Is this BS? Jobst?

Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do, though. I find that minimizing
dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for longer-lasting wheels that
stay truer.

When I machined my own hubs, I researched attributes of tandem-specific hubs. I found that many of
them were symmetrical, even at ordinary over-locknut sizes. I also found that no tandem-specific hub
of any kind was even close to as asymmetrical as today's road bike hubs. There may be reasons other
than sound engineering practice that this is so, but tandem use is one of those bicycle "tests of
truth" that exposes weaknesses in components.

By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke tension can increase,
therefore the total sum spoke tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
heavier load.

I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have increased the left spacing to well
over 40mm. Thus I was able to apply a high tension to both sides of the wheel, and I have not yet
had to touch that wheel even to true it in many thousands of miles. The wheel may be more flexible
laterally or more vulnerable to side loads than if it had wider left spacing, but so far I've seen
no ill effects either from it or from a symmetrical Phil Wood tandem-hubbed wheel I have with
25mm/25mm flange spacing.

Chalo Colina

Chalo Colina said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted from a online dealer:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are different than our
competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than ordinary hubs...The American Classic narrow
flange spacing design builds a better, stronger rear wheel."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is this BS? Jobst?

Quoted message said:

Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do, though. I find that
minimizing dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for longer-lasting
wheels that stay truer.

That's a lot of belief but I'm not so sure it is backed up by experience. My experience with wheels
is that the rims wear out several times before wheels are discarded for some new feature that makes
riders want to get new wheels. As I mentioned, I've been riding the same pair of wheels for more
than 20 years and have a backup set that is equally old but doesn't get used much except for when
the tire or some other item called for it. On the other hand these wheels have 120mm spacing and are
1970's Campagnolo Record hubs.

Quoted message said:

When I machined my own hubs, I researched attributes of tandem-specific hubs. I found that many of
them were symmetrical, even at ordinary over-locknut sizes. I also found that no tandem-specific
hub of any kind was even close to as asymmetrical as today's road bike hubs. There may be reasons
other than sound engineering practice that this is so, but tandem use is one of those bicycle
"tests of truth" that exposes weaknesses in components.

I have seen people collapse rear wheels and when they do, it is amazing how soft the structure
looks. Bicycles are not subjected to side loads of any significance being balanced machines. It is
only under sudden adverse conditions that laterally weak wheels come to bear. As I pointed out,
lateral flex isn't a ride comfort or control problem but it is one for brake drag.

Quoted message said:

By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke tension can increase,
therefore the total sum spoke tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
heavier load.

Not so. The tension limit for wheels with a reasonable complement of spokes is the rim. With 16
spokes and 750g aero rims this may not be the case but then these wheels don't last worth a
damn anyway.

Quoted message said:

I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have increased the left spacing to
well over 40mm. Thus I was able to apply a high tension to both sides of the wheel, and I have not
yet had to touch that wheel even to true it in many thousands of miles. The wheel may be more
flexible laterally or more vulnerable to side loads than if it had wider left spacing, but so far
I've seen no ill effects either from it or from a symmetrical Phil Wood tandem-hubbed wheel I have
with 25mm/25mm flange spacing.

This is a goal worth pursuing but with 10-speed clusters, the chain line gets farther out and the
chainwheels (right crank) get pushed farther out. You can't have everything.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

"Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Quoted from a online dealer:

"American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are different than our
competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than ordinary hubs...The American Classic
narrow flange spacing design builds

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

better, stronger rear wheel."

Is this BS? Jobst?

Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do, though. I find that
minimizing dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for longer-lasting
wheels that stay truer.

I actually OWN an American Classic freehub. I can tell y'all that it builds up into very nice
wheels. The fact that you can run the same size spoke left to right, and have about the same tension
left to right makes my wheel muy bueno.

So, while some may disagree, I agree with Chalo that the Am Classic design makes for more durable,
longer lasting wheels.

Mike

<snip

Quoted message said:

Not so. The tension limit for wheels with a reasonable complement of spokes is the rim.

If the rim is well made?

Last year I built some 36 spoke wheels with MA3 rims as per your book. The eyelets pulled
thru the rims.

The MA3 had enough stiffness to take the tension. The quality of the alloy, the eyelets and the
detailed design were not up to it.

The dish needed for a 9 speed cluster didn't help. Most of the tension was taken by 18 spokes.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Chalo Colina said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted from a online dealer:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are different than our
competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ordinary hubs...The American Classic narrow flange spacing design

builds a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

better, stronger rear wheel."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is this BS? Jobst?

Quoted message said:

Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do, though. I find that
minimizing dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for
longer-lasting wheels that stay truer.

That's a lot of belief but I'm not so sure it is backed up by experience. My experience with
wheels is that the rims wear out several times before wheels are discarded for some new feature
that makes riders want to get new wheels. As I mentioned, I've been riding the same pair of wheels
for more than 20 years and have a backup set that is equally old but doesn't get used much except
for when the tire or some other item called for it. On the other hand these wheels have 120mm
spacing and are 1970's Campagnolo Record hubs.

Quoted message said:

When I machined my own hubs, I researched attributes of tandem-specific hubs. I found that many
of them were symmetrical, even at ordinary over-locknut sizes. I also found that no
tandem-specific hub of any kind was even close to as asymmetrical as today's road bike hubs.
There may be reasons other than sound engineering practice that this is so, but tandem use is
one of those bicycle "tests of truth" that exposes weaknesses in components.

I have seen people collapse rear wheels and when they do, it is amazing how soft the structure
looks. Bicycles are not subjected to side loads of any significance being balanced machines. It is
only under sudden adverse conditions that laterally weak wheels come to bear. As I pointed out,
lateral flex isn't a ride comfort or control problem but it is one for brake drag.

Quoted message said:

By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke tension can increase,
therefore the total sum spoke tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
heavier load.

Not so. The tension limit for wheels with a reasonable complement of spokes is the rim. With 16
spokes and 750g aero rims this may not be the case but then these wheels don't last worth a
damn anyway.

Says the man that doesn't own them...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have increased the left spacing to
well over 40mm. Thus I was able to apply a high tension to both sides of the wheel, and I have
not yet had to touch that wheel even to true it in many thousands of miles. The wheel may be
more flexible laterally or more vulnerable to side loads than if it had wider left spacing, but
so far I've seen no ill effects either from it or from a symmetrical Phil Wood tandem-hubbed
wheel I have with 25mm/25mm flange spacing.

This is a goal worth pursuing but with 10-speed clusters, the chain line gets farther out and the
chainwheels (right crank) get pushed farther out. You can't have everything.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I actually OWN an American Classic freehub. I can tell y'all that it

builds

Quoted message said:

up into very nice wheels. The fact that you can run the same size spoke left to right, and have
about the same tension left to right makes my

wheel

Quoted message said:

muy bueno.

So, while some may disagree, I agree with Chalo that the Am Classic design makes for more durable,
longer lasting wheels.

I am very inclined to believe this also. I built a 7-speed cassette wheel up, and with only slight
lateral pressure on the floor, can cause the NDS spokes to go slack. The DS spokes are at
near-maximum tension, so I can't do much more. I know that this wheel build is definitely weaker
than a wheel with near-equal, and significant tension.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I actually OWN an American Classic freehub. I can tell y'all that it

builds

Quoted message said:

up into very nice wheels. The fact that you can run the same size spoke left to right, and have
about the same tension left to right makes my

wheel

Quoted message said:

muy bueno.

So, while some may disagree, I agree with Chalo that the Am Classic

design

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

makes for more durable, longer lasting wheels.

I am very inclined to believe this also. I built a 7-speed cassette wheel up, and with only slight
lateral pressure on the floor, can cause the NDS spokes to go slack. The DS spokes are at
near-maximum tension, so I can't do much more. I know that this wheel build is definitely weaker
than a wheel with near-equal, and significant tension.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Shhh! Don't tell Jobst.

Mike

i think we're talking at crossed purposes.

for good lateral stability, you want flanges further apart. at what point do you have zero lateral
stability? zero flange separation!

jb

Bruni said:

Vector. The left spokes can only pull leftward to balance the rightward vector regardless of
angle.Ex: at100kg tension a 10 deg spoke exerts 17.36 kg laterally, 98.5 radially. To balance this
a 20 deg. spoke is tensioned at approx 51 kg. This nets 48kg. radially. Indeed the radial is
affected. Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

it sounds like you're confusing lateral with radial. lateral stability is a function of the angle
the spokes make with the hub. the closer the angle to 90 degrees, the less lateral stability. the
wider the hub spacing, the more lateral stability.

as jobst says, radial is unaffected.

jb

Bruni said:

The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to
that on the right, which is the limiting factor

due

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to space. How you acheive that vector is the only issue. AC does this

with a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under dynamic

loads,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

allyou would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the

same-not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

softer, not stiffer, the same.

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science"

Chalo said:

I find that minimizing dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for
longer-lasting wheels that stay truer.

Quoted message said:

By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke tension can increase,
therefore the total sum spoke tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
heavier load.

It seems to me that if you use the near-taco technique (ala "The Bicycle=
=

Wheel"😉 to determine maximal spoke tension, you should reach the *same* =

sum tension regardless of dish. Did I miss something?

-- =

Dave dvt at psu dot edu

"Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Quoted from a online dealer:

"American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

different than our competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ordinary hubs...The American Classic narrow flange spacing design

builds a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

better, stronger rear wheel."

Is this BS? Jobst?

Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do, though. I find that
minimizing dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for longer-lasting
wheels that stay truer.

When I machined my own hubs, I researched attributes of tandem-specific hubs. I found that many of
them were symmetrical, even at ordinary over-locknut sizes. I also found that no tandem-specific
hub of any kind was even close to as asymmetrical as today's road bike hubs. There may be reasons
other than sound engineering practice that this is so, but tandem use is one of those bicycle
"tests of truth" that exposes weaknesses in components.

By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke tension can increase,
therefore the total sum spoke tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
heavier load.

I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have increased the left spacing to
well over 40mm. Thus I was able to apply a high tension to both sides of the wheel, and I have not
yet had to touch that wheel even to true it in many thousands of miles. The wheel may be more
flexible laterally or more vulnerable to side loads than if it had wider left spacing, but so far
I've seen no ill effects either from it or from a symmetrical Phil Wood tandem-hubbed wheel I have
with 25mm/25mm flange spacing.

What hub spacing are you running, Chalo? What about using a 140mm tandem hub and having the best of
both worlds -- assuming you have heel clearance and can bend the frame that far. -- Jay Beattie.

dvt dvt said:

Chalo said:

By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke tension can increase,
therefore the total sum spoke tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
heavier load.

It seems to me that if you use the near-taco technique (ala "The Bicycle Wheel"😉 to determine
maximal spoke tension, you should reach the *same* sum tension regardless of dish. Did I miss
something?

Yes. The rim is the limiting factor in spoke tension only when the rim is relatively light or
slender or soft *and* the rim diameter is large. A high spoke count helps buckle the rim too.

However, if a rim is sturdy and the spoke count normal, or especially if the rim diameter is small,
it is entirely possible to apply enough tension to cause spoke breakage, cracking at eyelets, galled
nipples, rounded wrench flats, etc., before causing any buckling of the rim.

Since I don't mess around with feeble rims, I can use the buckling point to set spoke tension if I
am building a 48 spoke road bike wheel, and usually not otherwise. The last wheelset I built this
last weekend used a 700c Alex Adventurer front rim with 36 15ga spokes, and a 24" Alex DX38 rear rim
with 36 14ga spokes. I put 1250N per-spoke tension on the front, and over 1500N on the right side
rear spokes without encountering any signs of imminent rim collapse.

Chalo Colina

Jay Beattie said:

"Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have increased the left spacing to
well over 40mm.

What hub spacing are you running, Chalo? What about using a 140mm tandem hub and having the best
of both worlds -- assuming you have heel clearance and can bend the frame that far.

Heel clearance isn't an issue with that bike, since it has 18" chainstays. But it's an older
Cannondale with huge thick stays, and cold setting the dropouts to a wider spacing would probably
require a hydraulic jack.

I measured 128mm between relaxed dropout faces, so that's how wide I made my hub.

That old Phil tandem hub I mentioned is 130mm, and I put it in an old Nishiki frame that had to be
bent open from 120mm spacing.

140mm or even 160mm spacing would be fine with me, but I've not had occasion to use it. I would only
require it in order to use a cassette hub, and I would only require a cassette hub in order to run 8
or more speeds, which seems like a bad idea given my chain loads.

Chalo Colina