Radially laced drive side!

Wayne Pein said:

http://www.excelsports.com/new.asp?page=8
&description=R560+Road+Wheelset+9%2D10+
speed&vendorCode=SHIM&major=1&minor=24

http://tinyurl.com/y8g3a2

try that. hth
\\paul

Wayne Pein said:

Excel Sports had Shimano R560 wheels with drive side radial lacing on
sale for just $188.88. That's a good deal, but I think they ought to pay
me a little more to take them off their hands :-) Was the builder drunk
when these were put together? Can the rear wheel be relaced correctly by
swapping the non-drive and drive spokes? Is Shimano and Excel crazy for
trying to foist these on unsuspecting buyers?

Even the Dura Ace wheels are laced radially on the drive side. And why not?
Do you think that the torque can't be transmitted to the non-drive side
via the hubshell?

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu

Wayne Pein said:

Excel Sports had Shimano R560 wheels with drive side radial lacing on
sale for just $188.88. That's a good deal, but I think they ought to pay
me a little more to take them off their hands :-) Was the builder
drunk when these were put together? Can the rear wheel be relaced
correctly by swapping the non-drive and drive spokes? Is Shimano and
Excel crazy for trying to foist these on unsuspecting buyers?

http://www.excelsports.com/new.asp?page=8
&description=R560+Road+Wheelset+9%2D10+
speed&vendorCode=SHIM&major=1&minor=24

Wayne

The way they come due to the gigantic nipples at the hub..samo for the
other models above this wheel. Problem is going to be reliability, not
the basic design. If the hub is stiff enough, radial right side is no
problem..look at the 'Kry-4-me syriums, from Mavic.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

The way they come due to the gigantic nipples at the hub..samo for the
other models above this wheel. Problem is going to be reliability, not
the basic design. If the hub is stiff enough, radial right side is no
problem..look at the 'Kry-4-me syriums, from Mavic.

They do have 36 spokes though. ;^)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Wayne Pein said:

Excel Sports had Shimano R560 wheels with drive side radial lacing on
sale for just $188.88. That's a good deal, but I think they ought to pay
me a little more to take them off their hands :-) Was the builder
drunk when these were put together? Can the rear wheel be relaced
correctly by swapping the non-drive and drive spokes? Is Shimano and
Excel crazy for trying to foist these on unsuspecting buyers?

http://www.excelsports.com/new.asp?page=8
&description=R560+Road+Wheelset+9%2D10+
speed&vendorCode=SHIM&major=1&minor=24

Everybody talk about how bad an idea radial spoking is for the drive
side. But I note that Shimano, Mavic, Campag all have wheels of this
design. Oh well...
--

Wayne Pein said:

Excel Sports had Shimano R560 wheels with drive side radial lacing on
sale for just $188.88. That's a good deal, but I think they ought to pay
me a little more to take them off their hands :-) Was the builder
drunk when these were put together? Can the rear wheel be relaced
correctly by swapping the non-drive and drive spokes? Is Shimano and
Excel crazy for trying to foist these on unsuspecting buyers?

If they are, they are hardly alone. Lots of boutique wheels are built
this way. I think the real reason they do this is (aside from some
misplaced belief that it's cool) is to keep those spokes away from the
derailleur. They then have to make the hub body big and thick (and
heavier) so the hub won't snap in half from torsion. Go figure. They
will probably give you lots of technobabble to convince you there is a
good engineering reason for this, but ignore it.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize
_`\(,_ | our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant
(_)/ (_) | largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks -- Thomas
Edison, 1922

Lou Holtman said:

Even the Dura Ace wheels are laced radially on the drive side. And why not?
Do you think that the torque can't be transmitted to the non-drive side
via the hubshell?

Only after you beef up that hubshell. Why bother? Lace the right side
with a nice crossing pattern and you don't need a 1" diameter hubshell.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. --
_`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
(_)/ (_) |

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Excel Sports had Shimano R560 wheels with drive side radial lacing on
sale for just $188.88. That's a good deal, but I think they ought to pay
me a little more to take them off their hands :-) Was the builder drunk
when these were put together? Can the rear wheel be relaced correctly by
swapping the non-drive and drive spokes? Is Shimano and Excel crazy for
trying to foist these on unsuspecting buyers?

Even the Dura Ace wheels are laced radially on the drive side. And why
not?
Do you think that the torque can't be transmitted to the non-drive side
via the hubshell?

The problem isn't just with torque xfer through the hub. Torque will be
transferred to the rim based upon the tension of the spokes. Spokes with
greater tension will transfer greater load. If we're talking about a dished
rear wheel, the spokes are typically under much higher tension on the
non-drive-side. Those spokes (the non-drive-side spokes) won't be of much
help until the tension has come up substantially, which will happen after
rotational pre-load on the drive-side occurs.

So my theory is that a wheel that's built with radial drive-side spoking is
going to experience a greater amount of rotation at the rim, relative to the
hub, than a standard wheel (because it's going to rotate until the
non-drive-side spokes experience enough tension to hold things in place).
I've assumed in the past that that would be a bad thing, but why? It might
make the wheel feel a bit less solid, and perhaps the spokes are going to go
through a wider range of cycling. But overall tension under load might be
more consistent from one side to the other, which sounds like a good thing.

Interesting.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

<major snippage>

For your consideration (found years ago when considering radial
spoking):

http://www.geocities.com/spokeanwheel/lacingsr.htm

D'ohBoy

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Excel Sports had Shimano R560 wheels with drive side radial lacing
on sale for just $188.88. That's a good deal, but I think they
ought to pay me a little more to take them off their hands :-) Was
the builder drunk when these were put together? Can the rear wheel
be re-laced correctly by swapping the non-drive and drive spokes?
Is Shimano and Excel crazy for trying to foist these on
unsuspecting buyers?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even the Dura Ace wheels are laced radially on the drive side. And
why not? Do you think that the torque can't be transmitted to the
non-drive side via the hub shell?

Quoted message said:

The problem isn't just with torque xfer through the hub. Torque
will be transferred to the rim based upon the tension of the spokes.
Spokes with greater tension will transfer greater load. If we're
talking about a dished rear wheel, the spokes are typically under
much higher tension on the non-drive-side. Those spokes (the
non-drive-side spokes) won't be of much help until the tension has
come up substantially, which will happen after rotational pre-load
on the drive-side occurs.

Not so. Torque is transferred by change in tension of spokes and
their angle as long as no spokes are slack. If you grab a copy of
"the Bicycle Wheel" off your shelf, you'll find a magnified diagram
showing a wheel with torque.

Quoted message said:

So my theory is that a wheel that's built with radial drive-side
spoking is going to experience a greater amount of rotation at the
rim, relative to the hub, than a standard wheel (because it's going
to rotate until the non-drive-side spokes experience enough tension
to hold things in place). I've assumed in the past that that would
be a bad thing, but why? It might make the wheel feel a bit less
solid, and perhaps the spokes are going to go through a wider range
of cycling. But overall tension under load might be more consistent
from one side to the other, which sounds like a good thing.

Quoted message said:

Interesting.

The only thing I find interesting is that the shaft of the hub must be
substantially larger to take the torque. On the one hand, riders
worry about every gram of components and then they use deep cross
section rims and hubs with a large center piece.

Jobst Brandt

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On the one hand, riders worry about every gram of components and then
they use deep cross section rims and hubs with a large center piece.

Add a beer gut and 10 pounds of water in a backpack. I snicker to
myself every time I see some obese guy wearing a Camelback riding a Trek
Madone. But hey, if it makes 'em happy tain't none of my business. I'm
glad to see them out riding bike.

Not only deep cross section rims and fat hubs, but also groupsets in
general that weigh as much or more than group sets of 25-30 years ago.
Heck, there are some wheels with 20 spokes that weigh more than some 36
spoke wheels of yore. The weight savings in bikes nowadays comes from
lightening the frame and fork to unsustainable levels and/or using
sketchy materials that really aren't suited to the application.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem isn't just with torque xfer through the hub. Torque
will be transferred to the rim based upon the tension of the spokes.
Spokes with greater tension will transfer greater load. If we're
talking about a dished rear wheel, the spokes are typically under
much higher tension on the non-drive-side. Those spokes (the
non-drive-side spokes) won't be of much help until the tension has
come up substantially, which will happen after rotational pre-load
on the drive-side occurs.

Not so. Torque is transferred by change in tension of spokes and
their angle as long as no spokes are slack. If you grab a copy of
"the Bicycle Wheel" off your shelf, you'll find a magnified diagram
showing a wheel with torque.

So it's not about a difference in tension, only a complete absence of
tension (slack)? A spoke that's under much greater tension is doing the same
work as a spoke under less tension? I would have thought that there was a
fixed value of work (torque?) that's applied to the rim, and that, when
spoke tension is uneven, the tighter spokes are doing more work, because...
because what? Because I'm under the mistaken assumption that tension = load
= work?

I'm looking at the book; are you talking about the diagrams in the section
on "stiffness?"

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

> Excel Sports had Shimano R560 wheels with drive side radial lacing
> on sale for just $188.88. That's a good deal, but I think they
> ought to pay me a little more to take them off their hands :-) Was
> the builder drunk when these were put together? Can the rear wheel
> be re-laced correctly by swapping the non-drive and drive spokes?
> Is Shimano and Excel crazy for trying to foist these on
> unsuspecting buyers?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even the Dura Ace wheels are laced radially on the drive side. And
why not? Do you think that the torque can't be transmitted to the
non-drive side via the hub shell?

Quoted message said:

The problem isn't just with torque xfer through the hub. Torque
will be transferred to the rim based upon the tension of the spokes.
Spokes with greater tension will transfer greater load. If we're
talking about a dished rear wheel, the spokes are typically under
much higher tension on the non-drive-side. Those spokes (the
non-drive-side spokes) won't be of much help until the tension has
come up substantially, which will happen after rotational pre-load
on the drive-side occurs.

Not so. Torque is transferred by change in tension of spokes and
their angle as long as no spokes are slack. If you grab a copy of
"the Bicycle Wheel" off your shelf, you'll find a magnified diagram
showing a wheel with torque.

Quoted message said:

So my theory is that a wheel that's built with radial drive-side
spoking is going to experience a greater amount of rotation at the
rim, relative to the hub, than a standard wheel (because it's going
to rotate until the non-drive-side spokes experience enough tension
to hold things in place). I've assumed in the past that that would
be a bad thing, but why? It might make the wheel feel a bit less
solid, and perhaps the spokes are going to go through a wider range
of cycling. But overall tension under load might be more consistent
from one side to the other, which sounds like a good thing.

Quoted message said:

Interesting.

The only thing I find interesting is that the shaft of the hub must be
substantially larger to take the torque. On the one hand, riders
worry about every gram of components and then they use deep cross
section rims and hubs with a large center piece.

Jobst Brandt

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On the one hand, riders worry about every gram of components and then
they use deep cross section rims and hubs with a large center piece.

Add a beer gut and 10 pounds of water in a backpack. I snicker to
myself every time I see some obese guy wearing a Camelback riding a Trek
Madone. But hey, if it makes 'em happy tain't none of my business. I'm
glad to see them out riding bike....

On hot, humid day I average 3-oz./mile fluid consumption, so for a
51-mile ride I would need 10 pounds of fluid (assuming S.G. ~ 1).

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

> Excel Sports had Shimano R560 wheels with drive side radial lacing
> on sale for just $188.88. That's a good deal, but I think they
> ought to pay me a little more to take them off their hands :-) Was
> the builder drunk when these were put together? Can the rear wheel
> be re-laced correctly by swapping the non-drive and drive spokes?
> Is Shimano and Excel crazy for trying to foist these on
> unsuspecting buyers?

Not so. Torque is transferred by change in tension of spokes and
their angle as long as no spokes are slack. If you grab a copy of
"the Bicycle Wheel" off your shelf, you'll find a magnified diagram
showing a wheel with torque.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interesting.

The only thing I find interesting is that the shaft of the hub must be
substantially larger to take the torque. On the one hand, riders
worry about every gram of components and then they use deep cross
section rims and hubs with a large center piece.

Jobst Brandt

Fair enough about the big hubs, though as you know you can make a big
hub with thin walls and be pretty close to break even on the weight. I
won't pretend to defend Shimano's unusual design; even my wacky
low-spoke-count race wheels aren't that eccentric.

But as I've noted in the past, if you're going to trash gram-counting
riders for deep-section rims, you ought to at least acknowledge that
said rims are the right compromise of aero versus weight if you care
about performance. On all but the steepest climbs, the aero wheel is
going to be measurably (not greatly, but measurably) faster, assuming
equal riders.

Are there riders who shouldn't really fret about such stuff so much?
Sure. I once saw a rider walk away from a middle-cat Spring training
race holding a broken Zipp wheel. He probably wishes he had raced on his
cheap wheels. I raced my entire CX season this year on a garage-sale
Bianchi road frame, and a canti-post fork I traded an old leather saddle
for. The rest of the bike was just as ghetto, but it mostly worked, and
I had fun.

The average century rider should probably worry about this stuff even
less. My supervisor at work bought a $1000 "fitness" (flat-bar road)
bike this year, and is enjoying it. When I looked over the specs, the
only thing I fretted about was the frou-frou wheels, which were clearly
anti-functional for any likely purchaser of this model. And yet I'm sure
the mildly funky wheels helped sell these bikes.

My club-mate swears one day I'm going to buy a complete shiny bicycle
and be converted to non-bodgery, but I'm skeptical. And cheap.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On the one hand, riders worry about every gram of components and then
they use deep cross section rims and hubs with a large center piece.

Add a beer gut and 10 pounds of water in a backpack. I snicker to
myself every time I see some obese guy wearing a Camelback riding a Trek
Madone. But hey, if it makes 'em happy tain't none of my business. I'm
glad to see them out riding bike.

Not only deep cross section rims and fat hubs, but also groupsets in
general that weigh as much or more than group sets of 25-30 years ago.

Interesting if true! Can you pull some numbers that back this up? I'd
note one conceded exception: the notorious Huret Jubilee derailer:

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34096&sid=cfface
a32c61370c384195f7a29caa42

But I think there's some good reasons the Jubilee faded from the market.

Quoted message said:

Heck, there are some wheels with 20 spokes that weigh more than some 36
spoke wheels of yore. The weight savings in bikes nowadays comes from
lightening the frame and fork to unsustainable levels and/or using
sketchy materials that really aren't suited to the application.

Note that bikes have been getting lighter for a long time, and that the
real revolution recently has been that both Titanium and carbon fibre
became inexpensive and available enough to use for bikes. Meanwhile,
aluminum frame technology is so mature it's practically the default
choice for frames these days.

In the case of carbon fibre, I don't think it makes sense to call it
sketchy. I see the case for avoiding it in seatposts (the failure modes
there are quite creepy), but mainstream carbon frames don't seem any
less reliable than typical steel or aluminum frames. Meanwhile, its
performance in this application is undeniable. The numbers I've seen
suggest the only Ti frames that compete with CF frames on weight are
very, very flexible. I'm talking to you, Ghisallo!

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

My club-mate swears one day I'm going to buy a complete shiny bicycle
and be converted to non-bodgery, but I'm skeptical. And cheap.

You can do both.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

My club-mate swears one day I'm going to buy a complete shiny bicycle
and be converted to non-bodgery, but I'm skeptical. And cheap.

You can do both.

Hellooo! I'm CHEAP!

I'm cheap,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:08:24 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On the one hand, riders worry about every gram of components and then
they use deep cross section rims and hubs with a large center piece.

Add a beer gut and 10 pounds of water in a backpack. I snicker to
myself every time I see some obese guy wearing a Camelback riding a Trek
Madone. But hey, if it makes 'em happy tain't none of my business. I'm
glad to see them out riding bike.

Not only deep cross section rims and fat hubs, but also groupsets in
general that weigh as much or more than group sets of 25-30 years ago.

Interesting if true! Can you pull some numbers that back this up? I'd
note one conceded exception: the notorious Huret Jubilee derailer:

Why do you characterise this gear as "notorious"? There was some very
good engineering in it - like the locking mechanism for the pivot
bolt.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On the one hand, riders worry about every gram of components and
then they use deep cross section rims and hubs with a large
center piece.

Add a beer gut and 10 pounds of water in a backpack. I snicker to
myself every time I see some obese guy wearing a Camelback riding a
Trek Madone. But hey, if it makes 'em happy tain't none of my
business. I'm glad to see them out riding bike....

On hot, humid day I average 3-oz./mile fluid consumption, so for a
51-mile ride I would need 10 pounds of fluid (assuming S.G. ~ 1).

On a hot humid day, I average one 20 oz water bottle per hour. The rest
of the time I average less than that. A 51 mile ride would take about
three water bottles at 90 degrees- back in my racing days it might have
been four. Unless you are taking electrolytes in, excessive hydration
will result in hyponatremia and hypokalemia which in turn can contribute
to muscle cramps and- if carried to extremes- seizures. Recent research
has shown that over-hydrating athletes routinely drop their electrolyte
levels to a dangerous degree. It's also been shown that top marathon
runners drink far less than their hyper-hydrated also-rans.

Much of the athletic training literature advocates excessive hydration.
E.g., "if you get thirsty it's too late." [censored]. If the human
thirst mechanism was that bad, the species would have died out back in
Olduvai Gorge.

As with lactic acid, there are a lot of myths about hydration. One of
them is the myth of "hydrate or die." A great marketing sound bite, but
reality is less simplistic.