Spoking question

I have built an 18 spoke wheel w/ a 36 hole hub, works fine, many miles on
it.
andy
"Tony" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:3ffa1ce2$1@info-mid...

Quoted message said:

Is it possible to spoke a 32 hole hub, with fewer spokes. ie: to 18, 22

Any advice most welcome, as I won't to rebuild a set of Dura Ace track

hubs

Quoted message said:

to something lighter\less spokes

Cheers Tony

Quoted message said:

Is it possible to spoke a 32 hole hub, with fewer spokes.
ie: to 18, 22

Any advice most welcome, as I won't to rebuild a set of Dura Ace track hubs to something
lighter\less spokes

Cheers Tony

Yes, it's possible. Just leave out 10 or 14 spokes and plug them into your 22 or 20 hole rim. Do NOT
do this with your 32 hole rims. There are some drawbacks you need to know about.

1: Some spokes will need to be longer than others, because the symmetrical pattern of any usual
pattern is lost.

2: Because of the asymmetry, the forces on the hub will be altered,
probably for the worse. It's not as bad as a radial pattern, though.

3: Rims with fewer spokes need stronger/heavier rims because of the longer span between spokes.

4: For equivalent strength, a wheel with fewer spokes must have higher tension.

This might look cool, but it won't be easy to do. You may also want to contemplate this: 64 spokes
weigh about 380 grams, so 44 spokes would save you about 120 grams. Your new, heavier rims will add
some of that back.

Now, suppose you and your bike are 200 lb, or 90.9 kg. Now for your expense and work you have saved
about 0.1 kg, or 0.11 per cent. Do you think that will make you any faster?

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:26:42 +1100, "Tony" <[email hidden]>

may have said:

Is it possible to spoke a 32 hole hub, with fewer spokes. ie: to 18, 22

Any advice most welcome, as I won't to rebuild a set of Dura Ace track hubs to something
lighter\less spokes

36 -> 18 has been done by a number of people; the advisability of trying this is largely dependent
upon the rims you are using and the service in which they will be expected to perform. I would
personally not recommend it in most cases. Less symmetrical spoking patterns (as would be the case
with anything on a 32-hole hub other than 32 -> 16, which I wouldn't try) are likely to be even more
problematic.

Find a copy of Jobst Brandt's book, "The Bicycle Wheel", and read it. Then decide.

--
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.

tony-<< Is it possible to spoke a 32 hole hub, with fewer spokes.
ie: to 18, 22

Any advice most welcome, as I won't to rebuild a set of Dura Ace track hubs to something
lighter\less spokes >><BR><BR>

Yes, BUT the added rim weight to make it reliable will more than offset the weight savings of fewer
spokes. Why low spoke count wheels often weigh more than those with twice the number of spokes.

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

"Tony" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<3ffa1ce2$1@info-mid>...

Quoted message said:

Is it possible to spoke a 32 hole hub, with fewer spokes. ie: to 18, 22

Any advice most welcome, as I won't to rebuild a set of Dura Ace track hubs to something
lighter\less spokes

Cheers Tony

You could use 24 spokes - 16 on the right and 8 on the left. I've done this a few times and it seems
to work well. Advantages: You don't need spokes of different lengths on the same side of the wheel.
Left/right spoke tension is more evenly balanced. Disadvantages: More finesse needed to true the
wheel and achieve even spoke tension. You need a rim in which the holes are not drilled with any
offset for left and right side spokes - the spokes are in groups of three (instead of in pairs as is
normal) and so half the spokes would be on the 'wrong' side of the rim if the holes were offset. You
won't save much weight (if that is your aim) because you need a stronger rim to accommodate the
higher spoke tension, but this is still a good way of achieving a lower spoke-count wheel with a
standard 32-hole hub.

Best wishes,

Nigel Grinter

I don't know what sort of rims are anticipated for the suggested odd spoke patterns but from my
perspective, rims generally have spoke holes staggered left and right. In that perspective, placing
spokes from one side into holes angled to the other side is conducive to failure, just as the whole
idea of fewer and fewer spokes is... but they make a statement like pinwheel hub caps that spinnnnn.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Yes, BUT the added rim weight to make it reliable will more than offset the weight savings
of fewer spokes. Why low spoke count wheels often weigh more than those with twice the
number of spokes.

I wonder if anyone has actually done the calculations for this to find the optimium strength to
weight "sweet spot." One would assume bike companies would have engineers designing rims with
sophisticated software, but I'm not so sure...

Of course, light weight and adequate strength are not the only considerations for me. As far as I'm
concerned, the sweet spot is right were evolution and tradition had it for many years -- 36 spokes.

That said, I'm currently riding wheels with so few spokes they shudder when glancing off pebbles.

Matt O.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:04:54 GMT, [email hidden] may

have said:

... but they make a statement like pinwheel hub caps that spinnnnn.

I don't know about you, but the statement they make to me is "the owner of this vehicle will buy
*anything*".

--
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.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:01:16 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]>

may have said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Yes, BUT the added rim weight to make it reliable will more than offset the weight savings of
fewer spokes. Why low spoke count wheels often weigh more than those with twice the number of
spokes.

I wonder if anyone has actually done the calculations for this to find the optimium strength to
weight "sweet spot." One would assume bike companies would have engineers designing rims with
sophisticated software, but I'm not so sure...

It's probably a moving target anyway; it's likely to vary from rider to rider, and course to
course. Would 100g of wheel weight make as much difference in a ride from Houston to Austin as it
would in a ride from Montpelier to Manchester? And would the difference be equal for all the riders
on each run?

Quoted message said:

Of course, light weight and adequate strength are not the only considerations for me. As far as I'm
concerned, the sweet spot is right were evolution and tradition had it for many years -- 36 spokes.

There you go.

Quoted message said:

That said, I'm currently riding wheels with so few spokes they shudder when glancing off pebbles.

But no freewheeling extra spinners on the wheels to make it look like you're still moving while
stopped...

(I keep wondering when I'm going to see that on a bike.)

--
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.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

may have said:

... but they make a statement like pinwheel hub caps that spinnnnn.

I don't know about you, but the statement they make to me is "the owner of this vehicle will buy
*anything*".

Actually it is more like the owner will buy anything that looks like something it isn't.
--------------
Alex

Matt O'Toole said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, BUT the added rim weight to make it reliable will more than offset the weight savings of
fewer spokes. Why low spoke count wheels often weigh more than those with twice the number of
spokes.

Quoted message said:

I wonder if anyone has actually done the calculations for this to find the optimum strength to
weight "sweet spot." One would assume bike companies would have engineers designing rims with
sophisticated software, but I'm not so sure...

Recalling what sort of equipment was available from the 1950's, residue after WW-II, the state of
the art was fairly well defined by pragmatic methods. There certainly were no technical answers (any
more) and that is why it took rolling resistance tests at Avocet to reveal the reason for track glue
for tubulars. No one in this area, a hotbed of bicycling in the SF bay area with board tracks and
the like left over from the 1930's.

Spoked wheel questions were way over the heads of the cognoscenti but I believe the leading rim
manufacturers were making the optimum rims because there were outliers for hill climbs Fiamme yellow
(light weight) and loaded touring (heavy) while the rest of us rode on Fiamme Red labels and their
competition.

Quoted message said:

Of course, light weight and adequate strength are not the only considerations for me. As far
as I'm concerned, the sweet spot is right were evolution and tradition had it for many years
-- 36 spokes.

That was also a standard and not idly so. Today, when I interview riders about equipment casually, I
detect that few feel it is defensible to not ride the latest wheel fad. Wheels more than a year old
(probably <5000mi) are embarrassing to admit. Therefore, your quest will not be resolved by asking
shops or riders, because the data will be biased by fashion.

Quoted message said:

That said, I'm currently riding wheels with so few spokes they shudder when glancing off pebbles.

As I say, I've been riding the same hubs and 36 spokes for more than 20 years, MA-2 rims wearing out
a few times in between. That at 10,000mi+ per year.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:26:42 +1100, "Tony" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Is it possible to spoke a 32 hole hub, with fewer spokes. ie: to 18, 22

Any advice most welcome, as I won't to rebuild a set of Dura Ace track hubs to something
lighter\less spokes

Cheers Tony

It's pretty easy to build a 32 hole hub into a Rolf Vector Pro rim.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:04:54 GMT, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I don't know what sort of rims are anticipated for the suggested odd spoke patterns but from my
perspective, rims generally have spoke holes staggered left and right.

I've seen a rear wheel in reliable use with 16 right spokes, 8 left. It used a Campy 8 speed hub and
Velocity Deep V rim.

But the OP mentions track hubs, so 16 right and 8 left won't make sense there.

Quoted message said:

In that perspective, placing spokes from one side into holes angled to the other side is conducive
to failure,

I agree. I've seen spokes break at the threads when built like this.

Quoted message said:

just as the whole idea of fewer and fewer spokes is... but
they make a statement like pinwheel hub caps that spinnnnn.

Or that aerodynamics have been judged more important than other factors.

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:46:01 GMT, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

There certainly were no technical answers (any more) and that is why it took rolling resistance
tests at Avocet to reveal the reason for track glue for tubulars. No one in this area, a hotbed of
bicycling in the SF bay area with board tracks and the like left over from the 1930's.

Is the information about the difference in tubular adhesives archived anywhere? If no, can you
estimate the time difference in a flying kilometer time trial ridden at 50kph, where the only
difference is whether shellac or road rim cement was used to adhere the tires? I can't seem to
access the Avocet rolling resistance graphs on Terry Morse's website right now, but as I recall,
there was no distinction made there about the adhesives used for the tubular model(s).

Just how many seconds (or fractions thereof) per kilometer is shellac (track glue) likely
to be worth?

-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗ Now in our twenty-first
year. Our catalog of track equipment: eighth year online
-------------------------------

Alex Rodriguez said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:04:54 GMT, [email hidden] may have said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... but they make a statement like pinwheel hub caps that spinnnnn.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know about you, but the statement they make to me is "the owner of this vehicle will buy
*anything*".

Quoted message said:

Actually it is more like the owner will buy anything that looks like something it isn't.

As in Orwell's "1984". Today we not only have doublespeak but doublelook, however our government is
heavy into doublespeak... "energy bill", "patriot act", "no child left behind", "tax break", etc.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

John Dacey said:

Quoted message said:

There certainly were no technical answers (any more) and that is why it took rolling resistance
tests at Avocet to reveal the reason for track glue for tubulars. No one in this area, a hotbed
of bicycling in the SF bay area with board tracks and the like left over from the 1930's.

Quoted message said:

Is the information about the difference in tubular adhesives archived anywhere? If no, can you
estimate the time difference in a flying kilometer time trial ridden at 50kph, where the only
difference is whether shellac or road rim cement was used to adhere the tires? I can't seem to
access the Avocet rolling resistance graphs on Terry Morse's website right now, but as I recall,
there was no distinction made there about the adhesives used for the tubular model(s).

That's too bad. I don't know what happened to his web site but it seems to be inaccessible right
now. Those curves show the glue losses of tubulars with road type glue. If you take the tires and
arrange them by slope, the tubulars wold fall below the clinchers by a little in rolling losses.
It is that little bit that hard glue improves. What is not on the graph is a classic 110 gram
silk TT tire.

Quoted message said:

Just how many seconds (or fractions thereof) per kilometer is shellac (track glue) likely to
be worth?

That's a complicated computation that would have to take into account the cross section of the
rider, his endurance and average speed to be performed. I'm not going to approach that with a ten
foot pencil.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

whether shellac or road rim cement was used to adhere the tires? I can't seem to access the Avocet
rolling resistance graphs on Terry Morse's website right now, but as I recall, there was no
distinction

i tried the "Wayback Machine", <http://www.archive.org/web/web.php>, & got nothing:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20020601203532/http://www.terrymorse.com/>

in the future, DIY: www.httrack.com (windows & free)