Velocity Wheels - Any Good?

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

Quoted message said:

My question is: are Velocity wheels reliable? Would I do better going elsewhere, & if so where? I'd
like to get plain to heavier-duty wheels. I'm not into 32, 28, or 24 hole, radial spoking,
carbon-fiber spokes, aero rims, & the like. I'd like to get a set for 27" clinchers (~90 lbs ish
pressure), and a set for 700C clinchers (~120 lbs ish pressure). The 27" should be for a freewheel,
and the 700C should be for a cassette. Sealed hubs would be nice. I've got a pair of rims that I
got from Nashbar around 1990. Yow, these are great! The rear is 40 hole, cross 4, low flange sealed
hub; the front is 36 hole, cross 4 (I think), sealed hub.

Velocity makes some nice rims. But I would not buy these wheels. Simply because they are built up
with 14G spokes. Double butted spokes would be a better choice for a more reliable wheel.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)

Alex Rodriguez said:

Velocity makes some nice rims. But I would not buy these wheels. Simply because they are built up
with 14G spokes. Double butted spokes would be a better choice for a more reliable wheel.

The straight guage spoked wheel will be just as reliable as a wheel with butted spokes. You are
perpetuating a theory and not a hard, proven fact.

Paul Kopit said:

Quoted message said:

Velocity makes some nice rims. But I would not buy these wheels. Simply because they are built up
with 14G spokes. Double butted spokes would be a better choice for a more reliable wheel.

Quoted message said:

The straight guage spoked wheel will be just as reliable as a wheel with butted spokes. You are
perpetuating a theory and not a hard, proven fact.

14gauge or 2.0mm diameter spokes are 1.5x as stiff as 1.8-1.6mm swaged spokes. Noting that in a 32
or 36 spoke wheel, load distribution is over about four spokes and the amount of load sharing is
dependent on spoke elasticity, what do you have to support your contention?

What is the theory that is unproven about this? Have you made an effort to assess the theory's
validity by measuring spoke tension on spokes in the load affected zone of the wheel? This can be
done qualitatively by tone of plucked spokes and quantitatively with a tensiometer. Better yet is by
computer (FEA) analysis, the results of which have been published.

On what do you base your claim?

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

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

Quoted message said:

Paul Kopit said:

Quoted message said:

Velocity makes some nice rims. But I would not buy these wheels. Simply because they are built
up with 14G spokes. Double butted spokes would be a better choice for a more reliable wheel.

Quoted message said:

The straight guage spoked wheel will be just as reliable as a wheel with butted spokes. You are
perpetuating a theory and not a hard, proven fact.

14gauge or 2.0mm diameter spokes are 1.5x as stiff as 1.8-1.6mm swaged spokes. Noting that in a 32
or 36 spoke wheel, load distribution is over about four spokes and the amount of load sharing is
dependent on spoke elasticity, what do you have to support your contention?

What is the theory that is unproven about this? Have you made an effort to assess the theory's
validity by measuring spoke tension on spokes in the load affected zone of the wheel? This can be
done qualitatively by tone of plucked spokes and quantitatively with a tensiometer. Better yet is
by computer (FEA) analysis, the results of which have been published.

Mr. Brandt, let's not pussyfoot around. You are the acknowledged expert here. Tell us straight: Are
36-spoke wheels, machine laced and hand-finished with 14ga spokes any more or less durable than
the same wheels built in the same way using 14-15-14 double-butted spokes? And what are the
reasons for the differences, if any?

Thanks for your help,

Barry "Cut to the chase" Sanders

Quoted message said:

What is the theory that is unproven about this? Have you made an effort to assess the theory's
validity by measuring spoke tension on spokes in the load affected zone of the wheel? This can be
done qualitatively by tone of plucked spokes and quantitatively with a tensiometer. Better yet is
by computer (FEA) analysis, the results of which have been published.

On what do you base your claim?

I repeat:

, > The straight guage spoked wheel will be just as reliable as a

Quoted message said:

wheel with butted spokes. You are perpetuating a theory and not a hard, proven fact.

You often have stated that higher numbers of thin spokes are better than smaller number of heavier
spokes. That makes great sense to me. Last response to one of my posts, you mentioned that butted
spokes will not fatigue as quickly as straight guage spokes. An example of fatigue was notching at
the nipple end where the threads start. Most spokes don't seem to break that way. Your own spokes
have gone tens of thousands of miles without that happening. You are far more expert than I.
Assuming that the butted spokes, at high tension need to be butted, why do the non drive spokes
need butting?

Well built wheels with straight guage spokes seem to last 'til the rims wear thin and spokes don't
seem to wear out.

Have Mavic or Wheelsmith proven that their butted spokes are more reliable? The emphasis is that
butted spokes weigh less.

Paul Kopit said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The straight guage spoked wheel will be just as reliable as a wheel with butted spokes. You are
perpetuating a theory and not a hard, proven fact.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is the theory that is unproven about this? Have you made an effort to assess the theory's
validity by measuring spoke tension on spokes in the load affected zone of the wheel? This can be
done qualitatively by tone of plucked spokes and quantitatively with a tensiometer. Better yet is
by computer (FEA) analysis, the results of which have been published.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On what do you base your claim?

Quoted message said:

You often have stated that higher numbers of thin spokes are better than smaller number of heavier
spokes. That makes great sense to me. Last response to one of my posts, you mentioned that butted
spokes will not fatigue as quickly as straight guage spokes. An example of fatigue was notching at
the nipple end where the threads start. Most spokes don't seem to break that way. Your own spokes
have gone tens of thousands of miles without that happening. You are far more expert than I.
Assuming that the butted spokes, at high tension need to be butted, why do the non drive spokes
need butting?

Quoted message said:

Well built wheels with straight guage spokes seem to last 'til the rims wear thin and spokes don't
seem to wear out.

Quoted message said:

Have Mavic or Wheelsmith proven that their butted spokes are more reliable? The emphasis is that
butted spokes weigh less.

So back to the question, on what do you base the claim that thick straight gauge spoked wheels are
as reliable as ones with thin swaged spokes. I have explained that extensively here, shown
measurements and computation and published the whole lot. You can get the book in most bicycle
shops and many libraries, or you could purchase it and make good use of it in building durable
wheels from:

avocet.comwheelbook.htmlOpen ↗

By the way, it "gauge" if you insist on using this archaic measure for spoke diameters.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

Quoted message said:

Have Mavic or Wheelsmith proven that their butted spokes are more reliable?

sapim have. check this site:

seetool.beindex.phpOpen ↗

these fatigue tables are for 0-80kg load - a far greater load cycle than seen in use - so you should
see considerably greater life.

it's more of a manufacturing thing than anything else. straight gauge spokes are the lowest quality.
just like cheap vs. expensive bolts or bearings, you get what you pay for.

jb

Jim Beam said:

Quoted message said:

Have Mavic or Wheelsmith proven that their butted spokes are more reliable?

Quoted message said:

Sapim have. Check this site:

Quoted message said:

seetool.beindex.phpOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

These fatigue tables are for 0-80kg load - a far greater load cycle than seen in use - so you
should see considerably greater life.

Quoted message said:

It's more of a manufacturing thing than anything else. Straight gauge spokes are the lowest
quality. Just like cheap vs. expensive bolts or bearings, you get what you pay for.

DT and Sapim spokes are at the limit of work hardening before they are swaged. There is no increase
in strength but rather a reduction in area. Whether the fatigue charts are believable is damaged by
the claims of increased strength:

# Sapim butted spokes have two major benefits: less weight and more strength! Technological advances
# using cold forging (SAPIM Forging Technology) 'stretch' the spoke, retaining the linear molecular
# structure of the material, thereby increasing the spoke strength at the middle by at least 48%.

The cross sectional area is reduced by 1/3 so the stress increases 50% but that does not mean the
spoke has a higher ultimate strength. Such claims don't do their credibility any good. Since only
the mid sections of spokes are modified by swaging, the spokes still break at their ends. I am not
sure what they are measuring. If the test is of a whole wheel, then it is possibly correct but not
in a tensile tester with a fixed load.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

Quoted message said:

DT and Sapim spokes are at the limit of work hardening before they are swaged. There is no
increase in strength but rather a reduction in area.

say /what/???? so what happens to the dislocation density then? you /do/ know about dislocations
don't you jobst?

and how are /you/ able to tell they're at the limit of cold work just by looking at them? this one
i've just got to hear!

oh, and sapim butted spokes are *drawn*, not swaged.

Quoted message said:

The cross sectional area is reduced by 1/3 so the stress increases 50% but that does not mean the
spoke has a higher ultimate strength. Such claims don't do their credibility any good.

u.t.s. is measured by stress/area. by that definition, the strength /is/ increased, and there's no
reason why the u.t.s. of that spoke can't be greater than an unbutted spoke if it continues
to work harden. if you're trying to say the /elasticity/ of the whole spoke increases as area
decreases, that would be true, but you're not being clear.

Quoted message said:

I am not sure what they are measuring.

individual spokes, fatigue loaded, between zero and 80 kg each cycle, as per the number of cycles in
the chart.

jb

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

Quoted message said:

I repeat:

Quoted message said:

The straight guage spoked wheel will be just as reliable as a wheel with butted spokes.

Is accelerated rim cracking a form of reduced reliability? Wouldn't you expect rims to crack earlier
when laced with stiffer spokes?

Wow, are you really asking for it. Do you think that there is a difference between the ultimate
strength of a drawn dspoke vs a swaged spoke?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

DT and Sapim spokes are at the limit of work hardening before they

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

swaged. There is no increase in strength but rather a reduction

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

area.

say /what/???? so what happens to the dislocation density then?

you

Quoted message said:

/do/ know about dislocations don't you jobst?

and how are /you/ able to tell they're at the limit of cold work

just by

Quoted message said:

looking at them? this one i've just got to hear!

oh, and sapim butted spokes are *drawn*, not swaged.

Quoted message said:

The cross sectional area is reduced by 1/3 so the stress increases

50%

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but that does not mean the spoke has a higher ultimate strength.

Such

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

claims don't do their credibility any good.

u.t.s. is measured by stress/area. by that definition, the strength /is/ increased, and there's no
reason why the u.t.s. of that spoke

can't

Quoted message said:

be greater than an unbutted spoke if it continues to work harden.

if

Quoted message said:

you're trying to say the /elasticity/ of the whole spoke increases

as

Quoted message said:

area decreases, that would be true, but you're not being clear.

Quoted message said:

I am not sure what they are measuring.

individual spokes, fatigue loaded, between zero and 80 kg each

cycle, as

Quoted message said:

per the number of cycles in the chart.

jb

yes.

Quoted message said:

Do you think that there is a difference between the ultimate strength of a drawn dspoke vs a
swaged spoke?

good question! i would not expect a significant difference in u.t.s., but i would expect a
difference in failure rate. a flawed wire is much more likely to fail in the drawing process than a
hammered [swaged] one. that alone gets my vote.

Jim Beam said:

Quoted message said:

DT and Sapim spokes are at the limit of work hardening before they are swaged. There is no
increase in strength but rather a reduction in area.

Quoted message said:

say /what/???? so what happens to the dislocation density then? you /do/ know about dislocations
don't you Jobst?

Quoted message said:

and how are /you/ able to tell they're at the limit of cold work just by looking at them? this one
I've just got to hear!

Because DT states that their straight gauge spokes are work hardened to their highest density and
that further area reduction in the swaging process does not increase yield strength. You must be
aware that there is a limit to this process and that ductility for such wires is still maintained.
This is one of the features of this alloy. Even though it is work hardened, it is still ductile as
is apparent from the ability to tie a spoke into as knot without it breaking.

Quoted message said:

oh, and Sapim butted spokes are *drawn*, not swaged.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The cross sectional area is reduced by 1/3 so the stress increases 50% but that does not mean the
spoke has a higher ultimate strength. Such claims don't do their credibility any good.

Quoted message said:

u.t.s. is measured by stress/area. by that definition, the strength /is/ increased, and there's no
reason why the u.t.s. of that spoke can't be greater than an unbutted spoke if it continues
to work harden. if you're trying to say the /elasticity/ of the whole spoke increases as
area decreases, that would be true, but you're not being clear.

Well it doesn't continue to work harden. It's that simple.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not sure what they are measuring.

Quoted message said:

Individual spokes, fatigue loaded, between zero and 80 kg each cycle, as per the number of cycles
in the chart.

Well, in that case that means that their claims are false because a swaged spoke has a smaller cross
section and therefore a lower tensile strength.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

Quoted message said:

Because DT states that their straight gauge spokes are work hardened to their highest density and
that further area reduction in the swaging process does not increase yield strength.

you clearly don't fully understand all the features of the stress/strain graphs you publish in your
own book. the graph slopes upwards [elastic] and continues to slope upwards and a decreasing rate
[plastic] until it drops just before failure.

but that "drop" is because you're not allowing for the fact that the sample has deformed and
"necked" at the point which is just about to fracture. if you divide the applied stress by the new
"necked" cross section, you'll find the graph has continued to rise as the material continues to
work harden. that is a feature of high tensile materials, the kind of high tensile wires we're
trying to discuss here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

u.t.s. is measured by stress/area. by that definition, the strength

Quoted message said:

/is/ increased, and there's no reason why the u.t.s. of that spoke

can't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be greater than an unbutted spoke if it continues to work harden. if you're trying to say the
/elasticity/ of the whole spoke increases as area decreases, that would be true, but you're not
being clear.

Quoted message said:

Well it doesn't continue to work harden. It's that simple.

wow, that's an amazing technical statement. if you'd bothered to examine the d.t. web site properly,
you'd have noticed that they give uts of 1000-1100N/mm2 for 2.0, 1200N/mm2 for the center of
2.0/1.8/2.0 and 1300N/mm2 for 2.0/1.5/2.0!!! that's continued work hardening jobst! the revos are
subject to more cold work than the competitions, so they're harder!

look at the graphs in your own book jobst! if you tensioned a spoke into the plastic zone, then
slacked off, then tensioned again, it's going to return in a straight line exactly to where you left
off, not start all over again! that higher starting point is continued work hardening!

and you continue to ignore my questions about dislocations. if you could be bothered to find out
what i'm talking about, perhaps you wouldn't keep making these fundamental mistakes.

suggest ISBN:0070168938.

jb

(dianne_1234) said:

Is accelerated rim cracking a form of reduced reliability? Wouldn't you expect rims to crack
earlier when laced with stiffer spokes?

I had thought that but Brandt Jobst posted that was not the case.

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

Quoted message said:

(dianne_1234) said:

Is accelerated rim cracking a form of reduced reliability? Wouldn't you expect rims to crack
earlier when laced with stiffer spokes?

I had thought that but Brandt Jobst posted that was not the case.

Hmm. In my experience rims have died sooner when laced with stiffer spokes.

If swaged spokes last longer in fatigue because of reduced peak load changes, wouldn't those same
reduced peak load changes also make the rims last longer?