|   wheelset questions | reroo
Dec 7, 2001 12:52 PM | | I'm thinking about a new wheelset for my stock trials bike. Rear-CK disc. Based on Cambrias advertised products, it's probably going to be a 32 hole, but I'll see if they can't dig me up a 36. Do I need to get the steel free hub and heavy spring for it?What lacing should I do? How about a good rear rim suggestion?
For the front hub, I'll just do like the previous post said and get something cheap from Cambria. How about the lacing on the front? If I don't land flat(unless I F up, which I have been know to do from time to time) can I get away with radial? How about a ~400 gram rim? Thanks for your input. |
| re: wheelset questions | Optikal
Dec 7, 2001 1:17 PM | | You can use the aluminum King iff you use a cassette with a carrier, like the XT, XTR, Ultegra (new) and DA. Don't use individial cogs on the aluminum, it will tear the hub to shreds.
For the rear, you can't go wrong with 3X. People argue about 4x or 2x, or going radial on the non drive side to save weight. Why? Get some decent spokes, alloy nipples, and a regualar 3x, you KNOW thats going to be strong.
For the front I use 15g spokes and alloy nips to save a bit of weight. I don't really see the advantages of going to radial, its not going to be as strong for nose wheelies, front tire hops etc, and it only saves you a little tiny bit of weight. If you are getting a disk hub, then you definatly don't want radial lacing. I like the DT Hugi front hubs, one of the lightest out there, sealed bearing, and sexy. The Mavic 317 is a great lightweight disk rim. If you're running rim brakes, checkout the 221, also a nice rim. |
| re: wheelset questions | Tomtomtommot
Dec 7, 2001 4:08 PM | | radially lacing is stronger for landings, that go straight down, but if you are slightly skewed, it will buckle easier.
also u cant use radial lacing with discs |
| re: wheelset questions | Regder
Dec 7, 2001 7:54 PM | | According to a few individuals that I have a huge amount of respect for it doesn't matter if you are running 32 or 36 hole as the strength difference isn't much or noticeable, plus finding a 36h king is a nightmare, take the 32 and be happy. As the other posters mentioned, the steel freehub isn't outright neccessary if you run a cassette with a spider (all high end shimano's). Seeing that you are probably not going to be able to find a 36h king, your only choice is 3x. Choose between 521, Rhyno, or DX32/BMF for the rear.
On the front, yes you can get away with radial. It's more than strong enough and when build properly it offers greater lateral stiffness, always nice in trials. 517 (~400 grams) is a good rim for the front |
| re: wheelset questions | Tomtomtommot
Dec 8, 2001 10:00 AM | | more eyelets in a rim doesnt make that much difference to strength, but when you do bend it, its much easier to get a 36h completely straight. thats the advantage really. |
| re: wheelset questions | Regder
Dec 9, 2001 1:27 AM | | the sole purpose of eyelets is to prevent nipple pull through by spreading the force over a larger area, they have no affect on actual wheel strength. 36h is a little bit easier to get straight, but there really is no big difference between the two as far as ease of true. |
| re: wheelset questions | wheely30km
Dec 13, 2001 1:25 AM | | For the rear :
If you can, take 36 instead of 32 holes, 14G spokes, brass nipples and a wide rim with eyelets.
Why ? Because more spokes, brass nipples and eyelets allow you to have a greater spoke tension, thus a stronger wheel. Thicker spokes also give a stronger wheel because they're less flexible in length. Spoke manufacturers can tell you that a thinner spoke can be more fatigue resistant than a thicker spoke, but flexy spokes makes a weak wheel.
For the front, if you want to have a different wheel, try a "snowflake" cross pattern, as strong as a cross 3, maybe even stronger. 32h and a normal rim (mavic 317 or so) should be enough.
I would avoid radial for 2 reasons :
- the force on the hub's flange is so big that you can break it (I did it once with cross 3, so with radial /!\
- the landing force is concentrated on very few spokes, on a cross 3 it's splitted on several spokes.
If you want to save weight, take a light hub, titanium skewers, lightweight rim strip (will save you as much as alloy nipples would), for me it's the only places where you can save weight on the wheels.
Putting oil on the nipples has pro & con's : You can have a higher spoke tension, adjustments are easier, but you have to check your wheel more often. |
| re: wheelset questions | Regder
Dec 14, 2001 2:03 AM | | I disagree with you on a few points there, in order:
The spoke tension is relatively the same regardless of whether you build a wheel with brass nipples/eyelets/or more spokes, especially when there isn't much of a difference between 32 and 36h. Actually I'm pretty sure the wheels with fewer spokes have a much higher spoke tension to counteract the fact that there are less spokes. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, eyelets serve no purpose other than to spread the force on a greater area preventing pull through in some rims. There are rims like the Arrow Racing and the Alex DX32 that do not come with nipples, will they be inherently weak as a result? Further, brass nipples are only favourable to prevent rounding them off should you true your wheels often, as far as function they work the same as aluminum.
You also brought up the thicker spoke debate. A thicker spoke will build a stiffer but not neccessarily a stronger wheel. The butted spoke will allow the wheel to flex spreading the impact to a greater area, rather than being concentrated in one spot. A result of the stiffer wheel is broken spokes, broken hub flanges, and isolated damage to the rim such as a dent in the sidewall. I see you have had experiences with some of the above. It's the same concept that is applied to skyscrapers, they are designed to sway in the wind rather than be rock solid, effectively keeping them in one piece and not on top of us.
The infamous snowflake patter has no strength advantages and will actually add weight as a result of the spokes being stronger.
I woould go for radial for a few reasons
-it's lighter by a bit, looks cleaner, is laterally stiffer
-when built properly the hub will be fine, if you are having so many problems perhaps it's time to go to a butted spoke and maybe even get a new wheelbuilder
I'm not even going to touch your last two points cause it's 5 in the morning right now |
| Reactions to Redger's post | wheely30km
Dec 18, 2001 6:42 AM | | i "eyelets serve no purpose other than to spread the force on a greater area preventing pull through in some rims"
That's why you can put a greater spoke tension on an rim with eyelets
i "brass nipples are only favourable to prevent rounding them off should you true your wheels often"
They are also stronger, allowing you to tighten them more.
i "A thicker spoke will build a stiffer but not neccessarily a stronger wheel. The butted spoke will allow the wheel to flex spreading the impact to a greater area, rather than being concentrated in one spot. A result of the stiffer wheel is broken spokes, broken hub flanges, and isolated damage to the rim such as a dent in the sidewall"
A thiner spoke will give a softer wheel, with more risks to bend the rim. It's a compromise. You can also get a dent with a thin spokes wheel. To avoid it I prefer higher tire pressure and rider's smoothness. In 13 years, I broke a hub's flange once (it was an ultralight road hub), 3 spokes, and once a cracked spoke hole (same cheap wheel). But I bent several rims with thin spokes or spokes not enough tighten.
i "Actually I'm pretty sure the wheels with fewer spokes have a much higher spoke tension to counteract the fact that there are less spokes"
So if a 32 holes rim can accept a high spoke tension, if you put the same spoke tension on a 36 holes rim, the wheel can only be stronger, even if it's only a bit stronger, right ?
i "The infamous snowflake patter has no strength advantages and will actually add weight as a result of the spokes being stronger"
Correct, it was just a suggestion to get a different looking wheel.
i "I woould go for radial for a few reasons: when built properly the hub will be fine"
I disagree: it will always be harder for the hub: instead of having a tengential tension, you have a vertical tension.
i "perhaps it's time to go to a butted spoke and maybe even get a new wheelbuilder"
I tried butted or straight gauge spokes, cross-3, radial, snowflake pattern, normal or high spoke tension, Rims wit/without eyelets, alum. and brass nipples. And I build my rims for 10 years now. But I'm not offended :-)
You can take the strongest wheel, if you miss a big gap/drop/jump/move, you'll destroy it.
I can just tell that my experience proved me that a stiffer wheel (due to a higher spoke tension) has less chances to bend.
Anyway, I hope you sleeped well and liked that someone replied. |
| Reactions to Redger's post | Regder
Dec 20, 2001 9:01 PM | | well to start off I would like to say that yes I do appreciate your response, there's just one inherent problem in all of this. Such matters have been discussed numerous times by individuals of likely far greater mechanical ability than you or I. Debates regarding the subject of wheelbuilding are numerous and can be found on every tech page known to man. Hell, even a question such as whether one should use spoke prep and what kind comes under heated discussion. There certainly isn't a proper single answer for any of the issues brought up above.
Given the above I will concede to your experience. Truth be told I have yet to build a wheel from the ground up, though I am inching to do it. My post was a collection of information that I have gathered from reading multiple articles and discussions on the matter, and I stand by it. However you have the greater experience and I will yield to it for the time being till I have some of my own to contend your post. |
| |
