Light weight tubeless compatible clincher-climbs & cobbles

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

aerobikewheels
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:00 pm

by aerobikewheels

@pushstart, If inner is the same on 340's it means they are less thick right?
wouldn't this affect dureability. And these are not as stiff as pacenti or HED so a 28/32 spoke config would be needed. 60 light weight spokes or 44 heavier spokes would be about equal in weight tough. But i prefer straight pull hubs, which are hard to find and 2:1 rear hubs, which is only possible with 24 holes (because 27hole or 30 hole rims and matching hubs are verry rare)

got this mail from powerway:

If your demands is 130mm for paris-roubaix cobbles, we’ll suggest you
take R42.

i asked for which bearings they used. but i assume they will be bigger than the R36.

I can get these hubs with a max. of 20/24 spoke holes.

In my opinion i really like the looks of them, you can put the spokes in sideways which allows for huge (maybe tiny little bit) oversized pillar heavy duty spokes (4,5 * 0,95mm) on the NDS, to elliminate the chance of breaking spokes at the NDS (they break at 440KGF), as it will make a 2:1 wheel not ride-able, also they would increase lateral stiffness.
And i really like the look of huge spokes, they are way wider than CX spokes, or really anything i've seen for a steel spoke.

First choice would be the HED C+ rim, but i don't know if i will be able to get those in a 20/24 spoke combination.

For the total weight:

Front: (687Gram)

Hub: PW R42 (118Gram)
Spokes: PSR X-TRA1425 (94Gram)
Rim: Pacenti 23SL (445Gram)
Nipples: Brass (20Gram)

Rear: (828.2Gram)

HUB PW R42 (230Gram)
Spokes NDS: 8x PHD Aero 1345 (68Gram)
Spokes DS: PSR X-TRA 1422 (75Gram)
Rim: Pacenti 23SL (445Gram)
Nipples: Brass (24Gram)

Total: 1495 Gram

A little bit heavier then the 1400 i was hoping for, but should be strong enough.
heavier hubs with bigger bearings, As some of you suggested light weight hubs have smaller bearings, Fine for most road use, but may cause trouble on the cobbles. I am waiting for a reply which bearings are used in this hub, so i can compare to DT Swiss and competitors.

Spokes should be strong enough to survive the cobbles.

Brass nipples for more durability and to eliminate the corrosion problem.

Rims, Wide rims for tubeless Use, and wide brake track also. Both Hed and Pacenti are sold standard in 18 or 20 front and 24 Rear. and looking at the reviews i can found they should be stiff enough.

I will also use nipple washers, just in case.

Any thoughts on this configuration, am i overlooking something.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 5777
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

I would not do triplet lacing on the rear unless the hub has the NDS flange moved further out than normal. I don't think the hub you are planning to use does that, the wheel would be less stiff than if you used a convential hub with conventional drilling . DT swiss road hubs have narrower rear flange seperation (50mm) pretty unles unless the rim is extremely stiff or the spoke count upped.

Why not sapim spokes they are the best and not too expensive. Lasers are good alternative to CX-rays if you are ona strict budget.
Personally I would use the archetype rim and miche hubs in 20F/24R if it were me. The extra weight (1660g for the wheelset) won't make much of a difference on that course but it will be very robust, more so than the wheelset you are planning. The HED rims in 24F/28R on royce hubs or shimano Dura Ace would be the money no object choice. Are you planning to do the ride the day before the pro's if so snap. I will be on a disc brake though I hope with 31mm challange strada tyres.

basilic
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

useful info in this thread, thanks.

a bit OT, but recurrent on this board, someone insterted this into the initial post:
[quote=edited: 'Lightweight' are a brand. 'Light weight' is what you are looking for[/quote]

while Lightweight is a brand, so is Trek, Specialized, Look, etc
all are fine English words when not capitalized, or capitalized at the start of a sentence (see Oxford dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lightweight)

it can be confusing, but the confusion is the brand's fault, or more accurately, the brand's strategy. Wheels that are not lightweight are obviously heavy.

aerobikewheels
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:00 pm

by aerobikewheels

Why not sapim spokes they are the best and not too expensive


The Sapim CX-ray is some sort of holy grail in wheel country.
Always the best choice, no matter what kind of use.

But i can not find any scientific research on spokes, a little bit frustrating.

As a simple tensile strength and fatigue test can give us lots of information. Tested for a wide range of spokes. and it is the simplest thing to test. All those over expensive tests in windtunnels are done. But not a single bicycle website or magazine has done a cheap and simple tension and fatigue test.

With a tensile and fatigue machine it would be easy to test
Tensile strength Yield strength and Ductility or stiffness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5wn-BdAgaI

Like this test but with a wider range of spokes include the CX-ray and competitors.

A simple graph for tensile and one for fatigue, where you can check the spokes you can compare on a webpage.

But i can't find any data on spokes.
I have both spoked wheels with pillar and sapim. I can't notice any difference in performance.
And none of the wheels had spoke failure yet.

As i can get the pillars for twice as cheap as the sapim spokes, i do not see why i would choose for sapim.

Pillar is the only manufacturer which has tensile graphs on their website, which makes their own spokes easy to compare, i mailed Sapim a while back for information about tensile strength. But they did not answer their e-mail. I also called, and someone from sapim would contact me, it never happened.

If Sapim indeed has the best spoke out there, why won't they share data on performance?
Could be bad luck tough and something went wrong in communication so i will mail them again.

But i have contacted some companies who do tensile and fatigue testing to see what it would cost to do a good test.
So all popular and less popular spoke's, straight pulls and J bend, same conditions, and a simple graph.

I hope it will be affordable. But it would be useful for sure.
If i got pricing, maybe some sort of crowd funding can make this test possible. As i don't want to ask manufacturers to give free spokes for testing, as they will select the best ones they have.

I will come back to this matter.

The reason why i wan't to use straight pull spokes is because of the J bend is in general 20% weaker as a straight pull.
Both for tensile and fatigue, the j-bend is the most likely place for a spoke to fail.

Also, i agree that with same spokes the nds with triplet lacing will lack in lateral stiffness, but as the stiffness of spokes have huge influence on this, you should be able to compensate this with much stiffer spokes.

As this is theory and i don't have degree in science, i think it is an interesting setup to test.
Because this is basically the only con for 2:1 lacing.

I have a few fulcrum wheels with 2:1 lacing, (fr7, fr5, fr3 and fr1) and a campagnolo zonda wheelset. wich also has 2:1 lacing but paired (i am not a fan of that because i think it is only looks to put spokes in pairs of 3)
But i never had any lack of stiffness with those or rim rub although they were 2:1 laced with only 21/16 spokes. Also i didn't hear of any failure of these wheels yet as they are widely used.

the wheel would be less stiff than if you used a convential hub with conventional drilling

This would be the case if same spokes are used, Thats why i chose for heavier spokes, especially the 8.5Gram NDS spoke which should eliminate this problem.

For paris roubaix only, i wouldnt bother too much about the weight or looks only. But i sell wheels.
3 of my customers will ride the paris roubaix challenge and asked me to make a aluminum clincher wheel for them. Which they also want to use for training and in the mountains. 1500 gram is already heavier as i was planning.

Unfortunately i won't start this year, still active in U23 category of racing, so i will be busy enough with that.

I agree tough that a disc option would be best for Paris Roubaix. Unfortunately they have rim brake bikes. so that is not an option.

Post Reply