The wheelbuilding thread
Moderator: robbosmans
Forum rules
The spirit of this board is to compile and organize wheels and tires related discussions.
If a new wheel tech is released, (say for example, TPU tubes, a brand new tire, or a new rim standard), feel free to start the discussion in the popular "Road". Your topic will eventually be moved here!
The spirit of this board is to compile and organize wheels and tires related discussions.
If a new wheel tech is released, (say for example, TPU tubes, a brand new tire, or a new rim standard), feel free to start the discussion in the popular "Road". Your topic will eventually be moved here!
So I'm going to be building a triplet rear wheel using a BHS SL211. I'm just a little bit confused about the SCC part of Jeremy's formula. SCC is defined as spoke circle diameter multiplied by pi. Is the spoke circle diameter the distance from centre to centre of opposite spoke holes?
Thanks for any help.
Thanks for any help.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Looking at getting a set of wheels built up. Thinking Ambrosio Crono F20, Record 32H hubs and DT Revs as spokes.
A few questions
1. Are the DT Revs a bad idea, esp on DS rear? Mainly going for them because they are much cheaper than the CX-Rays
2. What cross on these? 2x front 3x back?
3. Was considering the Nemesis but would that be overkill for me and my 62kg frame? I don't exactly ride Pave (but do race Irish roads)
Thanks
A few questions
1. Are the DT Revs a bad idea, esp on DS rear? Mainly going for them because they are much cheaper than the CX-Rays
2. What cross on these? 2x front 3x back?
3. Was considering the Nemesis but would that be overkill for me and my 62kg frame? I don't exactly ride Pave (but do race Irish roads)
Thanks
bm0p700f wrote:I interpreted the same way you have. It spits out sensible results that way.
Where I'm getting confused is that in the example I saw, the flange diameter wasn't multiplied by pi and it produces a difference of over 1mm
For example the plan is to lace a Stans Alpha 340 to the SL211. ERD is 593, flange diameter is 49.3 and spacing is 16.75. For 48x5 DT Spoke Calc gives a 290.2mm spoke length. From my understanding of Jeremy's formula to get the adjustment for triplet you do:
290.2 - (49.3*pi)*0.0104
However following the example it would be:
290.2 - 49.3*0.0104
-
- in the industry
- Posts: 5777
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
- Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
- Contact:
Euan as I have never done it I cannot say for sure. The latter calc gives a result closer to Mackers method of 2.3 or 3.4x fro2x or 3x wheels.
Diarmudic 3x lacing for 32H please. Rev's will be fine I am running a set of 28H RR415 with Sapim Lasers all round and they are fine. However there is alittle bit of flex when standing up and putting out some torque. The use of 2.0/1.8/2.0mm spokes DS helps cure that problem and leads to a durable rear wheel. You could try ACI's 2.0/1.7/2.0mm spokes or Sapims D-light 2.0/1.65/2.0mm spokes for greater stiffness over revs/lasers.
I would use Sapim spokes as they are cheaper than DT spokes and ust as good and Race DS and Lasers NDS is a combination that works well.
Diarmudic 3x lacing for 32H please. Rev's will be fine I am running a set of 28H RR415 with Sapim Lasers all round and they are fine. However there is alittle bit of flex when standing up and putting out some torque. The use of 2.0/1.8/2.0mm spokes DS helps cure that problem and leads to a durable rear wheel. You could try ACI's 2.0/1.7/2.0mm spokes or Sapims D-light 2.0/1.65/2.0mm spokes for greater stiffness over revs/lasers.
I would use Sapim spokes as they are cheaper than DT spokes and ust as good and Race DS and Lasers NDS is a combination that works well.
Question about lacing patteren
Why some wheels didnt have standard over-under patteren (at 2x cross)?
just under- under or over- over
Or for straight pull spokes that is not important (like Campagnolo Bora 2)?
Why some wheels didnt have standard over-under patteren (at 2x cross)?
just under- under or over- over
Or for straight pull spokes that is not important (like Campagnolo Bora 2)?
-
- in the industry
- Posts: 5777
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
- Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
- Contact:
My understanding is the under over or over under crossing was to brace the spokes to help prevent unwinding and improve wheel stiffness. I cannot see however how it does either. I have always built under-over/over-under beause I think it looks better.
I cannot see any good reason why laing under under or over over would not work as well.
I cannot see any good reason why laing under under or over over would not work as well.
spoke is virtualy shorter - but has any effect on stiffnes?
like tideing and soldering at crossing - i didnt try but it has no effect on stiffnes ( prowheelbuilders internet book)
unwinding is problem mostly at NDS where spokes mostly are radial
i got better feeling with over under (or under over) than over over or under under - when put tension on spokes
at crossing they just " glue" togehter
like tideing and soldering at crossing - i didnt try but it has no effect on stiffnes ( prowheelbuilders internet book)
unwinding is problem mostly at NDS where spokes mostly are radial
i got better feeling with over under (or under over) than over over or under under - when put tension on spokes
at crossing they just " glue" togehter
On the rear it makes a difference which way the pulling spokes go. If the last cross has the pulling spoke on the outside (head out), tension on it will pull the spokes inward. If it's on the inside (head in), tension on the pulling spoke will pull the spokes outward. That reduces clearance between the spoke and derailleur cage.
I read somewhere that Mavic did an experiment on their pro neutral support wheels, lacing them each way and recording what happened. They found that the heads in lacing for pulling spokes made more reliable wheels. I wish I could find that reference again.
I've done both and haven't noticed a difference, but since I only build wheels for myself my sample size is too small.
I read somewhere that Mavic did an experiment on their pro neutral support wheels, lacing them each way and recording what happened. They found that the heads in lacing for pulling spokes made more reliable wheels. I wish I could find that reference again.
I've done both and haven't noticed a difference, but since I only build wheels for myself my sample size is too small.
-
- Shop Owner
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
- Location: NoVA/DC
eric wrote:On the rear it makes a difference which way the pulling spokes go. If the last cross has the pulling spoke on the outside (head out), tension on it will pull the spokes inward. If it's on the inside (head in), tension on the pulling spoke will pull the spokes outward. That reduces clearance between the spoke and derailleur cage.
I read somewhere that Mavic did an experiment on their pro neutral support wheels, lacing them each way and recording what happened. They found that the heads in lacing for pulling spokes made more reliable wheels. I wish I could find that reference again.
I've done both and haven't noticed a difference, but since I only build wheels for myself my sample size is too small.
i remember that test. heads out had marginally shorter lifespan. pulling spokes with all elbows left and with all elbows right were off the back.
i typically build with pulling spokes heads out bc i find it easier/more intuitive to turn the hub that way when building.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Hi
I have a set of ultegra wh-r6600 wheels but the rear hub is knackered, would this dura ace hub work??? http://item.mobileweb.ebay.co.uk/viewit ... 6061493269
Cheers
I have a set of ultegra wh-r6600 wheels but the rear hub is knackered, would this dura ace hub work??? http://item.mobileweb.ebay.co.uk/viewit ... 6061493269
Cheers