HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:24 am 
Offline
Tubbie Guru

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 2:20 am
Posts: 5796
Location: Belgium
Hi,

Quote:
If it was a poorly laced up wheel then why would Reynolds and Zipp use it?


............Nah. I'll just shut up.... :wink:

Ciao, :wink:

_________________
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:44 am 
Superlite wrote:
As reassuring as a 15 year old having wheels built. :wink:

You're pretty funny - we're all laughing to that one. To date, I haven't even yet made that mistake. Also, i don't build wheels for Dynamik - I have an ex-Mapei mechanic to do that. Later this year I am going to a course soon with Gerd Schraner & DT Swiss; giving me reason to start later on.

But then again, why does Sheldon Brown discourage people from doing it?

superlite wrote:
Just because the lacing isn't the "norm" on my wheels doesn't mean it wasn't done right or built well. Anyone who has Mike's hand built wheels know how good they are, anyone have pics of them?

I have not stated anything regarding how good or bad Mike is - From what I hear, he is excellent, and until I ever try out his wheels, I will not make any judgement. All I am stating is that after reading the passage from Sheldon Brown, things don't sound too reassuring.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:44 am 


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am
Posts: 1610
My DT mtb wheels, also built by Garcia, have the same orientation as SL's wheels, trailing spokes heads-in.
However, my Dave Thomas Speed Dream road wheels are the opposite, trailing spokes heads-out.
My FRM road wheels (for sale BTW) are the opposite, trailing spokes heads-out.
My Spada Stiletto-Lights (for sale BTW) are straight-pull, but the trailing spoke is to the inside, so if j-bend the trailing spokes would be heads-out.
:noidea:


Attachments:
DT_mtb_01.jpg
DT_mtb_01.jpg [ 68.88 KiB | Viewed 185 times ]
DT_mtb_02.jpg
DT_mtb_02.jpg [ 113.74 KiB | Viewed 152 times ]
DTSD_road_01.jpg
DTSD_road_01.jpg [ 78.79 KiB | Viewed 189 times ]
frm_road_01.jpg
frm_road_01.jpg [ 79.95 KiB | Viewed 173 times ]
spada_road_01.jpg
spada_road_01.jpg [ 65.01 KiB | Viewed 163 times ]

_________________
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 7:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:36 pm
Posts: 4123
Just for the record before things get even more confusing:

Trailing = pull spokes
Leading = push spokes

As an example the DT Swiss wheel above have trailing/pull spokes heads out on both sides of the hub.

Gerd Schraner on the other hand prefers the pull spokes heads in for a slightly better bracing angle. He however admits there's no empirical evidence favoring one method over the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 7:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:03 am
Posts: 334
Location: Nederland
@ cadence90: DTSD_road_01 are there missing some spokes? Can you ride with it? Why is that? I ask these questions because i want to build a light wheelset and maybe i can "forget" some spokes to be lighter :D .

_________________
The bike isn't the problem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:00 pm
Posts: 588
Diverging from the classic doctrine is at least as wrong as crossing spokes below the valve hole. While it my not be wrong technically, it is simply not right. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 8:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:05 am
Posts: 7
Location: CA, USA
ifdeluxe wrote:
From Jobst Brandt:
"Tension changes resulting from pedaling cause an interlaced spoke crossing to move toward the side of the pulling spoke. At the crossing point, the tighter (pulling) spoke straightens while the other spoke bends more. This moves the crossing point inward or outward depending on the spoking. If the derailleur is near the spokes and the pulling spokes come from outside of the flange, clearance will be reduced when torque is transmitted With pulling spokes coming from inside the flange, derailleur clearance increases with torque."


There is no real "right" way for pulling spokes. . . arguments for both have been presented for as long as there have been tangentially and inter-laced wheels. . . from the "physics" and "aerodynamics" to many intangible factors. The only compelling argument I've ever heard is that a chain, over-shifted past the largest cog into the spokes, which gouges the bejesus out of the spoke elbows, will more likely lead to broken spokes over time if pulling spokes are elbow OUT. Although rider input adds nearly negligable amonts of stress on rear wheel spokes, the tiny exta force of wind-up at the hub from the rider standing on the pedals can be a factor on pulling spokes. So a pulling spoke which has a damaged elbow from a chain over-shift is more likely to break than if it is the static spoke. This is why, typically, drive side spokes can't be radially laced. . . although some of the Mavic wheels do a radial (or nearly so) drive-side, which I haven't figured out yet. . . mostly cosmetics and marketing, I'd say, but my feeling is that these have a greater likelilhood of drive-side spoke durability in the long run . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:40 pm
Posts: 43
Location: Ever Changing......
So just to review.......Jobst Brandt and Sheldon Brown say that Mike Garcia did it right......and "old knowledge" says he's wrong. It's very possible that the old knowledge didn't need to take the very tight tolerances of 9 and 10 speed drivetrains into account. Brandt and Brown seem to think that there is a theoretical possibility that lacing the "old" way is not so viable anymore.

Also I think that 120kgRider makes an extremely important point, and one that is hard to argue with.

-Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:36 pm
Posts: 4123
There's more than enough clearance in any build I've seen. Better choose another hub if you're so close that it actually matters. Sooner rather than later the derailleur will fly into the spokes due to a side load.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:56 pm
Posts: 3722
Location: Wichita, KS
My Rolf Prima Vigor rear has the push and pull drive side spokes with elbows facing out and just the opposite on the other side.....but then the Vigors pretty much go against all the traditional "rules". One thing I've noticed about my wheels is that my RDer cage is extremely close to the spokes when i'm on the biggest cog on the back. I'm talking 2mm's. In this instant It would probably have been better for them to put the elbows in to allow more clearance on the RDer cage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:05 am
Posts: 7
Location: CA, USA
ifdeluxe wrote:
So just to review.......Jobst Brandt and Sheldon Brown say that Mike Garcia did it right......

Also I think that 120kgRider makes an extremely important point, and one that is hard to argue with.

-Thanks



Actually, I think Jobst is saying the elbow in is less likely to cause clearance issues with rear der. . . . under load, the tightening, inter-laced, cross will be pulled IN if the elbow of the pulling spoke is IN. . . . but I'm not sure if there's a statement of quality or correctness there, just one of the physics of the situation. . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am
Posts: 1610
Stoeperd wrote:
@ cadence90: DTSD_road_01 are there missing some spokes? Can you ride with it? Why is that? I ask these questions because i want to build a light wheelset and maybe i can "forget" some spokes to be lighter :D .

@ Stoeperd; those are Dave Thomas Speed Dream wheels, using White Industries hubs and Sapim CX-Ray. They are the wheels I have owned the longest time (3 + years), and the ones I ride the most by far. That's why I want to sell the others, these are very durable for me, and the others I think are too light. :cry: But anyway, I have never had to touch the DTSD, they remain true and strong. They are laced with what Dave Thomas calls his "triplet" lacing, with double the spokes on the drive-side, so these have 16 on the ds and 8 on the nds; therefore the open holes on the nds. The hubs are WI RacerX mtb hubs with 130mm spacing, 32 hole.

_________________
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:05 am
Posts: 7
Location: CA, USA
drjones96 wrote:
My Rolf Prima Vigor rear has the push and pull drive side spokes with elbows facing out and just the opposite on the other side.....but then the Vigors pretty much go against all the traditional "rules". One thing I've noticed about my wheels is that my RDer cage is extremely close to the spokes when i'm on the biggest cog on the back. I'm talking 2mm's. In this instant It would probably have been better for them to put the elbows in to allow more clearance on the RDer cage.



This is like "race lacing" which uses spoke bend orientation to change the balance of tension on drive and non-drive spokes. Elbows out on drive side makes that side of the triangle just that much wider (like 3-4mm) and elbows in on the non-drive makes that side just that bit narrower, thus making drive and non-drive spokes more uniform in tension. It actually works, but there are often largest cog and rear der clearance issues if it's not done just right or if you use the wrong mix of parts (which can't be calculated or known, just discovered if you're unlucky enough to have the bad juju).

This is why a recent "fad" in lacing non-drive sides of rear wheels, radially with elbows OUT is so silly. You take the very low tension spokes, widen their base by turning the spokes backwards and cause even lower tension and greater imbalance from drive to non-drive. . . makes for a very un-healthy rear wheel. . . I've had to re-tension or re-build virtually every rear wheel I've ever seen built like this. . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:56 pm
Posts: 3722
Location: Wichita, KS
120kgRider wrote:
This is like "race lacing" which uses spoke bend orientation to change the balance of tension on drive and non-drive spokes. Elbows out on drive side makes that side of the triangle just that much wider (like 3-4mm) and elbows in on the non-drive makes that side just that bit narrower, thus making drive and non-drive spokes more uniform in tension. It actually works, but there are often largest cog and rear der clearance issues if it's not done just right or if you use the wrong mix of parts (which can't be calculated or known, just discovered if you're unlucky enough to have the bad juju)...

I actually did have a clearance problem in January when I first mounted the wheel. My bike was out of tune in general. I took it in to my LBS and they fixed the problem pretty easily but the clearance is still very close. I've been fortunate enough(cautious enough) to have not crashed and knocked my Rder inward. I had actually done this before with my old training wheels but there was tons of clearance to play with and it didn't hurt anything. I just took it in and the LBS realligned everything on the rear. I think the RDer hanger got bent in a little.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:10 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am
Posts: 1610
divve wrote:
Just for the record before things get even more confusing:

Trailing = pull spokes
Leading = push spokes

As an example the DT Swiss wheel above have trailing/pull spokes heads out on both sides of the hub.

So Divve, the descriptions I have on the photos I posted are incorrect? I should substitute "heads-out" wherever I wrote "heads-in", and vice-versa?
Sorry, I'm no wheelbuilder, so I don't know the correct terminology.
Looking at the wheel from the cassette side, say, trailing spokes are the ones going backwards or counterclockwise, pointing towards the rear?

_________________
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], fletch62, Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], trex021, WheresWaldo and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:37 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB