The wheelbuilding thread

Everything about building wheels, glueing tubs, etc.
bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 3714
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

Which nipples are you using? It could be down to the angle the spoke eters the rim. If you were using brass nipples then the spoke would probably break but as you are using alloy nipples I suppose the nipples could go first. The other reason could be if the the spokes are too long and you have the builder has wond the spokes on past the thread on the spoke. This would deform the thread in the nipple weakening the nipple causing failure eventually.

There are a number of reason's but changing to brass may not solve the problem. I use Apim alloy nipples and have not enountered this problem I hope I won't either.

Check the angle the spoke is entering the rim first.
Last edited by bm0p700f on Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

by Weenie


Dimitri
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:07 am

by Dimitri

nipples breaking is sometimes said to be caused by having too short a spoke.

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

Imo it is most often caused by too short a spoke. The nipple head is holding on in tension and it basically pulls apart. Sometimes I use hex head nipples even if I will never use an internal wrench, just because the head is thicker. Depends on a lot of things, accuracy of measurements, even-only spoke types making length choice a tough call, etc. The DT hex head nipples still have a driver flat in them, just higher up. The Sapim ones do not.

User avatar
kavitator
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Slovenia---that forest land

by kavitator

I dont think hexagonal are stronger than classic - they are same strength as all. Dimension at rim hole is important. And yes if spoke is not trough that point (too short) all forces are on nipple that is not designed for - chop its head off :mrgreen:

eric
Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
Contact:

by eric

wassertreter- go 32h 3x in the rear. AC 350 rims are flexy.

jaketim- if the nipples are breaking at the heads it's probable that the spokes are too short. The spoke end should be flush with the bottom of the slot in end of the nipple, or sticking out by 1mm or so. Being slightly short, like 1mm, is probably ok. The spoke reinforces the nipple head. Brass is stronger so brass nipples are less likely to break due to short spokes.

nhluhr
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:43 pm
Location: Seattle

by nhluhr

Don't have these parts in my local shop so I'm hoping somebody can confirm some measurements before I order spokes, etc. It's also been a really long time since I built a wheel (like 10 years). The values in RED are those which I haven't been able to find an actual spec for.

Front:
Shimano Dura Ace HB-9000, 24h
center to flange of 35.5/35.5
flange diam of 38.0/38.0
<-- These measurements based off the 7900 hub. Are they the same for 9000?!

DT Swiss RR 440, 24h
ERD of 599
12mm alloy nipples, DT aerolite spokes, radial
Spocalc and DTool gives me a spoke length of 281.5 --> 282mm spokes.

Rear:
Powertap G3, 130mm/Shimano/28h
center to flange of 38.0/17.4
flange diam of 57.0/57.0

DT Swiss RR 440 Asymmetric, 28h
ERD of 599
Offset = 2.25??

12mm alloy nipples, DT aerolite spokes, 2x both sides

Spocalc gives me a spoke length of 283.9 and 281.9, not including the offset. Since DTool doesn't seem to alter spoke length when you switch between the RR440 and the RR440 Asym, I am assuming DTool doesn't account for the rim's offset in any way. Also, since their catalog doesn't specify the offset amount and I don't have one to measure, I'm left to 'guessing'. What I did was download a cross-sectional diagram of the RR440 Asymmetric rim and crop/resize it in photoshop to 210x210 pixels to match up with the rim's 21mm width and 21mm profile depth. Then I measured from the edge to the center of the spoke bed and got an offset of 2.25mm. Can anybody confirm this? I know a mm one way or another won't make much difference but I was just curious if this is an accurate value. When I plug that value into Spocalc, I am left with 283.6/282.0 --> 284/282 spokes.

Does all this jive?

bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 3714
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

I wish the RR440 was available in the U.K but Madsion are not importing it. If you buy the rims and hubs first and then measure there will be no guessing.

xnavalav8r
Posts: 2643
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:09 pm

by xnavalav8r

I just want to throw out a random endorsement for bikehubstore.com . For those who haven't purchased from them before, I recommend you do so next time you have a need. For those who have done business with them already, you know what great guys they are to work with.

:beerchug:

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6235
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I am building a few sets (2 sets complete, 3 to go) of traditional wheels using Ambrosio Nemesis rims (32 hole), Campy Record Hubs and DT Spokes. I pretty much stick to traditional 3x both sides lacing using DT Swiss Competition spokes and brass nipples. I have not had problems with this setup and kind of just like the symmetry of 3x lacing both sides on the rear. They ride beautifully but thought I might experiment with using DT Revolutions on the non drive side of the rear and was wondering about the real world differences between

1) Using DT Revs on the non drive side but maintaining a 3x pattern
2) Using DT Revs on the non drive side but using a 2x pattern
3) sticking with DT Comps on the non drive but using a 2x pattern.

Can you notice any difference in ride quality or are the benefits of using the lighter Revolutions strictly due to the added stretch preventing them from going slack as easily? Would using the Revolutions render the wheel a little less stiff laterally, or would it even be noticeable.

Just curious in advance of the builds as to what I might expect. I built one set using DT comps 3x all the way around both wheels which I love to ride. I built a second set the only difference using DT Revolutions on the rear NDS but still 3x. However, they are slightly short at 300mm as they weren't available in longer sizes as far as I know. It still bugs me that they're a bit short so I may rebuild them anyway. Haven't ridden them.

Any thoughts are appreciated, especially from the more experienced wheelbuilders. I'm having fun experimenting and will learn first hand through the exercise, so in the end I'll be able to report back with my actual experience.

Thanks
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 3714
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

Just my opinion 32 spoke wheels should be 3x unless the hub flanges are so large that 2x is required. I would use the thing revs/laser spokes NDS and comps/Race spokes DS. Ride quality is the same, in theory the wheel should be more durable due spoke stretch (in practice it may make little difference except on low tension limit rims) and it will be lighter. Wheel stiffness does not suffer to an extent that it is problem i my experience but the wheel is less stiff. A wheel only has to be stiff enough and it will be.

Campagolo record hubs, very nice I want a set with H+ son Archetype rims or Velocity A23's. I am going to have to do that.

OJ
Posts: 861
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:25 pm
Location: Winterpeg

by OJ

xnavalav8r wrote:I just want to throw out a random endorsement for bikehubstore.com . For those who haven't purchased from them before, I recommend you do so next time you have a need. For those who have done business with them already, you know what great guys they are to work with.

:beerchug:

Second this one.

Just ordered the BHS c472w rims, BHS hubs and Sapim Race spokes, 24 radial front/28 2 cross rear. Should be here next week. Of course I forgot to order QR's.
http://demarere.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6235
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

bm0p700f wrote:Just my opinion 32 spoke wheels should be 3x unless the hub flanges are so large that 2x is required. I would use the thing revs/laser spokes NDS and comps/Race spokes DS. Ride quality is the same, in theory the wheel should be more durable due spoke stretch (in practice it may make little difference except on low tension limit rims) and it will be lighter. Wheel stiffness does not suffer to an extent that it is problem i my experience but the wheel is less stiff. A wheel only has to be stiff enough and it will be.

Campagolo record hubs, very nice I want a set with H+ son Archetype rims or Velocity A23's. I am going to have to do that.


Thanks @bm0p00f. I was hoping you'd offer your opinion on this. I have only ever built standard "classic" type wheels using Campy hubs and low profile rims. I have an older set of Open Pros on older Campy hubs built by someone else using the 2x NDS, 3x DS pattern but I kind of prefer 3x both sides aesthetically, and in practice have not found this to be any problem at all using Campy hubs but got curious about experimenting with 2x on the NDS. My more exoitc wheels like Boras are factory built of course.

Being on the larger side of "waiflike" myself, I think I'll err on the stronger side and build with DT Comps both sides, 3x both sides as well. Same for the front.

Thanks again.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 3714
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

The 2x 3x thing works the other way around to the wheels you had built to increase the tesnion balance a little bit. This is nly useful on builds with a low tension balance with rims that have a low max tension limit. The improvement is small though and withing noise. Doing the differential lacing the way it was done for you actually decreases the tension balance so that lacing pattern makes little sense. You would however get the most of the tortional stiffness benefits of a 3x build and the lateral stiffnes benefits of a 2x build. There is a website written by someone who swears by it though and they justify it by force vector diagrams taling the line it improve lateral stiffness. It does in theory but at the expense of a bit of tension balance. As 3x both sides has worked well for so many years it does not make much practical difference.

For the build you are doing I would lace 3x boths sides unless you rim is a very low tension one then 2xDS and 3xNDS.

I think tension balance is the main reason now for radial DS lacing on some factory wheelsets.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6235
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Thanks again, and yes, I remember that discussion about 2xDS and 3xNDS. However, I didn't really study it or give it much credence mostly because 3x both sides for Campy 32 hole low profile wheels seems to have worked just fine for years. Also, the wheels I have that were built 3xDS and 2xNDS also have had no problems over many thousands of miles. I'll have to look into the theory of what you're saying a bit more later. Interesting.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

by Weenie


Dimitri
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:07 am

by Dimitri

any more input on this?

Dimitri wrote:Planning my 2013 race wheel set.

Here for critique/thoughts.

Use - Criterium, maybe the odd fast group ride/KOM attempt.

Rider weight - 80-87 kg (185cm, do contest as many sprint finishes as i can).

Rims - Gigantex 50mm Tubular 20H front, 24H rear.

Front hub - BHS SLF71W 20H.

Rear hub - Still under consideration. I am leaning towards using a ZIPP traditional 208 rear in 32H - which i will lace 24 triplet (i already own this hub).

dimensions -

L PCD 46.25mm L center to Flange 37.32mm

R PCD 58.25mm R center to Flange 17.18mm

http://www.zipp.com/_media/images/suppo ... sy-001.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i guess the NDS spacing is the possible issue???

Spokes is another concern. I want to use an aero spoke, CX-ray is the usual first choice but im wanting/thinking i'd prefer to use a heavier guage NDS spoke my last wheelset was a similar build and i did pop one NDS spoke on an off track excursion, but i also think using a heavier guage NDS spoke will build a stiffer wheel?
Normal CX/DT new aero etc dont seem to be available anywhere i can find.

So i'm considering MAC 494 for the NDS (and then 424 for the DS) some input on these would be good too.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post