Different spokes for LH and RH side of a rear wheel?
Zog The Undeniable 13 March 2005 23:28:00
Any opinions on the wisdom or otherwise of using plain gauge spokes on the "drive side" of a rear wheel, and double-butted spokes on the slacker left side, or is it best to use d/b spokes for both sides?
The wheel will be 26", 36 spokes cross 3 with a 425g DT XR 4.1 rim. The hub is a modern Shimano XT M750, which gives moderate dish (centre to flange distances are 36.8mm left, 23.2mm right).
Intended for day rides on the road, so no 100lb luggage loads.
Zog The Undeniable 14 March 2005 00:48:56 [ permanent link ]
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
I can't see what you'd gain with straight gauge besides a cost savings.>
I've seen it recommended because the RH spokes are under greater tension. Some people claim it works for them in practice, although I've been led to believe that d/b spokes are as strong as p/g.
Paul Hewitt (http://www.hewittcycles.co.uk/) is a UK wheelbuilder with a good reputation who uses this method. I'll be building this wheel myself though. My usual method of lacing it, tensioning it, squeezing the spokes, jumping up and down on the rim, waving a dead chicken over the finished wheel etc hasn't resulted in any broken spokes yet, but I'm always open to new ideas...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:28:00 +0000, Zog The Undeniable wrote:
Any opinions on the wisdom or otherwise of using plain gauge spokes on > the "drive side" of a rear wheel, and double-butted spokes on the > slacker left side, or is it best to use d/b spokes for both sides?>
The wheel will be 26", 36 spokes cross 3 with a 425g DT XR 4.1 rim. The > hub is a modern Shimano XT M750, which gives moderate dish (centre to > flange distances are 36.8mm left, 23.2mm right).
SWK will be along in a minute, but I'd say use DB on both sides, but use a lighter guage on the drive side, you'll be able to tension both sides evenly then. Saying that,the last 2 rear wheels I've bought have had the same spokes both sides and lasted for 2 seasons of off-road riding, without needing a tune-up. Alan.
-- To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'. http://www.dvatc.co.uk - Off-road cycling in the North Midlands.
Zog The Undeniable wrote:> Any opinions on the wisdom or otherwise of using plain gauge spokes on> the "drive side" of a rear wheel, and double-butted spokes on the> slacker left side, or is it best to use d/b spokes for both sides?
If the idea is to have strong spokes on the drive side and more flexible spokes on the left, you don't have to use plain guage. You could have DT Alpine III* drive side and Sapim Laser or DT Revolution left. The result would be more fatigue resistant and lighter than thick pg + average db.
Pete Biggs Wrote: > Zog The Undeniable wrote:> > Any opinions on the wisdom or otherwise of using plain gauge spokes> on> > the "drive side" of a rear wheel, and double-butted spokes on the> > slacker left side, or is it best to use d/b spokes for both sides?>
If the idea is to have strong spokes on the drive side and more> flexible> spokes on the left, you don't have to use plain guage. You could have> DT> Alpine III* drive side and Sapim Laser or DT Revolution left. The> result> would be more fatigue resistant and lighter than thick pg + average> db.>
* triple butted -- see DT website>
~PB
I like Peter's idea, but I would take a very close look at the Alpine III spokes before buying them. DT has produced that model with greater distance from head to bend than I want to use and most places won't return spokes.
I think DB 14/15 right (Sapim Race) and DB 14/17 left (Sapim Laser) makes a very durable rear wheel. David Ornee, Western Springs, IL
daveornee wrote:> I like Peter's idea, but I would take a very close look at the Alpine> III spokes before buying them. DT has produced that model with> greater distance from head to bend than I want to use and most places> won't return spokes.
Has that distance actually caused problems for anyone with Alpine III? Mine have been ok so far, although I've probably done less than 4000 miles on them. I like the idea of extra-thick head-ends on the drive side because that's such a common place for spokes to break.
"Triple-butted spokes, such as the DT Alpine III, are the best choice when durability and reliability is the primary aim, as with tandems and bicycles for loaded touring. They share the advantages of single-butted and double-butted spokes. The DT Alpine III, for instance, is 2.34mm (13 gauge) at the head, 1.8mm (15 gauge) in the middle, and 2.0mm (14 gauge) at the threaded end." - www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
Benjamin Lewis 14 March 2005 05:38:22 [ permanent link ]
Zog The Undeniable wrote:
Benjamin Lewis wrote:>
I can't see what you'd gain with straight gauge besides a cost savings.>>
I've seen it recommended because the RH spokes are under greater > tension. Some people claim it works for them in practice, although I've > been led to believe that d/b spokes are as strong as p/g.
Well, I'm not sure how they imagined it could not "work in practice", but the d/b spokes are more durable at least in theory, and any "extra strength" of straight gauge spokes is wasted because spokes never brake in the centre section unless they are damaged in some way.
Well built wheels using only straight gauge spokes also "work in practice", but I'd still be inclined to go with the butted spokes, especially if the wheel is likely to experience larger-than-average loads.
-- Benjamin Lewis
A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
Zog The Undeniable wrote:> Any opinions on the wisdom or otherwise of using plain gauge spokes on > the "drive side" of a rear wheel, and double-butted spokes on the > slacker left side, or is it best to use d/b spokes for both sides?>
The wheel will be 26", 36 spokes cross 3 with a 425g DT XR 4.1 rim. The > hub is a modern Shimano XT M750, which gives moderate dish (centre to > flange distances are 36.8mm left, 23.2mm right).>
Intended for day rides on the road, so no 100lb luggage loads.
if you go to the fatigue info at sapim.be, you'll see that straight gauge spokes don't last as long as butted. but, in my experience of chasing down a shimmy, straight gauge drive side rear was a good thing because thicker is marginally stiffer. that said, because the dish is not too extreme in this instance, you'll probably be fine with butted both sides. read the dead chicken's entrails for the definitive answer.
I like Peter's idea, but I would take a very close look at the Alpine>>III spokes before buying them. DT has produced that model with>>greater distance from head to bend than I want to use and most places>>won't return spokes.>
Has that distance actually caused problems for anyone with Alpine III?> Mine have been ok so far, although I've probably done less than 4000 miles> on them. I like the idea of extra-thick head-ends on the drive side> because that's such a common place for spokes to break.>
"Triple-butted spokes, such as the DT Alpine III, are the best choice> when durability and reliability is the primary aim, as with tandems and> bicycles for loaded touring. They share the advantages of single-butted> and double-butted spokes. The DT Alpine III, for instance, is 2.34mm (13> gauge) at the head, 1.8mm (15 gauge) in the middle, and 2.0mm (14 gauge)> at the threaded end."> - www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html>
~PB>
the gauge may be fine, but the shoulder length is /way/ too long for mormal hubs unless you shim them up with multiple washers - which is a fudge. they're really intended for tandems from what i can see.
I'd say use DB on both sides, but use a lighter guage on the drive >
side, you'll be able to tension both sides evenly then.
The left side spokes will always be under less tension regardless of what spokes are used. But thinner spokes will be "stretched" more, making them less likely to go slack.
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo 14 March 2005 17:56:35 [ permanent link ]
Zog The Undeniable wrote:> Any opinions on the wisdom or otherwise of using plain gauge spokes on > the "drive side" of a rear wheel, and double-butted spokes on the > slacker left side, or is it best to use d/b spokes for both sides?>
The wheel will be 26", 36 spokes cross 3 with a 425g DT XR 4.1 rim. The > hub is a modern Shimano XT M750, which gives moderate dish (centre to > flange distances are 36.8mm left, 23.2mm right).>
Intended for day rides on the road, so no 100lb luggage loads.
Use 14/15 all around laced 3 cross. Mixed gauges do nothing to make a well built wheel any better.
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo 14 March 2005 17:59:12 [ permanent link ]
A.Lee wrote:> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:28:00 +0000, Zog The Undeniable wrote:>
Any opinions on the wisdom or otherwise of using plain gauge spokes on >>the "drive side" of a rear wheel, and double-butted spokes on the >>slacker left side, or is it best to use d/b spokes for both sides?>>
The wheel will be 26", 36 spokes cross 3 with a 425g DT XR 4.1 rim. The >>hub is a modern Shimano XT M750, which gives moderate dish (centre to >>flange distances are 36.8mm left, 23.2mm right).>
SWK will be along in a minute, but I'd say use DB on both sides, but use a> lighter guage on the drive side, you'll be able to tension both sides> evenly then.> Saying that,the last 2 rear wheels I've bought have had the same spokes> both sides and lasted for 2 seasons of off-road riding, without needing a> tune-up.> Alan.>
Sorry Alan, not true. Tension is tensio, measured in kgf, regardless of spoke gauge. Different spoke gauges do not yield different tension, left and right, again, measured in kgf.
Zog The Undeniable wrote:> Any opinions on the wisdom or otherwise of using plain gauge spokes
the "drive side" of a rear wheel, and double-butted spokes on the> slacker left side, or is it best to use d/b spokes for both sides?>
The only possible argument I could hypothesize for that arrangement is that plain spokes would be more resistant to damage from a thrown chain, but thet seems like a rather sketchy basis.
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo Wrote: > A.Lee wrote:> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:28:00 +0000, Zog The Undeniable wrote:> >
Any opinions on the wisdom or otherwise of using plain gauge spokes> on> >>the "drive side" of a rear wheel, and double-butted spokes on the> >>slacker left side, or is it best to use d/b spokes for both sides?> >>
The wheel will be 26", 36 spokes cross 3 with a 425g DT XR 4.1 rim. > The> >>hub is a modern Shimano XT M750, which gives moderate dish (centre> to> >>flange distances are 36.8mm left, 23.2mm right).> >
SWK will be along in a minute, but I'd say use DB on both sides, but> use a> > lighter guage on the drive side, you'll be able to tension both> sides> > evenly then.> > Saying that,the last 2 rear wheels I've bought have had the same> spokes> > both sides and lasted for 2 seasons of off-road riding, without> needing a> > tune-up.> > Alan.> >
Sorry Alan, not true. Tension is tensio, measured in kgf, regardless> of> spoke gauge. Different spoke gauges do not yield different tension,> left> and right, again, measured in kgf.
I agree that tension is tension. However, the thinner the spoke the more it will elongate under tension. I know we are only dealing with a fraction of a mm here, but if you can build a wheel that protects against spokes going slack under dynamic loading, you will have a stronger (not stiffer) and more durable wheel. If your rear wheel has 100 kgf tension on the right spokes and 60 kgf tension on the left spokes to bring it into correct centering, then having thinner spokes on the left will decrease the likelyhood of them going slack under dynamic load conditions. Thinner spokes increase the load effected area and bring more spokes into the action of handling dynamic loads presented to a wheel. I understand that Peter and I disagree on this point, but I hold this position. Another way to address the situation is to choose another rim, like Velocity Synergy that has an Off Center Spoke bed. With the asymetrical Synergy rim you can attain spoke support angles right to left that are closer to each other, therefore more closely matching spoke tensions right to left. I have used a combination of thinner left spokes (Sapim Laser) and asymetric spoke bed rims like Aerohead OC and Synergy OC with very good results. David Ornee, Western Springs, IL
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo 15 March 2005 18:16:30 [ permanent link ]
daveornee wrote:> If your rear wheel has 100 kgf tension on the right spokes and 60 kgf> tension on the left spokes to bring it into correct centering, then> having thinner spokes on the left will decrease the likelyhood of them> going slack under dynamic load conditions. Thinner spokes increase the> load effected area and bring more spokes into the action of handling> dynamic loads presented to a wheel.> I understand that Peter and I disagree on this point, but I hold this> position.
I DON"T disagree I have pointed out in the past that when you make these staements, you imply it's NOT POSSIBLE to make a durable wheel using same guage spokes, crossed 3 times, on both sides of a rear wheel.
I have pointed out that of the 2000 or so wheels I have built in the last 5 years, about 1/2 of them rears, NONE have mixed, thinner spokes on the left and they do not come outta true, left spokes don't break or get loose. Mixed, thinner spokes on the left are not necessary on the well built wheel using proper components for the job.
Another way to address the situation is to choose another rim, like> Velocity Synergy that has an Off Center Spoke bed. With the> asymetrical Synergy rim you can attain spoke support angles right to> left that are closer to each other, therefore more closely matching> spoke tensions right to left.> I have used a combination of thinner left spokes (Sapim Laser) and> asymetric spoke bed rims like Aerohead OC and Synergy OC with very good> results.> David Ornee, Western Springs, IL>
And I have not also with great results of hu8ndreds of wheels as I have mentioned. Wheels built 'conventionally' even with 9/10s freehubs and right side flanges really close to the centerline of the hub have been around for decades and many wheels have been built using 14/15 spokes w/o any problems.
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo wrote:> daveornee wrote:>> If your rear wheel has 100 kgf tension on the right spokes and 60 kgf>> tension on the left spokes to bring it into correct centering, then>> having thinner spokes on the left will decrease the likelyhood of>> them going slack under dynamic load conditions. Thinner spokes>> increase the load effected area and bring more spokes into the>> action of handling dynamic loads presented to a wheel.>> I understand that Peter and I disagree on this point, but I hold this>> position.>
I DON"T disagree I have pointed out in the past that when you make> these staements, you imply it's NOT POSSIBLE to make a durable wheel> using same guage spokes, crossed 3 times, on both sides of a rear> wheel.>
I have pointed out that of the 2000 or so wheels I have built in the> last 5 years, about 1/2 of them rears, NONE have mixed, thinner spokes> on the left and they do not come outta true, left spokes don't break> or get loose. Mixed, thinner spokes on the left are not necessary on> the well built wheel using proper components for the job.
Even if that's true, thinner spokes on the left make the wheel slightly lighter. I've done it for that reason, with the vague hope that it might help in other ways as well. Why use thicker spokes than needed if thinner ones are affordable?
12 gauge spokes are available for the drive side.this is not in accordance with engineering theory describing the wonders of alpine touring 3 spokes as torque rods for your wheel system but more in the BRIDGE or CATAPILLAR mode of thought. in hd touring, i haven't gone to 12's yet butt replace the drive side 14 DT yearly at about 5-6000 miles with the spoke holes and hub carefully lubed with teflon wax during and after installation.this keeps my teeth from getting worn down.
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo Wrote: > daveornee wrote:> > If your rear wheel has 100 kgf tension on the right spokes and 60> kgf> > tension on the left spokes to bring it into correct centering, then> > having thinner spokes on the left will decrease the likelyhood of> them> > going slack under dynamic load conditions. Thinner spokes increase> the> > load effected area and bring more spokes into the action of handling> > dynamic loads presented to a wheel.> > I understand that Peter and I disagree on this point, but I hold> this> > position.>
I DON"T disagree I have pointed out in the past that when you make> these> staements, you imply it's NOT POSSIBLE to make a durable wheel using> same guage spokes, crossed 3 times, on both sides of a rear wheel.>
I have pointed out that of the 2000 or so wheels I have built in the> last 5 years, about 1/2 of them rears, NONE have mixed, thinner spokes> on the left and they do not come outta true, left spokes don't break> or> get loose. Mixed, thinner spokes on the left are not necessary on the> well built wheel using proper components for the job.>
Another way to address the situation is to choose another rim, like> > Velocity Synergy that has an Off Center Spoke bed. With the> > asymetrical Synergy rim you can attain spoke support angles right to> > left that are closer to each other, therefore more closely matching> > spoke tensions right to left.> > I have used a combination of thinner left spokes (Sapim Laser) and> > asymetric spoke bed rims like Aerohead OC and Synergy OC with very> good> > results.> > David Ornee, Western Springs, IL> >
And I have not also with great results of hu8ndreds of wheels as I> have> mentioned. Wheels built 'conventionally' even with 9/10s freehubs and> right side flanges really close to the centerline of the hub have been> around for decades and many wheels have been built using 14/15 spokes> w/o any problems.
Please find the quote where I wrote where I implied "that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE" to make a durable wheel using same guage spokes. My points are still the same as I orginally stated. David Ornee, Western Springs, IL
12 gauge spokes are available for the drive side.this is not in> accordance with engineering theory describing the wonders of alpine> touring 3 spokes as torque rods for your wheel system but more in the> BRIDGE or CATAPILLAR mode of thought.> in hd touring, i haven't gone to 12's yet butt replace the drive side> 14 DT yearly at about 5-6000 miles with the spoke holes and hub> carefully lubed with teflon wax during and after installation.this> keeps my teeth from getting worn down.
Gene,
I suggest using a spoke wrench instead of your teeth when tensioning spokes. ;)
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo 16 March 2005 18:12:51 [ permanent link ]
Pete Biggs wrote:
Even if that's true, thinner spokes on the left make the wheel slightly> lighter. I've done it for that reason, with the vague hope that it might> help in other ways as well. Why use thicker spokes than needed if thinner> ones are affordable?>
~PB>
Fine and dandy altho the 'weight' savings is in the power bar weight range. Not worth the extra $, IMO.
Why use thicker spokes? Cuz it makes the wheel more durable over a wider range of riding conditions. WHY make the wheel 'just strong enough' for 90% of the riding? Why not 105% of the riding?
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo 16 March 2005 18:14:34 [ permanent link ]
daveornee wrote:>
Please find the quote where I wrote where I implied "that IT IS NOT> POSSIBLE" to make a durable wheel using same guage spokes.> My points are still the same as I orginally stated. > David Ornee, Western Springs, IL>
'Implication' implys to me that you make the stand that the only way to make a reliable wheel is to use thinner sppkes on the left. Great, use them, I see no need.
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo wrote:> Why use thicker spokes? Cuz it makes the wheel more durable over a> wider range of riding conditions. WHY make the wheel 'just strong> enough' for 90% of the riding? Why not 105% of the riding?
I agree about the 105% but are DT Competition any more durable than Sapim Laser when used on the rear left? The ends are 2.0 mm in both cases.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
