Spoke wisdom
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:35 pm
Spoke wisdom
Postby chriscole » Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:50 am
Just a stupid question from a not-very-technically-adept commuting/recreational cyclist, about spokes:
My hypothesis:
On a rear wheel, the number and crossover of spokes should be greatest (to provide greater strength / structural integrity) on the side of the wheel that has the cassette i.e. the "driven" side).
The reality:
Wandering through a bike shop the other day I noticed an essentially random arrangement of "stronger" vs "weaker" spoke configurations for the two sides of the rear wheels on a range of road bikes. i.e. some had a larger number of spokes (and more cross-lacing) on the cassette side of the wheel, and some had more on the non-cassette side of the wheel.
The question:
Do some bike shops put together wheels/bikes arse-around without realising it? Does the "sided-ness" of rear wheel spoke lacing simply not matter? Am I missing something blindingly obvious such as the bikes with fewer spokes on the cassette/driven side being chunkier/stronger spokes?
???
- greyhoundtom
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
- Location: Wherever the sun is shining
- Contact:
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby greyhoundtom » Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:13 am
In most instances it requires for the the cross laced spokes to be on the non drive side to offset the twisting action on the hub caused by the pressure on the drive side.
There again I have no doubt that a more expert explanation would be forthcoming if this question was asked in "The Shed"
Cheers,
Tom
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby RonK » Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:57 am
- sturmey archer
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:14 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby sturmey archer » Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:24 am
A, Like everything else in cycling, it's all about fashion.
B, http://sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html#half-radial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:01 pm
- Location: Canberra
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby usernameforme » Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:32 am
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby jules21 » Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:02 am
for an equivalent L-R spoke count, the spokes on the drive side must be tensioned more. i also don't understand why there isn't a higher spoke count on the drive side - probably just due to a desire for symmetric rim holes?
-
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:01 pm
- Location: Canberra
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby usernameforme » Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:30 am
Which is why a light alloy rim is 383g vs the 200g from years back... Technology must be going backwardsjules21 wrote:the main reason for today's lower spoke counts is stronger, rather than heavier rims.
This is to even up the tension on both sides of the wheel, The tension on the NDS is lower because the rim is dished to one side. Sometimes you can break spokes on the NDS because the tension is too low (letting the spoke move alot, causing it to fatigue where it crosses), if you use less of them you can bring the tension up without effecting the dish or the tension on the other side (which may already be too high). You could also lace the wheel half radial and that will also solve the problem, not by increasing the tension to the same as the DS, but removing the cross where the spokes rub/fatigue. I've never had problems with breaking spokes on the NDS, but I'm not the hardest on my wheelsjules21 wrote:I also don't understand why there isn't a higher spoke count on the drive side - probably just due to a desire for symmetric rim holes?
Hope this helps
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby zero » Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:05 pm
My fulcrum 5 has 2 to 1 lacing, ie 2 drive side spokes for every offside spoke. I like the design because rear wheels are weaker on the drive side because of dishing as well as the drive torque unwinding them.jules21 wrote:the main reason for today's lower spoke counts is stronger, rather than heavier rims.
for an equivalent L-R spoke count, the spokes on the drive side must be tensioned more. i also don't understand why there isn't a higher spoke count on the drive side - probably just due to a desire for symmetric rim holes?
The actual problems (as far as a shop building one up a random), is that the spoke count is now a multiple of 3, instead of a multiple of 2, and the hub has 2 to 1 drillings as well. ie I have a 27 hole rim, and a 27 hole hub. Virtually all hubs and rims sold to builders have multiples of 2. Required a wheel builder of factory scale who either builds (or can commission) a decent run of rims and spokes with the correct drillings.
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby zero » Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:13 pm
The wheel is faster with less spokes, because the spokes thrash the air as they go over the top of the rotation. At my usual commuting speed the spoke head is doing 80 at the top.usernameforme wrote:Which is why a light alloy rim is 383g vs the 200g from years back... Technology must be going backwardsjules21 wrote:the main reason for today's lower spoke counts is stronger, rather than heavier rims.
I've never broken a spoke on any cross laced wheel mid spoke where they were bent over each other. Its always the j-bend or at the nipple. thats also reflected in the practice of using double butted spokes - I have a set on the rear of my MTB (32 spoke, 3 cross) at the moment, which wouldn't be feasible if cross lacing was fatiguing them.jules21 wrote:You could also lace the wheel half radial and that will also solve the problem, not by increasing the tension to the same as the DS, but removing the cross where the spokes rub/fatigue. I've never had problems with breaking spokes on the NDS, but I'm not the hardest on my wheels
Hope this helps
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby high_tea » Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:16 pm
Just wondering: is it just the hub that's drilled all funky? Could you hypothetically do the same thing with a 36h rim and a 48h hub? Or 18 and 24 or whatever? Not that I can think of any compelling reason to do that rather than just buy a set of Fulcrums (and I suspect that 48h hubs are very much a specialty item anyway)...zero wrote:My fulcrum 5 has 2 to 1 lacing, ie 2 drive side spokes for every offside spoke. I like the design because rear wheels are weaker on the drive side because of dishing as well as the drive torque unwinding them.jules21 wrote:the main reason for today's lower spoke counts is stronger, rather than heavier rims.
for an equivalent L-R spoke count, the spokes on the drive side must be tensioned more. i also don't understand why there isn't a higher spoke count on the drive side - probably just due to a desire for symmetric rim holes?
The actual problems (as far as a shop building one up a random), is that the spoke count is now a multiple of 3, instead of a multiple of 2, and the hub has 2 to 1 drillings as well. ie I have a 27 hole rim, and a 27 hole hub. Virtually all hubs and rims sold to builders have multiples of 2. Required a wheel builder of factory scale who either builds (or can commission) a decent run of rims and spokes with the correct drillings.
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby high_tea » Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:19 pm
When I've had spokes fail in the middle (there was a thread about this recently) they were just sitting in a shed and didn't fail where they crossed over. Dodgy spokes would seem to have been the problem there. All my in-use failures have also been at the ends.zero wrote:The wheel is faster with less spokes, because the spokes thrash the air as they go over the top of the rotation. At my usual commuting speed the spoke head is doing 80 at the top.usernameforme wrote:Which is why a light alloy rim is 383g vs the 200g from years back... Technology must be going backwardsjules21 wrote:the main reason for today's lower spoke counts is stronger, rather than heavier rims.
I've never broken a spoke on any cross laced wheel mid spoke where they were bent over each other. Its always the j-bend or at the nipple. thats also reflected in the practice of using double butted spokes - I have a set on the rear of my MTB (32 spoke, 3 cross) at the moment, which wouldn't be feasible if cross lacing was fatiguing them.jules21 wrote:You could also lace the wheel half radial and that will also solve the problem, not by increasing the tension to the same as the DS, but removing the cross where the spokes rub/fatigue. I've never had problems with breaking spokes on the NDS, but I'm not the hardest on my wheels
Hope this helps
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:44 pm
- Location: Middle East, Melbourne
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby ironhanglider » Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:23 pm
I was going to post a similar answer to SA.sturmey archer wrote:I can add nothing, apart from:
A, Like everything else in cycling, it's all about fashion.
B, http://sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html#half-radial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Like everything else in cycling, if it is not to be found at the altar to St Sheldon it probably isn't very important.
Cheers,
Cameron
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby zero » Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:47 pm
Actually they've changed the spec of the wheels between when I researched them, and when I needed them (and thus pressed the trigger). Mine are actually 24 spoke rears (16 and 8 ). Probably easier to recreate with a 32h or 48h hub if you had to. Whether or not some of the last levels of detail matter, I couldn't say.high_tea wrote:
Just wondering: is it just the hub that's drilled all funky? Could you hypothetically do the same thing with a 36h rim and a 48h hub? Or 18 and 24 or whatever? Not that I can think of any compelling reason to do that rather than just buy a set of Fulcrums (and I suspect that 48h hubs are very much a specialty item anyway)...
-
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:01 pm
- Location: Canberra
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby usernameforme » Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:54 pm
I assume your running disk brakes? I'm not 100% sure but I read somewhere that disk brakes affect the tension of a wheel. You are not supposed to lace a disk wheel radial for this reason. I've never had issues with cross laced wheels either... Sheldon Brown does mention this in his article about wheelbuilding, if you want a more in depth explanation see that (why half-radial prevents spokes from being broken)zero wrote:
I've never broken a spoke on any cross laced wheel mid spoke where they were bent over each other. Its always the j-bend or at the nipple. thats also reflected in the practice of using double butted spokes - I have a set on the rear of my MTB (32 spoke, 3 cross) at the moment, which wouldn't be feasible if cross lacing was fatiguing them.
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:33 pm
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby DarrylH » Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:35 pm
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby human909 » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:04 pm
That actually is design is actually quite clever. The forces in the spokes produced by the torque are quite low compared to the static forces of spoke tension and the load forces that occur when the wheel is occasionally laterally loaded. The drive side experiences significantly high forces not because of the torque of the drive but due to the unsymmetrical dish of the rear wheel. Making the higher loaded drive side spokes radial is actually very an efficient use of the available strength.DarrylH wrote:I was also recently debating this question as I noticed a Shimano Ultegra wheel radially spoked on the drive side and cross spoked on the NDS. As radial spokes are not good at transferring drive (or braking) force between the hub and rim, it seems that a beefy hub is required as the drive force must transfer across the hub to the NDS or whatever you would call it in this case. The wheel feels solid enough as I did 75km on it today. My Bontrager wheel is the opposite with radial spokes on the NDS.
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:35 pm
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby chriscole » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:27 pm
Whatever one's pet theory is regarding the pros/cons of radial versus cross-laced spokes on the driven and non-driven side of the wheel, the fact remains that there seems to a random assortment of configurations in bikes sitting on the shop floor, including within the same brand of bike, and sometimes even the same (or very similar) wheelsets used across those bikes.
Does it just not matter?
Or is there dissent amongst wheel manufacturers as to which side needs to be stronger?
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby zero » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:31 pm
That would be true, except for the fact that both 6700s and rs80s are fully cross laced on the rear, and that particular ultegra hub probably can't be laced any other way because its straight pull and there is no way for the spokes to exit radially from that particular hub. Possibly darryl confused straight pull with radial.human909 wrote:
That actually is design is actually quite clever. The forces in the spokes produced by the torque are quite low compared to the static forces of spoke tension and the load forces that occur when the wheel is occasionally laterally loaded. The drive side experiences significantly high forces not because of the torque of the drive but due to the unsymmetrical dish of the rear wheel. Making the higher loaded drive side spokes radial is actually very an efficient use of the available strength.
When you cross lace the wheel, only half the spokes resist drive torque, and if you made half of them radial on a 20 spoke rear wheel, you'd be down to 5 spokes resisting drive forces.
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby zero » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:44 pm
There is no optimal design, and depends on the ratio of fast riding to climbing or hard starts, and the weight of the rider. Gears produce torque multiplication in various degrees, and climbing up a hill in a lower gear produces more torque at the hub and thus spokes than the same pedal force and cadence riding along a flat road in a taller gear.chriscole wrote:So... it begs the question...
Whatever one's pet theory is regarding the pros/cons of radial versus cross-laced spokes on the driven and non-driven side of the wheel, the fact remains that there seems to a random assortment of configurations in bikes sitting on the shop floor, including within the same brand of bike, and sometimes even the same (or very similar) wheelsets used across those bikes.
Does it just not matter?
Or is there dissent amongst wheel manufacturers as to which side needs to be stronger?
Riding fast along a flat road, cycles the spokes through load more frequently, and exposes them to more load when striking surface irregularities (and usually will strike more of them per journey due to simply eating up so much more road).
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby human909 » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:50 pm
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... t-08-27765" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;zero wrote:That would be true, except for the fact that both 6700s and rs80s are fully cross laced on the rear, and that particular ultegra hub probably can't be laced any other way because its straight pull and there is no way for the spokes to exit radially from that particular hub. Possibly darryl confused straight pull with radial.
Here are some radial laced rears. Maybe they're their not around anymore. I don't know I don't keep abreast with the latest and greatest.
A 1.8mm spoke has a ultimate strength strength of around 340kg. So with 5 spokes you are talking over 1.5 tonne of ultimate tensile strength capacity! (The pre-load would use up a certain percentage of this) Either way I wouldn't worry about breaking a spoke base of drive forces.zero wrote:When you cross lace the wheel, only half the spokes resist drive torque, and if you made half of them radial on a 20 spoke rear wheel, you'd be down to 5 spokes resisting drive forces.
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby zero » Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:06 pm
Yeah they are gone now. I don't think they had a particularly bad reputation for the ultegra versions, so its obviously not a terrible arrangement, but hopelessly painful for spoke supply when a repair is needed. I take back my observation about darryls observation skills and apologise.human909 wrote:http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... t-08-27765" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;zero wrote:That would be true, except for the fact that both 6700s and rs80s are fully cross laced on the rear, and that particular ultegra hub probably can't be laced any other way because its straight pull and there is no way for the spokes to exit radially from that particular hub. Possibly darryl confused straight pull with radial.
Here are some radial laced rears. Maybe they're their not around anymore. I don't know I don't keep abreast with the latest and greatest.
That is the perfect optimal for a perfect spoke that has not gone through assembly and not been nicked, tool damaged, or is probably not in fact sitting in a typical hub hole, and doesn't have a j-bend on it or a thread cut in the nipple end, or a straight pull rivety head thingie on it, and is mounted such that all force is applied entlrely along its axis, which simply cannot be true of a drive transmitting crossed spoke.A 1.8mm spoke has a ultimate strength strength of around 340kg. So with 5 spokes you are talking over 1.5 tonne of ultimate tensile strength capacity! (The pre-load would use up a certain percentage of this) Either way I wouldn't worry about breaking a spoke base of drive forces.zero wrote:When you cross lace the wheel, only half the spokes resist drive torque, and if you made half of them radial on a 20 spoke rear wheel, you'd be down to 5 spokes resisting drive forces.
I can bend a broken off spoke with my hand to tie it away if I apply the force at 90 degrees. ie their strength is proportional to the angle the force is applied at. if you have less you have to lean them over further to resist the drive forces, and the more you lean them over, the less well they do the weight bearing forces. Lastly they can't be cycled at 50% of their yield strength without shortly failing (ie all of the spokes of a wheel would fail if the spokes are reaching 50% in service pretty quick), and low spoke count wheels can see 1 spoke doing nearly all the work during its turn in the cycle.
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:33 pm
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby DarrylH » Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:54 pm
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby Mulger bill » Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:35 pm
It is not strictly necessary to have the crossing on the drive/brake side but if it isn't then the hub shell must be strong enough to handle the assymetric forces involved.
London Boy 29/12/2011
-
- Posts: 242
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:15 pm
- Location: Inner West, Sydney
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby Reman » Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:26 am
Spokes have almost all the strength in tensile/compressive directions and very little in shear and bending directions. Low tension causes these shearing and bending forces, usually around the hub flange where most spoke breakages occur.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Spoke wisdom
Postby human909 » Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:45 am
Thats not strictly true. Spokes like any long thin steel wire/rod have very hight tensile strength and negligible axial compression strength and bending stiffness. Shear strength should be approximately similar to tensile strength.Reman wrote:Spokes have almost all the strength in tensile/compressive directions and very little in shear and bending directions
Not really. Low tension causes unloading and loading of the spoke which then rubs, bends and fatigues. Its the fatigue that is the problem not the bending or shearing which is SIGNIFICANTLY lower that would cause breakage.Reman wrote:Low tension causes these shearing and bending forces, usually around the hub flange where most spoke breakages occur.
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.