Author Topic: spoke count  (Read 4094 times)

spoke count
« on: 02 March, 2018, 03:44:35 pm »
This post is almost sure in the wrong place so feel free to move it where it should be...

My predicament is as follows. I currently ride a bike equipped with Fulcrum 700 db wheels that have a 24 spoke count front and rear. I want to invest in a dynamo hub (sp v8) and have the option of running 28 or 32 spokes. Advice is to have more spokes at rear than front. I cannot afford a rear wheel too. What should I do? 28 or 32 spokes front. My bike will be used on/off road and I weigh about 90kg.

Any help/advice/suggestions gratefully received.

Cheers,

Doo
I dunno why anybody's doing this!

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: spoke count
« Reply #1 on: 02 March, 2018, 03:49:51 pm »
Your current rear wheel won't stop working just because you've changed the front.  It'll just look a bit silly.

Personally, I wouldn't go less that 32 on a 700c wheel with rim brakes.  Means you stand a reasonable chance of getting the wheel true enough to keep riding with a broken spoke.

whosatthewheel

Re: spoke count
« Reply #2 on: 02 March, 2018, 03:54:02 pm »
Depending on the spoke, each one weighs between 5 and 8 grams... so saving 4 spokes saves 32 grams at best.

32 puts less load on each individual spoke, so they last longer, it can built with a marginally lower spoke tension, so the rim lasts longer. In your case it is a no brainer

Here is a brief article I wrote with most of what you need to know about a spoked wheel

https://whosatthewheel.com/2017/11/12/the-bicycle-wheel-basic-dynamics/

Re: spoke count
« Reply #3 on: 02 March, 2018, 03:54:12 pm »
^Thanks Kim, the rim is disc brakes.
I dunno why anybody's doing this!

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: spoke count
« Reply #4 on: 02 March, 2018, 03:58:42 pm »
^Thanks Kim, the rim is disc brakes.

Ah, I inferred rim brakes from your reference to the V8 hub.

Re: spoke count
« Reply #5 on: 02 March, 2018, 04:02:11 pm »
^Ah yes, well the SP 'whatever it is' hub is what I mean.
Thanks to all replies thus far. Some (away from forum) have spoke about reduced aerodynamics with more spokes? I dunno. I just wanna get it right before I spend my bucks.
I dunno why anybody's doing this!

whosatthewheel

Re: spoke count
« Reply #6 on: 02 March, 2018, 04:14:06 pm »
^Ah yes, well the SP 'whatever it is' hub is what I mean.
Thanks to all replies thus far. Some (away from forum) have spoke about reduced aerodynamics with more spokes? I dunno. I just wanna get it right before I spend my bucks.

I once worked out the surface area equivalent of a set of 32 spokes at something like four square inches (that varies with spokes)... the turbulence created by spokes is a much more complicated issue than just surface area, but the moral is 28 or 32 = no perceivable difference

However you can and you should use butted spokes... Alpina ACI if you are poor, Sapim D-Light if you are rich, Sapim Race if you are somewhere in between

Re: spoke count
« Reply #7 on: 02 March, 2018, 04:19:17 pm »
^Thanks Whosatthewheel, Sapim Race win
I dunno why anybody's doing this!

Re: spoke count
« Reply #8 on: 02 March, 2018, 06:29:10 pm »
I would definitely use 32 spokes with a hub like that because the flanges are not widely spaced. These hubs build into appreciably weaker wheels as a result, for any given number of spokes.

cheers

Samuel D

Re: spoke count
« Reply #9 on: 03 March, 2018, 06:46:22 am »
Here’s a little experiment that puts in perspective the drag of spokes.

Lift the bicycle off the ground and spin the wheel. Put your hand near the spokes and feel the faint flow of air caused by their drag. Now put your hand near the tyre and notice the strong flow from air merely entrained by the slick tyre. This is before you displace the whole thing down the road at 30 km/h when of course the tyre’s drag increases tremendously and the spokes’ drag increases by much less.

The concept of spoke drag is irrelevant outside literal racing (and even then, it rarely affects results).

Re: spoke count
« Reply #10 on: 03 March, 2018, 08:23:26 am »
Here’s a little experiment that puts in perspective the drag of spokes.

Lift the bicycle off the ground and spin the wheel. Put your hand near the spokes and feel the faint flow of air caused by their drag. Now put your hand near the tyre and notice the strong flow from air merely entrained by the slick tyre. This is before you displace the whole thing down the road at 30 km/h when of course the tyre’s drag increases tremendously and the spokes’ drag increases by much less.

The concept of spoke drag is irrelevant outside literal racing (and even then, it rarely affects results).

I am wondering if wide aeroblade spokes could be coupled to a trimmable hub allowing the spokes to act as real aerofoils and generate beneficial lift in crosswinds. I am sure the technology exists. Revolutionise wheels for marginal gains😐. Now where have I heard that??

citoyen

  • Occasionally rides a bike
spoke count
« Reply #11 on: 03 March, 2018, 10:47:17 am »
I had exactly the same ‘predicament’ when building a dynohub front wheel for my audax bike.

I just built the front wheel to my desired spec anyway, with 32 spokes.

Sure, the rims are mismatched, the front wheel has more spokes than the rear, and the front is Centerlock while the rear is 6-bolt, but these are not the things that keep me awake at night.
"The future's all yours, you lousy bicycles."

Re: spoke count
« Reply #12 on: 03 March, 2018, 11:13:45 am »
I have two 28 spoke SON hubs that have done 1,000s of miles, including 3 PBPs.  I built them 2x contrary to Schmidt's advice, but not over-tight.  Never gone out of true nor broken a spoke.

Re: spoke count
« Reply #13 on: 03 March, 2018, 11:29:25 am »
FWIW I didn't mention before but the stability of a wheel with narrow spaced flanges also varies with the stiffness of the rim.  I would suggest that you use a rim which is wide and stiff rather than one that is narrow and flexible.

The reason for this is that the narrow spaced flanges make an 'Euler buckling' type wheel collapse more likely eg. under lateral loads or when there is a broken spoke.  More spokes is better but if they are all very tight this can hasten the onset of this failure mode, esp with a flexible rim. 

cheers

BrianI

  • Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's Lepidopterist Man!
Re: spoke count
« Reply #14 on: 03 March, 2018, 01:46:05 pm »
What you need, Doo, are ShelBroCo POWerwheels:

Quote
New POWerwheel lacing technology tilts the balance in your favor, by using 24 spokes for high-torque pulling power, and reducing the drag of the retarding spokes by only using 12 of them. Since you have half again as many pulling spokes, you gain a 50% power increase right there...but that's not all! By reducing the number of wasteful retarding spokes by 1/3, you get another 33.333333314% more effective power, for a total power increase of 83.333333314%!

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/power-wheel.html

 :thumbsup: ;D

Re: spoke count
« Reply #15 on: 03 March, 2018, 01:50:22 pm »
Agree with Brucey on this one. I'd be looking at Kinlin XR31T or, if you want to more closely match the depth of the rear rim you could use the XR26T or XR22T. All are available from Spa Cycles or The Cycle Clinic. They are all similar external width to the Fulcrum rims (24mm vs 23.8mm for the fulcrum). The Fulcrum is 22mm deep (could be a Kinlin rim even - I don't know). Deeper is stiffer.

Re: spoke count
« Reply #16 on: 03 March, 2018, 02:39:27 pm »
Deeper is stiffer.

just to add to that, at first sight the lateral stiffness of the rim might be supposed to be the important thing in mitigating the possibility of a Euler type collapse. It is certainly important. However an examination of a failed wheel shows that the rim section has substantially deflected in torsion, not just lateral bending. (Which explains why even wheels built with very wide single-wall rims can be made to collapse in this way).

 So anything that makes the rim section stiffer in torsion is going to help; both increases in width and depth are usually about equally important in this respect.

cheers

Re: spoke count
« Reply #17 on: 03 March, 2018, 08:17:06 pm »
Deeper is stiffer.

just to add to that, at first sight the lateral stiffness of the rim might be supposed to be the important thing in mitigating the possibility of a Euler type collapse. It is certainly important. However an examination of a failed wheel shows that the rim section has substantially deflected in torsion, not just lateral bending. (Which explains why even wheels built with very wide single-wall rims can be made to collapse in this way).

 So anything that makes the rim section stiffer in torsion is going to help; both increases in width and depth are usually about equally important in this respect.

cheers

Should’ve been clearer. I was comparing the three rims I listed, which share identical widths and, I suspect, brake track and tyre bed design.

Re: spoke count
« Reply #18 on: 04 March, 2018, 06:08:45 am »


Should’ve been clearer. I was comparing the three rims I listed, which share identical widths and, I suspect, brake track and tyre bed design.

sure, but I was just trying to explain why what looks like a lateral failure mode might be influenced by changes in rim depth only; at first sight this seems somewhat counterintuitive.

cheers

Re: spoke count
« Reply #19 on: 04 March, 2018, 08:39:35 am »
I would definitely use 32 spokes with a hub like that because the flanges are not widely spaced. These hubs build into appreciably weaker wheels as a result, for any given number of spokes.

36 spokes on my SON 28 (on DT Swiss TK540 rims, which are fantastic BTW), but then it is a tourer build...
Old enough to know better, but young enough to do it anyway

zigzag

  • unfuckwithable
Re: spoke count
« Reply #20 on: 04 March, 2018, 02:06:59 pm »
i would suggest 32 spokes, mainly considering the weight and off-road use

front wheel rarely breaks spokes as it is carrying half a rear wheel's load (except for the rare cases of hard braking going down a bumpy road). my dynamo wheel has 20 aero spokes laced radially - just as many other similar non-dynamo wheels (usually factory built) it works just fine.

Bianchi Boy

  • Cycling is my doctor
  • Is it possible for a ride to be too long?
    • Reading Cycling Club
Re: spoke count
« Reply #21 on: 05 March, 2018, 07:11:34 am »
This is an interesting question. I run 32 at the front and 36 at the rear. I have found that 32 hole rear have more deflection if a spoke breaks and I have had two rear wheels that have broken two spokes exactly opposite after hitting something in the road. I mentioned this to the wheel builder in my local shop and he said that they sometimes get new bikes in boxes that have been damaged and the two opposite spokes has been seen multiple times on 32 spoke wheels.

When looking at the geometry of a wheel 36 and 28 spoke wheels have two spokes spreading the load from one on the other side. A 32 hole wheel, with 16 spokes each side) has two directly opposite spokes.

I have never ever had a failure with a front wheel and have found 36 hole rear wheels to be more resilient. Just my wheel building skills or is there something in the opposed spoke thing?

BB
Set a fire for a man and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.

Re: spoke count
« Reply #22 on: 05 March, 2018, 08:14:01 am »
in the absence of a pre-existing defect of some kind typical spokes fail in overload in such a way as they give a 'cup and cone' fracture face.



I have only ever seen this in spokes that have broken as a result of something going into a wheel that is turning and jamming it.

All other spoke breakages (and BTW I have examined hundreds) have occurred because there has been a pre-existing defect, and the remaining part of the spoke has then fractured when it sees a moderately abnormal load of some kind.



The pre-existing defects are possibly manufacturing flaws of some kind; however maybe less than 1/1000 boxes of spokes from reputable manufacturers are defective and then most commonly all the spokes are liable to break. For example in rear wheels, I have seen a wheel built with duff spokes on one side only and they all broke. The most common manufacturing defect is that the die that forms the J-bend is allowed to gall or wear, and the spokes that are made in that die have defects that will cause them to break (almost regardless of any stress-relief that might be applied to the wheel).

By far the most common cause of a pre-existing defect  is that the wheel has not been correctly stress-relieved and a fatigue crack has formed. In traditional wheels running into a pothole does not stress the opposing spoke abnormally.

However if the rim is very stiff (eg because it is a very deep rim), the wheel no longer works in the same way, and the opposing spokes do see an appreciable load.  Even so that any break is usually because they already had pre-existing defects.

Wheels that suffer lateral 'pringle' failures deform in such a way as opposing spokes may see similar stresses. However that any break is again most likely because they were already cracked.

If a wheel is well specified, built with good quality components that fit together well, and (most importantly perhaps) is correctly stress-relieved, it should last many tens of thousands of miles without any spoke breakages.

cheers


Bianchi Boy

  • Cycling is my doctor
  • Is it possible for a ride to be too long?
    • Reading Cycling Club
Re: spoke count
« Reply #23 on: 06 March, 2018, 06:59:11 am »
This spoke breakage thing is quite interesting and some of it concurs with my experiences.

1. There was a local wheel builder and I went through a phase of every rear wheel he build me broke.
2. I bought Roger Musson's book and a stand and after a few goes was building wheels that where true and lasted multiple rim changes.
3. DT Swiss spokes fail much less than Sapim. Now I only ever build with DT. Started with Sapim for years.
4. Every commercial rear wheel I have bought has failed and this includes a Campag Neutron that have a reputation for being bomb proof. I might have bought my last commercial rear wheel.
5. Every spoke failure I have had has been on the hub end. So the J-bend or the flattened end (for straight pull).
6. A poor wheel build will have spoke failures - I have had wheels where I have made an error and made do with a less than perfect adjustment. Inevitably these end up failing.
7. I made much better wheels when I invested in a tension meter.

The conclusion I have made is that the wheel build quality makes a large impact on the wheel and potential spoke failures and these are not just down to manufacturing faults. Inconsistent tension must put extra bend through some spokes and cause fatigue.

BB
Set a fire for a man and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.

Re: spoke count
« Reply #24 on: 06 March, 2018, 08:56:45 am »
AIUI DT and Sapim both use wire to the same specification that comes from reputable steel manufacturers such as Sandvik.  Unless they impose an additional layer of materials QA (better) or occasionally buy material from other sources (worse),  then there shouldn't be any difference in the material itself in these two spoke brands, only the way it is processed.

Even in 'good' spokes there are small variations in the shape and length of the J bend and this (together with variations in the way hub flanges are made) affects the fit of the spokes into the flange. This usually doesn't greatly affect the longevity of the wheel, provided the wheel is built with the requisite degree of care.

To get the spokes to sit in the flanges reasonably well even if they don't fit perfectly, the J bend needs to be 'set' and then the spokes need to be stress-relieved, e.g. by using a large tension overload.  This effectively erases most of the (bending) residual stresses and variations in bending stresses that arise through tension variations in the spoke that occur in service.

 Otherwise these bending stresses will locally (at the surface of the spoke) comprise a high mean stress (from residual stresses) plus a larger than normal cyclic (fatigue) element, which damages the spokes more quickly than if effective stress-relief is carried out.

Tension variations in the spokes from (poor) building just add to this, by altering the overload required to promote effective stress relief, as well as altering the cyclic stresses seen in service.

I commonly use spoke washers to improve the fit of spokes into hubs, such that the gap between the ( 'inside' especially)  spokes and the flange is minimised. This minimises any cantilever bending in the J bend that might otherwise occur. If the J bend is entirely supported by the flange (which deforms to suit in most cases) this is the best arrangement.  Note that this does not mean that you don't have to stress-relieve the spokes, but it does make for a better wheel.

Regarding used wheels which have started to break spokes there is some good news; provided the fit meets some minimum standard, and the spokes are not defective, simply stress-relieving a used wheel properly (which may not have ever been done in most cases) will greatly improve it.

It doesn't entirely eliminate the possibility of further spoke breakages however; some may already be cracked (eg by fatigue) and will now fail in time  regardless of what you do. For years no-one knew whether there were likely to be few or many such cracked spokes.

I have tried to answer this question by dismantling scrap wheels in which there have already been some spoke breakages. Replacement spokes  are easy to distinguish from original ones in most cases.  The old spokes have been removed and examined to see if they are already cracked (at the J bend) or not.

 The answer (based on about a hundred wheels and many thousands of spokes examined) seems to be that if you have already broken 'n' spokes in a wheel, it is possible that there are up to 'n' further spokes that are cracked and will break, with an average value of ~'n/2'.

Thus if you have already broken (say) four spokes it is quite likely that you already have two further cracked spokes and if you are unlucky there might be four. These spokes will break eventually. However the remaining spokes will (given the caveats already mentioned) will have a very long life if the wheel is now stress-relieved properly.

Note also that good quality spokes will take being 're-set' a few times without developing nascent cracks. You can verify this by trying to break a spoke by flexing it back and forth at the same point; cheap/bad materials won't withstand many flexings, but better quality spoke materials will.

Thus you can now make a rational choice about whether to

a) carry on or not with a wheel in which you have already broken a few spokes and/or
b) whether to re-use spokes in another build or not.

and so forth.

Note that professional wheelbuilders won't recommend that they do either of these things with a customer's wheels, mainly because they are required to guarantee their work. But that does not mean that you can't build and maintain very reliable wheels for yourself using this information.

Just to add that I have built hundreds certainly if not thousands of wheels over about 35 plus years and (touch wood, to my knowledge, and I do ask folks to definitely tell me if it ever happens) I have yet to hear of a spoken spoke in my new wheel builds, some of which have now done 60000 miles or more.

A final comment is that I most commonly use a variant of Brandt's stress relief technique; instead of squeezing the crossings in the plane of the wheel, I squeeze the crossings  towards one another i.e. at ninety degrees to the Brandt squeeze. I think I originally started doing this due to a misunderstanding; however it seems to work at least as well if not better, because it is less likely to leave a bad nipple kink which can happen in some cases otherwise. The J bend may also be better set to suit wheel this way, too.

cheers