Re: [CR]aerodynamics of butted spokes.

(Example: Framebuilders:Bernard Carré)

From: "ternst" <ternst1@cox.net>
To: <sachshm@cox.net>, <heine94@earthlink.net>, "Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <45230C67.9020304@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]aerodynamics of butted spokes.
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:43:02 -0700
reply-type=response

Check with Ray Homiski, and I'm sure he's seen high-wheelers fom the 1880's and earlier with butted spokes. The '90's was old news on butted spokes, they were commonly called piano wire spokes in gauges too thin for us today. The flex and wood rims probably helped the ride and the spokes "gave" instead of snapping too easily. The problem with the old spokes is getting nipples. Especially for wood rims, .72 is available, but smaller obsolete sizes are a nightmare unless you can make your own. Even spoke lengths over 302 are getting tougher, and the xxl nipples while still being made will slowly disappear from production 14/17 gauge are easy to get, nipples easier, and they look quite nice on the older bikes. 15/17 also available, but maybe somewhat less stocked. Look very sharp, too, in the bikes. Original steel 308/310;12-1/8 / 12-1/4 are teeth gnashers and the newer St St are almost out of production because of lack of request by consumers with all the new deep dish rims.
Ted Ernst
Palos Verdes Estates
CA 90274 USA


----- Original Message -----
From: Harvey M Sachs
To: heine94@earthlink.net


<classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:20 PM Subject: [CR]aerodynamics of butted spokes.


> Jan Heine wrote:
>
> JAN: Double-butted spokes have been around for a very long time. I
> remember seeing a bike from around 1910 with straight-pull double-butted
> spokes. The two 1930s Reyhand featured in the latest issue of Bicycle
> Quarterly have double-butted spokes, too.
>
> JAN: The advantage of thinner spokes is aerodynamic on the one hand,
> HARVEY: Jan, with all due respect, I think that this is an urban legend.
> If I recall correctly, the aerodynamic "thickness" of a wire in moving air
> is more dependent on relative velocity than the wire's diameter. That's
> because there is entrainment or turbulence or whatever in the air around
> the wire, increasing its effective diameter. But, it's too late in the
> evening to check this in Wilson/(Papadopoulos).
>
> <snip>
> harvey sachs
> mcLean va usa