Re: [CR] Fw: Re: Strong/Longlived Wheels

(Example: Racing:Beryl Burton)

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:30:19 -0700
From: "Robert Goughary" <goughary@yahoo.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <548533.13656.qm@web82202.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Fw: Re: Strong/Longlived Wheels


Maybe a dumb question - but - with all this discussion about stronger wheels - Wouldn't it be better, and stronge rto not worry about the weight of the rim, spokes, nipples, etc, and use a strong rim, whatever is the appropriate spoke guage, brass nipples, 36 spokes minumum, and then have the rider lose a few pounds if one were worried about weight? I ride a few bikes - a super light off-topic Look, an on-topic Cilo that I picked up recently, and my newly finished MysteryBike from 1958-62 (or thereabouts) - they get significantly heavier as they get older, and significantly more fun...I've been building wheels for a short time, but it seems to me that the question of strengh is more one of "just strong enough" when worried about weight, and unless I am in a race where a tenth of a second matters, I'm just not worried about weight, within a few pounds here and there...In fact - the heavier bikes feal better than the Look by far. And I prefer to not have to ride on such high spoke tension. Too much vibration.

Rob Goughary
Stamford, CT


--- On Tue, 8/25/09, Pacific Coast Cycles wrote:


> From: Pacific Coast Cycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net>

\r?\n> Subject: [CR] Fw: Re: Strong/Longlived Wheels

\r?\n> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

\r?\n> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 11:33 PM

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> --- On Sun, 8/23/09, Pacific Coast Cycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net>

\r?\n> wrote:

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> From: Pacific Coast Cycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net>

\r?\n> Subject: Fw: Re: [CR] Strong/Longlived Wheels

\r?\n> To: classicrenedvouz@bikelist.org

\r?\n> Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009, 10:25 PM

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> --- On Sun, 8/23/09, Pacific Coast Cycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net>

\r?\n> wrote:

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> From: Pacific Coast Cycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net>

\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR] Strong/Longlived Wheels

\r?\n> To: "donald gillies" <gillies@ece.ubc.ca>

\r?\n> Cc: gretchbzz@earthlink.net

\r?\n> Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009, 10:19 PM

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Don, you show a great understanding of wheels and the

\r?\n> forces that make them work.

\r?\n>  

\r?\n> I would like to comment on a few statements you made. The

\r?\n> guage of the spokes has nothing to do with the resistance of

\r?\n> a wheel to pothole deformation. The first line of defense

\r?\n> against sharp edged impacts is tire cross section. I am

\r?\n> assuming proper tire inflation here.

\r?\n>  

\r?\n> The guage of the spoke has more to do with the life of the

\r?\n> spokes. Too light a spoke for the rider or the intended use

\r?\n> will result in shorter spoke life.

\r?\n>  

\r?\n> The use of double eyelets is something I've given a lot of

\r?\n> thought to. A double eyelet weighs one and a half grams.

\r?\n> That's forty eight grams for a thirty two hole rim. Forty

\r?\n> eight grams is about ten percent of the weight of a sporty

\r?\n> rim. That forty eight grams would be better spent in

\r?\n> reinforcing the area of the rim where the nipples reside.

\r?\n>  

\r?\n> Mavic Open Pro rims often crack when built for eight, nine

\r?\n> and more speed wheels. Indeed, the rear wheel is the only

\r?\n> one I've seen crack. And that is only on the right side. In

\r?\n> order to put dual eyelets in the wheel, the hole in the rim

\r?\n> is made bigger. On dual eyelets, the size of the "load

\r?\n> spreading eyelet" is not big enough to really do that job.

\r?\n> If you want to use another piece to spread the load, and

\r?\n> that does work, a washer as used by Martano and others

\r?\n> actually is big enough to effectively reinforce the load

\r?\n> concentration.

\r?\n>  

\r?\n> Even though the double eyelet, when pulling through the

\r?\n> rim, pulls through the top or inner layer also, I don't get

\r?\n> much comfort from that. Distributing that forty eight grams

\r?\n> around the rim in the area that is pulled on by spoke

\r?\n> tension prevents the pull through. The hole is smaller and

\r?\n> the wall can be thicker for a given weight.

\r?\n>  

\r?\n> You can tell I'm no big fan of rims sporting eyelets.

\r?\n> Still, there is an emotional appeal to eyelets and people

\r?\n> seem to feel comforted by them. Some people claim that they

\r?\n> are a better home for the nipple. There may be some truty in

\r?\n> that, but in general, I don't see much benefit to the nipple

\r?\n> especially when compared to a crack prone rim. Alloy nipples

\r?\n> sometimes lose their heads around this coastal area, but

\r?\n> that doesn't seem to be aleviated by using eyelets.

\r?\n>  

\r?\n> One of the things I love about bicycle wheels is that they

\r?\n> seem almost like a living thing. There is so much to think

\r?\n> about with regard to wheels. Another thing that's pretty

\r?\n> cool about them is that almost anybody can build a wheel

\r?\n> even if they don't think about the deeper concerns that are

\r?\n> designing wheels to a given purpose or rider.

\r?\n>  

\r?\n> In closing, I will say again that it is the tire's cross

\r?\n> section in relation to the obstacles put before it, in

\r?\n> relation to the weight it carries, that will make a wheel

\r?\n> resist denting, or not.

\r?\n>  

\r?\n> Chuck Hoefer

\r?\n> Vista, California USA