Wheelbuilding / Wheel Building / Wheel build help

For the DT Aero comp I find these brass 2.0 nipples to go along well - and (heavy)birds on weightweenies sing about going 14mm on chinacarbonwitchcraft-rims http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content=8;navigation=1;product=15732;page=1;menu=1000,2,302,303;mid=0;pgc=0;orderby=2

For the DT Aero comp I find these brass 2.0 nipples to go along well - and (heavy)birds on weightweenies sing about going 14mm on chinacarbonwitchcraft-rims http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content=8;navigation=1;product=15732;page=1;menu=1000,2,302,303;mid=0;pgc=0;orderby=2

Most carbon rims need 14 mm nipples. The rim bed is typically thicker than alloy ones.

Think I'd like to try something like Aero Comps on the loaded wheel side and Aerolites on the other to even the tension, so they build up stiffer than just Aerolites both sides maybe...?

Tension is load, whether it is transmitted via a big or a tiny spoke is the same... or is it too early in the morning to compute? I certainly never noticed big differences in tensions when I built wheels with chunky spokes on the DS and tiny on the NDS.

Most carbon rims need 14 mm nipples. The rim bed is typically thicker than alloy ones.

Any structural reasons for not hitting pedal2themetal-16mm-brassnippling - bringing the complete freakshow to town?

Any structural reasons for not hitting pedal2themetal-16mm-brassnippling - bringing the complete freakshow to town?

No rim related reason, just need to check where the thread starts, as you don't want to bottom the spoke out. Different brands are threaded differently

"I'll be able to blow while keeping flour in mouth"? o_0

old danish idom. he can have his cake and eat it too.

Tension is load, whether it is transmitted via a big or a tiny spoke is the same... or is it too early in the morning to compute? I certainly never noticed big differences in tensions when I built wheels with chunky spokes on the DS and tiny on the NDS.

I have always found that any wheel with an offset (cassette or rotor) will have a side which is more highly tensioned than the other and therefore under more load/tension. sarcasm
And that, while all spokes under the same tension are indeed equally tense, the power needed to cause that is not.
I have found that a rim can 'lean' to one side when one side has a higher tension, leading to tyre wear that is off to one side of the centreline.
So while doing some research I found that some builders used different techniques in lacing or spoke thickness's to create a more balanced tension on both sides, but as with most things in wheel building of course, others do not.
David C R Hunt is, off the top of my head, one of the ones that does.
So after talking to him and a few other builders, I've started experimenting for myself, first using straight gauge spokes on the higher tension side and DB on other thinking straight gauge would be stiffer, which was a total failure of course, but live and learn, which was the point in the first place.
My last build I had wanted to try and push it again by building with DT Aerolite laced 3x to the normally higher tension sides, and Sapim CX-Ray laced 2x the others, as although the cross sectional areas of both spokes are the same, DT supposedly use a stronger alloy.
This was to be an experiment in usable minimalism, taking away from where it wouldn't make much difference to make a functionally equally as strong wheel, but (marginally) lighter, to see how well it would work.
Unfortunately I couldn't get the spokes in the right lengths at the right price and was impatient, so it got laced 32h 3x rear, and 28h 3x front, which I regret.
I hope this makes it clearer to you that, I mean having different spoke sizes will pull more one way under the same tensions/loads from one side of the wheel to the other, and that by a mix of spokes, nipples, and lacing I want to build a better balanced wheel, limiting as much unnecessary weight as possible, without sacrificing much strength/stiffness(?)... hopefully.

old danish idom. he can have his cake and eat it too.

Ah, thank you.

So while doing some research I found that some builders used different techniques in lacing or spoke thickness's to create a more balanced tension on both sides,

Tension balance is purely a function of wheel geometry, spoke cross section has no influence. Using larger cross section spokes does increase wheel stiffness, and this can be useful on the drive side of road wheels, which are inherently low in axial stiffness thanks to the poor bracing angle. Changing the lacing pattern doesn't change this enough to be worthwhile, unless the flanges are very large compared with the ERD

The correct way to solve the problem is to use a larger number of spokes than the non-drive side, rather than using the same number but thicker.

Tension balance is purely a function of wheel geometry, spoke cross section has no influence.

If I laced a non-offset wheel with DT Alpine on one side and DT Revolution on the other, would the tensions be the same when the wheel is properly dished?

Using larger cross section spokes does increase wheel stiffness, and this can be useful on the drive side of road wheels, which are inherently low in axial stiffness thanks to the poor bracing angle.

Which I want to explore more, although using something like DT Aero Comp instead of Aerolite, as suggested, along with CX-Rays will be a better combo, and a damn sight cheaper too!
Also good idea to try for disc brake front wheels too me thinks, which is what I was kinda going for.

Changing the lacing pattern doesn't change this enough to be worthwhile, unless the flanges are very large compared with the ERD

"This was to be an experiment in usable minimalism..."
I know it doesn't do much, but I wanted to test it out for myself to see.
Plus, minimal gains, is still gains.

The correct way to solve the problem is to use a larger number of spokes than the non-drive side, rather than using the same number but thicker.

I will be sure to ask for this when I next buy a set of OTP rims. drippingwithsarcasm
Although it might be worth asking for with custom crabon hole count.
But wouldn't the spoke length be a bitch to work out if you're missing a spoke every so often at the flange? >_<
Maybe a crows foot lacing missing out every forth spoke on the non-offset side giving a 28h -16/12 using a 32h hub, or missing every third spoke with 32h 18/12 on a 36h hub, would be easier to work out...

My head hurts.

Hope still do 36h Pro 2 Evo's too.
Mmm, just might work...

AngelD, your friend David Hunt is wrong on this.
As MDCC Tester points out the tension balance doesn't depend on the spoke choice. It's the different load imposed by the flange geometry... whether the load is carried by a small or big spoke doesn't make a difference.
Tiny spokes "feel" more tense, but if you measure the deflection with a calibrated tool, you will realise the tension is the same. If you hang 100 Kg from a large rope or from a tiny wire, they feel very different, but the effect they have on shifting the position of the rim is the same... and it's 100 Kg worth of load.

So, the only improvements sticking to more of, thicker, or higher lacings (3x) of spokes on the heavier loaded side would only add to a higher stiffness?

And the only improvements lighter, fewer, or lower lacings of spokes on the less loaded side would be a lower weight and (marginally) improved aerodynamics?

I am trying to learn more and understand the principles behind wheel building here, so when I question something, it is an actual question.
I also am looking at different spokings factory wheels come in and trying to understand the reasoning behind them, and learning from reading wheel building books, trying things and learning from failures and some success, discussing them, trying to expand my understanding.

I would still love to try a wheel with no offset with DT Alpine and DT Revolution spokes on either side, just to see for myself, to learn trying.

I would still love to try a wheel with no offset with DT Alpine and DT Revolution spokes on either side, just to see for myself, to learn trying.

Tug of war: two blokes pull with exactly the same force (in Newtons = tension). The rope is joined in the middle by a metal ring (or let's call it rim). One side of the rope is a tiny 15 mm diameter, the other is bigger, 23 mm diameter... do you agree the rope is irrelevant and nobody wins?

See the analogy?

I want to try just to see if there would be any noticeable spoke stretch, but jeez, maybe I should just go back to making 32h 3x wheels and learn nothing!

You'd learn how to make better 32h 3x wheels.

Lol!

No harm in wanting to try things. :P

And my skull is way too thick to start learning things the easy way.

Also appears I have misunderstood what D C R Hunt was saying too. -

"The tensions on a drive side are more than double that as on the
non-drive side and wheelbuilders and manufacturers have been creative in their solutions to
this problem.
Sometimes people opt for twice as many spokes on the drive side. Quality rims normally
have an allocated direction so this can be an inelegant solution with spokes facing the wrong
way in the rim. Another solution which I sometimes use is to have different spokes on the
drive side to the non-drive side.The non-drive side will commonly use the same spokes as used on the front wheel.
The drive side will have heavier duty spokes and importantly spokes with less flex.
This means that the spokes flex more evenly on both drive side and non-drive side.
A light duty build could use Sapim Laser spokes for the front and non-drive side and Sapim Race for the drive side.
Heavier duty could be Sapim Race for front and non-drive side and Sapim Strong for the drive side.
You could also use D-Light spokes with Race spokes or Laser spokes to achieve similar slightly varying results.
Many wheelbuilders neglect such detail, although it is important for a well balanced wheel."

So it was flex, or stiffness(?), not tension...

shuffles ...I'll just be quiet now.

There's somerhing wrong with his reasoning though.
Stiffer spokes in the high tension side will not give more equal flex. Quite the opposite, I'd say.

Don't they carry more load as they are more inline from flange to rim, and so more likely to flex?

But they come under higher load so flex is (closer to) equal.

Makes sense to me.

(edit) as above (edit).

Perhaps.

Don't they carry more load as they are more inline from flange to rim,

Yes

and so more likely to flex?

no, i think, though i'm not quite clear what you mean by 'flex'.

Grasp a point on a straight, tensioned spoke. Either side of your fingers, the tension in the spoke is pulling on that point. As the spoke is straight, the two forces are equal and opposite so cancel out to nothing. You feel no force.

Now move the point a little to one side. The spoke is now bent at the point you are holding it. the tension forces are still equal, but not quite opposite. When you add the vectors, there is a small component forcing the spoke back towards straightness. You have to push against this force to keep the spoke bent. How big this force is depends on how bent the spoke is and how much tension is in it.

The tension in a bent spoke comes from two sources. There is the initial tension the straight spoke had to start with. Also, as a bent path from a to b is longer than a straight one, the bent spoke has been stretched longer, creating extra tension.

The initial tension doesn't depend on how thick the spoke is. It's just down to the geometry of the build and the total amount of tension that's been put in.

But the extra tension does. Specifically it depends on the spoke's spring constant, which is proportional to the square of its diameter.

So if 'flex' means 'bend under sideways loads' then a high tension spoke will flex less than a low tension spoke, and a thick spoke will flex less than a thin spoke of equal initial tension.

If initial tension is increased, spoke thickness becomes relatively less important.

There's somerhing wrong with his reasoning though.
Stiffer spokes in the high tension side will not give more equal flex. Quite the opposite, I'd say.

I'd agree. I don't see how to read 'flex' as saying what needs to be said here.

I think 'strain' is the correct term for what is being equalised, but 'stretch' would do too.

So if 'flex' means 'bend under sideways loads' then a high tension spoke will flex less than a low tension spoke, and a thick spoke will flex less than a thin spoke of equal initial tension.

But as their leverage points are different from either side of an offset wheel, would there not be more load on the higher tension drive-side under strain that's not the tension from the wheels geometry?
As there is less need for tension on the other side, would it not equal out the amount of actual 'bend under sideways loads' flex (movement under force) from one side to the other, to create closer to equal flex (or movement?)?

If initial tension is increased, spoke thickness becomes relatively less important.

Ah, now that's interesting.
I used hex head nipples on my last build with Archetype rims and was comfortably (but very carefully!) hitting 140kgf drive-side tension and went to a lot of effort to have as consistent tension as possible per side, but was expecting the wheels to be more flexible as I was using CX-Rays, and was surprised at how stiff they felt.
Was it because of the higher tension, or was it all in my head as I was excited over new wheels?!