Recommended Spoke Tension for DT Swiss XR 4.1d rim

[tiborg]

I want to build a rear wheel using a DT Swiss XR 4.1d rim and 32
Alpine III spokes. Does anyone have handy DT Swiss's recommended spoke
tension for this rim? They don't seem to have that information on
their website.

[Ron Ruff]

On Sep 12, 1:35 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
> Maybe it has to do with fear and insecurity, that letting other people have
> different views will "let the terrorists win".

The "War on Terror" and the "terrorists winning" are one and the
same... ie when we decided to wage the war, that is when we lost...

Nice film, "The Lives of Others". There was a comment made in the film
that 20 years ago people would have never tolerated what was going on,
but now they were used to it. And we are slowly getting used to it as
well.

[steve]

On Sep 9, 3:26 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
> I want to build a rear wheel using a DT Swiss XR 4.1d rim and 32
> Alpine III spokes. Does anyone have handy DT Swiss's recommended spoke
> tension for this rim? They don't seem to have that information on
> their website.

According to DT all of their rims have a max tension of 120kg which is
a bit higher than most recommended spoke tensions for rims. If your
hub has a lot of dish in it and you are a larger rider then I would
probably approch the 120kg mark otherwise you would be fine if you
stayed at 110kg which would put less stress on the rim. Good luck.

Steve

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 9, 1:26 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
> I want to build a rear wheel using a DT Swiss XR 4.1d rim and 32
> Alpine III spokes. Does anyone have handy DT Swiss's recommended spoke
> tension for this rim? They don't seem to have that information on
> their website.

100 kgf on the right side rear and front. The same for any spoke, any
rim, generally.

[tiborg]

On Sep 9, 8:50 pm, steve <ssau...@emich.edu> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 3:26 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > I want to build a rear wheel using a DT Swiss XR 4.1d rim and 32
> > Alpine III spokes. Does anyone have handy DT Swiss's recommended spoke
> > tension for this rim? They don't seem to have that information on
> > their website.
>
> According to DT all of their rims have a max tension of 120kg which is
> a bit higher than most recommended spoke tensions for rims. If your
> hub has a lot of dish in it and you are a larger rider then I would
> probably approch the 120kg mark otherwise you would be fine if you
> stayed at 110kg which would put less stress on the rim. Good luck.
>
> Steve

Thanks.
For the hub, I'll be getting a Shimano FH-M765 (35.8/24.8 center to
flange).
I'm about 75kg and have a seatpost rack loaded from 5 to 10kg. The
wheel is going on my full suspension commuter which I take over some
fairly poor roads, so it's going to take some hits.

[Chalo]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> 100 kgf on the right side rear and front. The same for any spoke, any
> rim, generally.

That's a relatively safe generalization, but it doesn't make much
sense from an engineering perspective. A 32 hole downhill rim
weighing 900g and laced with 13-14ga spokes should have a much higher
per-spoke tension than a 48 hole touring rim weighing 480g and laced
with 15-16ga spokes.

I know you build a lot of 32 and 36 spoke road bike wheels with
400-500g rims and 14-15ga butted spokes, and 100kgf per spoke is good
for that kind of wheel. But some wheels must have less tension and
others benefit from more tension.

Chalo

[Rik O'Shea]

On 9 Sep, 13:54, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 1:26 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> 100 kgf on the right side rear and front. The same for any spoke, any
> rim, generally.

"right side rear" - Do you mean the rear drive side or non-drive side?

[tiborg]

On Sep 10, 12:12 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 8:50 pm, steve <ssau...@emich.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 9, 3:26 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > I want to build a rear wheel using a DT Swiss XR 4.1d rim and 32
> > > Alpine III spokes. Does anyone have handy DT Swiss's recommended spoke
> > > tension for this rim? They don't seem to have that information on
> > > their website.
>
> > According to DT all of their rims have a max tension of 120kg which is
> > a bit higher than most recommended spoke tensions for rims. If your
> > hub has a lot of dish in it and you are a larger rider then I would
> > probably approch the 120kg mark otherwise you would be fine if you
> > stayed at 110kg which would put less stress on the rim. Good luck.
>
> > Steve
>
> Thanks.
> For the hub, I'll be getting a Shimano FH-M765 (35.8/24.8 center to
> flange).
> I'm about 75kg and have a seatpost rack loaded from 5 to 10kg. The
> wheel is going on my full suspension commuter which I take over some
> fairly poor roads, so it's going to take some hits.

I looked up the wrong specs on the hub, it's in fact a 35.35/20.05
center to flange.

[steve]

On Sep 9, 11:20 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:12 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 8:50 pm, steve <ssau...@emich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 3:26 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I want to build a rear wheel using a DT Swiss XR 4.1d rim and 32
> > > > Alpine III spokes. Does anyone have handy DT Swiss's recommended spoke
> > > > tension for this rim? They don't seem to have that information on
> > > > their website.
>
> > > According to DT all of their rims have a max tension of 120kg which is
> > > a bit higher than most recommended spoke tensions for rims. If your
> > > hub has a lot of dish in it and you are a larger rider then I would
> > > probably approch the 120kg mark otherwise you would be fine if you
> > > stayed at 110kg which would put less stress on the rim. Good luck.
>
> > > Steve
>
> > Thanks.
> > For the hub, I'll be getting a Shimano FH-M765 (35.8/24.8 center to
> > flange).
> > I'm about 75kg and have a seatpost rack loaded from 5 to 10kg. The
> > wheel is going on my full suspension commuter which I take over some
> > fairly poor roads, so it's going to take some hits.
>
> I looked up the wrong specs on the hub, it's in fact a 35.35/20.05
> center to flange.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

With that hub I think you would be fine at a tension of 100kg-110kg.
The disc hubs move the non-drive flange in a bit to make room for the
disc which will allow tensions to be more even between drive and non-
drive.

Steve

[jim beam]

Chalo wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> 100 kgf on the right side rear and front. The same for any spoke, any
>> rim, generally.
>
> That's a relatively safe generalization, but it doesn't make much
> sense from an engineering perspective. A 32 hole downhill rim
> weighing 900g and laced with 13-14ga spokes should have a much higher
> per-spoke tension than a 48 hole touring rim weighing 480g and laced
> with 15-16ga spokes.
>
> I know you build a lot of 32 and 36 spoke road bike wheels with
> 400-500g rims and 14-15ga butted spokes, and 100kgf per spoke is good
> for that kind of wheel. But some wheels must have less tension and
> others benefit from more tension.
>
> Chalo
>

how does that makes sense? spoke tension is simply that required to
prevent the spokes going slack in use - increasing tension does not
increase wheel strength or stiffness. and spoke slackening in use is
simply a function of the rim deforming at the loading point - a stronger
rim will deform less and thus require less tension, all loads being equal.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 9, 8:23 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>
>
> > 100 kgf on the right side rear and front. The same for any spoke, any
> > rim, generally.
>
> That's a relatively safe generalization, but it doesn't make much
> sense from an engineering perspective. A 32 hole downhill rim
> weighing 900g and laced with 13-14ga spokes should have a much higher
> per-spoke tension than a 48 hole touring rim weighing 480g and laced
> with 15-16ga spokes.
>
> I know you build a lot of 32 and 36 spoke road bike wheels with
> 400-500g rims and 14-15ga butted spokes, and 100kgf per spoke is good
> for that kind of wheel. But some wheels must have less tension and
> others benefit from more tension.
>
> Chalo

If I were building a 900 gram downhill rim with 13/14g spokes, the
tension would be higher because the application is tougher on the
wheel, the rim is stronger..nothing to do with the
spokes...'Generally' I think is the operative word here...for the vast
majority of the 400 or so wheels built here at the shop each year(like
about 398 or so).

48 hole? Not a lot of those out there. I am about to build a tandem
with Dyads, DT disc hubs, 40h rear, 36h front, 4 cross rear and 3
cross front and the tensiuon will be( drum roll)...100 kgf for the
right rear and front.

Don't think any wheel 'benefits' from less tension tho..100-110kgf is
the benchmark..but I'm just a dummass wheelbuilder and wrench..not an
'engineer'......

I got along just fine flying USN Fighters w/o ever designing a single
one nor really caring about the engineering involved...'pull back, go
up, pull farther back, go down'....

[Chalo]

jim beam wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >> 100 kgf on the right side rear and front. The same for any spoke, any
> >> rim, generally.
>
> > That's a relatively safe generalization, but it doesn't make much
> > sense from an engineering perspective. A 32 hole downhill rim
> > weighing 900g and laced with 13-14ga spokes should have a much higher
> > per-spoke tension than a 48 hole touring rim weighing 480g and laced
> > with 15-16ga spokes.
>
> > I know you build a lot of 32 and 36 spoke road bike wheels with
> > 400-500g rims and 14-15ga butted spokes, and 100kgf per spoke is good
> > for that kind of wheel. But some wheels must have less tension and
> > others benefit from more tension.
>
> how does that makes sense? spoke tension is simply that required to
> prevent the spokes going slack in use - increasing tension does not
> increase wheel strength or stiffness.

Right. But bigger loads-- static or dynamic-- require more spoke
tension to support them.

> and spoke slackening in use is
> simply a function of the rim deforming at the loading point - a stronger
> rim will deform less and thus require less tension, all loads being equal.

But all loads are not equal, which is why M/Cs get thicker spokes and
higher tensions to go along with their stiff and heavy rims. Heavy
riders and those who lay a beating on their bicycles require analogous
measures.

Chalo

[Ron Ruff]

On Sep 9, 10:09 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> and spoke slackening in use is
> simply a function of the rim deforming at the loading point - a stronger
> rim will deform less and thus require less tension, all loads being equal.

The "tensegrity" structure of a wheel isn't quite that simple... the
deflection of the spokes and rim work in concert to support the load.
In the classic example with a box rim and 36 spokes only ~3 spokes at
the bottom see significant detension under normal loads, and the sum
of their detensioning is about equal to the load applied... the rest
of the spokes are hardly effected. A stiffer rim will spread the load
a bit, but not nearly as much as you would expect based on rim
stiffness alone (ie doubling the rim vertical stiffness might result
in a 10% reduction in the max spoke detension). Of course in all cases
the vector sum of the change in spoke tension for all the spokes must
equal the applied load.

As you said, it isn't necessary to have spoke tension higher than what
will prevent them from going slack, but in an "optimized" wheel, where
you are trying to achieve the best strength/ weight or strength/ aero
drag, the spoke tension will end up being high.

Chalo... did you suggest that a 48h touring wheel with light spokes
should have particularly low tension? If so... why?

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 10, 2:49 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 13:54, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 1:26 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > 100 kgf on the right side rear and front. The same for any spoke, any
> > rim, generally.
>
> "right side rear" - Do you mean the rear drive side or non-drive side?

no, I mean the right side of the rear wheel. Unless the cogs are on
the left, of course...

[Chalo]

Ron Ruff wrote:
>
> Chalo... did you suggest that a 48h touring wheel with light spokes
> should have particularly low tension?

Yes.

> If so... why?

The low tension is so that the total tension of the large number of
spokes doesn't collapse the comparatively lightweight rim. Light
spokes are used so that they can have a meaningful amount of elastic
takeup at that low tension.

I have built 48 spoke wheels with 700C Sun CR18 rims and straight 14ga
spokes, but it's difficult to get the spokes tight enough to stay
tight without causing the rim to buckle. It's too much spoke cross-
sectional area for that rim. 15-16ga or 15-17ga spokes are a better
choice for a rim like that.

Chalo

[jim beam]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Sep 9, 10:09 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> and spoke slackening in use is
>> simply a function of the rim deforming at the loading point - a stronger
>> rim will deform less and thus require less tension, all loads being equal.
>
> The "tensegrity" structure of a wheel isn't quite that simple... the
> deflection of the spokes and rim work in concert to support the load.

unless the spokes go slack, the support they provide the rim is the
same, regardless of tension. the only delta is therefore the rim
rigidity, and a stiff rim will distort less than a less stiff one.


> In the classic example with a box rim and 36 spokes only ~3 spokes at
> the bottom see significant detension under normal loads, and the sum
> of their detensioning is about equal to the load applied... the rest
> of the spokes are hardly effected. A stiffer rim will spread the load
> a bit, but not nearly as much as you would expect based on rim
> stiffness alone (ie doubling the rim vertical stiffness might result
> in a 10% reduction in the max spoke detension). Of course in all cases
> the vector sum of the change in spoke tension for all the spokes must
> equal the applied load.
>
> As you said, it isn't necessary to have spoke tension higher than what
> will prevent them from going slack, but in an "optimized" wheel, where
> you are trying to achieve the best strength/ weight or strength/ aero
> drag, the spoke tension will end up being high.
>
> Chalo... did you suggest that a 48h touring wheel with light spokes
> should have particularly low tension? If so... why?
>
>

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:xNqdnTlDP-Iti3vbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Ron Ruff wrote:

>> The "tensegrity" structure of a wheel isn't quite that simple... the
>> deflection of the spokes and rim work in concert to support the load.
>
> unless the spokes go slack, the support they provide the rim is the same,
> regardless of tension. the only delta is therefore the rim rigidity, and
> a stiff rim will distort less than a less stiff one.
>
You've been told and shown this to be wrong time and again, beamboy.

Tension on spokes affect the loads the wheel can take. Less tension, less
load capability. Only a moron can... oh wait, that's right, we're talking
about you.

[Lou Holtman]

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:xNqdnTlDP-Iti3vbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>
>>> The "tensegrity" structure of a wheel isn't quite that simple... the
>>> deflection of the spokes and rim work in concert to support the load.
>> unless the spokes go slack, the support they provide the rim is the same,
>> regardless of tension. the only delta is therefore the rim rigidity, and
>> a stiff rim will distort less than a less stiff one.
>>
> You've been told and shown this to be wrong time and again, beamboy.
>
> Tension on spokes affect the loads the wheel can take. Less tension, less
> load capability. Only a moron can... oh wait, that's right, we're talking
> about you.
>
>


That not what mister beam is saying. You have to watch not to get
obsessive.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Lou Holtman writes:

>>>> The "tensegrity" structure of a wheel isn't quite that simple
>>>> ... the deflection of the spokes and rim work in concert to
>>>> support the load.

>>> unless the spokes go slack, the support they provide the rim is
>>> the same, regardless of tension. the only delta is therefore the
>>> rim rigidity, and a stiff rim will distort less than a less stiff
>>> one.

>> You've been told and shown this to be wrong time and again, beamboy.

>> Tension on spokes affect the loads the wheel can take. Less
>> tension, less load capability. Only a moron can... oh wait, that's
>> right, we're talking about you.

> That not what mister beam is saying. You have to watch not to get
> obsessive.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you needn't wait for others to
explain why spokes of wheels are tensioned. That such wheels rely on
the tension of the bottom spokes has been explained endlessly here and
once these spokes are slack, they may as well be removed from the wheel
(as was shown in a picture offered here a few times). The problem
with that is that the rest of the spoke also have no tension, so when
it is their turn at the bottom the wheel collapses.

Even if the slackened spokes are not removed, they offer no lateral
strength, so the wheel can collapse to the side. Therefore, how tight
should spokes be, knowing that the wheel can support only as much load
as the tension in those spokes 4+ at the ground contact zone? Well
the tighter they are the more load the wheel can carry and that
tension is limited by the buckling strength of the rim.

That riding on rough surfaces, like a road with many manual paving
patches, wheel loading can be more than twice the static load of rider
and bicycle. Although loosely spoked wheels may not collapse on such
a road, their spokes become slack and in time lose alignment as spoke
nipples unscrew. Many people use thread locking goo to prevent this
but don't understand what caused their wheel to fail when the bump in
the road was large enough.

Jobst Brandt

[Lou Holtman]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Lou Holtman writes:
>
>>>>> The "tensegrity" structure of a wheel isn't quite that simple
>>>>> ... the deflection of the spokes and rim work in concert to
>>>>> support the load.
>
>>>> unless the spokes go slack, the support they provide the rim is
>>>> the same, regardless of tension. the only delta is therefore the
>>>> rim rigidity, and a stiff rim will distort less than a less stiff
>>>> one.
>
>>> You've been told and shown this to be wrong time and again, beamboy.
>
>>> Tension on spokes affect the loads the wheel can take. Less
>>> tension, less load capability. Only a moron can... oh wait, that's
>>> right, we're talking about you.
>
>> That not what mister beam is saying. You have to watch not to get
>> obsessive.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you needn't wait for others to
> explain why spokes of wheels are tensioned. That such wheels rely on
> the tension of the bottom spokes has been explained endlessly here and
> once these spokes are slack, they may as well be removed from the wheel
> (as was shown in a picture offered here a few times). The problem
> with that is that the rest of the spoke also have no tension, so when
> it is their turn at the bottom the wheel collapses.
>
> Even if the slackened spokes are not removed, they offer no lateral
> strength, so the wheel can collapse to the side. Therefore, how tight
> should spokes be, knowing that the wheel can support only as much load
> as the tension in those spokes 4+ at the ground contact zone? Well
> the tighter they are the more load the wheel can carry and that
> tension is limited by the buckling strength of the rim.
>
> That riding on rough surfaces, like a road with many manual paving
> patches, wheel loading can be more than twice the static load of rider
> and bicycle. Although loosely spoked wheels may not collapse on such
> a road, their spokes become slack and in time lose alignment as spoke
> nipples unscrew. Many people use thread locking goo to prevent this
> but don't understand what caused their wheel to fail when the bump in
> the road was large enough.
>
> Jobst Brandt


Thanks Mr. Brandt for explaining this again and again. What strikes me
is the amount of attention spokes, wheels, rims get in rbt and every
discussion ends in name calling and people getting personal in a very
nasty way. And guess what, me and all my riding buddies had any problems
with our wheels for years and years. So I wonder 'what is all this fuss
about'. 'Maybe it is something of the 'new world'.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

[jim beam]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Lou Holtman writes:
>
>>>>> The "tensegrity" structure of a wheel isn't quite that simple
>>>>> ... the deflection of the spokes and rim work in concert to
>>>>> support the load.
>
>>>> unless the spokes go slack, the support they provide the rim is
>>>> the same, regardless of tension. the only delta is therefore the
>>>> rim rigidity, and a stiff rim will distort less than a less stiff
>>>> one.
>
>>> You've been told and shown this to be wrong time and again, beamboy.
>
>>> Tension on spokes affect the loads the wheel can take. Less
>>> tension, less load capability. Only a moron can... oh wait, that's
>>> right, we're talking about you.
>
>> That not what mister beam is saying. You have to watch not to get
>> obsessive.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you needn't wait for others to
> explain why spokes of wheels are tensioned. That such wheels rely on
> the tension of the bottom spokes has been explained endlessly here and
> once these spokes are slack, they may as well be removed from the wheel
> (as was shown in a picture offered here a few times). The problem
> with that is that the rest of the spoke also have no tension, so when
> it is their turn at the bottom the wheel collapses.

this old saw again...

1. unless your rims are made of string cheese, they don't collapse.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/

2. you're misunderstanding what you see with spoke tension decrease.
all it is is rim deformation. if the rim were perfectly rigid, you'd
see a completely different spoke tension distribution, but the wheel
would still work!!!


>
> Even if the slackened spokes are not removed, they offer no lateral
> strength, so the wheel can collapse to the side. Therefore, how tight
> should spokes be, knowing that the wheel can support only as much load
> as the tension in those spokes 4+ at the ground contact zone? Well
> the tighter they are the more load the wheel can carry and that
> tension is limited by the buckling strength of the rim.
>
> That riding on rough surfaces, like a road with many manual paving
> patches, wheel loading can be more than twice the static load of rider
> and bicycle. Although loosely spoked wheels may not collapse on such
> a road, their spokes become slack and in time lose alignment as spoke
> nipples unscrew. Many people use thread locking goo to prevent this
> but don't understand what caused their wheel to fail when the bump in
> the road was large enough.

spokes with excessively tight spokes buckle at small bumps in the road...

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Lou Holtman writes:

>>>>>> The "tensegrity" structure of a wheel isn't quite that simple
>>>>>> ... the deflection of the spokes and rim work in concert to
>>>>>> support the load.

>>>>> unless the spokes go slack, the support they provide the rim is
>>>>> the same, regardless of tension. the only delta is therefore
>>>>> the rim rigidity, and a stiff rim will distort less than a less
>>>>> stiff one.

>>>> You've been told and shown this to be wrong time and again,
>>>> beamboy.

>>>> Tension on spokes affect the loads the wheel can take. Less
>>>> tension, less load capability. Only a moron can... oh wait,
>>>> that's right, we're talking about you.

>>> That not what mister beam is saying. You have to watch not to get
>>> obsessive.

>> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you needn't wait for others
>> to explain why spokes of wheels are tensioned. That such wheels
>> rely on the tension of the bottom spokes has been explained
>> endlessly here and once these spokes are slack, they may as well be
>> removed from the wheel (as was shown in a picture offered here a
>> few times). The problem with that is that the rest of the spoke
>> also have no tension, so when it is their turn at the bottom the
>> wheel collapses.

>> Even if the slackened spokes are not removed, they offer no lateral
>> strength, so the wheel can collapse to the side. Therefore, how
>> tight should spokes be, knowing that the wheel can support only as
>> much load as the tension in those spokes 4+ at the ground contact
>> zone? Well the tighter they are the more load the wheel can carry
>> and that tension is limited by the buckling strength of the rim.

>> That riding on rough surfaces, like a road with many manual paving
>> patches, wheel loading can be more than twice the static load of
>> rider and bicycle. Although loosely spoked wheels may not collapse
>> on such a road, their spokes become slack and in time lose
>> alignment as spoke nipples unscrew. Many people use thread locking
>> goo to prevent this but don't understand what caused their wheel to
>> fail when the bump in the road was large enough.

> Thanks Mr. Brandt for explaining this again and again. What
> strikes me is the amount of attention spokes, wheels, rims get in
> RBT and every discussion ends in name calling and people getting
> personal in a very nasty way. And guess what, me and all my riding
> buddies had any problems with our wheels for years and years. So I
> wonder 'what is all this fuss about'. 'Maybe it is something of the
> 'new world'.

Until "the Bicycle Wheel" was published, there was no analysis and
technical explanation for why bicycle wheels are built the way they
are. Much of what was done was based on myth and lore, while regular
wheel builders fortunately knew what worked and what didn't, but they
were unclear on why that was so.

Most of the book presents a picture that is opposite to what was
commonly believed and this enraged many wheel builders. Wheelsmith
wrote the first review for Bicycling magazine in which he skillfully
avoided saying what he felt but the allusions are clear - that it was
far fetched and that it failed to cover all there is to wheel
building. Originally I had asked Rick Hjertberg (Wheelsmith) to be a
co-author, but I discovered that he didn't want to expose his trade
secrets that were mostly defrocked in the book.

Others who felt similarly have been attacking the book ever since.
More recently civility in discourse has been eroded on RBT. People no
longer "disagree" they reply with rude rejoinders, not realizing that
these discredit what they say. This tone has permeated our society
from high places in the USA that attack people's honesty and
patriotism for expressing disagreement. We have lost community in
this era and it may not return for a long time.

I am amazed when traveling, how well the Europeans have recovered
after the evils of WWII. Even former communist controlled areas show
more care for civility and civil liberties that the USA. To see how
destructive a Stasi (or CIA) can be, see:

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-lives1dec01,0,2952621.story

The brutality is all mental, but the human destruction total; done
only with words! How could that hurt?

I'm curious how the showing of the film was delayed coming to the USA
for nearly a year while being show in the rest of the world.
Thereafter it appeared mostly in smaller "art cinemas" here.

Jobst Brandt

[jim beam]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Lou Holtman writes:
>
>>>>>>> The "tensegrity" structure of a wheel isn't quite that simple
>>>>>>> ... the deflection of the spokes and rim work in concert to
>>>>>>> support the load.
>
>>>>>> unless the spokes go slack, the support they provide the rim is
>>>>>> the same, regardless of tension. the only delta is therefore
>>>>>> the rim rigidity, and a stiff rim will distort less than a less
>>>>>> stiff one.
>
>>>>> You've been told and shown this to be wrong time and again,
>>>>> beamboy.
>
>>>>> Tension on spokes affect the loads the wheel can take. Less
>>>>> tension, less load capability. Only a moron can... oh wait,
>>>>> that's right, we're talking about you.
>
>>>> That not what mister beam is saying. You have to watch not to get
>>>> obsessive.
>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you needn't wait for others
>>> to explain why spokes of wheels are tensioned. That such wheels
>>> rely on the tension of the bottom spokes has been explained
>>> endlessly here and once these spokes are slack, they may as well be
>>> removed from the wheel (as was shown in a picture offered here a
>>> few times). The problem with that is that the rest of the spoke
>>> also have no tension, so when it is their turn at the bottom the
>>> wheel collapses.
>
>>> Even if the slackened spokes are not removed, they offer no lateral
>>> strength, so the wheel can collapse to the side. Therefore, how
>>> tight should spokes be, knowing that the wheel can support only as
>>> much load as the tension in those spokes 4+ at the ground contact
>>> zone? Well the tighter they are the more load the wheel can carry
>>> and that tension is limited by the buckling strength of the rim.
>
>>> That riding on rough surfaces, like a road with many manual paving
>>> patches, wheel loading can be more than twice the static load of
>>> rider and bicycle. Although loosely spoked wheels may not collapse
>>> on such a road, their spokes become slack and in time lose
>>> alignment as spoke nipples unscrew. Many people use thread locking
>>> goo to prevent this but don't understand what caused their wheel to
>>> fail when the bump in the road was large enough.
>
>> Thanks Mr. Brandt for explaining this again and again. What
>> strikes me is the amount of attention spokes, wheels, rims get in
>> RBT and every discussion ends in name calling and people getting
>> personal in a very nasty way. And guess what, me and all my riding
>> buddies had any problems with our wheels for years and years. So I
>> wonder 'what is all this fuss about'. 'Maybe it is something of the
>> 'new world'.
>
> Until "the Bicycle Wheel" was published, there was no analysis and
> technical explanation for why bicycle wheels are built the way they
> are.

you can say there still isn't!


> Much of what was done was based on myth and lore,

see above - spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear", strength
increasing as tension increases, elimination of fatigue in non-strain
aging steels, anodizing causing cracking... the list of myth and lore
is long and scary.


> while regular
> wheel builders fortunately knew what worked and what didn't, but they
> were unclear on why that was so.

how will they correctly understand it if they're being told that spoke
slackening is due to stress superposition and not simple rim distortion?


>
> Most of the book presents a picture that is opposite to what was
> commonly believed

that at least is true.


> and this enraged many wheel builders. Wheelsmith
> wrote the first review for Bicycling magazine in which he skillfully
> avoided saying what he felt but the allusions are clear - that it was
> far fetched and that it failed to cover all there is to wheel
> building. Originally I had asked Rick Hjertberg (Wheelsmith) to be a
> co-author, but I discovered that he didn't want to expose his trade
> secrets that were mostly defrocked in the book.

or he thought you were a crank that hadn't done sufficient homework.


>
> Others who felt similarly have been attacking the book ever since.
> More recently civility in discourse has been eroded on RBT. People no
> longer "disagree" they reply with rude rejoinders, not realizing that
> these discredit what they say. This tone has permeated our society
> from high places in the USA that attack people's honesty and
> patriotism for expressing disagreement. We have lost community in
> this era and it may not return for a long time.

ah, but of course, jobstian ad hominem and "oho" is not discreditable at
all!!!


>
> I am amazed when traveling, how well the Europeans have recovered
> after the evils of WWII. Even former communist controlled areas show
> more care for civility and civil liberties that the USA. To see how
> destructive a Stasi (or CIA) can be, see:
>
> http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-lives1dec01,0,2952621.story
>
> The brutality is all mental, but the human destruction total; done
> only with words! How could that hurt?
>
> I'm curious how the showing of the film was delayed coming to the USA
> for nearly a year while being show in the rest of the world.
> Thereafter it appeared mostly in smaller "art cinemas" here.
>

/utterly/ irrelevant.

[Andrew Price]

On 11 Sep 2007 22:50:57 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

>To see how
>destructive a Stasi (or CIA) can be, see:
>
>http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-lives1dec01,0,2952621.story

That is a great film.

>The brutality is all mental, but the human destruction total; done
>only with words! How could that hurt?
>
>I'm curious how the showing of the film was delayed coming to the USA
>for nearly a year while being show in the rest of the world.
>Thereafter it appeared mostly in smaller "art cinemas" here.

A sad additional piece of information is that its main protagonist,
Ulrich Mühe, died last July at the early age of 54.

[Chalo]

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>
> If I were building a 900 gram downhill rim with 13/14g spokes, the
> tension would be higher because the application is tougher on the
> wheel, the rim is stronger..nothing to do with the
> spokes...

You are right that the rim's strength (and sometimes spoke count)
determine the tension to use, but the tension determines what spokes
will be appropriate.

For a rim with "too many" spoke holes for its weight, like the 48h Sun
CR-18, the spoke tension may have to be less than 100kgf to keep the
rim from buckling (I haven't measured the exact value, just observed
the phenomenon while tensioning wheels). if the tension is less than
100kgf, then 1.6mm or 1.5mm spokes will work better than thicker ones;
they'll be less likely to go slack.

For a rim with a heavy section and few spoke holes, the tension should
be a lot higher than 100kgf. 16 spoke road wheels with aero rims are
a good example-- don't those suckers need almost 200kgf of spoke
tension?

Chalo

[jim beam]

Chalo wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>> If I were building a 900 gram downhill rim with 13/14g spokes, the
>> tension would be higher because the application is tougher on the
>> wheel, the rim is stronger..nothing to do with the
>> spokes...
>
> You are right that the rim's strength (and sometimes spoke count)
> determine the tension to use, but the tension determines what spokes
> will be appropriate.
>
> For a rim with "too many" spoke holes for its weight, like the 48h Sun
> CR-18, the spoke tension may have to be less than 100kgf to keep the
> rim from buckling (I haven't measured the exact value, just observed
> the phenomenon while tensioning wheels). if the tension is less than
> 100kgf, then 1.6mm or 1.5mm spokes will work better than thicker ones;
> they'll be less likely to go slack.
>
> For a rim with a heavy section and few spoke holes, the tension should
> be a lot higher than 100kgf.

that's not true. tension on my 16 spoke heavy section shimano r540's is
about the same as a standard 32 spoke wheel. from factory.


> 16 spoke road wheels with aero rims are
> a good example-- don't those suckers need almost 200kgf of spoke
> tension?

nope.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 12, 9:24 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
>
>
> > If I were building a 900 gram downhill rim with 13/14g spokes, the
> > tension would be higher because the application is tougher on the
> > wheel, the rim is stronger..nothing to do with the
> > spokes...
>
> You are right that the rim's strength (and sometimes spoke count)
> determine the tension to use, but the tension determines what spokes
> will be appropriate.
>
> For a rim with "too many" spoke holes for its weight, like the 48h Sun
> CR-18, the spoke tension may have to be less than 100kgf to keep the
> rim from buckling (I haven't measured the exact value, just observed
> the phenomenon while tensioning wheels). if the tension is less than
> 100kgf, then 1.6mm or 1.5mm spokes will work better than thicker ones;
> they'll be less likely to go slack.
>
> For a rim with a heavy section and few spoke holes, the tension should
> be a lot higher than 100kgf. 16 spoke road wheels with aero rims are
> a good example-- don't those suckers need almost 200kgf of spoke
> tension?
>
> Chalo

I have built a few Deep V, radial, bladed, 16 and 18h and the tension
was still in the 100-110kgf range, front wheels. Ditto for some Deep
V, 24h, 2 cross rears..samo-

[Peter Cole]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Sep 12, 1:35 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
>> Maybe it has to do with fear and insecurity, that letting other people have
>> different views will "let the terrorists win".
>
> The "War on Terror" and the "terrorists winning" are one and the
> same... ie when we decided to wage the war, that is when we lost...
>
> Nice film, "The Lives of Others". There was a comment made in the film
> that 20 years ago people would have never tolerated what was going on,
> but now they were used to it. And we are slowly getting used to it as
> well.

Just when I'm thinking I've grown too cynical I discover I'm not cynical
enough (again).

I do believe there are some absolutes. The end never justifies the means
-- here, there or anywhere.

[still me]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:13:33 -0400, Peter Cole
<peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:

>I do believe there are some absolutes. The end never justifies the means
>-- here, there or anywhere.

Especially when the end is a fraud from the beginning.

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Ron Ruff wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 1:35 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
>>> Maybe it has to do with fear and insecurity, that letting other
>>> people have
>>> different views will "let the terrorists win".
>>
>> The "War on Terror" and the "terrorists winning" are one and the
>> same... ie when we decided to wage the war, that is when we lost...
>>
>> Nice film, "The Lives of Others". There was a comment made in the film
>> that 20 years ago people would have never tolerated what was going on,
>> but now they were used to it. And we are slowly getting used to it as
>> well.
>
> Just when I'm thinking I've grown too cynical I discover I'm not cynical
> enough (again).

cynical? you're obstreperous, myopic, pig-headed, stubborn, and frankly
sometimes outright stupid. but you're not cynical - you'd need to be
capable of rational analysis for that.


>
> I do believe there are some absolutes. The end never justifies the means
> -- here, there or anywhere.

[Chalo]

jim beam wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
>
> > For a rim with a heavy section and few spoke holes, the tension should
> > be a lot higher than 100kgf.
>
> that's not true. tension on my 16 spoke heavy section shimano r540's is
> about the same as a standard 32 spoke wheel. from factory.
>
> > 16 spoke road wheels with aero rims are
> > a good example-- don't those suckers need almost 200kgf of spoke
> > tension?
>
> nope.

Well, I just downloaded the owner's manual for Bontrager package
wheels, and for their Race X-Lite Aero (which I assume is a low spoke
count wheel) and Race X-Lite Aero Carbon, they spec up to 400 lbf
tension.

I found a Park Tool page that gave the spec for the Mavic Ksyrium
Elite as up to 160 kgf. For what it's worth, it specs the Shimano
R540 at 98-118kgf in front and 105-128 kgf in the rear-- relatively
normal, just as you claim.

The spec for other wheels starts at 50 kgf for front wheel spokes and
ranges to 181 for rear wheel spokes, so there's no indication that 100
kgf is the right tension for all purposes. It looks like 100 kgf
would be within spec for at least half the listed wheels, though.

It's worth pointing out that all the listed wheels are for bikes with
some kind of sporting pretensions, and none of them have high spoke
counts. So for wheels in the real world whose uses require more of
them than play bikes do, I'd expect to see a correspondingly wider
range of appropriate spoke tensions depending on spoke count, rim
section, and intended load.

For what it's worth, Park says this: "The recommended tension for
spokes in bicycle wheels can be as low as 80 Kilograms force (Kfg) and
as high as 230 Kilograms force. As a rule of thumb, it is best to set
tension as high as the weakest link in the system will allow, which
for a bicycle wheel is usually the rim." That sounds like something
Jobst would say.

http://parktool.com/repair/readhowto.asp?id=51

Chalo

[jim beam]

Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>
>>> For a rim with a heavy section and few spoke holes, the tension should
>>> be a lot higher than 100kgf.
>> that's not true. tension on my 16 spoke heavy section shimano r540's is
>> about the same as a standard 32 spoke wheel. from factory.
>>
>>> 16 spoke road wheels with aero rims are
>>> a good example-- don't those suckers need almost 200kgf of spoke
>>> tension?
>> nope.
>
> Well, I just downloaded the owner's manual for Bontrager package
> wheels, and for their Race X-Lite Aero (which I assume is a low spoke
> count wheel) and Race X-Lite Aero Carbon, they spec up to 400 lbf
> tension.

gotta use consistent units of measurements! 400lbf = 182kgf.

>
> I found a Park Tool page that gave the spec for the Mavic Ksyrium
> Elite as up to 160 kgf.

park say? what do mavic say? do mavic use that from factory?

> For what it's worth, it specs the Shimano
> R540 at 98-118kgf in front and 105-128 kgf in the rear-- relatively
> normal, just as you claim.

and i'll bet that shimano have never read "the book" so their
engineering is untainted.

>
> The spec for other wheels starts at 50 kgf for front wheel spokes and
> ranges to 181 for rear wheel spokes, so there's no indication that 100
> kgf is the right tension for all purposes. It looks like 100 kgf
> would be within spec for at least half the listed wheels, though.
>
> It's worth pointing out that all the listed wheels are for bikes with
> some kind of sporting pretensions, and none of them have high spoke
> counts. So for wheels in the real world whose uses require more of
> them than play bikes do, I'd expect to see a correspondingly wider
> range of appropriate spoke tensions depending on spoke count, rim
> section, and intended load.
>
> For what it's worth, Park says this: "The recommended tension for
> spokes in bicycle wheels can be as low as 80 Kilograms force (Kfg) and
> as high as 230 Kilograms force. As a rule of thumb, it is best to set
> tension as high as the weakest link in the system will allow, which
> for a bicycle wheel is usually the rim." That sounds like something
> Jobst would say.
>
> http://parktool.com/repair/readhowto.asp?id=51
>
> Chalo
>

i think it more interesting that the only one that is truly a high
tension wheel is domestic - and doubtless influenced by jobstian
misunderstanding. there really is no point in tension "as high as the
rim can bear". it achieves nothing for wheel strength, can increase rim
buckling and decreases fatigue life. tension needs to be as high as
necessary to prevent spoke slackness in use - no more.

[Ron Ruff]

On Sep 13, 6:59 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> tension needs to be as high as
> necessary to prevent spoke slackness in use - no more.

I agree... but if your tension is lower than it *could* be then the
spokes will go slack at a lighter load than they would otherwise. So
if you wish to optimize a wheel's performance (low weight and drag),
you will reduce the number of spokes and increase the tension until
you are at the limit for at least one part of the system. Even if you
just want a standard wheel with 32-36 spokes, one with higher tension
will take a bigger load before spokes go slack... though in that case
you might get away with lower tension if the loads are not extreme.

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:

>> Just when I'm thinking I've grown too cynical I discover I'm not
>> cynical enough (again).
>
> cynical? you're obstreperous, myopic, pig-headed, stubborn, and frankly
> sometimes outright stupid. but you're not cynical - you'd need to be
> capable of rational analysis for that.

Main Entry: ob·strep·er·ous
Pronunciation: &b-'stre-p(&-)r&s, äb-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin obstreperus, from obstrepere to clamor against, from
ob- against + strepere to make a noise
1 : marked by unruly or aggressive noisiness : CLAMOROUS <obstreperous
merriment>
2 : stubbornly resistant to control : UNRULY
synonym see VOCIFEROUS

I am resistant to control, I can see why that might be a problem for you.

I do wear glasses.

I'm about as likely to be called stupid as short.

I've been judged at least capable, and frequently excellent, at
"rational" analysis. Is there any other kind?

While you're welcome to your opinion of me, do you have to append it to
every post?

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>> Just when I'm thinking I've grown too cynical I discover I'm not
>>> cynical enough (again).
>>
>> cynical? you're obstreperous, myopic, pig-headed, stubborn, and
>> frankly sometimes outright stupid. but you're not cynical - you'd
>> need to be capable of rational analysis for that.
>
> Main Entry: ob·strep·er·ous
> Pronunciation: &b-'stre-p(&-)r&s, äb-
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Latin obstreperus, from obstrepere to clamor against, from
> ob- against + strepere to make a noise
> 1 : marked by unruly or aggressive noisiness : CLAMOROUS <obstreperous
> merriment>
> 2 : stubbornly resistant to control : UNRULY
> synonym see VOCIFEROUS
>
> I am resistant to control, I can see why that might be a problem for you.
>
> I do wear glasses.
>
> I'm about as likely to be called stupid as short.
>
> I've been judged at least capable, and frequently excellent, at
> "rational" analysis. Is there any other kind?
>
> While you're welcome to your opinion of me, do you have to append it to
> every post?

when you're bull****ting, yes!

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>> Just when I'm thinking I've grown too cynical I discover I'm not
>>>> cynical enough (again).
>>>
>>> cynical? you're obstreperous, myopic, pig-headed, stubborn, and
>>> frankly sometimes outright stupid. but you're not cynical - you'd
>>> need to be capable of rational analysis for that.
>>
>> Main Entry: ob·strep·er·ous
>> Pronunciation: &b-'stre-p(&-)r&s, äb-
>> Function: adjective
>> Etymology: Latin obstreperus, from obstrepere to clamor against, from
>> ob- against + strepere to make a noise
>> 1 : marked by unruly or aggressive noisiness : CLAMOROUS <obstreperous
>> merriment>
>> 2 : stubbornly resistant to control : UNRULY
>> synonym see VOCIFEROUS
>>
>> I am resistant to control, I can see why that might be a problem for you.
>>
>> I do wear glasses.
>>
>> I'm about as likely to be called stupid as short.
>>
>> I've been judged at least capable, and frequently excellent, at
>> "rational" analysis. Is there any other kind?
>>
>> While you're welcome to your opinion of me, do you have to append it
>> to every post?
>
> when you're bull****ting, yes!

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you just violated your own
guideline, unless your idea of me "bull****ting" is calling myself cynical.

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Just when I'm thinking I've grown too cynical I discover I'm not
>>>>> cynical enough (again).
>>>>
>>>> cynical? you're obstreperous, myopic, pig-headed, stubborn, and
>>>> frankly sometimes outright stupid. but you're not cynical - you'd
>>>> need to be capable of rational analysis for that.
>>>
>>> Main Entry: ob·strep·er·ous
>>> Pronunciation: &b-'stre-p(&-)r&s, äb-
>>> Function: adjective
>>> Etymology: Latin obstreperus, from obstrepere to clamor against, from
>>> ob- against + strepere to make a noise
>>> 1 : marked by unruly or aggressive noisiness : CLAMOROUS
>>> <obstreperous merriment>
>>> 2 : stubbornly resistant to control : UNRULY
>>> synonym see VOCIFEROUS
>>>
>>> I am resistant to control, I can see why that might be a problem for
>>> you.
>>>
>>> I do wear glasses.
>>>
>>> I'm about as likely to be called stupid as short.
>>>
>>> I've been judged at least capable, and frequently excellent, at
>>> "rational" analysis. Is there any other kind?
>>>
>>> While you're welcome to your opinion of me, do you have to append it
>>> to every post?
>>
>> when you're bull****ting, yes!
>
> At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you just violated your own
> guideline, unless your idea of me "bull****ting" is calling myself cynical.

now you're being short.