Breaking Spokes

[Roger Zoul]

This is my bike:

http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0mdo1uybug.j27008

which I bought last September. I had about 200 miles on it until April 17,
now I have almost 800 miles. I've been riding a fair amount recently.

My bike has these wheels:

"Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"

I don't know anything about Rolf but I'm getting a notion that they are
somehow designed for speed :)

I weigh 235 to 240 lbs.

Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear wheel and
it got out of true. I got it fixed on Wednesday at the LBS. I did another
30 miles on Thursday, no problems, but the route was fairly easy in terms of
hills. Today, while on a ride at about 25 miles out, I popped another spoke
on the rear wheel on a route similar to the first one, but longer. I ended
up walking home. The LBS fixed it and trued the wheel again. The folks over
in .misc think that these spokes ought not to be popping and that I should
have the wheel rebuilt (I don't know what that means yet).

The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in too
high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel. I
generally ride up hills (there are a goodly amount of hills here in upstate
SC - Greenville) according to cadance, trying to keep it at or above 60. I
do end up shifting down as I go up the hill, as it's sometimes hard to know
what gear i really need to be in (I find hills deceptive -- some look really
hard but turn out to be easy while others look easy but turn out to be
hard -- what's up with that?).

Any comments/advice/suggestion would be greatly appreciated.

[Rick Warner]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:00:52 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:


>Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear wheel and
>it got out of true. I got it fixed on Wednesday at the LBS. I did another
>30 miles on Thursday, no problems, but the route was fairly easy in terms of
>hills. Today, while on a ride at about 25 miles out, I popped another spoke
>on the rear wheel on a route similar to the first one, but longer. I ended
>up walking home. The LBS fixed it and trued the wheel again. The folks over
>in .misc think that these spokes ought not to be popping and that I should
>have the wheel rebuilt (I don't know what that means yet).

I will be even more radical. Those wheels are good for show, and for
lighter riders. But they are a pain from several aspects. If it
were me, I would get a good set of custom built wheels, with
sufficient spokes and strength to handle you and your riding style.
Actually, it was me. The Rolfs are in the storage area, and the
custom made wheels (Open Pro rims, Ultegra hubs) are on the bike.

>The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in too
>high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel. I
>generally ride up hills (there are a goodly amount of hills here in upstate
>SC - Greenville) according to cadance, trying to keep it at or above 60. I
>do end up shifting down as I go up the hill, as it's sometimes hard to know
>what gear i really need to be in (I find hills deceptive -- some look really
>hard but turn out to be easy while others look easy but turn out to be
>hard -- what's up with that?).

Poppycock. The problem is the wheel, not your riding style. I ride a
fair amount, and a lot of it is in the hills (6000-8000 miles/year,
400K-500K ft of climbing). When climbing you should be shifting so
that you can turn a good cadence and keeping your HR under control,
not because it is better for your wheels. If your riding style is the
problem (which I do not believe) then wheels that fit your riding
style are the solution; match the equipment to you, not you to the
equipment.

- rick

[dianne_1234]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:00:52 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:

>This is my bike:
>http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0mdo1uybug.j27008

Nice bike!

>My bike has these wheels:
>"Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"

Only the paired spoke design is Rolf's, and that's really over a
century old. This design detail has nothing to do with your wheel
breaking spokes.

>I weigh 235 to 240 lbs.

A little on the heavy side for a wheel with only 28 spokes, but still
not a cause for spokes to break.

> The folks over
>in .misc think that these spokes ought not to be popping

I agree.

> and that I should have the wheel rebuilt

This shouldn't be necessary to stop spokes breaking if the spokes are
a reasonable fit in the hub holes. More below.

> (I don't know what that means yet).

A rebuild is replacing the spokes, and the rim if it's damaged, and
re-tensioning the wheel.

>The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in too
>high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel.

Clearly, she doesn't know why spokes break. You should be able to
pedal as hard as you like and not break any spokes by doing so.

>Any comments/advice/suggestion would be greatly appreciated.

Unless there is some material flaw or dimensional anomaly in your
wheels, here's a sure fix to prevent broken spokes:

1. Measure the spoke elbow. If it's 6.5mm or less, the spokes are a
good fit in almost any hub's holes. If 7.0mm or more, have them
replaced.[1] Dimension E is what you're measuring, shown here:
<http://www.cnspoke.com/products/measure.htm>

2. Replace any broken spokes.

3. Adjust hop, wobble, tension and dish. Aim for about 100 kg average
tension on the right side spokes. Lube nipples and spoke threads as
needed. The shop can easily do this.

** And here's the secret ingredient to preventing broken spokes: **
4. Stress relieve the wheel.[2] Basically, squeeze sets of four spokes
in your hands. Go around the wheel repeating until every spoke has
been momentarily over-tensioned like this.

Many shop mechanic wheel builders squeeze spokes like this, but few
squeeze hard enough or know that this relieves stress in the spokes
and prevents broken spokes. The harder the squeeze, the better the
resistance to spoke breakage.

How hard?
- Wear padded leather gloves. It'll hurt your bare hands otherwise.
- Squeeze hard to try and break any spokes that might be about to
break. Squeeze really hard. I dare you to break a spoke! :-)

5. Readjust hop, wobble, tension and dish as above.

[1] More details on elbow length here:
<http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/DTspokes.htm>

[2] More details on stress relieving spokes here:
<http://yarchive.net/bike/stress_relieve.html>

[Craig Young]

Only one more thing to add - at 235 to 240 pounds, a 24/28 spoke wheel
pair is probably too few. But, it is probably cheaper to rebuild and
stress relieve the wheels than to buy new ones, so I would try that
first. If you can remember, did you hear any pinging noises coming from
your wheels when the bike was brand new? That is a telltale sign of an
improperly stress-releived wheel, and indicates spokes seating and
unwinding, the result of which is a wheel that is at too low of tension.

Even experienced wheelbuilders fail to properly stress revieve spokes -
good advice from dianne..

dianne_1234 wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:00:52 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>This is my bike:
>>http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0mdo1uybug.j27008
>
>
> Nice bike!
>
>
>>My bike has these wheels:
>>"Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"
>
>
> Only the paired spoke design is Rolf's, and that's really over a
> century old. This design detail has nothing to do with your wheel
> breaking spokes.
>
>
>>I weigh 235 to 240 lbs.
>
>
> A little on the heavy side for a wheel with only 28 spokes, but still
> not a cause for spokes to break.
>
>
>>The folks over
>>in .misc think that these spokes ought not to be popping
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>>and that I should have the wheel rebuilt
>
>
> This shouldn't be necessary to stop spokes breaking if the spokes are
> a reasonable fit in the hub holes. More below.
>
>
>>(I don't know what that means yet).
>
>
> A rebuild is replacing the spokes, and the rim if it's damaged, and
> re-tensioning the wheel.
>
>
>>The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in too
>>high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel.
>
>
> Clearly, she doesn't know why spokes break. You should be able to
> pedal as hard as you like and not break any spokes by doing so.
>
>
>>Any comments/advice/suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Unless there is some material flaw or dimensional anomaly in your
> wheels, here's a sure fix to prevent broken spokes:
>
> 1. Measure the spoke elbow. If it's 6.5mm or less, the spokes are a
> good fit in almost any hub's holes. If 7.0mm or more, have them
> replaced.[1] Dimension E is what you're measuring, shown here:
> <http://www.cnspoke.com/products/measure.htm>
>
> 2. Replace any broken spokes.
>
> 3. Adjust hop, wobble, tension and dish. Aim for about 100 kg average
> tension on the right side spokes. Lube nipples and spoke threads as
> needed. The shop can easily do this.
>
> ** And here's the secret ingredient to preventing broken spokes: **
> 4. Stress relieve the wheel.[2] Basically, squeeze sets of four spokes
> in your hands. Go around the wheel repeating until every spoke has
> been momentarily over-tensioned like this.
>
> Many shop mechanic wheel builders squeeze spokes like this, but few
> squeeze hard enough or know that this relieves stress in the spokes
> and prevents broken spokes. The harder the squeeze, the better the
> resistance to spoke breakage.
>
> How hard?
> - Wear padded leather gloves. It'll hurt your bare hands otherwise.
> - Squeeze hard to try and break any spokes that might be about to
> break. Squeeze really hard. I dare you to break a spoke! :-)
>
> 5. Readjust hop, wobble, tension and dish as above.
>
> [1] More details on elbow length here:
> <http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/DTspokes.htm>
>
> [2] More details on stress relieving spokes here:
> <http://yarchive.net/bike/stress_relieve.html>
>
>

[jim beam]

i second all this from dianne, but add one thing: the quality of the
spoke is very important. no amount of "stress relief" can compensate
for poor material quality or production practice by the spoke's
manufacturer. stick to a known brand. d.t. have the majority of the
u.s. custom build market - they make a good reliable spoke. sapim have
the majority of the european peloton and are courageous enough to
publish fatigue tables for their products. choose your poison accordingly.

dianne_1234 wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:00:52 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>This is my bike:
>>http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0mdo1uybug.j27008
>
>
> Nice bike!
>
>
>>My bike has these wheels:
>>"Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"
>
>
> Only the paired spoke design is Rolf's, and that's really over a
> century old. This design detail has nothing to do with your wheel
> breaking spokes.
>
>
>>I weigh 235 to 240 lbs.
>
>
> A little on the heavy side for a wheel with only 28 spokes, but still
> not a cause for spokes to break.
>
>
>>The folks over
>>in .misc think that these spokes ought not to be popping
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>>and that I should have the wheel rebuilt
>
>
> This shouldn't be necessary to stop spokes breaking if the spokes are
> a reasonable fit in the hub holes. More below.
>
>
>>(I don't know what that means yet).
>
>
> A rebuild is replacing the spokes, and the rim if it's damaged, and
> re-tensioning the wheel.
>
>
>>The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in too
>>high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel.
>
>
> Clearly, she doesn't know why spokes break. You should be able to
> pedal as hard as you like and not break any spokes by doing so.
>
>
>>Any comments/advice/suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Unless there is some material flaw or dimensional anomaly in your
> wheels, here's a sure fix to prevent broken spokes:
>
> 1. Measure the spoke elbow. If it's 6.5mm or less, the spokes are a
> good fit in almost any hub's holes. If 7.0mm or more, have them
> replaced.[1] Dimension E is what you're measuring, shown here:
> <http://www.cnspoke.com/products/measure.htm>
>
> 2. Replace any broken spokes.
>
> 3. Adjust hop, wobble, tension and dish. Aim for about 100 kg average
> tension on the right side spokes. Lube nipples and spoke threads as
> needed. The shop can easily do this.
>
> ** And here's the secret ingredient to preventing broken spokes: **
> 4. Stress relieve the wheel.[2] Basically, squeeze sets of four spokes
> in your hands. Go around the wheel repeating until every spoke has
> been momentarily over-tensioned like this.
>
> Many shop mechanic wheel builders squeeze spokes like this, but few
> squeeze hard enough or know that this relieves stress in the spokes
> and prevents broken spokes. The harder the squeeze, the better the
> resistance to spoke breakage.
>
> How hard?
> - Wear padded leather gloves. It'll hurt your bare hands otherwise.
> - Squeeze hard to try and break any spokes that might be about to
> break. Squeeze really hard. I dare you to break a spoke! :-)
>
> 5. Readjust hop, wobble, tension and dish as above.
>
> [1] More details on elbow length here:
> <http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/DTspokes.htm>
>
> [2] More details on stress relieving spokes here:
> <http://yarchive.net/bike/stress_relieve.html>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Roger Zoul writes:

> This is my bike:

http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0mdo1uybug.j27008

I take it you meant:

http://tinyurl.com/2lo5v

> which I bought last September. I had about 200 miles on it until
> April 17, now I have almost 800 miles. I've been riding a fair
> amount recently.

> My bike has these wheels:

> "Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"

> I don't know anything about Rolf but I'm getting a notion that they
> are somehow designed for speed.

Not really. They are designed to make you think of speed, the
difference being only measurable with a stop watch at maximum effort.
They aren't lighter nor are they pleasant to ride in winds.

> I weigh 235 to 240 lbs.

Work on that.

> Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear
> wheel and it got out of true. I got it fixed on Wednesday at the
> LBS. I did another 30 miles on Thursday, no problems, but the route
> was fairly easy in terms of hills. Today, while on a ride at about
> 25 miles out, I popped another spoke on the rear wheel on a route
> similar to the first one, but longer. I ended up walking home. The
> LBS fixed it and trued the wheel again. The folks over in .misc
> think that these spokes ought not to be popping and that I should
> have the wheel rebuilt (I don't know what that means yet).

> The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills
> in too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear
> wheel. I generally ride up hills (there are a goodly amount of
> hills here in upstate SC - Greenville) according to cadence, trying
> to keep it at or above 60.

The guy doesn't understand bicycles. The torque in a rear wheel is
independent of gear ratio for any given speed in the flat and is
smoother with lower peaks for hill climbing in big gears (low
cadence). Therefore, he is making this up as a cover for his poor
wheel building. I suspect he doesn't understand stress relieving
spokes after building a wheel.

> I do end up shifting down as I go up the hill, as it's sometimes
> hard to know what gear I really need to be in (I find hills
> deceptive -- some look really hard but turn out to be easy while
> others look easy but turn out to be hard -- what's up with that?).

I think you are confusing the effects of short hills with long ones,
or ones that you approach rested or already near your limit. RR
under- or over-passes are steep hills but insignificant as climbs.
All that has nothing to do with the reliability of your wheels. Just
the same, low spoke count wheels are not as durable as conventional 36
spoke road wheels.

Jobst Brandt

[RWM]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
> This is my bike:
>
>
http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0mdo1uybug.j27008
>
> which I bought last September. I had about 200 miles on it until April
17,
> now I have almost 800 miles. I've been riding a fair amount recently.
>
> My bike has these wheels:
>
> "Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"
>
> I don't know anything about Rolf but I'm getting a notion that they are
> somehow designed for speed :)
>
> I weigh 235 to 240 lbs.
>
> Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear wheel
and
> it got out of true. I got it fixed on Wednesday at the LBS. I did
another
> 30 miles on Thursday, no problems, but the route was fairly easy in terms
of
> hills. Today, while on a ride at about 25 miles out, I popped another
spoke
> on the rear wheel on a route similar to the first one, but longer. I
ended
> up walking home. The LBS fixed it and trued the wheel again. The folks
over
> in .misc think that these spokes ought not to be popping and that I should
> have the wheel rebuilt (I don't know what that means yet).
>
> The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in too
> high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel. I
> generally ride up hills (there are a goodly amount of hills here in
upstate
> SC - Greenville) according to cadance, trying to keep it at or above 60.
I
> do end up shifting down as I go up the hill, as it's sometimes hard to
know
> what gear i really need to be in (I find hills deceptive -- some look
really
> hard but turn out to be easy while others look easy but turn out to be
> hard -- what's up with that?).
>
> Any comments/advice/suggestion would be greatly appreciated.

I have had lots of problems with breaking rear wheel spokes. My advice is
to look at the Mavic Ksyrium Elite wheels. I replied to another post
earlier today with my results with 36 spoke hand built wheels. The summary
is that I have had horrible results with them but great results with the
Ksyrium Elites. It know that this goes completely against the overall
feelings of most of the vocal members of this group but the Ksyrium Elite
wheel has lasted more that three times longer than any of the hand built
wheels...and it had made zero trips to the LBS to get trued. Before anyone
says that I just got a bad builder I had the wheel built at three different
places. Each time I spoke to the owner, or lead tech, to explain my
situation and asked that the wheel be built by their best wheel builder.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

roger-<< This is my bike:

http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0md
o1uybug.j27008 >><BR><BR>
<< I had about 200 miles on it until April 17,
now I have almost 800 miles. I've been riding a fair amount recently.
>><BR><BR>
<< My bike has these wheels:
"Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set" >><BR><BR>
<< I weigh 235 to 240 lbs. >><BR><BR>
<< Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear wheel and
it got out of true. >><BR><BR>


<< The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in too
high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel. >><BR><BR>

The bike shop owner is clueless, particularly if she sold you the bicycle. Go
to her, in private, and tell her she needs to have an appropriate for you
wheelset built. Shimano hubs onto a 36 hole rim, built well. If she won't, ask
for your money back and go to a bike shop that has a clue. Also call
Specialized.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

craig-<< If you can remember, did you hear any pinging noises coming from
your wheels when the bike was brand new? That is a telltale sign of an
improperly stress-releived wheel, and indicates spokes seating and
unwinding, >><BR><BR>

Stress relieving does not necessarily take windup out of spokes. They are two
different issues, with two different 'techniques'.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

bobmc-<< It know that this goes completely against the overall
feelings of most of the vocal members of this group but the Ksyrium Elite
wheel has lasted more that three times longer than any of the hand built
wheels.. >><BR><BR>

Then ya still need a new wheelbuilder.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Roger Zoul]

dianne_1234 wrote:
:: On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:00:52 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: > wrote:
::
::: This is my bike:
:::
http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0mdo1uybug.j27008
::
:: Nice bike!
::
::: My bike has these wheels:
::: "Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"
::
:: Only the paired spoke design is Rolf's, and that's really over a
:: century old. This design detail has nothing to do with your wheel
:: breaking spokes.
::
::: I weigh 235 to 240 lbs.
::
:: A little on the heavy side for a wheel with only 28 spokes, but still
:: not a cause for spokes to break.
::
::: The folks over
::: in .misc think that these spokes ought not to be popping
::
:: I agree.
::
::: and that I should have the wheel rebuilt
::
:: This shouldn't be necessary to stop spokes breaking if the spokes are
:: a reasonable fit in the hub holes. More below.
::
::: (I don't know what that means yet).
::
:: A rebuild is replacing the spokes, and the rim if it's damaged, and
:: re-tensioning the wheel.
::
::: The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills
::: in too
::: high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel.
::
:: Clearly, she doesn't know why spokes break. You should be able to
:: pedal as hard as you like and not break any spokes by doing so.


Thanks a lot for the helpful comments, Dianne. I'm still working through
all of it...I'm going to look into getting the wheels rebuilt and then I'll
likely go to a new wheel set, either selling the Rolf's or storing them. I
just feel a lack of confidence in riding long distances with such a great
possibility of wheel failure and having to "limp" home.

::
::: Any comments/advice/suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
::
:: Unless there is some material flaw or dimensional anomaly in your
:: wheels, here's a sure fix to prevent broken spokes:
::
:: 1. Measure the spoke elbow. If it's 6.5mm or less, the spokes are a
:: good fit in almost any hub's holes. If 7.0mm or more, have them
:: replaced.[1] Dimension E is what you're measuring, shown here:
:: <http://www.cnspoke.com/products/measure.htm>
::
:: 2. Replace any broken spokes.
::
:: 3. Adjust hop, wobble, tension and dish. Aim for about 100 kg average
:: tension on the right side spokes. Lube nipples and spoke threads as
:: needed. The shop can easily do this.
::
:: ** And here's the secret ingredient to preventing broken spokes: **
:: 4. Stress relieve the wheel.[2] Basically, squeeze sets of four
:: spokes
:: in your hands. Go around the wheel repeating until every spoke has
:: been momentarily over-tensioned like this.
::
:: Many shop mechanic wheel builders squeeze spokes like this, but few
:: squeeze hard enough or know that this relieves stress in the spokes
:: and prevents broken spokes. The harder the squeeze, the better the
:: resistance to spoke breakage.
::
:: How hard?
:: - Wear padded leather gloves. It'll hurt your bare hands otherwise.
:: - Squeeze hard to try and break any spokes that might be about to
:: break. Squeeze really hard. I dare you to break a spoke! :-)
::
:: 5. Readjust hop, wobble, tension and dish as above.
::
:: [1] More details on elbow length here:
:: <http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/DTspokes.htm>
::
:: [2] More details on stress relieving spokes here:
:: <http://yarchive.net/bike/stress_relieve.html>

[Roger Zoul]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
:: roger-<< This is my bike:
::
::
http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0md
:: o1uybug.j27008 >><BR><BR>
:: << I had about 200 miles on it until April 17,
:: now I have almost 800 miles. I've been riding a fair amount
:: recently.
:::: <BR><BR>
:: << My bike has these wheels:
:: "Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"
:: >><BR><BR> << I weigh 235 to 240 lbs. >><BR><BR>
:: << Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear
:: wheel and it got out of true. >><BR><BR>
::
::
:: << The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up
:: hills in too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the
:: rear wheel. >><BR><BR>
::
:: The bike shop owner is clueless, particularly if she sold you the
:: bicycle. Go to her, in private, and tell her she needs to have an
:: appropriate for you wheelset built. Shimano hubs onto a 36 hole rim,
:: built well. If she won't, ask for your money back and go to a bike
:: shop that has a clue. Also call Specialized.

That's a really good idea, Peter, thanks.

[Roger Zoul]

Rick Warner wrote:
:: On Sat, 29 May 2004 18:00:52 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: > wrote:
::
::
::: Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear
::: wheel and it got out of true. I got it fixed on Wednesday at the
::: LBS. I did another 30 miles on Thursday, no problems, but the
::: route was fairly easy in terms of hills. Today, while on a ride at
::: about 25 miles out, I popped another spoke on the rear wheel on a
::: route similar to the first one, but longer. I ended up walking
::: home. The LBS fixed it and trued the wheel again. The folks over
::: in .misc think that these spokes ought not to be popping and that I
::: should have the wheel rebuilt (I don't know what that means yet).
::
:: I will be even more radical. Those wheels are good for show, and for
:: lighter riders. But they are a pain from several aspects. If it
:: were me, I would get a good set of custom built wheels, with
:: sufficient spokes and strength to handle you and your riding style.
:: Actually, it was me. The Rolfs are in the storage area, and the
:: custom made wheels (Open Pro rims, Ultegra hubs) are on the bike.

What about this Peter White guy? He offers lifetime if you go with what he
suggests...I want this problem to go away...

::
::: The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills
::: in too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear
::: wheel. I generally ride up hills (there are a goodly amount of
::: hills here in upstate SC - Greenville) according to cadance, trying
::: to keep it at or above 60. I do end up shifting down as I go up
::: the hill, as it's sometimes hard to know what gear i really need to
::: be in (I find hills deceptive -- some look really hard but turn out
::: to be easy while others look easy but turn out to be
::: hard -- what's up with that?).
::
:: Poppycock. The problem is the wheel, not your riding style. I ride
:: a
:: fair amount, and a lot of it is in the hills (6000-8000 miles/year,
:: 400K-500K ft of climbing). When climbing you should be shifting so
:: that you can turn a good cadence and keeping your HR under control,
:: not because it is better for your wheels. If your riding style is
:: the problem (which I do not believe) then wheels that fit your riding
:: style are the solution; match the equipment to you, not you to the
:: equipment.

I agree 100%. The suggestion that I always shift to granny gear on any hill
to protect my wheels is nuts, imo.

[Roger Zoul]

wrote:

::
::: I don't know anything about Rolf but I'm getting a notion that they
::: are somehow designed for speed.
::
:: Not really. They are designed to make you think of speed, the
:: difference being only measurable with a stop watch at maximum effort.
:: They aren't lighter nor are they pleasant to ride in winds.

Why would they not be pleasant to ride in winds? Is there some design
feature?.

::
::: I weigh 235 to 240 lbs.
::
:: Work on that.

Absolutely...

::
::: Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear
::: wheel and it got out of true. I got it fixed on Wednesday at the
::: LBS. I did another 30 miles on Thursday, no problems, but the route
::: was fairly easy in terms of hills. Today, while on a ride at about
::: 25 miles out, I popped another spoke on the rear wheel on a route
::: similar to the first one, but longer. I ended up walking home. The
::: LBS fixed it and trued the wheel again. The folks over in .misc
::: think that these spokes ought not to be popping and that I should
::: have the wheel rebuilt (I don't know what that means yet).
::
::: The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills
::: in too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear
::: wheel. I generally ride up hills (there are a goodly amount of
::: hills here in upstate SC - Greenville) according to cadence, trying
::: to keep it at or above 60.
::
:: The guy doesn't understand bicycles. The torque in a rear wheel is
:: independent of gear ratio for any given speed in the flat and is
:: smoother with lower peaks for hill climbing in big gears (low
:: cadence). Therefore, he is making this up as a cover for his poor
:: wheel building. I suspect he doesn't understand stress relieving
:: spokes after building a wheel.

Likely...


::
::: I do end up shifting down as I go up the hill, as it's sometimes
::: hard to know what gear I really need to be in (I find hills
::: deceptive -- some look really hard but turn out to be easy while
::: others look easy but turn out to be hard -- what's up with that?).
::
:: I think you are confusing the effects of short hills with long ones,

No doubt...it's usually the long ones that look fearful but are easier and
the short ones that look hard but are relatively hard.

:: or ones that you approach rested or already near your limit.

Yes, you are correct, I think.

RR
:: under- or over-passes are steep hills but insignificant as climbs.
:: All that has nothing to do with the reliability of your wheels. Just
:: the same, low spoke count wheels are not as durable as conventional
:: 36
:: spoke road wheels.

Noted.

[Roger Zoul]

RWM wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
:: ...
::: This is my bike:
:::
:::
::
http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0mdo1uybug.j27008
:::
::: which I bought last September. I had about 200 miles on it until
::: April
:: 17,
::: now I have almost 800 miles. I've been riding a fair amount
::: recently.
:::
::: My bike has these wheels:
:::
::: "Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"
:::
::: I don't know anything about Rolf but I'm getting a notion that they
::: are
::: somehow designed for speed :)
:::
::: I weigh 235 to 240 lbs.
:::
::: Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear
::: wheel
:: and
::: it got out of true. I got it fixed on Wednesday at the LBS. I did
:: another
::: 30 miles on Thursday, no problems, but the route was fairly easy in
::: terms
:: of
::: hills. Today, while on a ride at about 25 miles out, I popped
::: another
:: spoke
::: on the rear wheel on a route similar to the first one, but longer.
::: I
:: ended
::: up walking home. The LBS fixed it and trued the wheel again. The
::: folks
:: over
::: in .misc think that these spokes ought not to be popping and that I
::: should
::: have the wheel rebuilt (I don't know what that means yet).
:::
::: The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills
::: in too
::: high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel. I
::: generally ride up hills (there are a goodly amount of hills here in
:: upstate
::: SC - Greenville) according to cadance, trying to keep it at or
::: above 60.
:: I
::: do end up shifting down as I go up the hill, as it's sometimes hard
::: to
:: know
::: what gear i really need to be in (I find hills deceptive -- some
::: look
:: really
::: hard but turn out to be easy while others look easy but turn out to
::: be
::: hard -- what's up with that?).
:::
::: Any comments/advice/suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
::
:: I have had lots of problems with breaking rear wheel spokes. My
:: advice is
:: to look at the Mavic Ksyrium Elite wheels. I replied to another post
:: earlier today with my results with 36 spoke hand built wheels. The
:: summary
:: is that I have had horrible results with them but great results with
:: the
:: Ksyrium Elites. It know that this goes completely against the
:: overall
:: feelings of most of the vocal members of this group but the Ksyrium
:: Elite
:: wheel has lasted more that three times longer than any of the hand
:: built
:: wheels...and it had made zero trips to the LBS to get trued. Before
:: anyone
:: says that I just got a bad builder I had the wheel built at three
:: different
:: places. Each time I spoke to the owner, or lead tech, to explain my
:: situation and asked that the wheel be built by their best wheel
:: builder.

Did your handbuilt wheel come with a lifetime guarantee? That guy Peter
White offers such if you go with his suggestions. I'd rather not have to
keep working through various solutions on wheels to arrive at one that
finally works. I need this problem to go away so I can devote my attention
to riding and trying to improve.

[Roger Zoul]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
:: roger-<< This is my bike:
::
::
http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0md
:: o1uybug.j27008 >><BR><BR>
:: << I had about 200 miles on it until April 17,
:: now I have almost 800 miles. I've been riding a fair amount
:: recently.
:::: <BR><BR>
:: << My bike has these wheels:
:: "Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"
:: >><BR><BR> << I weigh 235 to 240 lbs. >><BR><BR>
:: << Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear
:: wheel and it got out of true. >><BR><BR>
::
::
:: << The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up
:: hills in too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the
:: rear wheel. >><BR><BR>
::
:: The bike shop owner is clueless, particularly if she sold you the
:: bicycle. Go to her, in private, and tell her she needs to have an
:: appropriate for you wheelset built. Shimano hubs onto a 36 hole rim,
:: built well. If she won't, ask for your money back and go to a bike
:: shop that has a clue. Also call Specialized.
::

I'm concerned that no one at this bikeshop really knows anything about
wheelbuilding (obviously the owner doesn't). The very young lady who trued
my wheel the first time had to put it back on the machine because even I
could see it was not true laterally and she saw that it wasn't true
radially. I don't know who trued the wheel the second time, but I had no
problems today on a short 25-mile ride -- I was lacking confidence that I'd
wouldn't break down and end up with another long stroll, which would have
been in a thunderstorm, as it turns out.

If I need to find a wheel builder, how do you suggest I proceed? I live in
Greenville SC. What about Peter White? He offers lifetime if you go with
his suggestions. I like to notion of that since obviously he intends to
back up what he does.

Thanks for your comments.


:

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:59:04 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:

>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>:: roger-<< This is my bike:
>::
>::
>http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0md
>:: o1uybug.j27008 >><BR><BR>
>:: << I had about 200 miles on it until April 17,
>:: now I have almost 800 miles. I've been riding a fair amount
>:: recently.
>:::: <BR><BR>
>:: << My bike has these wheels:
>:: "Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"
>:: >><BR><BR> << I weigh 235 to 240 lbs. >><BR><BR>
>:: << Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear
>:: wheel and it got out of true. >><BR><BR>
>::
>::
>:: << The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up
>:: hills in too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the
>:: rear wheel. >><BR><BR>
>::
>:: The bike shop owner is clueless, particularly if she sold you the
>:: bicycle. Go to her, in private, and tell her she needs to have an
>:: appropriate for you wheelset built. Shimano hubs onto a 36 hole rim,
>:: built well. If she won't, ask for your money back and go to a bike
>:: shop that has a clue. Also call Specialized.
>::
>
>I'm concerned that no one at this bikeshop really knows anything about
>wheelbuilding (obviously the owner doesn't). The very young lady who trued
>my wheel the first time had to put it back on the machine because even I
>could see it was not true laterally and she saw that it wasn't true
>radially. I don't know who trued the wheel the second time, but I had no
>problems today on a short 25-mile ride -- I was lacking confidence that I'd
>wouldn't break down and end up with another long stroll, which would have
>been in a thunderstorm, as it turns out.
>
>If I need to find a wheel builder, how do you suggest I proceed? I live in
>Greenville SC. What about Peter White? He offers lifetime if you go with
>his suggestions. I like to notion of that since obviously he intends to
>back up what he does.
>
>Thanks for your comments.
>
>
>:
>

Lifetime warranty sounds like a good idea. Back when I was up around
240 pounds a few years ago I was breaking spokes on a 36 spoke rim.
Always on the drive side of the rear wheel and always shortly after
riding hard up steep overpasses. My local bike shop said I should buy
what he called a double rim, I decided to retension and stress relieve
the wheel as well as lose weight instead. There is more stress on
spokes pushing hard up a hill with extra weight, it takes a lot less
torque to maintain your speed up hills once you lose weight. In the
meantime a warranty might help with your peace of mind, although any
well built 36 spoke wheel should handle your extra weight.

[Dan Daniel]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:59:04 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:

>If I need to find a wheel builder, how do you suggest I proceed? I live in
>Greenville SC. What about Peter White? He offers lifetime if you go with
>his suggestions. I like to notion of that since obviously he intends to
>back up what he does.
>


I'd be hesitant to get wheels from New Hampshire while I lived in
South Carolina, or even while I lived in New Jersey, simply because of
a warranty. Shipping bicycle wheels is not cheap.

For a local builder, are there any local bike clubs or organizations?
Racing groups? Ask around and ask for recommendations.

Along with Peter White, there are other excellent wheel builders
around the country. Including people who post here regularly, like
Peter Chisholm. You might start a new thread about how to find and
evaluate wheel builders?

Bicycle wheels should not be a source of constant worry! I couldn't
deal with your situation, wondering each time I headed out if I was
going to have a breakdown. In all my years of cycling I haven't had a
spoke break after I took the time to learn how to work on my own
wheels. A suggestion- find a mid-priced traditional bike wheel- mail
order sale, local used, whatever- and learn how to true and tension
on it. And then plan on building a wheel. In the meantime, find some
quality well-built wheels and go out and enjoy your rides without
worrying!

[TBGibb]

In article >, "Roger Zoul"
> writes:

>The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in too
>high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel.

Interesting . . . do you put less stress on the wheel at the same speed but in
a lower gear (but higher cadence)?

Perhaps I should say "funny."

Consider a 36 spoke 4X rear wheel. If it's properly built and stress relieved
you can climb in any gear you want.

Tom Gibb >

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:59:04 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:

>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>:: roger-<< This is my bike:
>::
>::
>http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=5863&JServSessionIdroot=0md
>:: o1uybug.j27008 >><BR><BR>
>:: << I had about 200 miles on it until April 17,
>:: now I have almost 800 miles. I've been riding a fair amount
>:: recently.
>:::: <BR><BR>
>:: << My bike has these wheels:
>:: "Rolf design 700c twin spoke design high performance wheel set"
>:: >><BR><BR> << I weigh 235 to 240 lbs. >><BR><BR>
>:: << Last Tuesday, after riding 30 miles, I popped a spoke on the rear
>:: wheel and it got out of true. >><BR><BR>
>::
>::
>:: << The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up
>:: hills in too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the
>:: rear wheel. >><BR><BR>
>::
>:: The bike shop owner is clueless, particularly if she sold you the
>:: bicycle. Go to her, in private, and tell her she needs to have an
>:: appropriate for you wheelset built. Shimano hubs onto a 36 hole rim,
>:: built well. If she won't, ask for your money back and go to a bike
>:: shop that has a clue. Also call Specialized.
>::
>
>I'm concerned that no one at this bikeshop really knows anything about
>wheelbuilding (obviously the owner doesn't). The very young lady who trued
>my wheel the first time had to put it back on the machine because even I
>could see it was not true laterally and she saw that it wasn't true
>radially. I don't know who trued the wheel the second time, but I had no
>problems today on a short 25-mile ride -- I was lacking confidence that I'd
>wouldn't break down and end up with another long stroll, which would have
>been in a thunderstorm, as it turns out.
>
With a 36 spoke wheel you would not have to worry about walking home
even if you did break a spoke. They will roll along quite nicely till
you can get a chance for a replacement. In the past I have ridden
over 30 miles with a broken spoke on my 36 spoke hub, screwed in a
replacement spoke and not had to mess around with retrueing.

>If I need to find a wheel builder, how do you suggest I proceed? I live in
>Greenville SC. What about Peter White? He offers lifetime if you go with
>his suggestions. I like to notion of that since obviously he intends to
>back up what he does.
>
>Thanks for your comments.
>
>
>:
>

[Roger Zoul]

TBGibb wrote:
:: In article >, "Roger Zoul"
:: > writes:
::
::: The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills
::: in too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear
::: wheel.
::
:: Interesting . . . do you put less stress on the wheel at the same
:: speed but in a lower gear (but higher cadence)?
::
:: Perhaps I should say "funny."
::
:: Consider a 36 spoke 4X rear wheel. If it's properly built and
:: stress relieved you can climb in any gear you want.

Okay....so I can replace the rear wheel and keep the same front wheel (I
can't see why not)? That might help cashflow...

[Dan Daniel]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 19:21:41 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:

>TBGibb wrote:
>:: In article >, "Roger Zoul"
>:: > writes:
>::
>::: The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills
>::: in too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear
>::: wheel.
>::
>:: Interesting . . . do you put less stress on the wheel at the same
>:: speed but in a lower gear (but higher cadence)?
>::
>:: Perhaps I should say "funny."
>::
>:: Consider a 36 spoke 4X rear wheel. If it's properly built and
>:: stress relieved you can climb in any gear you want.
>
>Okay....so I can replace the rear wheel and keep the same front wheel (I
>can't see why not)? That might help cashflow...
>
>

This is a 32 spoke wheel, but it's along the lines that you would do
well with-

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=58098&item=3680352269&rd=1

[RWM]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:59:04 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> > wrote:
>
>> With a 36 spoke wheel you would not have to worry about walking home
> even if you did break a spoke. They will roll along quite nicely till
> you can get a chance for a replacement. In the past I have ridden
> over 30 miles with a broken spoke on my 36 spoke hub, screwed in a
> replacement spoke and not had to mess around with retrueing.
>
Not true. I ruined two 36 spoke rims by riding them home.

[Kevin Furrow]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> ::
> ::: I don't know anything about Rolf but I'm getting a notion that they
> ::: are somehow designed for speed.
> ::
> :: Not really. They are designed to make you think of speed, the
> :: difference being only measurable with a stop watch at maximum effort.
> :: They aren't lighter nor are they pleasant to ride in winds.
>
> Why would they not be pleasant to ride in winds? Is there some design
> feature?.

Deep dish rims (i.e., the height of the rim itself) are generally a pain in
windy conditions. The deeper the rim, the more of a pain they become. All
that extra surface area gives the wind that much more to push against. It's
especially dangerous on the front wheel -- the wind pushing your front wheel
around can make for some "interesting" steering.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
"RWM" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:59:04 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> With a 36 spoke wheel you would not have to worry about walking home
> > even if you did break a spoke. They will roll along quite nicely till
> > you can get a chance for a replacement. In the past I have ridden
> > over 30 miles with a broken spoke on my 36 spoke hub, screwed in a
> > replacement spoke and not had to mess around with retrueing.
> >
> Not true. I ruined two 36 spoke rims by riding them home.

You did? Details please.

Because I am really lazy and have not properly respoked a problem wheel
on my commuter, I ride home about once a month with a broken spoke
(there seems to be a fair number of them, so without counting I'm
guessing 36). But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to
true after?

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[RWM]

"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "RWM" > wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:59:04 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> With a 36 spoke wheel you would not have to worry about walking home
> > > even if you did break a spoke. They will roll along quite nicely till
> > > you can get a chance for a replacement. In the past I have ridden
> > > over 30 miles with a broken spoke on my 36 spoke hub, screwed in a
> > > replacement spoke and not had to mess around with retrueing.
> > >
> > Not true. I ruined two 36 spoke rims by riding them home.
>
> You did? Details please.
>
> Because I am really lazy and have not properly respoked a problem wheel
> on my commuter, I ride home about once a month with a broken spoke
> (there seems to be a fair number of them, so without counting I'm
> guessing 36). But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to
> true after?
>
>
Yes.

[ZeeExSixAre]

> The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in

She? That was the problem. Girls don't know bikes!

> too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel.

Cranking in the lower gears puts MORE torque on the wheel, not less.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[ZeeExSixAre]

>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=58098&item=3680352269&rd=1

If you learn anything from that auction, learn that prenups are bad!

"My friend signed a pre-nup and now his wife left him with nothing. He had
an Ultegra CoMotion bike with 100-200 miles on it. I will be selling it in
parts.. other auctions so that he has rent and money for his kids while he
gets things back together."

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[G.T.]

ZeeExSixAre wrote:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=58098&item=3680352269&rd=1
>
> If you learn anything from that auction, learn that prenups are bad!
>
>

Must have been a ****ty prenup.

Greg

[Tom Sherman]

ZeeExSixAre wrote:

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=58098&item=3680352269&rd=1
>
> If you learn anything from that auction, learn that prenups are bad!

This good “prenup” has been around for a while - does anyone know who
the author is?

PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT FOR THE BIKER

This agreement acknowledges that the forthcoming marriage is an
arrangement that accepts the perpetual continuity of pre-existing
relationship between the first two parties and that a three-way
coexistence shall be created consisting of the following participants:
Spouse A (the non-biking loved one) hereafter referred to as NBLO;
Spouse B (biking loved one) hereafter referred to as BLO, and; The Bike
(the glorious one) hereafter referred to as TB.

Condition I: Acknowledgment NBLO shall henceforth recognize that BLO and
TB have forged a long standing and unbreakable relationship and shall
never attempt to permanently divide, or otherwise separate the two.

Condition II: Cohabitation NBLO and BLO shall agree upon comfortable and
equal living quarters for TB, its related service equipment and riding
gear. TB shall only be exposed to the elements of nature during rides.

All other times TB shall have access to warm, dry, low traffic living
space. If at any time there should be conflict w/ NBLO, BLO or
furniture, TB shall have preference as to where it stays. In NBLO’s
absence TB shall be permitted bedroom space (if not already arranged).

Condition III: Exclusivity and Infidelity At no time shall NBLO, BLO, or
TB be loaned out to be ridden by anyone outside the three-way
relationship. NBLO must request from BLO permission to ride, fondle or
otherwise physically contact TB and only do so in the presence of BLO.

Condition IV: Equal Time NBLO shall be guaranteed quality time
equivalent to TB unless it conflicts with TB in which case TB gets
preference. Service time shall be guaranteed and considered a separate
requirement. In the event of emergency, i.e. NBLO stranded, child sets
hair on fire etc, BLO shall complete whatever TB related activity as
soon as possible and attend said emergency.

In the event of an in-law visit or should for any reason, BLO become
depressed, or otherwise in need of stress relief, BLO shall be permitted
as much time w/TB or TB related activities, magazines, books, events etc
as needed until such time BLO feels better.

Condition V: Parts NBLO and BLO will agree that BLO be permitted and
encouraged to purchase any and all TB related equipment at any and all
times, whether they be repairs, replacements, upgrades, or just plain
Chi-Chi.

Any replaced parts shall be considered cherished spares and provided
appropriate storage space equivalent to that provided for TB, preferably
under the bed, favorite closet or on coffee table as a conversation item.
New Items immediately installed shall require TB to be put on prominent
display (i.e. in front of TV).

Newly purchased items not immediately installed shall be put on display
as a centerpiece during the day and they shall be kept under the pillow
of BLO at bedtime, unless it is potentially dangerous to said part. This
shall be for no less than 5 days or until they are installed whichever
comes first.

Condition VI: Finance All household finance shall be considered separate
from TB finance. If conflict should arise then TB gets preference.

Condition VII: Disposition In the event NBLO has a compatible bike BLO
can offer spare parts to be temporarily installed for use by NBLO until
such time BLO requires their use on TB. No prior notice is required.

All equipment and The Bike they are installed upon or intended for,
shall remain the property of BLO come hell or high water, and shall not
be relinquished under any circumstance including death, in which case
the surviving party will be obligated to complete the upgrades
(expressed, implied or dreamed of) and bury the bike with the departed,
unless TB or BLO requests a separate grave in which case they shall be
buried side by side and NBLO shall not be buried between them.

Condition VIII: Protected Communications All TB related communications
intended for BLO, be they voice (phone messages, visitors); print
(mail-order catalogues, etc.); or electronic (e-mail, buddies calling to
ride, etc.) shall be forwarded and delivered to BLO as expediently as
possible. Furthermore, no censorship of said communications shall occur,
and NBLO agrees to refrain from making disparaging comments about the
content of these communications and/or their source(s).

Extended Conditions: TB shall never be the focus of an argument nor
brought up as part of one. TB shall never be discussed w/ in-laws unless
said discussion is in praise or defense of TB. No retaliation shall ever
be taken against TB.

All of the above is to be considered iron-clad and in stone and non
negotiable, unless of course, the nonbiker says so. Bicycle
proliferation TB must be permitted to be fruitful and multiply. After
all, there can never be too many bicycles.

Each and every bicycle, whether it be TB1, TB2 ... TB5 ... TB9 etc, must
be permitted comfortable and equal living quarters as per Condition II
above. NBLO shall not be permitted to complain about the number of TB’s
or how much of the precious housing square-footage they consume! The
more the merrier!

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[Rick Warner]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:45:30 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:

>Rick Warner wrote:

>::
>:: I will be even more radical. Those wheels are good for show, and for
>:: lighter riders. But they are a pain from several aspects. If it
>:: were me, I would get a good set of custom built wheels, with
>:: sufficient spokes and strength to handle you and your riding style.
>:: Actually, it was me. The Rolfs are in the storage area, and the
>:: custom made wheels (Open Pro rims, Ultegra hubs) are on the bike.
>
>What about this Peter White guy? He offers lifetime if you go with what he
>suggests...I want this problem to go away...
>

Peter does a great job. I have a wheel in the other room he built for
me. Works great. His warranty is dependent on you getting what he
believes is a strong enough wheel for you and your riding style. But
that points out one of his strengths - he talks to you, asks
questions, and makes recommendations based on that information.

That said, there are a lot of builders who can do the same. I have
never had Peter Chisolm build a wheel for me, but I would bet he
builds great wheels. Lots of others, too, just not so publically
visible. These days I build my own, but I know a couple of local guys
who do a great job. Pick someone with a good repuation, and talk to
them about your problem. My only suggestion is to be skeptical of the
shop where they try to blame your climbing technique for the problem.

- rick

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 21:40:39 -0700, "RWM" >
wrote:

>
>"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "RWM" > wrote:
>>
>> > > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:59:04 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> With a 36 spoke wheel you would not have to worry about walking home
>> > > even if you did break a spoke. They will roll along quite nicely till
>> > > you can get a chance for a replacement. In the past I have ridden
>> > > over 30 miles with a broken spoke on my 36 spoke hub, screwed in a
>> > > replacement spoke and not had to mess around with retrueing.
>> > >
>> > Not true. I ruined two 36 spoke rims by riding them home.
>>
>> You did? Details please.
>>
>> Because I am really lazy and have not properly respoked a problem wheel
>> on my commuter, I ride home about once a month with a broken spoke
>> (there seems to be a fair number of them, so without counting I'm
>> guessing 36). But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to
>> true after?
>>
>>
>Yes.
>
The rim I was using was a single wall light duty 36 spoke 32 mm wheel.
When the spoke broke the wheel did not warp enough to even be felt in
the brake pads. After replacing the spoke and tightening it to the
same torque as the other spokes the small warp disappeared and the
wheel ran true when I checked it against the brake pad.

You may have been using a narrower lighter duty racing wheel or had a
real mismatch of spoke tension. If one spoke breaks and it was
holding an inordinate amount of tension you could see moderate warping
with a 36 spoke wheel. Otherwise if all the spokes are evenly
tensioned and make the same sound when plucked, breaking just one
spoke does not make the bike unrideable.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

roger-<< If I need to find a wheel builder, how do you suggest I proceed? I
live in
Greenville SC. What about Peter White? He offers lifetime if you go with
his suggestions. I like to notion of that since obviously he intends to
back up what he does. >><BR><BR>

Peter White is a good choice as is Andy Muzi, Sheldon Brown, the wheel guys at
ChainReaction(Mike J) and ......me.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

roger-<< Did your handbuilt wheel come with a lifetime guarantee? >><BR><BR>

What that means is free truing for the useful life of the rim. If ya dent a
rim, he won't fix it for free. We offer the same thing.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Roger Zoul]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
:: roger-<< Did your handbuilt wheel come with a lifetime guarantee?
:: >><BR><BR>
::
:: What that means is free truing for the useful life of the rim. If ya
:: dent a rim, he won't fix it for free. We offer the same thing.

Yeah, that's reasonable. If I dent a rim, I don't expect to get that fixed
for free. However, I would like to buy a wheel from someone who at least
thinks that I won't have more problems with spokes popping and the wheel
getting out of true, assuming it's not the result of a crash or something
which results in physical damage.

Thinking back on it, I supposed that the second spoke popping could have
been the result of the two spills I had on Saturday, but given the fact that
the lady apparently (and I see this only because I saw lateral movement and
she saw radial movement while spinning the wheel -- which resulted in her
working on it some more) did not do a good job truing the wheel, I'm not so
certain.

[Roger Zoul]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
:: roger-<< If I need to find a wheel builder, how do you suggest I
:: proceed? I live in
:: Greenville SC. What about Peter White? He offers lifetime if you
:: go with his suggestions. I like to notion of that since obviously
:: he intends to
:: back up what he does. >><BR><BR>
::
:: Peter White is a good choice as is Andy Muzi, Sheldon Brown, the
:: wheel guys at ChainReaction(Mike J) and ......me.
::

Great. I'm going to check local first, just because that would be easier.
If that doesn't work, I'll be contacting someone from your list...thanks.

[[email protected]]

Bob Mc B writes:

> I have had lots of problems with breaking rear wheel spokes. My
> advice is to look at the Mavic Ksyrium Elite wheels. I replied to
> another post earlier today with my results with 36 spoke hand built
> wheels. The summary is that I have had horrible results with them
> but great results with the Ksyrium Elites. It know that this goes
> completely against the overall feelings of most of the vocal members
> of this group but the Ksyrium Elite wheel has lasted more that three
> times longer than any of the hand built wheels...and it had made
> zero trips to the LBS to get trued.

How did you assess the abilities of these shops and their
understanding of wheelbuilding and what causes spoke failures? Just
pleasantly talking to a person does not reveal their ability. Certain
questions need to be answered to discover that.

> Before anyone says that I just got a bad builder I had the wheel
> built at three different places. Each time I spoke to the owner, or
> lead tech, to explain my situation and asked that the wheel be built
> by their best wheel builder.

If that isn't the case, then how DID the spokes break, assuming spokes
of equal quality were used in your preferred wheels and the failing
ones. Your endorsement doesn't convince me, especially since I have
been riding ordinary 36 spoke wheels with good reliability for several
100K miles.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Roger Zoul writes:

>>> I don't know anything about Rolf but I'm getting a notion that
>>> they are somehow designed for speed.

>> Not really. They are designed to make you think of speed, the
>> difference being only measurable with a stop watch at maximum
>> effort. They aren't lighter nor are they pleasant to ride in
>> winds.

> Why would they not be pleasant to ride in winds? Is there some
> design feature?.

If you have not ridden in strong winds you probably cannot imagine how
they affect steering. It is like someone putting their hand on the
end of your bars and pushing a bit one way or the other. Strong
winds, even from behind, are turbulent and have cross components to
the direction of travel. Of course direct cross winds are worse. The
point is that aero wheels have far larger surfaces for the wind to
attack than conventional wheels.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Roger Zoul > writes:

> If I need to find a wheel builder, how do you suggest I proceed? I
> live in Greenville SC. What about Peter White? He offers lifetime
> if you go with his suggestions. I like to notion of that since
> obviously he intends to back up what he does.

Build your own. If you can follow instructions, you can probably
build abetter wheel than you can get from most bicycle shops.

http://www.avocet.com/wheelbook/wheelbook.html
http://tinyurl.com/22lrv

Available at many bicycle shops including ones who can't build a good
wheel. They don't need no steenking books. They already know all
about the subject... they think.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Bob Mc B writes:

>>> With a 36 spoke wheel you would not have to worry about walking home

>> even if you did break a spoke. They will roll along quite nicely
>> till you can get a chance for a replacement. In the past I have
>> ridden over 30 miles with a broken spoke on my 36 spoke hub,
>> screwed in a replacement spoke and not had to mess around with
>> re-truing.

> Not true. I ruined two 36 spoke rims by riding them home.

You didn't say how much you weigh and what sort of terrain you
crossed. I know of many riders who didn't bother with a broken spoke
for more than 100 miles with no ill effects to the wheel. What was
ruined on your rims?

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Bob Mc B writes:

>>> Not true. I ruined two 36 spoke rims by riding them home.

>> You did? Details please.

> Yes.

Yes what?

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Roger Zoul writes:

> Thinking back on it, I supposed that the second spoke popping could
> have been the result of the two spills I had on Saturday, but given
> the fact that the lady apparently (and I see this only because I saw
> lateral movement and she saw radial movement while spinning the
> wheel -- which resulted in her working on it some more) did not do a
> good job truing the wheel, I'm not so certain.

That should not compromise spoke life although it might damage the rim
so that it cannot be made as true as a new one, or maybe not at all if
it was collapsed, but that should not affect spoke life. Spoke life
is shortened by not stress relieving and from kinks caused by foreign
objects against them to cause kinks. Even smooth bends have
practically no effect on spoke life. Replacement spokes must often be
bent to insert them into the hub. The main thing is to stress relieve
them after truing. That's what assures durability for high quality
spokes.

Jobst Brandt

[RWM]

> wrote in message
...
> Bob Mc B writes:
>
>> How did you assess the abilities of these shops and their
> understanding of wheelbuilding and what causes spoke failures? Just
> pleasantly talking to a person does not reveal their ability. Certain
> questions need to be answered to discover that.
>

Funny you should ask. In the New Hampshire Seacoast area I asked riders for
recommendations for a good shop. I went to three shops to explain my
situation with breaking rear wheels spokes and asked for their
recommendations. I also asked them "if I didn't have the wheel built at
their shop, who should I get to build it?" Two of the shops recommended the
third so I had the wheel built at that shop.

[[email protected]]

Bob Mc B writes:

>> How did you assess the abilities of these shops and their
>> understanding of wheelbuilding and what causes spoke failures?
>> Just pleasantly talking to a person does not reveal their ability.
>> Certain questions need to be answered to discover that.

> Funny you should ask. In the New Hampshire Seacoast area I asked
> riders for recommendations for a good shop. I went to three shops
> to explain my situation with breaking rear wheels spokes and asked
> for their recommendations. I also asked them "if I didn't have the
> wheel built at their shop, whom I should get to build it?" Two of
> the shops recommended the third so I had the wheel built at that
> shop.

That sounds odd. But as I said, you could build your own and be
better off in two ways. You can build wheels as well and better than
most shops and you would become independent of them for repairs, much
like bicycle riders who can fix their own flat tires.

http://tinyurl.com/2zxeh

Jobst Brandt

[TBGibb]

In article >, "Roger Zoul"
> writes:

>Okay....so I can replace the rear wheel and keep the same front wheel (I
>can't see why not)? That might help cashflow...
>

If it's holding up why not? I would.

Tom Gibb >

[TBGibb]

In article >, "ZeeExSixAre"
> writes:

>> The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in
>
>She? That was the problem. Girls don't know bikes!

Brace yourself.

>> too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel.
>
>Cranking in the lower gears puts MORE torque on the wheel, not less.
>
At the same speed and vehicle weight is there going to be a torque difference
on the rear wheel as a result of using different gears? I doubt it. There
will be a difference on the pedals, but the wheel?


Tom Gibb >

[Benjamin Lewis]

wrote:

> In article >, "ZeeExSixAre"
> > writes:
>
>>> The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in
>>
>> She? That was the problem. Girls don't know bikes!
>
> Brace yourself.
>
>>> too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel.
>>
>> Cranking in the lower gears puts MORE torque on the wheel, not less.
>>
> At the same speed and vehicle weight is there going to be a torque
> difference on the rear wheel as a result of using different gears? I
> doubt it. There will be a difference on the pedals, but the wheel?

The torque for a given slope (and friction...) depends only on the speed at
a given instant. In a lower gear, there is generally a larger variability
in the speed over a single crank rotation, so the peak torque is higher.
If you pedaled perfectly smoothly, there would be no difference in torque
on the rear wheel.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Gravity brings me down.

[[email protected]]

Tom Gibb writes:

>>> The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills
>>> in

>>> too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear
>>> wheel.

>> Cranking in the lower gears puts MORE torque on the wheel, not less.

> At the same speed and vehicle weight is there going to be a torque
> difference on the rear wheel as a result of using different gears?
> I doubt it. There will be a difference on the pedals, but the
> wheel?

The higher the gear, the smoother the torque although there probably
isn't a significant difference. Just the same, torque is not a major
load for spokes, the effect being distributed mostly among all the
right side spokes (pushing and pulling). For a 36-spoke wheel that is
18 spokes. You can see the magnitude of tension change in "the
Bicycle Wheel" and notice that it is insignificant with respect to
tension cycles caused by supporting the rider.

The upshot is that the bicycle shop is ill informed about wheels.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Lewis writes:

>>>> too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear
>>>> wheel.

>>> Cranking in the lower gears puts MORE torque on the wheel, not
>>> less.

>> At the same speed and vehicle weight is there going to be a torque
>> difference on the rear wheel as a result of using different gears?
>> I doubt it. There will be a difference on the pedals, but the
>> wheel?

> The torque for a given slope (and friction...) depends only on the
> speed at a given instant. In a lower gear, there is generally a
> larger variability in the speed over a single crank rotation, so the
> peak torque is higher. If you pedaled perfectly smoothly, there
> would be no difference in torque on the rear wheel.

Well stated. That is what I was trying to articulate. Besides that,
torque is essentially the same whether riding slowly or faster on a
hill with speeds below about 15mph where wind drag is unimportant. A
rider uses more power (a higher rate) but torque remains the same.

Jobst Brandt

[David L. Johnson]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:53:52 -0400, ZeeExSixAre wrote:

>> The owner of the LBS told me today that she thinks I ride up hills in
>
> She? That was the problem. Girls don't know bikes!
>
>> too high a gear, and doing so puts a lot of stress on the rear wheel.
>
> Cranking in the lower gears puts MORE torque on the wheel, not less.

Despite the inane joke, he's right about lower gear putting more torque on
the wheel.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember
_`\(,_ | that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ
(_)/ (_) |

[David L. Johnson]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 00:17:26 +0000, TBGibb wrote:

> At the same speed and vehicle weight is there going to be a torque difference
> on the rear wheel as a result of using different gears? I doubt it. There
> will be a difference on the pedals, but the wheel?

At the same speed, obviously the torque would be the same, seeing as how
that is what is maintaining the speed. But a given rider can put more
torque on the wheel in a lower gear than in a higher gear.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
_`\(,_ | -- Paul Erdos
(_)/ (_) |

[jim beam]

wrote:
> Roger Zoul writes:
>
>
>>Thinking back on it, I supposed that the second spoke popping could
>>have been the result of the two spills I had on Saturday, but given
>>the fact that the lady apparently (and I see this only because I saw
>>lateral movement and she saw radial movement while spinning the
>>wheel -- which resulted in her working on it some more) did not do a
>>good job truing the wheel, I'm not so certain.
>
>
> That should not compromise spoke life although it might damage the rim
> so that it cannot be made as true as a new one, or maybe not at all if
> it was collapsed, but that should not affect spoke life. Spoke life
> is shortened by not stress relieving and from kinks caused by foreign
> objects against them to cause kinks.

it's not the just kink, it's the stress riser caused by a sharp object
damaging the surface on impact. if just a kink was sufficient, every
crossed spoke would fail, as would every "corrected line" spoke that you
advocate.

>Even smooth bends have
> practically no effect on spoke life. Replacement spokes must often be
> bent to insert them into the hub. The main thing is to stress relieve
> them after truing. That's what assures durability for high quality
> spokes.

interesting qualification - that high quality spokes assure durability.
can it therefore be inferred that you don't feel confident that "stress
relief" has the same magical properties of infinite fatigue life on poor
quality spokes? if so, what would be the differentiator?

it's interesting how you're so very careful with your claims; when
challenged you fall back on your personal use of just one brand of top
quality spoke, as if it were proof across the whole mechanical/materials
spectrum.

>
> Jobst Brandt
>

[RWM]

> wrote in message
...
> Bob Mc B writes:
>
> >>> Not true. I ruined two 36 spoke rims by riding them home.
>
> >> You did? Details please.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Yes what?
>
> Jobst Brandt
>

You edited the message wrong. It went like this:

But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to
> true after?
>
>
Yes.

[RWM]

> wrote in message
...
> Bob Mc B writes:
>
> >> How did you assess the abilities of these shops and their
> >> understanding of wheelbuilding and what causes spoke failures?
> >> Just pleasantly talking to a person does not reveal their ability.
> >> Certain questions need to be answered to discover that.
>
> > Funny you should ask. In the New Hampshire Seacoast area I asked
> > riders for recommendations for a good shop. I went to three shops
> > to explain my situation with breaking rear wheels spokes and asked
> > for their recommendations. I also asked them "if I didn't have the
> > wheel built at their shop, whom I should get to build it?" Two of
> > the shops recommended the third so I had the wheel built at that
> > shop.
>
> That sounds odd. But as I said, you could build your own and be
> better off in two ways. You can build wheels as well and better than
> most shops and you would become independent of them for repairs, much
> like bicycle riders who can fix their own flat tires.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2zxeh
>
> Jobst Brandt
>

Of course I could learn to build a great wheel, but I would rather spend my
free time riding and I think that you missed my major point. I tried really
hard, many times, to purchase a reliable hand built 36 spoke rear wheel.
The longest any of them lasted was under 500 miles! I purchased a "wheel in
a box" and have had wonderful results for over 1500 miles. The advice that
is constantly voiced in this group is that hand built wheels are better, but
there are at least two heavy riders who have had great results with the
Mavic Ksyrium Elite rear wheels.

[[email protected]]

Old Crow or was it Wild Turkey writes:

>>> Thinking back on it, I supposed that the second spoke popping
>>> could have been the result of the two spills I had on Saturday,
>>> but given the fact that the lady apparently (and I see this only
>>> because I saw lateral movement and she saw radial movement while
>>> spinning the wheel -- which resulted in her working on it some
>>> more) did not do a good job truing the wheel, I'm not so certain.

>> That should not compromise spoke life although it might damage the
>> rim so that it cannot be made as true as a new one, or maybe not at
>> all if it was collapsed, but that should not affect spoke life.
>> Spoke life is shortened by not stress relieving and from kinks
>> caused by foreign objects against them to cause kinks.

> It's not the just kink, it's the stress riser caused by a sharp
> object damaging the surface on impact. If just a kink was
> sufficient, every crossed spoke would fail, as would every
> "corrected line" spoke that you advocate.

Explain how that would be so. There needn't be any plastic flow or
gouging in a kink to cause failure. My reference to a kink is one
induced by, for instance, a wheel collapse in which a spoke is doubled
back on itself or one in which the wheel fell on an unoccupied pedal
and got snagged by a projecting part in a crash. These are sharp
bends in the middle of a spoke. Ones that cannot be straightened by
anything but a hammer and smooth surface to fatten the kink, and even
then it is doubtful to be durable. In effect an unsupported "elbow".

>> Even smooth bends have practically no effect on spoke life.
>> Replacement spokes must often be bent to insert them into the hub.
>> The main thing is to stress relieve them after truing. That's what
>> assures durability for high quality spokes.

> Interesting qualification - that high quality spokes assure
> durability. Can it therefore be inferred that you don't feel
> confident that "stress relief" has the same magical properties of
> infinite fatigue life on poor quality spokes? If so, what would be
> the differentiator?

I see you didn't live in the days of Stella and Robergel spokes from
which I discovered the benefits of stress relieving. These spokes
broke after such short duty that a large statistical trend was
discernable by stress relieving although that did not stop spoke
failures entirely. It was with the advent of DT spokes that truly
durable spokes became available. Now there are several brands that
work well.

As I have described here often, spoke wire must be ductile enough to
withstand cold forming yet retain a sufficiently high yield strength
to resist fatigue failures at normal spoke loadings. This had not
been so before DT spokes so there is where you should look for the
answer. Redaelli, Berg, and Prym spokes also did not survive long
even with stress relieving although it extended their service life.

> It's interesting how you're so very careful with your claims; when
> challenged you fall back on your personal use of just one brand of
> top quality spoke, as if it were proof across the whole
> mechanical/materials spectrum.

You create these characterizations of thin air to your liking. Every
so often someone with your attitude shows up here on wreck.bike to
attack what has been discovered about bicycle parts apparently trying
to defend myth and lore from days gone by. I can't see any other goal
but then you never said what you believe is the cause of failures.
Instead of beating around the bush and insinuating and alluding to
some agenda, how about stating what it is you believe is occurring.

Jobst Brandt

[Tim McNamara]

"RWM" > writes:

> You edited the message wrong. It went like this:
>
>> But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to true
>> after?
>>
> Yes.

OK, this is making less and less sense. I've had to ride home on
broken spokes more than 50 miles on occasion, and over 10 miles on
several occasions- happily not in years. I've never ruined a rim by
riding on it with a broken spoke- and I've weighed over 195 lbs since
I was a sophomore in high school back in 1974. I built my first
wheels in 1978 and finally retired those in 1994. I don't recall any
spoke breakages in those wheels, but I have had spokes break in OEM
prebuilt wheels and in one wheel I built using cheap Asahi spokes;
otherwise I find 32 spoke wheels quite adequate.

When you say the rim was "not truable," by whom was it not truable?

Basically it sounds like your wheels have been built up by people who
didn't know what they were doing- how to properly tension the spokes,
remove spoke windup and stress relieve them to prevent breakage. A
wheel should go 50,000 miles at least without breaking a spoke, IMHO.
This is not hard to achieve once the principles and procedures of good
wheel building are known.

[jim beam]

wrote:
> Old Crow or was it Wild Turkey writes:
>
>
>>>>Thinking back on it, I supposed that the second spoke popping
>>>>could have been the result of the two spills I had on Saturday,
>>>>but given the fact that the lady apparently (and I see this only
>>>>because I saw lateral movement and she saw radial movement while
>>>>spinning the wheel -- which resulted in her working on it some
>>>>more) did not do a good job truing the wheel, I'm not so certain.
>
>
>>>That should not compromise spoke life although it might damage the
>>>rim so that it cannot be made as true as a new one, or maybe not at
>>>all if it was collapsed, but that should not affect spoke life.
>>>Spoke life is shortened by not stress relieving and from kinks
>>>caused by foreign objects against them to cause kinks.
>
>
>>It's not the just kink, it's the stress riser caused by a sharp
>>object damaging the surface on impact. If just a kink was
>>sufficient, every crossed spoke would fail, as would every
>>"corrected line" spoke that you advocate.
>
>
> Explain how that would be so. There needn't be any plastic flow or
> gouging in a kink to cause failure.

by definition, for the material to take any permanent set, there has to
be plastic deformation. whether that be caused by bending or something
sharper like chain gouge or pedal strike is open to circumstance.

> My reference to a kink is one
> induced by, for instance, a wheel collapse in which a spoke is doubled
> back on itself or one in which the wheel fell on an unoccupied pedal
> and got snagged by a projecting part in a crash. These are sharp
> bends in the middle of a spoke. Ones that cannot be straightened by
> anything but a hammer and smooth surface to fatten the kink, and even
> then it is doubtful to be durable. In effect an unsupported "elbow".

understood, but there are two types of "sharp" bend. the bending that
has a comparatively large radius like a straightened paper clip, or the
minor bend which has a very small radius like a chain gouge. the
smaller the radius, the greater the stress concentration & the greater
fatigue propensity. the large radius bend induces similar effects in
the material to "correcting the line".

>
>
>>>Even smooth bends have practically no effect on spoke life.
>>>Replacement spokes must often be bent to insert them into the hub.
>>>The main thing is to stress relieve them after truing. That's what
>>>assures durability for high quality spokes.
>
>
>>Interesting qualification - that high quality spokes assure
>>durability. Can it therefore be inferred that you don't feel
>>confident that "stress relief" has the same magical properties of
>>infinite fatigue life on poor quality spokes? If so, what would be
>>the differentiator?
>
>
> I see you didn't live in the days of Stella and Robergel spokes from
> which I discovered the benefits of stress relieving.

but i'm not too old to still find wheels with these spokes at swap meets.

> These spokes
> broke after such short duty that a large statistical trend was
> discernable by stress relieving although that did not stop spoke
> failures entirely. It was with the advent of DT spokes that truly
> durable spokes became available. Now there are several brands that
> work well.

yes, there are now several brands that work well. but their long life
is not the product of "stress relief"; it's the fact that in the 70's,
it became economic to mass produce vacuum degassed steels. ultra-clean
materials like this are substantially more fatigue resistant because
this process virtually eliminates inclusions, thereby removing a
significant source of fatigue initiation.

a traditional steel for example may have half the fatigue limit in the
transverse axis of a rolled sheet compared to its longitudinal axis.
the same alloy composition, but vacuum degassed, may have very similar
fatigue limits in both orientations. when first seen, the observation
of this effect sparked a hunt for explanation. electron microscopy
subsequently confirmed fatigue initiation at tiny inclusions previously
thought to be insignificantly small.

>
> As I have described here often, spoke wire must be ductile enough to
> withstand cold forming yet retain a sufficiently high yield strength
> to resist fatigue failures at normal spoke loadings. This had not
> been so before DT spokes so there is where you should look for the
> answer. Redaelli, Berg, and Prym spokes also did not survive long
> even with stress relieving although it extended their service life.
>
>
>>It's interesting how you're so very careful with your claims; when
>>challenged you fall back on your personal use of just one brand of
>>top quality spoke, as if it were proof across the whole
>>mechanical/materials spectrum.
>
>
> You create these characterizations of thin air to your liking. Every
> so often someone with your attitude shows up here on wreck.bike to
> attack what has been discovered about bicycle parts apparently trying
> to defend myth and lore from days gone by. I can't see any other goal
> but then you never said what you believe is the cause of failures.
> Instead of beating around the bush and insinuating and alluding to
> some agenda, how about stating what it is you believe is occurring.

what causes failures is well known. it's what alleviates them that
seems to be the issue here. all that "stress relief" achieves is a
wheel that is fully bedded in before riding. spokes do not therefore
loosen and others do not therefore carry disproportionate load. in that
respect, the practice referred to as "stress relief" is a good thing,
and thoroughly to be commended. but the business of fatigue mitigation
itself is achieved in the spoke manufacturers factory, not the wheel
builders bench.

the explanation of "local yielding" you've presented as theory on how to
eliminate fatigue is unfortunately built on some gross misconceptions.
you assert that the steel in spokes exhibits the same properties as mild
steel, i.e. the exhibition of yield and deformation without work
hardening as a method of reducing residual stress. reality is,
stainless steel spoke wires /do/ work harden immediately from yield, as
the real-life spoke stress/strain graphs in the back of your book show.
"stress relief" therefore has the ability to not only continue
increasing the dislocation density of the material [which /increases/
lattice stresses] at any point where it does yield, [/if/ it yields, and
that's conjecture], but to also activate slip bands and initiate
cumulative damage effects.

the closest analogy to your explanation is something called "coaxing"
where a component is progressively loaded and fatigue limits improved,
but unfortunately, this effect is only present in materials that exhibit
strain aging. stainless steel is not one of them.

so, you want to know my agenda? update your book and get rid of the
glaring materials theory errors! and please include the differential
spoke tension formula for dished wheels while you're at it.

>
> Jobst Brandt
>

[Roger Zoul]

wrote:
:: Roger Zoul writes:
::
::::: I don't know anything about Rolf but I'm getting a notion that
::::: they are somehow designed for speed.
::
:::: Not really. They are designed to make you think of speed, the
:::: difference being only measurable with a stop watch at maximum
:::: effort. They aren't lighter nor are they pleasant to ride in
:::: winds.
::
::: Why would they not be pleasant to ride in winds? Is there some
::: design feature?.
::
:: If you have not ridden in strong winds you probably cannot imagine
:: how they affect steering. It is like someone putting their hand on
:: the end of your bars and pushing a bit one way or the other. Strong
:: winds, even from behind, are turbulent and have cross components to
:: the direction of travel. Of course direct cross winds are worse.
:: The point is that aero wheels have far larger surfaces for the wind
:: to attack than conventional wheels.

That makes perfect sense....I guess what I really didn't realize is that
there was something different about the wheels on this bike. Once again,
I'm a bicycling noob, here. This is my first bike and I didn't do a lot of
research before buying it, even though I spent a good bit of time riding
various bicycles. The other postered mentioned something about "deep rims"
but I'm still a little confused by that, since they don't seem "deep" to me.

[Roger Zoul]

wrote:
:: Roger Zoul > writes:
::
::: If I need to find a wheel builder, how do you suggest I proceed? I
::: live in Greenville SC. What about Peter White? He offers lifetime
::: if you go with his suggestions. I like to notion of that since
::: obviously he intends to back up what he does.
::
:: Build your own. If you can follow instructions, you can probably
:: build abetter wheel than you can get from most bicycle shops.
::
:: http://www.avocet.com/wheelbook/wheelbook.html
:: http://tinyurl.com/22lrv
::
:: Available at many bicycle shops including ones who can't build a good
:: wheel. They don't need no steenking books. They already know all
:: about the subject... they think.

I had ordered it before seeing your post. I hope the 3rd edition is the
last.

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:07:42 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:
>This is my first bike and I didn't do a lot of
>research before buying it, even though I spent a good bit of time riding
>various bicycles.

That's the most important part.

>The other postered mentioned something about "deep rims"
>but I'm still a little confused by that, since they don't seem "deep" to me.

Here's a couple examples:
Deep V rim: http://www.poweroncycling.com/images/VELOCITY_DEEP_V.jpg
Semi-aero rim:
http://www.triathletesworld.com.au/img/pics/030_wheel_sm.jpg
Standard rim:
http://www.nashbar.com/profile_moreimages.cfm?&sku=6367

The difference is the cross-sectional shape of the rim. If it's just
flat, parallel to the road, then it's a standard rim; if it's shaped
like an inverted* 'V', then it's "deep".

*: [at least, the portion nearest the road; at the top, it would be
right-side-up]
--
Rick Onanian

[Doug Huffman]

'Bottom posted'...


"Roger Zoul" > wrote in small part in message
...
|
| I hope the 3rd edition is the
| last.
|
|

Why do you write that? Is it a snide crack? Inquiring minds ... and all
that.

[Roger Zoul]

Doug Huffman wrote:
:: 'Bottom posted'...
::
::
:: "Roger Zoul" > wrote in small part in message
:: ...
:::
::: I hope the 3rd edition is the
::: last.
:::
:::
::
:: Why do you write that? Is it a snide crack? Inquiring minds ...
:: and all that.

No, not at all...I was afraid I had bought an older edition rather than the
most recent one. I'm way too much of a bicycling noob to be snide-cracking
here. Show of over in the low carb ng is you want to see me doing that :)

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...
>'Bottom posted'...
>"Roger Zoul" > wrote in small part in message
...
>| I hope the 3rd edition is the
>| last.
>
>Why do you write that? Is it a snide crack? Inquiring minds ... and all
>that.

No, I think he meant that he ordered the 3rd edition, so he hopes that is
the latest edition of the book.
--------------
Alex

[RWM]

"Tim McNamara" > wrote in message
...
> "RWM" > writes:
>
> > You edited the message wrong. It went like this:
> >
> >> But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to true
> >> after?
> >>
> > Yes.
>
> OK, this is making less and less sense. I've had to ride home on
> broken spokes more than 50 miles on occasion, and over 10 miles on
> several occasions- happily not in years. I've never ruined a rim by
> riding on it with a broken spoke- and I've weighed over 195 lbs since
> I was a sophomore in high school back in 1974. I built my first
> wheels in 1978 and finally retired those in 1994. I don't recall any
> spoke breakages in those wheels, but I have had spokes break in OEM
> prebuilt wheels and in one wheel I built using cheap Asahi spokes;
> otherwise I find 32 spoke wheels quite adequate.
>
> When you say the rim was "not truable," by whom was it not truable?
>
> Basically it sounds like your wheels have been built up by people who
> didn't know what they were doing- how to properly tension the spokes,
> remove spoke windup and stress relieve them to prevent breakage. A
> wheel should go 50,000 miles at least without breaking a spoke, IMHO.
> This is not hard to achieve once the principles and procedures of good
> wheel building are known.

The rims were declared not truable by the service department of LBS. I was
shocked and asked that more senior techs give a second opinion and all the
techs agreed. With the Open Pro rim one spoke actually pulled through the
rim and it was instant trash.

I weigh 245 lbs so I think that I am seeing problems that lighter riders
never see.

The thing that is frustrating to me is that I took appropriate steps to
getting wheels built. I went to good shops, explained my situation with
breaking rear spokes, always took the shops recommendations as to the best
parts for me, asked that the wheels be built by their best wheel builder,
and brought the wheels back to the shop for maintenance if there was any
sign loose spokes or being out of true but I still did not get a wheel to
last 500 miles. Most of the replies are either "build your own wheels, it
not rocket surgery", or "the person who built your wheels didn't know what
they were doing." If it isn't hard how come I got three crappy wheels? I
am also frustrated that there is an elitist attitude that hand built wheels
are the only way to go and that only fools buy ready made wheelsets. I have
had much more fun on my rides since I switched to the Ksyrium Elite rear
wheel.

[[email protected]]

Old Crow or was it Wild Turkey writes:

>> My reference to a kink is one induced by, for instance, a wheel
>> collapse in which a spoke is doubled back on itself or one in which
>> the wheel fell on an unoccupied pedal and got snagged by a
>> projecting part in a crash. These are sharp bends in the middle of
>> a spoke. Ones that cannot be straightened by anything but a hammer
>> and smooth surface to fatten the kink, and even then it is doubtful
>> to be durable. In effect an unsupported "elbow".

> Understood, but there are two types of "sharp" bend. The bending
> that has a comparatively large radius like a straightened paper
> clip, or the minor bend which has a very small radius like a chain
> gouge. The smaller the radius, the greater the stress concentration
> & the greater fatigue propensity. The large radius bend induces
> similar effects in the material to "correcting the line".

>>>> Even smooth bends have practically no effect on spoke life.
>>>> Replacement spokes must often be bent to insert them into the
>>>> hub. The main thing is to stress relieve them after truing.
>>>> That's what assures durability for high quality spokes.

>>> Interesting qualification - that high quality spokes assure
>>> durability. Can it therefore be inferred that you don't feel
>>> confident that "stress relief" has the same magical properties of
>>> infinite fatigue life on poor quality spokes? If so, what would be
>>> the differentiator?

>> I see you didn't live in the days of Stella and Robergel spokes from
>> which I discovered the benefits of stress relieving.

> But I'm not too old to still find wheels with these spokes at swap
> meets.

So? What is it that is unclear about why these spokes fail so rapidly
and why stress relieving reduces their failure rate as you see it?

>> These spokes broke after such short duty that a large statistical
>> trend was discernable by stress relieving although that did not
>> stop spoke failures entirely. It was with the advent of DT spokes
>> that truly durable spokes became available. Now there are several
>> brands that work well.

> Yes, there are now several brands that work well. But their long life
> is not the product of "stress relief"; it's the fact that in the 70's,
> it became economic to mass produce vacuum degassed steels. Ultra-clean
> materials like this are substantially more fatigue resistant because
> this process virtually eliminates inclusions, thereby removing a
> significant source of fatigue initiation.

Oh? So how do you explain the reports of repeated failures in wheels
with these spokes, ones built by people who, as you, don't believe
that stress relief is useful or don't know about it.

How about an experiment? One that I have done. I take it that you
have access to materials testing equipment from what you write. Take
a spoke and manually give it some kinks with as small a radius as you
can. Tension that spoke to customary service tension in a tensile
tester using a simulated 3mm flange hole and holder for a spoke
nipple. I think you'll notice that when relaxed again, the spoke will
still have kinks, kinks that in service would lead to fatigue failure.

Now, tension the spoke to the yield stress and relax it again. I
think you'll see a perfectly straight spoke with no residual stress.
If that is not stress relieving, then you may have abetter word for
it. Let me know what you find.

> A traditional steel for example may have half the fatigue limit in the
> transverse axis of a rolled sheet compared to its longitudinal axis.
> The same alloy composition, but vacuum degassed, may have very similar
> fatigue limits in both orientations. When first seen, the observation
> of this effect sparked a hunt for explanation. Electron microscopy
> subsequently confirmed fatigue initiation at tiny inclusions previously
> thought to be insignificantly small.

So what does this have to do with stress relieving or not?

>> As I have described here often, spoke wire must be ductile enough to
>> withstand cold forming yet retain a sufficiently high yield strength
>> to resist fatigue failures at normal spoke loadings. This had not
>> been so before DT spokes so there is where you should look for the
>> answer. Redaelli, Berg, and Prym spokes also did not survive long
>> even with stress relieving although it extended their service life.

I see you have no comment on the high ductility and high tensile
strength of DT spoke wire.

>>> It's interesting how you're so very careful with your claims; when
>>> challenged you fall back on your personal use of just one brand of
>>> top quality spoke, as if it were proof across the whole
>>> mechanical/materials spectrum.

>> You create these characterizations of thin air to your liking. Every
>> so often someone with your attitude shows up here on wreck.bike to
>> attack what has been discovered about bicycle parts apparently trying
>> to defend myth and lore from days gone by. I can't see any other goal
>> but then you never said what you believe is the cause of failures.
>> Instead of beating around the bush and insinuating and alluding to
>> some agenda, how about stating what it is you believe is occurring.

> What causes failures is well known. It's what alleviates them that
> seems to be the issue here. All that "stress relief" achieves is a
> wheel that is fully bedded in before riding. Spokes do not
> therefore loosen and others do not therefore carry disproportionate
> load. In that respect, the practice referred to as "stress relief"
> is a good thing, and thoroughly to be commended. But the business
> of fatigue mitigation itself is achieved in the spoke manufacturers
> factory, not the wheel builders bench.

"Well known"? From what you just said, it seems not to be. Bedding
in is already complete when spokes are tensioned and even if it
weren't, subsequent bedding in from use cannot relax the tension of a
spoke, the change in length being insignificant compared to spoke
elastic stretch from tensioning. However, even if it did, your model
of overloaded spokes cannot explain the failure of left side spokes in
rear wheels that have as little as half the tension of those on the
right. Beyond these considerations, high spoke tension is generally
in the range of 1/3 the yield stress of a spoke.

Would you explain your understanding of spoke failure in this respect?

> The explanation of "local yielding" you've presented as theory on
> how to eliminate fatigue is unfortunately built on some gross
> misconceptions. You assert that the steel in spokes exhibits the
> same properties as mild steel, i.e. the exhibition of yield and
> deformation without work hardening as a method of reducing residual
> stress.

Where do you find that "unfortunate" scenario? I haven't proposed
anything of the sort. I see a straw man raising his head. Where is
Ray Bolger when we need him. He's probably out there on a yellow
brick road commiserating heart warmingly with a tin man.

> Reality is, stainless steel spoke wires /do/ work harden immediately
> from yield, as the real-life spoke stress/strain graphs in the back
> of your book show. "Stress relief" therefore has the ability to not
> only continue increasing the dislocation density of the material
> [which /increases/ lattice stresses] at any point where it does
> yield, [/if/ it yields, and that's conjecture], but to also activate
> slip bands and initiate cumulative damage effects.

I am reminded of Richard Feynman's appropriate words: "If you can't
explain it in plain English, you probably don't understand it yourself."

> The closest analogy to your explanation is something called
> "coaxing" where a component is progressively loaded and fatigue
> limits improved, but unfortunately, this effect is only present in
> materials that exhibit strain aging. Stainless steel is not one of
> them.

I see. Now it is specifically stainless steel that makes spokes not
fail. Are you proposing that other steel components on bicycles, such
as axles, cables, frames and the like, would be more durable in such
alloys?

> So, you want to know my agenda? Update your book and get rid of the
> glaring materials theory errors! And please include the differential
> spoke tension formula for dished wheels while you're at it.

What sort of "differential spoke tension formula" are you suggesting
and for what would this be useful, considering that the difference is
dependent on the hub offset, something that cannot be changed. The
graphic description in the book makes that fairly clear as wheel as
what the results are.

Jobst Brandt

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >, says...
>Most of the replies are either "build your own wheels, it
>not rocket surgery", or "the person who built your wheels didn't know what
>they were doing." If it isn't hard how come I got three crappy wheels?

You got three people who don't know how to properly build wheels. Isn't
the answer obvious? It isn't rocket science, but it does require you to
do all the right things. Unfortunately you can't look at a wheel and tell
if it was properly built. You can see if the wheel is true and if the
tension is even, but you can't tell if they stress relieved the spokes.

>I
>am also frustrated that there is an elitist attitude that hand built wheels
>are the only way to go and that only fools buy ready made wheelsets.

Not elitest at all. It is just that if you can get a good wheel builder,
custom hand made wheels are a better value for your money.

>I have
>had much more fun on my rides since I switched to the Ksyrium Elite rear
>wheel.

Unfortunately this is what happens because a lot of shops don't have a
competent wheel builder. A customer has no choice but to buy over priced
pre-built wheels. This is one reason to build your own wheels. The
investment is small and the rewards are great.
------------
Alex

[Rick Warner]

"RWM" > wrote in message >...

>
> Of course I could learn to build a great wheel, but I would rather spend my
> free time riding and I think that you missed my major point. I tried really
> hard, many times, to purchase a reliable hand built 36 spoke rear wheel.
> The longest any of them lasted was under 500 miles! I purchased a "wheel in
> a box" and have had wonderful results for over 1500 miles. The advice that
> is constantly voiced in this group is that hand built wheels are better, but
> there are at least two heavy riders who have had great results with the
> Mavic Ksyrium Elite rear wheels.

If they lasted only 500 miles there is a problem, either in materials
or technique. I built a set of 36 spoke wheels this winter. Took me
an evening. Have almost 1000 miles, mostly 'loaded' (e.g., carrying
panniers filled with stuff). Still true as the night I built them,
not a complaint from the spokes.
I expect the same will be true at 10K miles. If past experience is a
guide, I can expect to wear the braking surface down before anything
else goes. Simple task for a rainy night, since I do not ride on
rainy nights unless I have to :-)

Wait until you pop a spoke on the Ksyrium's. If you are not near a
major city, expect to wait a while if you want one of those fancy
spokes as a replacement.

- rick

[Benjamin Lewis]

Alex Rodriguez wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>> Most of the replies are either "build your own wheels, it not rocket
>> surgery", or "the person who built your wheels didn't know what they
>> were doing." If it isn't hard how come I got three crappy wheels?
>
> You got three people who don't know how to properly build wheels. Isn't
> the answer obvious? It isn't rocket science, but it does require you to
> do all the right things. Unfortunately you can't look at a wheel and
> tell if it was properly built. You can see if the wheel is true and if
> the tension is even, but you can't tell if they stress relieved the
> spokes.

Fortunately, stress relieving a second time doesn't hurt, and is easy to
do, so you can just do it yourself when you get home even if you don't
want to build your own wheels.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.
-- Walt Kelly

[Paul Kopit]

On 30 May 2004 13:53:32 GMT, (Qui si parla
Campagnolo ) wrote:

>Stress relieving does not necessarily take windup out of spokes. They are two
>different issues, with two different 'techniques'.

I've deluded myself into thining I've found an easy way to alleviate
windup. When the wheel is near finished, I put a tire w/o air on it
and ride it around the street. I take the wheel back and check the
true again and rarely need to do anything. No pinging noises on the
first ride.

[RWM]

"Rick Warner" > wrote in message
om...
> "RWM" > wrote in message
>...
>
> >
> > Of course I could learn to build a great wheel, but I would rather spend
my
> > free time riding and I think that you missed my major point. I tried
really
> > hard, many times, to purchase a reliable hand built 36 spoke rear wheel.
> > The longest any of them lasted was under 500 miles! I purchased a
"wheel in
> > a box" and have had wonderful results for over 1500 miles. The advice
that
> > is constantly voiced in this group is that hand built wheels are better,
but
> > there are at least two heavy riders who have had great results with the
> > Mavic Ksyrium Elite rear wheels.
>
> If they lasted only 500 miles there is a problem, either in materials
> or technique. I built a set of 36 spoke wheels this winter. Took me
> an evening. Have almost 1000 miles, mostly 'loaded' (e.g., carrying
> panniers filled with stuff). Still true as the night I built them,
> not a complaint from the spokes.
> I expect the same will be true at 10K miles. If past experience is a
> guide, I can expect to wear the braking surface down before anything
> else goes. Simple task for a rainy night, since I do not ride on
> rainy nights unless I have to :-)
>
> Wait until you pop a spoke on the Ksyrium's. If you are not near a
> major city, expect to wait a while if you want one of those fancy
> spokes as a replacement.
>
> - rick

I purchased 4 drive side and 4 non drive side spokes when I got the wheel.

[Tim McNamara]

"RWM" > writes:

> "Tim McNamara" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "RWM" > writes:
>>
>> > You edited the message wrong. It went like this:
>> >
>> >> But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to true
>> >> after?
>> >>
>> > Yes.

<snip>

>> When you say the rim was "not truable," by whom was it not truable?
>>
> The rims were declared not truable by the service department of LBS.
> I was shocked and asked that more senior techs give a second opinion
> and all the techs agreed. With the Open Pro rim one spoke actually
> pulled through the rim and it was instant trash.

I'd have been shocked and skeptical to say the least. Now, I don't
like the Open Pro or any anodized rims, having had a string of
failures in which the rims cracked around the spoke holes. I've
cracked an Open Pro, but the spoke didn't pull through the rim- it
couldn't because there's a big metal socket around the nipple. If it
had, there's have been a hole bigger than 1 cm across left in the rim
and it would have probably been a very dramatic catastrophic failure.
Such a failure isn't from the wheel build but from a flaw in the rim.

> I weigh 245 lbs so I think that I am seeing problems that lighter
> riders never see.

Touring cyclists put these loads on wheels all the time. It's nothing
new. And they get thousands of miles of trouble-free performance.
Unless you're doing lots of sideways skids, slamming into curbs and
potholes, etc, this shouldn't be a problem. A properly built 36 spoke
wheel ought to be able to support close to an 800 pound load before
collapsing.

> The thing that is frustrating to me is that I took appropriate steps
> to getting wheels built. I went to good shops, explained my
> situation with breaking rear spokes, always took the shops
> recommendations as to the best parts for me, asked that the wheels
> be built by their best wheel builder, and brought the wheels back to
> the shop for maintenance if there was any sign loose spokes or being
> out of true but I still did not get a wheel to last 500 miles. Most
> of the replies are either "build your own wheels, it not rocket
> surgery", or "the person who built your wheels didn't know what they
> were doing." If it isn't hard how come I got three crappy wheels?

You may have gotten three bike shops that think they know how to build
wheels, but really don't. If I was to recommend a wheel to you, it
would be a 36 spoke Ultegra hub, with DT 14-15 gauge double butted
spokes, and a Mavic MA2 rim (which you're not going to find, in all
likelihood, it being out of production). Properly built, I'd be
nothing but astonished if that didn't work well for you for many many
more than 500 miles. You'd need to go with a different rim, perhaps a
Torelli Master which is similar to an MA2.

> I am also frustrated that there is an elitist attitude that hand
> built wheels are the only way to go and that only fools buy ready
> made wheelsets.

You're reading more into people's comments than there is.

> I have had much more fun on my rides since I switched to the Ksyrium
> Elite rear wheel.

And good luck to you- and carry a cell phone. If you break a spoke,
those wheels will be instantly unrideable.

[RWM]

Comments in the body of the message.

"Tim McNamara" > wrote in message
...
> "RWM" > writes:
>
> > "Tim McNamara" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "RWM" > writes:
> >>
> >> > You edited the message wrong. It went like this:
> >> >
> >> >> But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to true
> >> >> after?
> >> >>
> >> > Yes.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> When you say the rim was "not truable," by whom was it not truable?
> >>
> > The rims were declared not truable by the service department of LBS.
> > I was shocked and asked that more senior techs give a second opinion
> > and all the techs agreed. With the Open Pro rim one spoke actually
> > pulled through the rim and it was instant trash.
>
> I'd have been shocked and skeptical to say the least. Now, I don't
> like the Open Pro or any anodized rims, having had a string of
> failures in which the rims cracked around the spoke holes. I've
> cracked an Open Pro, but the spoke didn't pull through the rim- it
> couldn't because there's a big metal socket around the nipple. If it
> had, there's have been a hole bigger than 1 cm across left in the rim
> and it would have probably been a very dramatic catastrophic failure.
> Such a failure isn't from the wheel build but from a flaw in the rim.
>

Yep, you have it right. The metal socket, and spoke, pulled right through
the rim. You were also right that it was catastropic to me. I was going up
a steep hill and suddenly there was a bang. I tried riding home but there
was no way. I called a friend to get me.


> > I weigh 245 lbs so I think that I am seeing problems that lighter
> > riders never see.
>
> Touring cyclists put these loads on wheels all the time. It's nothing
> new. And they get thousands of miles of trouble-free performance.
> Unless you're doing lots of sideways skids, slamming into curbs and
> potholes, etc, this shouldn't be a problem. A properly built 36 spoke
> wheel ought to be able to support close to an 800 pound load before
> collapsing.
>
> > The thing that is frustrating to me is that I took appropriate steps
> > to getting wheels built. I went to good shops, explained my
> > situation with breaking rear spokes, always took the shops
> > recommendations as to the best parts for me, asked that the wheels
> > be built by their best wheel builder, and brought the wheels back to
> > the shop for maintenance if there was any sign loose spokes or being
> > out of true but I still did not get a wheel to last 500 miles. Most
> > of the replies are either "build your own wheels, it not rocket
> > surgery", or "the person who built your wheels didn't know what they
> > were doing." If it isn't hard how come I got three crappy wheels?
>
> You may have gotten three bike shops that think they know how to build
> wheels, but really don't. If I was to recommend a wheel to you, it
> would be a 36 spoke Ultegra hub, with DT 14-15 gauge double butted
> spokes, and a Mavic MA2 rim (which you're not going to find, in all
> likelihood, it being out of production). Properly built, I'd be
> nothing but astonished if that didn't work well for you for many many
> more than 500 miles. You'd need to go with a different rim, perhaps a
> Torelli Master which is similar to an MA2.

This is interesting. You described the exact wheel that one of the shops
built, but to be accurate I am not sure that spokes were DT. I think that
they were DT but not 100% sure. The rest of the wheel is accuate..with a 3X
pattern.

>
> > I am also frustrated that there is an elitist attitude that hand
> > built wheels are the only way to go and that only fools buy ready
> > made wheelsets.
>
> You're reading more into people's comments than there is.
>
> > I have had much more fun on my rides since I switched to the Ksyrium
> > Elite rear wheel.
>
> And good luck to you- and carry a cell phone. If you break a spoke,
> those wheels will be instantly unrideable.

I think that I will leave the cell phone comment alone. There is a cell
phone thread that is running already.

[[email protected]]

Paul Kopit writes:

>> Stress relieving does not necessarily take windup out of
>> spokes. They are two different issues, with two different
>> 'techniques'.

> I've deluded myself into thinking I've found an easy way to alleviate
> windup. When the wheel is near finished, I put a tire w/o air on it
> and ride it around the street. I take the wheel back and check the
> true again and rarely need to do anything. No pinging noises on the
> first ride.

It's much easier and reliable to develop an overshoot and back of
motion in your truing hand as is described in "the Bicycle Wheel" with
diagram of torque. Besides, after spokes untwist, trueness generally
changes and requires rework... that will re-introduce twist... in
infinite regression.

Jobst Brandt

[Roger Zoul]

RWM wrote:
:: Comments in the body of the message.
::
:: "Tim McNamara" > wrote in message
:: ...
::: "RWM" > writes:
:::
:::: "Tim McNamara" > wrote in message
:::: ...
::::: "RWM" > writes:
:::::
:::::: You edited the message wrong. It went like this:
::::::
::::::: But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to true
::::::: after?
:::::::
:::::: Yes.
:::
::: <snip>
:::
::::: When you say the rim was "not truable," by whom was it not
::::: truable?
:::::
:::: The rims were declared not truable by the service department of
:::: LBS.
:::: I was shocked and asked that more senior techs give a second
:::: opinion and all the techs agreed. With the Open Pro rim one spoke
:::: actually pulled through the rim and it was instant trash.
:::
::: I'd have been shocked and skeptical to say the least. Now, I don't
::: like the Open Pro or any anodized rims, having had a string of
::: failures in which the rims cracked around the spoke holes. I've
::: cracked an Open Pro, but the spoke didn't pull through the rim- it
::: couldn't because there's a big metal socket around the nipple. If
::: it had, there's have been a hole bigger than 1 cm across left in
::: the rim
::: and it would have probably been a very dramatic catastrophic
::: failure. Such a failure isn't from the wheel build but from a flaw
::: in the rim.
:::
::
:: Yep, you have it right. The metal socket, and spoke, pulled right
:: through the rim. You were also right that it was catastropic to me.
:: I was going up a steep hill and suddenly there was a bang. I tried
:: riding home but there was no way. I called a friend to get me.
::
::
:::: I weigh 245 lbs so I think that I am seeing problems that lighter
:::: riders never see.
:::
::: Touring cyclists put these loads on wheels all the time. It's
::: nothing new. And they get thousands of miles of trouble-free
::: performance.
::: Unless you're doing lots of sideways skids, slamming into curbs and
::: potholes, etc, this shouldn't be a problem. A properly built 36
::: spoke wheel ought to be able to support close to an 800 pound load
::: before collapsing.
:::
:::: The thing that is frustrating to me is that I took appropriate
:::: steps
:::: to getting wheels built. I went to good shops, explained my
:::: situation with breaking rear spokes, always took the shops
:::: recommendations as to the best parts for me, asked that the wheels
:::: be built by their best wheel builder, and brought the wheels back
:::: to the shop for maintenance if there was any sign loose spokes or
:::: being out of true but I still did not get a wheel to last 500
:::: miles. Most
:::: of the replies are either "build your own wheels, it not rocket
:::: surgery", or "the person who built your wheels didn't know what
:::: they were doing." If it isn't hard how come I got three crappy
:::: wheels?
:::
::: You may have gotten three bike shops that think they know how to
::: build wheels, but really don't. If I was to recommend a wheel to
::: you, it
::: would be a 36 spoke Ultegra hub, with DT 14-15 gauge double butted
::: spokes, and a Mavic MA2 rim (which you're not going to find, in all
::: likelihood, it being out of production). Properly built, I'd be
::: nothing but astonished if that didn't work well for you for many
::: many more than 500 miles. You'd need to go with a different rim,
::: perhaps a Torelli Master which is similar to an MA2.
::
:: This is interesting. You described the exact wheel that one of the
:: shops built, but to be accurate I am not sure that spokes were DT.
:: I think that they were DT but not 100% sure. The rest of the wheel
:: is accuate..with a 3X pattern.
::
:::
:::: I am also frustrated that there is an elitist attitude that hand
:::: built wheels are the only way to go and that only fools buy ready
:::: made wheelsets.
:::
::: You're reading more into people's comments than there is.
:::
:::: I have had much more fun on my rides since I switched to the
:::: Ksyrium Elite rear wheel.
:::
::: And good luck to you- and carry a cell phone. If you break a spoke,
::: those wheels will be instantly unrideable.
::
:: I think that I will leave the cell phone comment alone. There is a
:: cell phone thread that is running already.

Having a cell phone with you is not the same as using it while riding.

[ZeeExSixAre]

> Standard rim:
> http://www.nashbar.com/profile_moreimages.cfm?&sku=6367

Is it just me, or does that "touring" wheelset have single-wall rims?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[jim beam]

wrote:
> Old Crow or was it Wild Turkey writes:
>
>
>>>My reference to a kink is one induced by, for instance, a wheel
>>>collapse in which a spoke is doubled back on itself or one in which
>>>the wheel fell on an unoccupied pedal and got snagged by a
>>>projecting part in a crash. These are sharp bends in the middle of
>>>a spoke. Ones that cannot be straightened by anything but a hammer
>>>and smooth surface to fatten the kink, and even then it is doubtful
>>>to be durable. In effect an unsupported "elbow".
>
>
>>Understood, but there are two types of "sharp" bend. The bending
>>that has a comparatively large radius like a straightened paper
>>clip, or the minor bend which has a very small radius like a chain
>>gouge. The smaller the radius, the greater the stress concentration
>>& the greater fatigue propensity. The large radius bend induces
>>similar effects in the material to "correcting the line".
>
>
>>>>>Even smooth bends have practically no effect on spoke life.
>>>>>Replacement spokes must often be bent to insert them into the
>>>>>hub. The main thing is to stress relieve them after truing.
>>>>>That's what assures durability for high quality spokes.
>
>
>>>>Interesting qualification - that high quality spokes assure
>>>>durability. Can it therefore be inferred that you don't feel
>>>>confident that "stress relief" has the same magical properties of
>>>>infinite fatigue life on poor quality spokes? If so, what would be
>>>>the differentiator?
>
>
>>>I see you didn't live in the days of Stella and Robergel spokes from
>>>which I discovered the benefits of stress relieving.
>
>
>>But I'm not too old to still find wheels with these spokes at swap
>>meets.
>
>
> So? What is it that is unclear about why these spokes fail so rapidly
> and why stress relieving reduces their failure rate as you see it?

i don't think your version of "stress relief" brings any metallurgical
change to the spokes, but it definitely builds a stronger more evenly
tensioned wheel. see below for my experiment last summer.

as explained before, one reason for failure of these spokes is their
"dirty" steels. another is the use of chrome plating. chrome is
brittle and cracks when the spokes get bent during build. these cracks
are /classic/ fatigue initiators.

>
>
>>>These spokes broke after such short duty that a large statistical
>>>trend was discernable by stress relieving although that did not
>>>stop spoke failures entirely. It was with the advent of DT spokes
>>>that truly durable spokes became available. Now there are several
>>>brands that work well.
>
>
>>Yes, there are now several brands that work well. But their long life
>>is not the product of "stress relief"; it's the fact that in the 70's,
>>it became economic to mass produce vacuum degassed steels. Ultra-clean
>>materials like this are substantially more fatigue resistant because
>>this process virtually eliminates inclusions, thereby removing a
>>significant source of fatigue initiation.
>
>
> Oh? So how do you explain the reports of repeated failures in wheels
> with these spokes, ones built by people who, as you, don't believe
> that stress relief is useful or don't know about it.

which brand of spokes? the people i've asked for info on which brand of
spoke they've been breaking here on r.b.t. either don't seem to know or
will only admit to pre-built wheels which usually use no-name cheapo
stuff. the broken d.t.'s i have are all victims of chain gouge, so i
don't think they're much of a data point. and when spokes /do/ break,
the wheels usually get rebuilt with high quality after market
replacements, and miraculously, their problems seem to disappear!
coincidence?

>
> How about an experiment? One that I have done. I take it that you
> have access to materials testing equipment from what you write. Take
> a spoke and manually give it some kinks with as small a radius as you
> can. Tension that spoke to customary service tension in a tensile
> tester using a simulated 3mm flange hole and holder for a spoke
> nipple. I think you'll notice that when relaxed again, the spoke will
> still have kinks,

agreed - i can repeat this experiment if you like. probably won't have
time to do it for several weeks, but it's easily done.

> kinks that in service would lead to fatigue failure.

not necessarily more so than a spoke that's been bent to "correct the
line" or a spoke that's crossing another, particularly if that crossing
is closer to the hub than normal like 2x on a 32 spoke wheel. depends
on the extent of the kink doesn't it!

>
> Now, tension the spoke to the yield stress and relax it again. I
> think you'll see a perfectly straight spoke with no residual stress.
> If that is not stress relieving, then you may have abetter word for
> it. Let me know what you find.

well, for the metallurgical definition of stress relief, that would
require between 1% & 3% strain, and even then, that would typically be
done immediately after initial deformation to prevent any possible aging
effects. on a 296mm spoke, if we're conservative, 1% means 3mm
elongation making it unusable for its originally intended purpose.
being as we're not getting strain of that magnitude, you can't contend
that there's true metallurgical stress relief in a wheel build.

>
>
>>A traditional steel for example may have half the fatigue limit in the
>>transverse axis of a rolled sheet compared to its longitudinal axis.
>>The same alloy composition, but vacuum degassed, may have very similar
>>fatigue limits in both orientations. When first seen, the observation
>>of this effect sparked a hunt for explanation. Electron microscopy
>>subsequently confirmed fatigue initiation at tiny inclusions previously
>>thought to be insignificantly small.
>
>
> So what does this have to do with stress relieving or not?

i'm trying to tell you /why/ modern spokes have such good fatigue
characteristics!!!

>
>
>>>As I have described here often, spoke wire must be ductile enough to
>>>withstand cold forming yet retain a sufficiently high yield strength
>>>to resist fatigue failures at normal spoke loadings. This had not
>>>been so before DT spokes so there is where you should look for the
>>>answer. Redaelli, Berg, and Prym spokes also did not survive long
>>>even with stress relieving although it extended their service life.
>
>
> I see you have no comment on the high ductility and high tensile
> strength of DT spoke wire.

what's to comment? you're the guy that was telling me a while back that
d.t. spokes were fully hard. you didn't respond to links showing the
tensile strength differences between 2.0 straight gauge, 2.0/1.8/2.0
butted and 2.0/1.5/2.0 butted - which are directly attributable to
continued work hardening.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=P_r7c.13091%24R46.8853%40newssvr27.new s.prodigy.com&output=gplain



>
>
>>>>It's interesting how you're so very careful with your claims; when
>>>>challenged you fall back on your personal use of just one brand of
>>>>top quality spoke, as if it were proof across the whole
>>>>mechanical/materials spectrum.
>
>
>>>You create these characterizations of thin air to your liking. Every
>>>so often someone with your attitude shows up here on wreck.bike to
>>>attack what has been discovered about bicycle parts apparently trying
>>>to defend myth and lore from days gone by. I can't see any other goal
>>>but then you never said what you believe is the cause of failures.
>>>Instead of beating around the bush and insinuating and alluding to
>>>some agenda, how about stating what it is you believe is occurring.
>
>
>>What causes failures is well known. It's what alleviates them that
>>seems to be the issue here. All that "stress relief" achieves is a
>>wheel that is fully bedded in before riding. Spokes do not
>>therefore loosen and others do not therefore carry disproportionate
>>load. In that respect, the practice referred to as "stress relief"
>>is a good thing, and thoroughly to be commended. But the business
>>of fatigue mitigation itself is achieved in the spoke manufacturers
>>factory, not the wheel builders bench.
>
>
> "Well known"? From what you just said, it seems not to be.

the causes of fatigue are quite well known to metallurgists & materials
engineers. there's tons of stuff about that on the web.

> Bedding
> in is already complete when spokes are tensioned

i absolutely disagree. my hefty #210 hindquarters most definitely are
able to untrue a wheel that has not been properly bedded in. quickly
too. that's where the benefits of the "stress relief" wheel build
process are most apparent.

> and even if it
> weren't, subsequent bedding in from use cannot relax the tension of a
> spoke, the change in length being insignificant compared to spoke
> elastic stretch from tensioning.

this is not my experience. last summer, i /did/ build a wheel,
deliberately without "stress relief". it was evenly tensioned and
perfectly true before leaving the house. i took care to ensure no spoke
had any twist by marking them on one side before assembly so any torque
could easily be seen. it did not "ping" while riding. it was ~6mm out
of true after riding around just one block and some of the spokes were
almost completely slack. clearly there was measurable yielding of
/something/. as i think we both agree that spokes are loaded to less
than a third of their yield, it had to be something else - yielding of
soft aluminum hub holes & rim holes. hence the need to /properly/ bed
wheels in.

> However, even if it did, your model
> of overloaded spokes cannot explain the failure of left side spokes in
> rear wheels that have as little as half the tension of those on the
> right.

why not? if it means the spokes get higher cyclic load limits, i.e. the
difference between the maximum & minimum loads, or even /negative/
loads, i don't see any disparity at all! i have examples of spoke
failures where the elbows have fatigued from both the inside out, /and/
outside in! clearly in this situation, poor tension is a contributor.

> Beyond these considerations, high spoke tension is generally
> in the range of 1/3 the yield stress of a spoke.

which just happens to be about the same stress level we commonly see for
fatigue limits [_not_ to be confused with an endurance limits]. funny
coincidence that.

>
> Would you explain your understanding of spoke failure in this respect?
>
>
>>The explanation of "local yielding" you've presented as theory on
>>how to eliminate fatigue is unfortunately built on some gross
>>misconceptions. You assert that the steel in spokes exhibits the
>>same properties as mild steel, i.e. the exhibition of yield and
>>deformation without work hardening as a method of reducing residual
>>stress.
>
>
> Where do you find that "unfortunate" scenario? I haven't proposed
> anything of the sort. I see a straw man raising his head. Where is
> Ray Bolger when we need him. He's probably out there on a yellow
> brick road commiserating heart warmingly with a tin man.

i don't have your book in front of me, but you show a stress/strain
graph for mild steel, i.e. one that exhibits strain aging, then iirc, go
on to discuss yielding without work hardening. if you knew the
distinction between a material that exhibits strain aging, mild steel,
and one that doesn't, stainless steel, you wouldn't have made that error.

>
>
>>Reality is, stainless steel spoke wires /do/ work harden immediately
>>from yield, as the real-life spoke stress/strain graphs in the back
>>of your book show. "Stress relief" therefore has the ability to not
>>only continue increasing the dislocation density of the material
>>[which /increases/ lattice stresses] at any point where it does
>>yield, [/if/ it yields, and that's conjecture], but to also activate
>>slip bands and initiate cumulative damage effects.
>
>
> I am reminded of Richard Feynman's appropriate words: "If you can't
> explain it in plain English, you probably don't understand it yourself."

"plain english" is relative. there are certain concepts that have their
own names. "dislocation" is one that is fundamental to deformation
theory, much like the host of sub-atomic particle names are to
fundamental to the physics of matter. there's no avoidance possible.
likewise "lattice". atoms in a crystal are arranged in a lattice.
that's pretty plain. these terms are all googleable.

>
>
>>The closest analogy to your explanation is something called
>>"coaxing" where a component is progressively loaded and fatigue
>>limits improved, but unfortunately, this effect is only present in
>>materials that exhibit strain aging. Stainless steel is not one of
>>them.
>
>
> I see. Now it is specifically stainless steel that makes spokes not
> fail.

you're putting words in my mouth. high quality stainless steel can be
fatigue resistant. mild steel can be fatigue proof in certain
circumstances. two very different things. stainless steel has no
endurance limit and therefore can never be fatigue proof.

> Are you proposing that other steel components on bicycles, such
> as axles, cables, frames and the like, would be more durable in such
> alloys?

the appropriate alloys are used already. prime examples are the
stainless steels used to make good spokes and control cables because of
corrosion resistance. corrosion resistance preserves surface quality
and good surface quality is a primary fatigue mitigator.

>
>
>>So, you want to know my agenda? Update your book and get rid of the
>>glaring materials theory errors! And please include the differential
>>spoke tension formula for dished wheels while you're at it.
>
>
> What sort of "differential spoke tension formula" are you suggesting
> and for what would this be useful, considering that the difference is
> dependent on the hub offset, something that cannot be changed.

i know hub offset can't be changed - that's not the question. i've seen
it asked a number of times on r.b.t., why are measurements are given for
the drive side of a dished rear wheel, but not the non-drive side? if
someone has just built their first wheel, have a shiny new tensiometer
in their hand, are they not curious what the deal is with the spokes
they've not had comparison measurements for? publishing the tension
differential formulae in the same way you did for spoke length
calculation allows the curious to understand /why/ there is a difference
in tension, and if necessary, to calculate what it would be for any
given hub/rim combination.

> The
> graphic description in the book makes that fairly clear as wheel as
> what the results are.
>
> Jobst Brandt
>

[jim beam]

RWM wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"RWM" > writes:
>>
>>
>>>You edited the message wrong. It went like this:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But how do you "ruin" the rim? Did it become impossible to true
>>>>after?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>OK, this is making less and less sense. I've had to ride home on
>>broken spokes more than 50 miles on occasion, and over 10 miles on
>>several occasions- happily not in years. I've never ruined a rim by
>>riding on it with a broken spoke- and I've weighed over 195 lbs since
>>I was a sophomore in high school back in 1974. I built my first
>>wheels in 1978 and finally retired those in 1994. I don't recall any
>>spoke breakages in those wheels, but I have had spokes break in OEM
>>prebuilt wheels and in one wheel I built using cheap Asahi spokes;
>>otherwise I find 32 spoke wheels quite adequate.
>>
>>When you say the rim was "not truable," by whom was it not truable?
>>
>>Basically it sounds like your wheels have been built up by people who
>>didn't know what they were doing- how to properly tension the spokes,
>>remove spoke windup and stress relieve them to prevent breakage. A
>>wheel should go 50,000 miles at least without breaking a spoke, IMHO.
>>This is not hard to achieve once the principles and procedures of good
>>wheel building are known.
>
>
> The rims were declared not truable by the service department of LBS. I was
> shocked and asked that more senior techs give a second opinion and all the
> techs agreed. With the Open Pro rim one spoke actually pulled through the
> rim and it was instant trash.
>
> I weigh 245 lbs so I think that I am seeing problems that lighter riders
> never see.
>
> The thing that is frustrating to me is that I took appropriate steps to
> getting wheels built. I went to good shops, explained my situation with
> breaking rear spokes, always took the shops recommendations as to the best
> parts for me, asked that the wheels be built by their best wheel builder,
> and brought the wheels back to the shop for maintenance if there was any
> sign loose spokes or being out of true but I still did not get a wheel to
> last 500 miles. Most of the replies are either "build your own wheels, it
> not rocket surgery", or "the person who built your wheels didn't know what
> they were doing." If it isn't hard how come I got three crappy wheels?

all 3 shops were crappy. here in the bay area, i've only come across 1
shop that really knows how to build a wheel that stays true under my
#210 weight. i slightly bent a wheel in a crash and i took it to 3 of
the "best" shops in the area for repair. all 3 declared it bent beyond
hope. finally, i took it to its original builder, and he had it back in
shape in no time! i'd originally avoided him because he was expensive
and i wanted to see whether anyone else knew their stuff. false economy.

> I
> am also frustrated that there is an elitist attitude that hand built wheels
> are the only way to go and that only fools buy ready made wheelsets. I have
> had much more fun on my rides since I switched to the Ksyrium Elite rear
> wheel.

the ksyiriums with the big fat alloy spokes do seem to fail. i've
passed a number of riders limping home with those things flopping about.
but they /are/ ridable if you open the brake caliper right up; if you
want to ride them, go right ahead! and the ones with the steel spokes
seem to be fine.

ignore the elitist attitude. there's people that that feel qualified to
criticize equipment they've never used in every field, not just bikes.

[Mark South]

"jim beam" > wrote in message
. com...
> wrote:

> > Now, tension the spoke to the yield stress and relax it again. I
> > think you'll see a perfectly straight spoke with no residual stress.
> > If that is not stress relieving, then you may have abetter word for
> > it. Let me know what you find.
>
> well, for the metallurgical definition of stress relief, that would
> require between 1% & 3% strain, and even then, that would typically be
> done immediately after initial deformation to prevent any possible aging
> effects. on a 296mm spoke, if we're conservative, 1% means 3mm
> elongation making it unusable for its originally intended purpose.

But the lower end of that limit quite plausible, right? Fully tensioned spokes
do exhibit loaded elongations of around 1% and so the stress-relief procedure
described in Jobst's book is taking the spokes to about 1.5% or 2% strain,
clearly within your specified range.

Regarding aging effects, these can be very slow for stainless steels. Are you
sure they are important in this application for such high purity stainless
steels as DT (for example) are using?
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

[Mark South]

"Mark South" > wrote in message
...

I'm sorry, I have made a mistake or two in the following, which I attribute to
my inability to leave numbers alone no matter how short of sleep I am.

> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > wrote:
>
> > > Now, tension the spoke to the yield stress and relax it again. I
> > > think you'll see a perfectly straight spoke with no residual stress.
> > > If that is not stress relieving, then you may have abetter word for
> > > it. Let me know what you find.
> >
> > well, for the metallurgical definition of stress relief, that would
> > require between 1% & 3% strain, and even then, that would typically be
> > done immediately after initial deformation to prevent any possible aging
> > effects. on a 296mm spoke, if we're conservative, 1% means 3mm
> > elongation making it unusable for its originally intended purpose.
>
> But the lower end of that limit quite plausible, right? Fully tensioned
spokes
> do exhibit loaded elongations of around 1% and so the stress-relief procedure
> described in Jobst's book is taking the spokes to about 1.5% or 2% strain,
> clearly within your specified range.

I overestimated, sorry. That should have been:

But approaching the lower end of that limit is quite plausible, right?
Fully tensioned spokes do exhibit loaded elongations approaching 1% and
so the stress-relief procedure described in Jobst's book is taking the
spokes to in the region of 1% strain, close to your specified range.


> Regarding aging effects, these can be very slow for stainless steels. Are you
> sure they are important in this application for such high purity stainless
> steels as DT (for example) are using?

That question stands.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

bob-<< or "the person who built your wheels didn't know what
>they were doing." If it isn't hard how come I got three crappy wheels?
>><BR><BR>

It's easy to slap a cart BB into a frameset as well but we see it done wrong
all the time. Wheelbuilding is not 'hard' but it can be 'diffucult' to get the
four varibles correct at the same time. Many people build wheels, not a lot of
'wheelbuilders' tho, even here in the 'Republic'.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[jim beam]

Mark South wrote:
> "Mark South" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I'm sorry, I have made a mistake or two in the following, which I attribute to
> my inability to leave numbers alone no matter how short of sleep I am.
>
>
>>"jim beam" > wrote in message
. com...
>>
wrote:
>>
>>>>Now, tension the spoke to the yield stress and relax it again. I
>>>>think you'll see a perfectly straight spoke with no residual stress.
>>>>If that is not stress relieving, then you may have abetter word for
>>>>it. Let me know what you find.
>>>
>>>well, for the metallurgical definition of stress relief, that would
>>>require between 1% & 3% strain, and even then, that would typically be
>>>done immediately after initial deformation to prevent any possible aging
>>>effects. on a 296mm spoke, if we're conservative, 1% means 3mm
>>>elongation making it unusable for its originally intended purpose.
>>
>>But the lower end of that limit quite plausible, right? Fully tensioned
>
> spokes
>
>>do exhibit loaded elongations of around 1% and so the stress-relief procedure
>>described in Jobst's book is taking the spokes to about 1.5% or 2% strain,
>>clearly within your specified range.
>
>
> I overestimated, sorry. That should have been:
>
> But approaching the lower end of that limit is quite plausible, right?
> Fully tensioned spokes do exhibit loaded elongations approaching 1% and
> so the stress-relief procedure described in Jobst's book is taking the
> spokes to in the region of 1% strain, close to your specified range.

there's elastic & plastic strain. metallurgical stress relief is only
achieved in the 1-3% /plastic/ strain region. it's easy to get elastic
spoke elongations in the 1mm range, but that's only ~1/3 of 1% but
again, it needs to be _plastic_ strain to achieve relief.

>
>
>
>>Regarding aging effects, these can be very slow for stainless steels. Are you
>>sure they are important in this application for such high purity stainless
>>steels as DT (for example) are using?
>
>
> That question stands.

i don't believe it's important to us as consumers. i just mention it
because in the factory, to make a difference in reducing residual stress
after a drawing operation, the second stress relief drawing needs to
take place pretty much immediately. otherwise aging can reduce
effectiveness. depends on alloy.

[[email protected]]

Old Crow or was it Wild Turkey writes:

>> So? What is it that is unclear about why these spokes fail so
>> rapidly and why stress relieving reduces their failure rate as you
>> see it?

> I don't think your version of "stress relief" brings any
> metallurgical change to the spokes, but it definitely builds a
> stronger more evenly tensioned wheel. See below for my experiment
> last summer.

I don't see your experiment below or are you referring to the URL with
wreck.bike exchange?

> As explained before, one reason for failure of these spokes is their
> "dirty" steels. Another is the use of chrome plating. Chrome is
> brittle and cracks when the spokes get bent during build. These
> cracks are /classic/ fatigue initiators.

Oh, you mean like anodizing on aluminum rims? Actually the old spokes
I listed were not chromed except Berg. Their durability increase was
what led me to stress relief.

I think you are missing a logical point of why spokes fail where they
do. They break at the ends for good reasons. Thread failures are
probably the best place to look. For a spoke to fail in fatigue it
must be operating (cyclic loading) near its yield stress. Since the
tension load on a spoke is far below yield it cannot be the cause,
there must be an additional stress to cause a failure. That stress is
a residual stress from manufacturing and installation. DT as well as
other spokes fail in the threads but if they are stress relieved,
their threads do not fail.

By overloading a spoke temporarily, high stress points must yield so
that when the overload is relaxed, the peak stress becomes lower than
it was. This margin is what makes spokes last longer when stress
relieved. That does not mean all residual stress is removed but the
highest stress is reduced and that is enough to reduce failures.

>>> Yes, there are now several brands that work well. But their long life
>>> is not the product of "stress relief"; it's the fact that in the 70's,
>>> it became economic to mass produce vacuum degassed steels. Ultra-clean
>>> materials like this are substantially more fatigue resistant because
>>> this process virtually eliminates inclusions, thereby removing a
>>> significant source of fatigue initiation.

>> Oh? So how do you explain the reports of repeated failures in wheels
>> with these spokes, ones built by people who, as you, don't believe
>> that stress relief is useful or don't know about it.

> Which brand of spokes? The people I've asked for info on which brand of
> spoke they've been breaking here on r.b.t. either don't seem to know or
> will only admit to pre-built wheels which usually use no-name cheapo
> stuff. The broken d.t.'s i have are all victims of chain gouge, so i
> don't think they're much of a data point. And when spokes /do/ break,
> the wheels usually get rebuilt with high quality after market
> replacements, and miraculously, their problems seem to disappear!
> coincidence?

No dice. People have failures with DT and Sapim spoke and have
reported about that here. I have had a DT spoke fail near the rim
where I had gotten a hardwood stick in the front wheel that cause an
endo and a kink that was visible but had no scratch on it. I thought
nothing of it before it broke because the spoke was essentially
straight to the eye. It obviously had residual stress or it would not
have broken in fatigue a few thousand miles later.

>> How about an experiment? One that I have done. I take it that you
>> have access to materials testing equipment from what you write.
>> Take a spoke and manually give it some kinks with as small a radius
>> as you can. Tension that spoke to customary service tension in a
>> tensile tester using a simulated 3mm flange hole and holder for a
>> spoke nipple. I think you'll notice that when relaxed again, the
>> spoke will still have kinks,

> Agreed - I can repeat this experiment if you like. Probably won't
> have time to do it for several weeks, but it's easily done.

I'm sure you can comment on it even if you haven't performed it yet.
Do you believe the results would be as I described above? If so how
do you account for the spoke being straight after being stressed to
yield? Do you agree that his removes residual stress? For instance,
if you bend a spoke and get only partial spring back, do you agree
that this shows residual stress where the outer fibers went beyond
yield while the inner ones that did not and try to return to the
original shape while the outer ones resist. Is that not residual
stress, and if so why do you believe it is not additive to a
subsequent tensile load on the installed spoke?

That is what this experiment is intended to demonstrate. I have
inadvertently done this when I charted the stress strain curves for
"the Bicycle Wheel" in which less than perfectly straight spokes became
straight from stretching them beyond yield.

>> kinks that in service would lead to fatigue failure.

> Not necessarily more so than a spoke that's been bent to "correct the
> line" or a spoke that's crossing another, particularly if that crossing
> is closer to the hub than normal like 2x on a 32 spoke wheel. Depends
> on the extent of the kink doesn't it!

I'm sure you can come up with a spoke lacing that is more damaging
than conventional cross patterns. However, we have not seen failures
in common interleaved spoke lacings. I have never seen a failure at a
crossing point so let's drop that one. We have seen many failures at
the elbows, heads popping off, and thread failures as well as mid
spoke failures from smooth kinks, ones that had no knick or gouge.

>> Now, tension the spoke to the yield stress and relax it again. I
>> think you'll see a perfectly straight spoke with no residual stress.
>> If that is not stress relieving, then you may have abetter word for
>> it. Let me know what you find.

> Well, for the metallurgical definition of stress relief, that would
> require between 1% & 3% strain, and even then, that would typically
> be done immediately after initial deformation to prevent any
> possible aging effects. On a 296mm spoke, if we're conservative, 1%
> means 3mm elongation making it unusable for its originally intended
> purpose. Being as we're not getting strain of that magnitude, you
> can't contend that there's true metallurgical stress relief in a
> wheel build.

Oh but yes. As I mentioned, for a fatigue failure to occur requires
high stress, stress that spoke tension alone does cannot cause.
Spokes fail. Ergo, there is high stress. Overloading a spoke to
relieve that stress causes local yield because the stress is high.

>>> A traditional steel for example may have half the fatigue limit in the
>>> transverse axis of a rolled sheet compared to its longitudinal axis.
>>> The same alloy composition, but vacuum degassed, may have very similar
>>> fatigue limits in both orientations. When first seen, the observation
>>> of this effect sparked a hunt for explanation. Electron microscopy
>>> subsequently confirmed fatigue initiation at tiny inclusions previously
>>> thought to be insignificantly small.

>> So what does this have to do with stress relieving or not?

> I'm trying to tell you /why/ modern spokes have such good fatigue
> characteristics!!!

We are talking about failures, not how good spokes are. Besides, it is
documented that the good spokes fail.

>>>> As I have described here often, spoke wire must be ductile enough
>>>> to withstand cold forming yet retain a sufficiently high yield
>>>> strength to resist fatigue failures at normal spoke loadings.
>>>> This had not been so before DT spokes so there is where you
>>>> should look for the answer. Redaelli, Berg, and Prym spokes also
>>>> did not survive long even with stress relieving although it
>>>> extended their service life.

--- no response

>> I see you have no comment on the high ductility and high tensile
>> strength of DT spoke wire.

> What's to comment? You're the guy that was telling me a while back that
> d.t. spokes were fully hard. You didn't respond to links showing the
> tensile strength differences between 2.0 straight gauge, 2.0/1.8/2.0
> butted and 2.0/1.5/2.0 butted - which are directly attributable to
> continued work hardening.

You're the one who did not believe that the ductility shown in the
stress strain curve of the DT spoke that stretched horizontally right
off the chart was not real and that this showed strain hardening. As I
pointed out, you were assuming there was a significant reduction in
cross section from this stretching but for a 300mm long spoke a few
0.1mm does not make a significant change in cross section. The spokes
were not necking locally.

> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=P_r7c.13091%24R46.8853%40newssvr27.new s.prodigy.com&output=gplain

>>> What causes failures is well known. It's what alleviates them that
>>> seems to be the issue here. All that "stress relief" achieves is a
>>> wheel that is fully bedded in before riding. Spokes do not
>>> therefore loosen and others do not therefore carry disproportionate
>>> load. In that respect, the practice referred to as "stress relief"
>>> is a good thing, and thoroughly to be commended. But the business
>>> of fatigue mitigation itself is achieved in the spoke manufacturers
>>> factory, not the wheel builders bench.

>> "Well known"? From what you just said, it seems not to be.

> The causes of fatigue are quite well known to metallurgists & materials
> engineers. There's tons of stuff about that on the web.

You seem to attribute durability to "bedding in" rather than stress
relief. I propose there is no bedding in after a spoke is tensioned,
the aluminum having yielded or a point where contact area is large
enough to sustain the load. If you unspoke a stress relieved wheel
and one whose spokes have not been loaded by this process, you will
find no visible difference n the dimples made by their spokes although
there is a minuscule change. This is not what prevents spoke failures
and especially not on the threaded end of spokes.

>> Bedding in is already complete when spokes are tensioned

> I absolutely disagree. My hefty #210 hindquarters most definitely are
> able to untrue a wheel that has not been properly bedded in. Quickly
> too. That's where the benefits of the "stress relief" wheel build
> process are most apparent.

Oops. What does your weight have to do with "bedding in?" I assume
you are aware that spoke tension does not increase from loading the
wheel. Driving torque causes minimal almost imperceptible increases
and decreases as does braking. However, sitting on the bicycle does
not bed in spokes.

>> And even if it weren't, subsequent bedding in from use cannot relax
>> the tension of a spoke, the change in length being insignificant
>> compared to spoke elastic stretch from tensioning.

> This is not my experience. Last summer, I /did/ build a wheel,
> deliberately without "stress relief". It was evenly tensioned and
> perfectly true before leaving the house. I took care to ensure no spoke
> had any twist by marking them on one side before assembly so any torque
> could easily be seen. It did not "ping" while riding. It was ~6mm out
> of true after riding around just one block and some of the spokes were
> almost completely slack. Clearly there was measurable yielding of
> /something/. As I think we both agree that spokes are loaded to less
> than a third of their yield, it had to be something else - yielding of
> soft aluminum hub holes & rim holes. Hence the need to /properly/ bed
> wheels in.

>> However, even if it did, your model of overloaded spokes cannot
>> explain the failure of left side spokes in rear wheels that have as
>> little as half the tension of those on the right.

> Why not? If it means the spokes get higher cyclic load limits, i.e. the
> difference between the maximum & minimum loads, or even /negative/
> loads, I don't see any disparity at all! I have examples of spoke
> failures where the elbows have fatigued from both the inside out, /and/
> outside in! Clearly in this situation, poor tension is a contributor.

How can a lowly tensioned spoke have higher cyclic loads. It can only
go from zero to the low tension of the left side that is often 1/2 or
less that of the right side of a rear wheel. Cyclic load is
irrelevant to fatigue if it is a tiny fraction of the yield stress.

>> Beyond these considerations, high spoke tension is generally
>> in the range of 1/3 the yield stress of a spoke.

> Which just happens to be about the same stress level we commonly see for
> fatigue limits [_not_ to be confused with an endurance limits]. Funny
> coincidence that.

Fatigue limit

Definition: The maximum value of the applied alternating stress which
a test piece can stand indefinitely.

Endurance limit

Definition: The maximum value of the applied alternating stress which
a test piece can stand indefinitely. Rigid, elastic, low damping
materials such as thermosetting plastics and some crystalline
thermoplastics do not exhibit an endurance limit. Also known as
FATIGUE LIMIT.

I think you are quibbling. This is not about other materials but
about steel spokes.

>> Would you explain your understanding of spoke failure in this respect?

>>> The explanation of "local yielding" you've presented as theory on
>>> how to eliminate fatigue is unfortunately built on some gross
>>> misconceptions. You assert that the steel in spokes exhibits the
>>> same properties as mild steel, i.e. the exhibition of yield and
>>> deformation without work hardening as a method of reducing residual
>>> stress.

>> Where do you find that "unfortunate" scenario? I haven't proposed
>> anything of the sort. I see a straw man raising his head. Where is
>> Ray Bolger when we need him. He's probably out there on a yellow
>> brick road commiserating heart warmingly with a tin man.

> I don't have your book in front of me, but you show a stress/strain
> graph for mild steel, i.e. one that exhibits strain aging, then
> IIRC, go on to discuss yielding without work hardening. If you knew
> the distinction between a material that exhibits strain aging, mild
> steel, and one that doesn't, stainless steel, you wouldn't have made
> that error.

I don't know what you are getting at. The stress strain curves for
the two brands of spokes shown are from a tensile tester. You have
criticized these before but I never got the thrust of your complaint.
Besides, what has this got to do with stress relief?

>>> Reality is, stainless steel spoke wires /do/ work harden immediately
>>> from yield, as the real-life spoke stress/strain graphs in the back
>>> of your book show. "Stress relief" therefore has the ability to not
>>> only continue increasing the dislocation density of the material
>>> [which /increases/ lattice stresses] at any point where it does
>>> yield, [/if/ it yields, and that's conjecture], but to also activate
>>> slip bands and initiate cumulative damage effects.

>> I am reminded of Richard Feynman's appropriate words: "If you can't
>> explain it in plain English, you probably don't understand it yourself."

ibid

> "Plain English" is relative. There are certain concepts that have
> their own names. "Dislocation" is one that is fundamental to
> deformation theory, much like the host of sub-atomic particle names
> are to fundamental to the physics of matter. There's no avoidance
> possible. Likewise "lattice". Atoms in a crystal are arranged in a
> lattice. That's pretty plain. These terms are all googleable.

You needn't go into metallurgical jargon to explain what is being
discussed on a public forum such as this. Withdrawing into such
language obscures what is being said and readers are not going to
study etymology tomake sense of it. Jargon is used in the trade to be
concise and brief, however each such words can be explained in common
usage English as they are in a dictionary. On wreck.bike
abbreviations like QR or Freehub are bike jargon known to most readers
of the group but unknown outside. I'm sure I can explain such devices
without using those terms. You can too.

>>> The closest analogy to your explanation is something called
>>> "coaxing" where a component is progressively loaded and fatigue
>>> limits improved, but unfortunately, this effect is only present in
>>> materials that exhibit strain aging. Stainless steel is not one of
>>> them.

>> I see. Now it is specifically stainless steel that makes spokes not
>> fail.

> You're putting words in my mouth. High quality stainless steel can be
> fatigue resistant. Mild steel can be fatigue proof in certain
> circumstances. Two very different things. Stainless steel has no
> endurance limit and therefore can never be fatigue proof.

By the way, you didn't explain what "coaxing" is and how it affects spokes.

If you want to talk about steel manufacture and alloying you
should probably take that to another forum. We are talking about
stress reliving and spoke failure, specifically high quality stainless
steel spokes, ones that have failed.

>> Are you proposing that other steel components on bicycles, such
>> as axles, cables, frames and the like, would be more durable in such
>> alloys?

> The appropriate alloys are used already. Prime examples are the
> stainless steels used to make good spokes and control cables because of
> corrosion resistance. Corrosion resistance preserves surface quality
> and good surface quality is a primary fatigue mitigator.

Corrosion is another matter. I haven't seen any crank spindles of stainless
steel or their bearing cones. I am aware that stainless instrument bearings
are available but they have significantly lower load limits and wear life.

>>> So, you want to know my agenda? Update your book and get rid of the
>>> glaring materials theory errors! And please include the differential
>>> spoke tension formula for dished wheels while you're at it.

>> What sort of "differential spoke tension formula" are you suggesting
>> and for what would this be useful, considering that the difference is
>> dependent on the hub offset, something that cannot be changed.

> I know hub offset can't be changed - that's not the question. I've seen
> it asked a number of times on r.b.t., why are measurements are given for
> the drive side of a dished rear wheel, but not the non-drive side? If
> someone has just built their first wheel, have a shiny new tensiometer
> in their hand, are they not curious what the deal is with the spokes
> they've not had comparison measurements for? Publishing the tension
> differential formulae in the same way you did for spoke length
> calculation allows the curious to understand /why/ there is a difference
> in tension, and if necessary, to calculate what it would be for any
> given hub/rim combination.

I think that is a curiosity. The only thing that counts is the right side
tension, the other side being dependent and of little consequence.

>> The graphic description in the book makes that fairly clear as
>> wheel as what the results are.

Jobst Brandt

[Mike Prime]

jim beam > wrote in message
> there's elastic & plastic strain. metallurgical stress relief is only
> achieved in the 1-3% /plastic/ strain region.

Significant stress relief occurs before 1% applied total strain. All
that is required for stress relief is that under load the stress range
over the spoke cross section is made smaller. Since stress will
unloaded evenly (elastically), this smaller stress range is retained
and the residual stresses are relaxed. Yes you do need some plastic
strain, since the spoke will load evenly until part of it yields.
Since some of the spoke has tensile residual stress, a significant
portion of the spoke cross-section will have some plastic strain by
the time the applied stress equals the yield strength, which happens
well under 1% strain for these steels.

Aluminum plate is stretched to 1-3% plastic strain to achieve a
greater degree of stress relief than you can get at lower levels and
to stress relieve in the transverse direction at the same time.
However, significant relief occurs much earlier. In the below paper
recently published by Alcoa, see Figure 5. Although simplified, it
illustrates the concept. Curve "A" reaches the yield strength before
0.3% strain. By 0.6% strain, the whole part has yielded. No further
stress relief occurs with further stretching. In reality, materials
are not perfectly plastic, so further stress relief does occur for
larder strains. However, the majority occurs before 1% strain.

(Don't let the title fool you. Microstructural effects, etc, are what
limit the stress relief to something like 90-95% relief instead of
100%. It has little bearing on stress relief in spokes, which is not
trying for 100% relief).
Title:A simplified analysis of the effect of microstructure gradient
on the stress relief of aluminum plates and extrusions Author:Karabin,
ME ; Barlat, F ; Becker, R Institution:Alcoa Tech Ctr,
Journal:INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCES; SEP 2003; v.45,
no.9, p.1483-1503

Mike Prime

[David Reuteler]

Rick Warner > wrote:
> If they lasted only 500 miles there is a problem, either in materials
> or technique. I built a set of 36 spoke wheels this winter.

he brings up a good point, tho. is your average buyer (who does not want to
build their own wheels) better buying a prebuilt wheelset or one from an
LBS with an essentially unknown builder? not everyone can or will go out
and find the "best builder" who may or may not be. prebuilt wheels will
(presumably) be consistent and better than N% of shop built wheels ..
and you'll have a major brand standing behind them. how high N is is a
very good question.

> Took me
> an evening. Have almost 1000 miles, mostly 'loaded' (e.g., carrying
> panniers filled with stuff). Still true as the night I built them,
> not a complaint from the spokes.

i've built 4 pairs of wheels now and i'm very glad to have the experience.
in fact i've built all but one pair of the wheels i'm currently using.
there are, however, a lot of people who should probably not be building
their own wheels. or cooking their own food for that matter.

> Wait until you pop a spoke on the Ksyrium's. If you are not near a
> major city, expect to wait a while if you want one of those fancy
> spokes as a replacement.

yea .. i have a pair of campagnolo shamals that it's horribly easy to get
parts for (you can get a 6 spoke mini-kit easily and the tool to use it at
sears). the hubs are essentially campag record and the manual has a nice
breakdown guide. this complaint is greatly overstated for at least some
brands.
--
david reuteler

[jim beam]

wrote:
> Old Crow or was it Wild Turkey writes:
>
>
>>>So? What is it that is unclear about why these spokes fail so
>>>rapidly and why stress relieving reduces their failure rate as you
>>>see it?
>
>
>>I don't think your version of "stress relief" brings any
>>metallurgical change to the spokes, but it definitely builds a
>>stronger more evenly tensioned wheel. See below for my experiment
>>last summer.
>
>
> I don't see your experiment below or are you referring to the URL with
> wreck.bike exchange?
>
>
>>As explained before, one reason for failure of these spokes is their
>>"dirty" steels. Another is the use of chrome plating. Chrome is
>>brittle and cracks when the spokes get bent during build. These
>>cracks are /classic/ fatigue initiators.
>
>
> Oh, you mean like anodizing on aluminum rims?

yes, like anodizing on rims. but if we don't see rim fatigue lines
actually following cracks in the anodizing, then it's not the source of
failure! exercise proper analysis of your failures.

>Actually the old spokes
> I listed were not chromed except Berg. Their durability increase was
> what led me to stress relief.
>
> I think you are missing a logical point of why spokes fail where they
> do. They break at the ends for good reasons. Thread failures are
> probably the best place to look. For a spoke to fail in fatigue it
> must be operating (cyclic loading) near its yield stress.

rubbish. fatigue can occur /well/ below that.

> Since the
> tension load on a spoke is far below yield it cannot be the cause,
> there must be an additional stress to cause a failure.

see above. and look at any s-n curve. note the point at which failures
are still occurring. even a mild steel endurance limit is only about
50% of yield.

> That stress is
> a residual stress from manufacturing and installation. DT as well as
> other spokes fail in the threads but if they are stress relieved,
> their threads do not fail.

so why do the manufacturers bother to roll high-radius threads into them
then? have you ever looked at one of these threads under a magnifier?

>
> By overloading a spoke temporarily, high stress points must yield so
> that when the overload is relaxed, the peak stress becomes lower than
> it was. This margin is what makes spokes last longer when stress
> relieved. That does not mean all residual stress is removed but the
> highest stress is reduced and that is enough to reduce failures.

so where do things like miner's linear cumulative damage rule come from
- the life of a component being a function of the number of cycles at
each level of stress?

>
>
>>>>Yes, there are now several brands that work well. But their long life
>>>>is not the product of "stress relief"; it's the fact that in the 70's,
>>>>it became economic to mass produce vacuum degassed steels. Ultra-clean
>>>>materials like this are substantially more fatigue resistant because
>>>>this process virtually eliminates inclusions, thereby removing a
>>>>significant source of fatigue initiation.
>
>
>>>Oh? So how do you explain the reports of repeated failures in wheels
>>>with these spokes, ones built by people who, as you, don't believe
>>>that stress relief is useful or don't know about it.
>
>
>>Which brand of spokes? The people I've asked for info on which brand of
>>spoke they've been breaking here on r.b.t. either don't seem to know or
>>will only admit to pre-built wheels which usually use no-name cheapo
>>stuff. The broken d.t.'s i have are all victims of chain gouge, so i
>>don't think they're much of a data point. And when spokes /do/ break,
>>the wheels usually get rebuilt with high quality after market
>>replacements, and miraculously, their problems seem to disappear!
>>coincidence?
>
>
> No dice. People have failures with DT and Sapim spoke and have
> reported about that here.

well, the only sapim failure i can see in a quick google search is a guy
with a powertap hub, but with its huge flanges causing the spoke angles
at the rim to be way outside normal spec, i think we can safely
attribute failure to that rather than failure of the builder to "stress
relieve".

besides which, /reducing/ fatigue is not /eliminating/ fatigue. /every/
stainless spoke will fail at some point - it has no endurance limit.

> I have had a DT spoke fail near the rim
> where I had gotten a hardwood stick in the front wheel that cause an
> endo and a kink that was visible but had no scratch on it. I thought
> nothing of it before it broke because the spoke was essentially
> straight to the eye. It obviously had residual stress or it would not
> have broken in fatigue a few thousand miles later.

this gets more & more interesting. what this translates to is: "i've
never had a spoke failure in my 300,000 mile wheels. apart from the
ones that i've replaced because they broke."

no, it's not "obvious" that it's residual stress. assigning a failure
mode without proper analysis is like you assigning all rim cracking to
anodizing.

>
>
>>>How about an experiment? One that I have done. I take it that you
>>>have access to materials testing equipment from what you write.
>>>Take a spoke and manually give it some kinks with as small a radius
>>>as you can. Tension that spoke to customary service tension in a
>>>tensile tester using a simulated 3mm flange hole and holder for a
>>>spoke nipple. I think you'll notice that when relaxed again, the
>>>spoke will still have kinks,
>
>
>>Agreed - I can repeat this experiment if you like. Probably won't
>>have time to do it for several weeks, but it's easily done.
>
>
> I'm sure you can comment on it even if you haven't performed it yet.
> Do you believe the results would be as I described above?

yes, of course!

> If so how
> do you account for the spoke being straight after being stressed to
> yield?

er, because it's yielded???

> Do you agree that his removes residual stress?

depends on the degree of yielding, and the behavior of the material! it
could introduce residual stress too! just like "correcting the spoke
line" could introduce residual stress come to that.

> For instance,
> if you bend a spoke and get only partial spring back, do you agree
> that this shows residual stress where the outer fibers went beyond
> yield while the inner ones that did not and try to return to the
> original shape while the outer ones resist. Is that not residual
> stress, and if so why do you believe it is not additive to a
> subsequent tensile load on the installed spoke?

it can be additive. but by that argument, again, "correcting the spoke
line" is more likely to cause harm than good. your advice is
contradictatory. the fact is, we're not dealing with a lab sample here,
we're dealing with a highly worked wire with a multitude of surface
defects, and an uncertain operating environment. the reason real world
production focuses on surface quality in a fatigue environment is that
it's the single most prevalent cause of fatigue failure after
incompetent design. then come factors like material quality, corrosion
and damage in service. then you start getting into the esoteric stuff.
a quick manual squeeze on a spoke being sufficient to exert enough
stress to yield the wire is not an assumption you can make. it's
certainly not one i'd care to propose to my old theory of deformation
professor and keep a straight face.

>
> That is what this experiment is intended to demonstrate. I have
> inadvertently done this when I charted the stress strain curves for
> "the Bicycle Wheel" in which less than perfectly straight spokes became
> straight from stretching them beyond yield.
>
>
>>>kinks that in service would lead to fatigue failure.
>
>
>>Not necessarily more so than a spoke that's been bent to "correct the
>>line" or a spoke that's crossing another, particularly if that crossing
>>is closer to the hub than normal like 2x on a 32 spoke wheel. Depends
>>on the extent of the kink doesn't it!
>
>
> I'm sure you can come up with a spoke lacing that is more damaging
> than conventional cross patterns. However, we have not seen failures
> in common interleaved spoke lacings. I have never seen a failure at a
> crossing point so let's drop that one.

no. the crossing is causing the spokes to bend and therefore be held in
a position of elastic strain at that bend point. that has the same
effect as a residual stress. do the math on how much strain is exerted
at that point because of the bend, then tell me it's insignificant
compared to the degree of residual stress you believe to be present in a
good quality spoke.

> We have seen many failures at
> the elbows, heads popping off, and thread failures as well as mid
> spoke failures from smooth kinks, ones that had no knick or gouge.

proper analysis please. "no damage" by what definition? did you use a
magnifier?

>
>
>>>Now, tension the spoke to the yield stress and relax it again. I
>>>think you'll see a perfectly straight spoke with no residual stress.
>>>If that is not stress relieving, then you may have abetter word for
>>>it. Let me know what you find.
>
>
>>Well, for the metallurgical definition of stress relief, that would
>>require between 1% & 3% strain, and even then, that would typically
>>be done immediately after initial deformation to prevent any
>>possible aging effects. On a 296mm spoke, if we're conservative, 1%
>>means 3mm elongation making it unusable for its originally intended
>>purpose. Being as we're not getting strain of that magnitude, you
>>can't contend that there's true metallurgical stress relief in a
>>wheel build.
>
>
> Oh but yes. As I mentioned, for a fatigue failure to occur requires
> high stress,

no. look at any s/n curve.

> stress that spoke tension alone does cannot cause.
> Spokes fail. Ergo, there is high stress.

no. see above. spokes fail, ergo they are made of a material without
an endurance limit, subject to manufacturing variance and an
inconsistent operating environment.

> Overloading a spoke to
> relieve that stress causes local yield because the stress is high.
>
>
>>>>A traditional steel for example may have half the fatigue limit in the
>>>>transverse axis of a rolled sheet compared to its longitudinal axis.
>>>>The same alloy composition, but vacuum degassed, may have very similar
>>>>fatigue limits in both orientations. When first seen, the observation
>>>>of this effect sparked a hunt for explanation. Electron microscopy
>>>>subsequently confirmed fatigue initiation at tiny inclusions previously
>>>>thought to be insignificantly small.
>
>
>>>So what does this have to do with stress relieving or not?
>
>
>>I'm trying to tell you /why/ modern spokes have such good fatigue
>>characteristics!!!
>
>
> We are talking about failures, not how good spokes are. Besides, it is
> documented that the good spokes fail.

well that's news! firstly, yes, good spokes fail, but not as readily as
bad spokes!!! secondly, you keep repeating that your wheels are over
300,000 miles "without spoke failures" and that "stress relief"
eliminates fatigue. isn't that inconsistent?

>
>
>>>>>As I have described here often, spoke wire must be ductile enough
>>>>>to withstand cold forming yet retain a sufficiently high yield
>>>>>strength to resist fatigue failures at normal spoke loadings.
>>>>>This had not been so before DT spokes so there is where you
>>>>>should look for the answer. Redaelli, Berg, and Prym spokes also
>>>>>did not survive long even with stress relieving although it
>>>>>extended their service life.
>
>
> --- no response
>
>
>>>I see you have no comment on the high ductility and high tensile
>>>strength of DT spoke wire.
>
>
>>What's to comment? You're the guy that was telling me a while back that
>>d.t. spokes were fully hard. You didn't respond to links showing the
>>tensile strength differences between 2.0 straight gauge, 2.0/1.8/2.0
>>butted and 2.0/1.5/2.0 butted - which are directly attributable to
>>continued work hardening.
>
>
> You're the one who did not believe that the ductility shown in the
> stress strain curve of the DT spoke that stretched horizontally right
> off the chart was not real and that this showed strain hardening.

rubbish. /that/ argument was when you were referring to figure 15 in
your book, not figure 69 to which you are referring now.

> As I
> pointed out, you were assuming there was a significant reduction in
> cross section from this stretching but for a 300mm long spoke a few
> 0.1mm does not make a significant change in cross section. The spokes
> were not necking locally.

where have i mentioned necking??? the only reductions in cross section
that i've referred to are the ones from manufacture - the ones that you
were maintaining did not result in continued work hardening!

>
>
>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=P_r7c.13091%24R46.8853%40newssvr27.new s.prodigy.com&output=gplain
>
>
>>>>What causes failures is well known. It's what alleviates them that
>>>>seems to be the issue here. All that "stress relief" achieves is a
>>>>wheel that is fully bedded in before riding. Spokes do not
>>>>therefore loosen and others do not therefore carry disproportionate
>>>>load. In that respect, the practice referred to as "stress relief"
>>>>is a good thing, and thoroughly to be commended. But the business
>>>>of fatigue mitigation itself is achieved in the spoke manufacturers
>>>>factory, not the wheel builders bench.
>
>
>>>"Well known"? From what you just said, it seems not to be.
>
>
>>The causes of fatigue are quite well known to metallurgists & materials
>>engineers. There's tons of stuff about that on the web.
>
>
> You seem to attribute durability to "bedding in" rather than stress
> relief. I propose there is no bedding in after a spoke is tensioned,
> the aluminum having yielded or a point where contact area is large
> enough to sustain the load. If you unspoke a stress relieved wheel
> and one whose spokes have not been loaded by this process, you will
> find no visible difference n the dimples made by their spokes although
> there is a minuscule change. This is not what prevents spoke failures
> and especially not on the threaded end of spokes.

"no visible difference". that not very quantitative.

>
>
>>>Bedding in is already complete when spokes are tensioned
>
>
>>I absolutely disagree. My hefty #210 hindquarters most definitely are
>>able to untrue a wheel that has not been properly bedded in. Quickly
>>too. That's where the benefits of the "stress relief" wheel build
>>process are most apparent.
>
>
> Oops. What does your weight have to do with "bedding in?" I assume
> you are aware that spoke tension does not increase from loading the
> wheel. Driving torque causes minimal almost imperceptible increases
> and decreases as does braking. However, sitting on the bicycle does
> not bed in spokes.

ok, so i'm leaning the bike from side to side on a hill. do i not
increase tension on one side and slacken it on the other? funny, if i
repeat the experiment "in the lab" and pluck the spokes, i get a higher
pitch tone on the loaded side and a lower tone on the unloaded side.
tension does not increase? just because it's not convenient to your
theory doesn't doesn't mean it's not occurring!

>
>
>>>And even if it weren't, subsequent bedding in from use cannot relax
>>>the tension of a spoke, the change in length being insignificant
>>>compared to spoke elastic stretch from tensioning.
>
>
>>This is not my experience. Last summer, I /did/ build a wheel,
>>deliberately without "stress relief". It was evenly tensioned and
>>perfectly true before leaving the house. I took care to ensure no spoke
>>had any twist by marking them on one side before assembly so any torque
>>could easily be seen. It did not "ping" while riding. It was ~6mm out
>>of true after riding around just one block and some of the spokes were
>>almost completely slack. Clearly there was measurable yielding of
>>/something/. As I think we both agree that spokes are loaded to less
>>than a third of their yield, it had to be something else - yielding of
>>soft aluminum hub holes & rim holes. Hence the need to /properly/ bed
>>wheels in.

no comment??? do we have to go through the head set bearing experiment
again jobst?

>
>
>>>However, even if it did, your model of overloaded spokes cannot
>>>explain the failure of left side spokes in rear wheels that have as
>>>little as half the tension of those on the right.
>
>
>>Why not? If it means the spokes get higher cyclic load limits, i.e. the
>>difference between the maximum & minimum loads, or even /negative/
>>loads, I don't see any disparity at all! I have examples of spoke
>>failures where the elbows have fatigued from both the inside out, /and/
>>outside in! Clearly in this situation, poor tension is a contributor.
>
>
> How can a lowly tensioned spoke have higher cyclic loads. It can only
> go from zero to the low tension of the left side that is often 1/2 or
> less that of the right side of a rear wheel. Cyclic load is
> irrelevant to fatigue if it is a tiny fraction of the yield stress.

you do the math. i have the fatigued spokes for evidence - elbows
fatigued from the inside out, _and_ outside in. explain that in terms
of "zero" tension if you please!

>
>
>>> Beyond these considerations, high spoke tension is generally
>>>in the range of 1/3 the yield stress of a spoke.
>
>
>>Which just happens to be about the same stress level we commonly see for
>>fatigue limits [_not_ to be confused with an endurance limits]. Funny
>>coincidence that.
>
>
> Fatigue limit
>
> Definition: The maximum value of the applied alternating stress which
> a test piece can stand indefinitely.
>
> Endurance limit
>
> Definition: The maximum value of the applied alternating stress which
> a test piece can stand indefinitely. Rigid, elastic, low damping
> materials such as thermosetting plastics and some crystalline
> thermoplastics do not exhibit an endurance limit. Also known as
> FATIGUE LIMIT.

i made the same linguistic error that many do - confusing fatigue
strength and endurance. "fatigue strength" is that given for a material
without an endurance limit at say 10^8 cycles. "endurance strength" is
the limit at the s-n curve goes horizontal. i meant "fatigue strength"
for stainless is in the range ~1/3 yield.

>
> I think you are quibbling. This is not about other materials but
> about steel spokes.
>
>
>>>Would you explain your understanding of spoke failure in this respect?
>
>
>>>>The explanation of "local yielding" you've presented as theory on
>>>>how to eliminate fatigue is unfortunately built on some gross
>>>>misconceptions. You assert that the steel in spokes exhibits the
>>>>same properties as mild steel, i.e. the exhibition of yield and
>>>>deformation without work hardening as a method of reducing residual
>>>>stress.
>
>
>>>Where do you find that "unfortunate" scenario? I haven't proposed
>>>anything of the sort. I see a straw man raising his head. Where is
>>>Ray Bolger when we need him. He's probably out there on a yellow
>>>brick road commiserating heart warmingly with a tin man.
>
>
>>I don't have your book in front of me, but you show a stress/strain
>>graph for mild steel, i.e. one that exhibits strain aging, then
>>IIRC, go on to discuss yielding without work hardening. If you knew
>>the distinction between a material that exhibits strain aging, mild
>>steel, and one that doesn't, stainless steel, you wouldn't have made
>>that error.
>
>
> I don't know what you are getting at. The stress strain curves for
> the two brands of spokes shown are from a tensile tester. You have
> criticized these before but I never got the thrust of your complaint.
> Besides, what has this got to do with stress relief?

weak dodge. refer to figure 15. /that/ is the incorrect data on which
to build a "stress relief" theory!!!

>
>
>>>>Reality is, stainless steel spoke wires /do/ work harden immediately
>>>>from yield, as the real-life spoke stress/strain graphs in the back
>>>>of your book show. "Stress relief" therefore has the ability to not
>>>>only continue increasing the dislocation density of the material
>>>>[which /increases/ lattice stresses] at any point where it does
>>>>yield, [/if/ it yields, and that's conjecture], but to also activate
>>>>slip bands and initiate cumulative damage effects.
>
>
>>>I am reminded of Richard Feynman's appropriate words: "If you can't
>>>explain it in plain English, you probably don't understand it yourself."
>
>
> ibid
>
>
>>"Plain English" is relative. There are certain concepts that have
>>their own names. "Dislocation" is one that is fundamental to
>>deformation theory, much like the host of sub-atomic particle names
>>are to fundamental to the physics of matter. There's no avoidance
>>possible. Likewise "lattice". Atoms in a crystal are arranged in a
>>lattice. That's pretty plain. These terms are all googleable.
>
>
> You needn't go into metallurgical jargon to explain what is being
> discussed on a public forum such as this. Withdrawing into such
> language obscures what is being said and readers are not going to
> study etymology tomake sense of it. Jargon is used in the trade to be
> concise and brief, however each such words can be explained in common
> usage English as they are in a dictionary. On wreck.bike
> abbreviations like QR or Freehub are bike jargon known to most readers
> of the group but unknown outside. I'm sure I can explain such devices
> without using those terms. You can too.

like your references to hertzian math or elastohydrodynamic separation?

>
>
>>>>The closest analogy to your explanation is something called
>>>>"coaxing" where a component is progressively loaded and fatigue
>>>>limits improved, but unfortunately, this effect is only present in
>>>>materials that exhibit strain aging. Stainless steel is not one of
>>>>them.
>
>
>>>I see. Now it is specifically stainless steel that makes spokes not
>>>fail.
>
>
>>You're putting words in my mouth. High quality stainless steel can be
>>fatigue resistant. Mild steel can be fatigue proof in certain
>>circumstances. Two very different things. Stainless steel has no
>>endurance limit and therefore can never be fatigue proof.
>
>
> By the way, you didn't explain what "coaxing" is and how it affects spokes.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/83/8369/A836913.html

>
> If you want to talk about steel manufacture and alloying you
> should probably take that to another forum. We are talking about
> stress reliving and spoke failure, specifically high quality stainless
> steel spokes, ones that have failed.

interesting. why don't /you/ post your "research" on
sci.engr.metallurgy? your rim cracking theories would be particularly
well received.

>
>
>>> Are you proposing that other steel components on bicycles, such
>>>as axles, cables, frames and the like, would be more durable in such
>>>alloys?
>
>
>>The appropriate alloys are used already. Prime examples are the
>>stainless steels used to make good spokes and control cables because of
>>corrosion resistance. Corrosion resistance preserves surface quality
>>and good surface quality is a primary fatigue mitigator.
>
>
> Corrosion is another matter. I haven't seen any crank spindles of stainless
> steel or their bearing cones. I am aware that stainless instrument bearings
> are available but they have significantly lower load limits and wear life.

no it's not. it's a very significant component in fatigue initiation.
don't go off topic.

>
>
>>>>So, you want to know my agenda? Update your book and get rid of the
>>>>glaring materials theory errors! And please include the differential
>>>>spoke tension formula for dished wheels while you're at it.
>
>
>>>What sort of "differential spoke tension formula" are you suggesting
>>>and for what would this be useful, considering that the difference is
>>>dependent on the hub offset, something that cannot be changed.
>
>
>>I know hub offset can't be changed - that's not the question. I've seen
>>it asked a number of times on r.b.t., why are measurements are given for
>>the drive side of a dished rear wheel, but not the non-drive side? If
>>someone has just built their first wheel, have a shiny new tensiometer
>>in their hand, are they not curious what the deal is with the spokes
>>they've not had comparison measurements for? Publishing the tension
>>differential formulae in the same way you did for spoke length
>>calculation allows the curious to understand /why/ there is a difference
>>in tension, and if necessary, to calculate what it would be for any
>>given hub/rim combination.
>
>
> I think that is a curiosity. The only thing that counts is the right side
> tension, the other side being dependent and of little consequence.

yes it is of consequence - it is directly responsible for campy's "g3"
spoking pattern and it's directly responsible for offset rims. why
would manufacturers spend r&d on these products if it was of no
consequence? and why would /you/ say dishless wheels are more stable?

>
>
>>>The graphic description in the book makes that fairly clear as
>>>wheel as what the results are.
>
>
> Jobst Brandt
>

[jim beam]

Mike Prime wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in message
>
>>there's elastic & plastic strain. metallurgical stress relief is only
>>achieved in the 1-3% /plastic/ strain region.
>
>
> Significant stress relief occurs before 1% applied total strain. All
> that is required for stress relief is that under load the stress range
> over the spoke cross section is made smaller. Since stress will
> unloaded evenly (elastically), this smaller stress range is retained
> and the residual stresses are relaxed. Yes you do need some plastic
> strain, since the spoke will load evenly until part of it yields.
> Since some of the spoke has tensile residual stress, a significant
> portion of the spoke cross-section will have some plastic strain by
> the time the applied stress equals the yield strength, which happens
> well under 1% strain for these steels.

ok, makes sense.

>
> Aluminum plate is stretched to 1-3% plastic strain to achieve a
> greater degree of stress relief than you can get at lower levels and
> to stress relieve in the transverse direction at the same time.
> However, significant relief occurs much earlier. In the below paper
> recently published by Alcoa, see Figure 5. Although simplified, it
> illustrates the concept. Curve "A" reaches the yield strength before
> 0.3% strain. By 0.6% strain, the whole part has yielded. No further
> stress relief occurs with further stretching. In reality, materials
> are not perfectly plastic, so further stress relief does occur for
> larder strains. However, the majority occurs before 1% strain.
>
> (Don't let the title fool you. Microstructural effects, etc, are what
> limit the stress relief to something like 90-95% relief instead of
> 100%. It has little bearing on stress relief in spokes, which is not
> trying for 100% relief).
> Title:A simplified analysis of the effect of microstructure gradient
> on the stress relief of aluminum plates and extrusions Author:Karabin,
> ME ; Barlat, F ; Becker, R Institution:Alcoa Tech Ctr,
> Journal:INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCES; SEP 2003; v.45,
> no.9, p.1483-1503
>
> Mike Prime

i don't work in the materials biz any more, so i don't have ready access
to this paper - would like to read it tho.

what you say sounds logical. the percentages i quoted were from one of
my old textbooks for drawn steel wires & tubes. can you recommend a
text that might be useful for further reading on highly worked stainless
wires? i was under the impression that at high dislocation densities,
their strain fields tended to interact to the point where they had the
lattice effectively "locked up" with continued work only adding to this
situation, not alleviating it. wouldn't this be the case here?

great to hear from you mike!

jb

[Greg Estep]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:51:33 -0700, RWM wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:59:04 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> With a 36 spoke wheel you would not have to worry about walking home
>> even if you did break a spoke. They will roll along quite nicely till
>> you can get a chance for a replacement. In the past I have ridden
>> over 30 miles with a broken spoke on my 36 spoke hub, screwed in a
>> replacement spoke and not had to mess around with retrueing.
>>
> Not true. I ruined two 36 spoke rims by riding them home.

I have ridden a 32 spoke front wheel with a broken spoke on 2 occasions,
each with no long-term damage. Each post-break ride, however, were not
terribly long. They were each in the neighborhood of 10 miles.

--
Greg Estep

[gwhite]

Tim McNamara wrote:
>

> You'd need to go with a different rim, perhaps a
> Torelli Master which is similar to an MA2.

I think the Master is a bit more of a racing rim than the MA2. It is
rated at 435g rather than the 490g or so for the MA2. That is if I
remember correctly. That said, I do like the Master.

http://www.torelli.com/home.html?http://www.torelli.com/parts/wheels.html&1
Master. 435 grams. A good all-round racing and training rim available in
32 and 36 hole. Silver $43.90.


Ukai used to make a MA2-like rim. It was the model "20A." I don't know
of a source. They are double-eyeletted, about 19-20 mm wide, and weigh
about 490g. I believe they are box section. They are not machined.
There is anodizing, but it is very thin and is easily penetrated with
ohm-meter probes. JB has stated that a very thin layer is unlikely to
cause crack initiation problems like thick anodizing does.

[Tom Sherman]

David Reuteler wrote:

> ...
> i've built 4 pairs of wheels now and i'm very glad to have the experience.
> in fact i've built all but one pair of the wheels i'm currently using.
> there are, however, a lot of people who should probably not be building
> their own wheels. or cooking their own food for that matter...

Food can be cooked?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[Paul Kopit]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:23:21 -0700, "Rico X. Partay"
> wrote:

>How much for the full re-build vs. a re-build with the old rim but
>new spokes vs. just replace the few bad spokes (which of course he
>claims is eight or so vs. the maybe 3-4 which are actually nicked)
>and true it up. Instead he wanted to go on and on about how a
>damaged nipple makes it impossible to get the spoke off without
>slicing it under pressure, which of course will warp the rim and
>make it unusable, so a full re-build with a new rim and all new
>spokes is the only answer.

If it were my wheel, I'd release the tension in all the spokes. Then
I'd replace the 8 spokes on the drive side that stick out and get
damaged. It wouldn't matter if I unscrewed the nipples or cut the
spokes. I'd reuse the good nipples. I'd rebuild the wheel. The shop
should charge for 8 spokes and nipples and a rebuild. Of course, when
the wheel was released, if the rim were bent, I'd replace the rim.

[Paul Kopit]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:23:21 -0700, "Rico X. Partay"
> wrote:

>How much for the full re-build vs. a re-build with the old rim but
>new spokes vs. just replace the few bad spokes (which of course he
>claims is eight or so vs. the maybe 3-4 which are actually nicked)
>and true it up. Instead he wanted to go on and on about how a
>damaged nipple makes it impossible to get the spoke off without
>slicing it under pressure, which of course will warp the rim and
>make it unusable, so a full re-build with a new rim and all new
>spokes is the only answer.

If it were my wheel, I'd release the tension in all the spokes. Then
I'd replace the 8 spokes on the drive side that stick out and get
damaged. It wouldn't matter if I unscrewed the nipples or cut the
spokes. I'd reuse the good nipples. I'd rebuild the wheel. The shop
should charge for 8 spokes and nipples and a rebuild. Of course, when
the wheel was released, if the rim were bent, I'd replace the rim.