wire spoke history

New member here, so not sure I've posted this in the right place, and
I definitely am not interested in starting a spoke war.

Doing a bit of amateur and unsystematic research on developments in
wire spokes prompted by a discussion about wheelbuilding.

Going on memory, I seem to recall a switch from straight gauge to
double butted in racing circles and wheelbuilding in general in the
1970s. Can anyone here confirm this with certainty? And how did this
change in wheelbuilding trends actually come about? I know the
arguments in favor of switching from straight gauge to double butted,
but how did the change actually happen?

More recently, I gather there has been a move towards using heavier
gauge spokes on the drive side of conventional dished rear wheels.
Again, I understand the arguments for why some consider this best
practice, but when did this change in wheelbuilding technique start
and how exactly?

Can anyone shed some light on these profound mysteries? Please, no
rants.

On Apr 21, 4:39*am, Jezrant wrote:
More recently, I gather there has been a move towards using heavier
gauge spokes on the drive side of conventional dished rear wheels.
Again, I understand the arguments for why some consider this best
practice, but when did this change in wheelbuilding technique start
and how exactly?

I don't think this has become conventional practice. It makes sense
for shallow rims when the hub geometry dictates low tension on the DS
( half), but not otherwise.

Jezrant wrote:

Please, no rants.

Aw, shoot. He said the magic word, everyone.

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"
Bend, Oregon

Jezrant wrote:
New member here, so not sure I've posted this in the right place, and
I definitely am not interested in starting a spoke war.

Doing a bit of amateur and unsystematic research on developments in
wire spokes prompted by a discussion about wheelbuilding.

Going on memory, I seem to recall a switch from straight gauge to
double butted in racing circles and wheelbuilding in general in the
1970s. Can anyone here confirm this with certainty? And how did this
change in wheelbuilding trends actually come about? I know the
arguments in favor of switching from straight gauge to double butted,
but how did the change actually happen?

More recently, I gather there has been a move towards using heavier
gauge spokes on the drive side of conventional dished rear wheels.
Again, I understand the arguments for why some consider this best
practice, but when did this change in wheelbuilding technique start
and how exactly?

Can anyone shed some light on these profound mysteries? Please, no
rants.



Can't help with your specific question but tangentially
"1970s" ?? more like 1890s in the US of A [1]:
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-torrington-company

Crappy wheels have always had straight gage spokes, which
are always cheaper.

Full answers to your subject area may be found he
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?bi...y=14&hs=Submit

[1] Butted spokes, surgical needles, 75mm artillery shells;
nice product mix.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Apr 21, 6:39*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
J Bryant wrote:
New member here, so not sure I've posted this in the right place,
and I definitely am not interested in starting a spoke war.
Doing a bit of amateur and unsystematic research on developments in
wire spokes prompted by a discussion about wheelbuilding.
Going on memory, I seem to recall a switch from straight gauge to
double butted in racing circles and wheelbuilding in general in the
1970s. *Can anyone here confirm this with certainty? *And how did
this change in wheelbuilding trends actually come about? *I know the
arguments in favor of switching from straight gauge to double
butted, but how did the change actually happen?

I believe thinner spokes (1.8 - 1.6 - 1.8 mm diameter) were used for
light weight wheels for touring as well as racing since before the
1950's when I bought my first Cinelli, but they were not DT spokes,
but rather Stella stainless from Italy. *Various brands moved in with
even thinner. *Berg (D), and Radielli (I) were 1.5mm at mid span.
Failues were nearly alwas at the elbow or sometines at the threads
when used with wide flange hubs that caused spokes to bend at the
spoke nipple.

More recently, I gather there has been a move towards using heavier
gauge spokes on the drive side of conventional dished rear wheels.
Again, I understand the arguments for why some consider this best
practice, but when did this change in wheelbuilding technique start
and how exactly?

I think it came with using fewer spokes, which also required deeper
cross section rims to bridge the gap between spokes, but was marketed
as being for areodynamic effect.

Can anyone shed some light on these profound mysteries?

I believe much of the changes in materials for frames, wheels, and
hubs, as well as shape and size, is from marketing or at least
justified from marketing along with some significant technical
advances in components, such as freehubs, BB and crank assemblies,
threadless steer tubes and durable head bearings.

I don't believe you'll find solid technical reasons for the
"mysteries".

Jobst Brandt

Many thanks for the info. I'm still a bit confused about the second
mystery.

I've heard of a few wheelbuilders using heavier (straight or single
butted) spokes on the drive side and lighter double butted on the non-
drive side of a conventional, 3x, 32 or 36 spoke, dished, rear wheel
meant for touring. They say it makes more sense to use heavier spokes
on the drive side because of the dish/greater tension. Building the
wheel this way, they claim, makes for a stronger rear wheel than one
using double-butted spokes on both sides. The people making these
claims are not marketing men. They're experienced mechanics who build
wheels for a living. We're talking about a wheel built with, say, a
622-17 rim and Shimano 130mm rear cassette hub. So, a rather ordinary
touring wheel, not exactly the last word in technological advances. Is
their reasoning sound or flawed? Would mixing the spokes this way make
a stronger wheel than one using double butted both sides, all else
being equal?

On Apr 21, 9:39*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
J Bryant wrote:
New member here, so not sure I've posted this in the right place,
and I definitely am not interested in starting a spoke war. *Doing
a bit of amateur and unsystematic research on developments in wire
spokes prompted by a discussion about wheelbuilding. *Going on
memory, I seem to recall a switch from straight gauge to double
butted in racing circles and wheelbuilding in general in the
1970s. *Can anyone here confirm this with certainty? *And how did
this change in wheelbuilding trends actually come about? *I know
the arguments in favor of switching from straight gauge to double
butted, but how did the change actually happen?
I believe thinner spokes (1.8 - 1.6 - 1.8 mm diameter) were used
for light weight wheels for touring as well as racing since before
the 1950's when I bought my first Cinelli, but they were not DT
spokes, but rather Stella stainless from Italy. *Various brands
moved in with even thinner. *Berg (D), and Redaelli (I) were 1.5mm
at mid span. *Failures were nearly always at the elbow or sometimes
at the threads when used with wide flange hubs that caused spokes
to bend at the spoke nipple.
More recently, I gather there has been a move toward using
heavier gauge spokes on the drive side of conventional dished rear
wheels. *Again, I understand the arguments for why some consider
this best practice, but when did this change in wheelbuilding
technique start and how exactly?
I think it came with using fewer spokes, which also required deeper
cross section rims to bridge the gap between spokes, but was
marketed as being for aerodynamic effect.
Can anyone shed some light on these profound mysteries?
I believe much of the changes in materials for frames, wheels, and
hubs, as well as shape and size, is from marketing or at least
justified from marketing along with some significant technical
advances in components, such as freehubs, BB and crank assemblies,
threadless steer tubes and durable head bearings.
I don't believe you'll find solid technical reasons for the
"mysteries".
Many thanks for the info. I'm still a bit confused about the second
mystery.
I've heard of a few wheelbuilders using heavier (straight or single
butted) spokes on the drive side and lighter double butted on the
non- drive side of a conventional, 3x, 32 or 36 spoke, dished, rear
wheel meant for touring. They say it makes more sense to use heavier
spokes on the drive side because of the dish/greater tension.
Building the wheel this way, they claim, makes for a stronger rear
wheel than one using double-butted spokes on both sides. *The people
making these claims are not marketing men. *They're experienced
mechanics who build wheels for a living. *We're talking about a
wheel built with, say, a 622-17 rim and Shimano 130mm rear cassette
hub. *So, a rather ordinary touring wheel, not exactly the last word
in technological advances. *Is their reasoning sound or flawed?
Would mixing the spokes this way make a stronger wheel than one
using double butted both sides, all else being equal?

With "stronger", do they mean that otherwise spokes will break or that
the wheel will collapse? *You should be aware that before the
publication of "the Bicycle Wheel" about 30 years ago, no structural
analysis of bicycle wheels had been made and common belief was that
spoke failure resulted from overload of the top spokes, from which
hubs are supported. *That was not only wheel builders, but also
engineering professors, who believed a hub hangs from the top spokes
in a wheel. *Are you aware that this can easily be tested by plucking
a top spoke before and after loading the wheel.

*http://www.avocet.com/wheelbook/wheelbook.html

Jobst Brandt

I believe they mean simply that the wheel will stay true longer than
the same wheel built with double butted spokes both sides. Is that
theory right?

On Apr 21, 10:36*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
J Bryant wrote:
I believe they mean simply that the wheel will stay true longer than
the same wheel built with double butted spokes both sides. *Is that
theory right?

Are you implying that spokes operate at yield stress and gradually
stretch in use, thereby misaligning the wheel? *I don't see your
reasoning for wheels staying true longer.

Jobst Brandt

Actually, I don't quite follow their argument either, but perhaps I'm
not explaining their view correctly. All I can say is that some
wheelbuilders have been building wheels this way for the past few
years and claiming that it's better than using double butted spokes on
both sides. They believe the wheel is structurally stronger. Maybe I
should rephrase my question: can you see any reason why might it be
better to build a wheel this way? Or, can you see any reason why it
might be better to build the wheel with double butted spokes on both
sides?

On 21 Apr, 11:39, Jezrant wrote:
New member here, so not sure I've posted this in the right place, and
I definitely am not interested in starting a spoke war.

Doing a bit of amateur and unsystematic research on developments in
wire spokes prompted by a discussion about wheelbuilding.

Going on memory, I seem to recall a switch from straight gauge to
double butted in racing circles and wheelbuilding in general in the
1970s. Can anyone here confirm this with certainty?

That is certainly false in the UK. Butted spokes were common to
smaller bike and wheel suppliers in1930's for high class 26" and 27"
wheels.

And how did this
change in wheelbuilding trends actually come about?

Better wheelbuilders could use thinner spokes and still maintain a
robust and accuratly tracking wheel, the 15swgt end though was still
required to give sufficient thread support in the nipple, brass
nipples for thinner gauges would certainly strip. Steel nipples could
and would be used to prevent the stripping on thin spokes.

I know the
arguments in favor of switching from straight gauge to double butted, [ :-o ]
but how did the change actually happen?

More recently, I gather there has been a move towards using heavier
gauge spokes on the drive side of conventional dished rear wheels.
Again, I understand the arguments for why some consider this best
practice, but when did this change in wheelbuilding technique start
and how exactly?

Can anyone shed some light on these profound mysteries? Please, no
rants.

On 21 Apr, 20:58, Jezrant wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:39*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:



J Bryant wrote:
New member here, so not sure I've posted this in the right place,
and I definitely am not interested in starting a spoke war.
Doing a bit of amateur and unsystematic research on developments in
wire spokes prompted by a discussion about wheelbuilding.
Going on memory, I seem to recall a switch from straight gauge to
double butted in racing circles and wheelbuilding in general in the
1970s. *Can anyone here confirm this with certainty? *And how did
this change in wheelbuilding trends actually come about? *I know the
arguments in favor of switching from straight gauge to double
butted, but how did the change actually happen?

I believe thinner spokes (1.8 - 1.6 - 1.8 mm diameter) were used for
light weight wheels for touring as well as racing since before the
1950's when I bought my first Cinelli, but they were not DT spokes,
but rather Stella stainless from Italy. *Various brands moved in with
even thinner. *Berg (D), and Radielli (I) were 1.5mm at mid span.
Failues were nearly alwas at the elbow or sometines at the threads
when used with wide flange hubs that caused spokes to bend at the
spoke nipple.

More recently, I gather there has been a move towards using heavier
gauge spokes on the drive side of conventional dished rear wheels.
Again, I understand the arguments for why some consider this best
practice, but when did this change in wheelbuilding technique start
and how exactly?

I think it came with using fewer spokes, which also required deeper
cross section rims to bridge the gap between spokes, but was marketed
as being for areodynamic effect.

Can anyone shed some light on these profound mysteries?

I believe much of the changes in materials for frames, wheels, and
hubs, as well as shape and size, is from marketing or at least
justified from marketing along with some significant technical
advances in components, such as freehubs, BB and crank assemblies,
threadless steer tubes and durable head bearings.

I don't believe you'll find solid technical reasons for the
"mysteries".

Jobst Brandt

Many thanks for the info. I'm still a bit confused about the second
mystery.

I've heard of a few wheelbuilders using heavier (straight or single
butted) spokes on the drive side and lighter double butted on the non-
drive side of a conventional, 3x, 32 or 36 spoke, dished, rear wheel
meant for touring. They say it makes more sense to use heavier spokes
on the drive side because of the dish/greater tension. Building the
wheel this way, they claim, makes for a stronger rear wheel than one
using double-butted spokes on both sides. The people making these
claims are not marketing men. They're experienced mechanics who build
wheels for a living. We're talking about a wheel built with, say, a
622-17 rim and Shimano 130mm rear cassette hub. So, a rather ordinary
touring wheel, not exactly the last word in technological advances. Is
their reasoning sound or flawed? Would mixing the spokes this way make
a stronger wheel than one using double butted both sides, all else
being equal?

For genuine touring that is flawed reasoning. Use 15swg spokes of
equal length all around 36 both front and rear. (actually 14swg may
be more appropriate if a heavy rider with large load) Load bicycle
appropriately. If any spokes get torn out, they may be redistributed
to where they are needed most if you manage to loose or have used your
spares.

On 21 Apr, 21:39, Jobst Brandt wrote:
J Bryant wrote:
New member here, so not sure I've posted this in the right place,
and I definitely am not interested in starting a spoke war. *Doing
a bit of amateur and unsystematic research on developments in wire
spokes prompted by a discussion about wheelbuilding. *Going on
memory, I seem to recall a switch from straight gauge to double
butted in racing circles and wheelbuilding in general in the
1970s. *Can anyone here confirm this with certainty? *And how did
this change in wheelbuilding trends actually come about? *I know
the arguments in favor of switching from straight gauge to double
butted, but how did the change actually happen?
I believe thinner spokes (1.8 - 1.6 - 1.8 mm diameter) were used
for light weight wheels for touring as well as racing since before
the 1950's when I bought my first Cinelli, but they were not DT
spokes, but rather Stella stainless from Italy. *Various brands
moved in with even thinner. *Berg (D), and Redaelli (I) were 1.5mm
at mid span. *Failures were nearly always at the elbow or sometimes
at the threads when used with wide flange hubs that caused spokes
to bend at the spoke nipple.
More recently, I gather there has been a move toward using
heavier gauge spokes on the drive side of conventional dished rear
wheels. *Again, I understand the arguments for why some consider
this best practice, but when did this change in wheelbuilding
technique start and how exactly?
I think it came with using fewer spokes, which also required deeper
cross section rims to bridge the gap between spokes, but was
marketed as being for aerodynamic effect.
Can anyone shed some light on these profound mysteries?
I believe much of the changes in materials for frames, wheels, and
hubs, as well as shape and size, is from marketing or at least
justified from marketing along with some significant technical
advances in components, such as freehubs, BB and crank assemblies,
threadless steer tubes and durable head bearings.
I don't believe you'll find solid technical reasons for the
"mysteries".
Many thanks for the info. I'm still a bit confused about the second
mystery.
I've heard of a few wheelbuilders using heavier (straight or single
butted) spokes on the drive side and lighter double butted on the
non- drive side of a conventional, 3x, 32 or 36 spoke, dished, rear
wheel meant for touring. They say it makes more sense to use heavier
spokes on the drive side because of the dish/greater tension.
Building the wheel this way, they claim, makes for a stronger rear
wheel than one using double-butted spokes on both sides. *The people
making these claims are not marketing men. *They're experienced
mechanics who build wheels for a living. *We're talking about a
wheel built with, say, a 622-17 rim and Shimano 130mm rear cassette
hub. *So, a rather ordinary touring wheel, not exactly the last word
in technological advances. *Is their reasoning sound or flawed?
Would mixing the spokes this way make a stronger wheel than one
using double butted both sides, all else being equal?

With "stronger", do they mean that otherwise spokes will break or that
the wheel will collapse? *You should be aware that before the
publication of "the Bicycle Wheel" about 30 years ago, no structural
analysis of bicycle wheels had been made

Apart from the likes of RUDGE-WHITWORTH fastest wire wheels on the
planet and the biggest supplier of wire wheels in the world in their
time.



and common belief was that

the spoke goblins tickled your spokes at the rise of a hump-backed
bridge.

spoke failure resulted from overload of the top spokes, from which
hubs are supported. *That was not only wheel builders, but also
engineering professors, who believed a hub hangs from the top spokes
in a wheel. *Are you aware that this can easily be tested by plucking
a top spoke before and after loading the wheel.

*http://www.avocet.com/wheelbook/wheelbook.html

Jobst Brandt