Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am planning on getting a set of race/faster training ride/special ride (i.e. charity rides, others) wheels this summer. I want to try to keep my total costs under $500, though I could possibly find $600 (this price includes ~$50 for pro2race tires, i have a few michilen ultralight tubes I am going to use and) Is it worth getting a second cassette? If so factor in ~65 for an ultegra cassette.

I weigh 120 lbs, am light on my equipment. As I said I am planning on keeping my current wheelset for the bulk of my training.

The wheels I have been looking at are as follows:
Easton Circuits - seem to be good all around wheels. No aero spokes, 1600+g 28mm rims
Neuvation r28sl - 1470 g, no aero spokes 27mm
neuvation r28aero - 1570g, aero spokes 27mm
custom built wheels - ive pm'd ligero and emailed mike garcia. I was going to wait to call them untill I had funds and actaully intended to buy something.
Ligero spec'd me 1450g for nobium rims 25 or 30mm, white industries hubs and laser spokes (non-aero).
Garcia reccomended his speedcific nobium wheelset 1500g, 30mm, aero spokes.

in terms of cost the best i could find was easton = to neuvations, ligero a bit more, and garcia even more.

what would you guys go for? why? why not? What should continue to be considered, what should I take off the list? anything else im forgetting? thanks
 

· Banned
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
CC09 said:
I am planning on getting a set of race/faster training ride/special ride (i.e. charity rides, others) wheels this summer. I want to try to keep my total costs under $500, though I could possibly find $600 (this price includes ~$50 for pro2race tires, i have a few michilen ultralight tubes I am going to use and) Is it worth getting a second cassette? If so factor in ~65 for an ultegra cassette.

I weigh 120 lbs, am light on my equipment. As I said I am planning on keeping my current wheelset for the bulk of my training.

The wheels I have been looking at are as follows:
Easton Circuits - seem to be good all around wheels. No aero spokes, 1600+g 28mm rims
Neuvation r28sl - 1470 g, no aero spokes 27mm
neuvation r28aero - 1570g, aero spokes 27mm
custom built wheels - ive pm'd ligero and emailed mike garcia. I was going to wait to call them untill I had funds and actaully intended to buy something.
Ligero spec'd me 1450g for nobium rims 25 or 30mm, white industries hubs and laser spokes (non-aero).
Garcia reccomended his speedcific nobium wheelset 1500g, 30mm, aero spokes.

in terms of cost the best i could find was easton = to neuvations, ligero a bit more, and garcia even more.

what would you guys go for? why? why not? What should continue to be considered, what should I take off the list? anything else im forgetting? thanks
I'd go with Ligero....but then I would cuz I already have one set comin' from him and another set 'bout ready to leap off the drawing board.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
Srexy said:
If time is of the essence make sure you go for readily available components on your custom build. White Industries seem to have a backlog of orders that might hold your "summer breeze build" up.
They'll catch up soon, right?

I am the embodiment of impatience, so this news can't be good...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
CC09 said:
in terms of cost the best i could find was easton = to neuvations, ligero a bit more, and garcia even more.
Ligero is using White Ind hubs and he is cheaper than Garcia with generic hubs? If true we have a new price leader...

Alienator... what did your wheels cost?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
I think that you would be a good candidate for...

a "standard" wheel build with group hubs, maybe some trick spokes, for a decent price.

I am thinking:
Mavic OP, or Velocity Aerohead rims (the rear is asym, and for racing that would be a bonus).
Dura-Ace 28 hole hubs
spokes of 15/16 or 14/16 (etc.)

That would be a fairly light, durable wheel, and, quite specifically, the rims would be light. Each of the named components is thoroughly proven, and performs very well. I honestly think that this wheel as described would be as fast or faster than any you have named, and would last longer, all things considered.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
rruff said:
Ligero is using White Ind hubs and he is cheaper than Garcia with generic hubs? If true we have a new price leader...

Alienator... what did your wheels cost?
I don't know that it's right to say. It'd be different if Ligero had a published price list, but he doesn't. Maybe he'll comment on costs. Better yet, he will tell you if you email, pm, or call him.

I can tell you that my wheels cost WAY less than a set of Lightweight Obermayers.;) I had priced wheel builds elsewhere (DT RR1.1 rims, DT 240s hubs, DT Aerolite spokes), both online and at local places, and he was cheaper. FWIW, I didn't go with his service because it was cheaper but because of what he suggested, had to offer, and what others had said about his work.

FWIW, I am willing to work as a middleman for Ligero, selling wheels such as those he's building (and hopefully finished and sent) for me for only $800. This is an incredible deal, since it only includes an XX.XX% markup.:D
 

· Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
elvisVerde said:
a "standard" wheel build with group hubs, maybe some trick spokes, for a decent price.

I am thinking:
Mavic OP, or Velocity Aerohead rims (the rear is asym, and for racing that would be a bonus).
Dura-Ace 28 hole hubs
spokes of 15/16 or 14/16 (etc.)

That would be a fairly light, durable wheel, and, quite specifically, the rims would be light. Each of the named components is thoroughly proven, and performs very well. I honestly think that this wheel as described would be as fast or faster than any you have named, and would last longer, all things considered.
how much of an advantage would a rear asym rim be?
 

· Banned
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
CC09 said:
how much of an advantage would a rear asym rim be?
All things being equal--i.e., you're comparing two rear rims whose only difference is that one is an asym. rim and the other isn't--difference in spoke tensions between ds and nds will be smaller. The asym rear will prolly be a more ideal build and stronger. But it's not like you're going to get a defective or deficient wheel if you use a rear rim that isn't asymmetrical. I don't think that anyone's going to say that DT RR1.1 or Mavic OP rims make for less than strong wheels.

The wheelbuilders could be more detailed in the explaining of this.

YO, WHEELBUILDERS: can you please answer this boy's question?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
alienator said:
YO, WHEELBUILDERS:can you please answer this boy's question?
I've built a few wheels... is that enough?

It should improve the lateral stiffness of the wheel a bit by increasing the angle of the drive side spokes. By also increasing the tension of the non-drive side, there is less chance of those spokes going slack and fatiguing. So... it's all good...

But is it important? Lateral stiffness matters very little, and you can keep the non-drive side spokes from going slack by using light ultra-butted ones. Still, I think it is a fine idea.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,860 Posts
Dish and lateral stiffness

rruff said:
I've built a few wheels... is that enough?

It should improve the lateral stiffness of the wheel a bit by increasing the angle of the drive side spokes. By also increasing the tension of the non-drive side, there is less chance of those spokes going slack and fatiguing. So... it's all good...

But is it important? Lateral stiffness matters very little, and you can keep the non-drive side spokes from going slack by using light ultra-butted ones. Still, I think it is a fine idea.
Interestingly, dish actually increases lateral stiffness, not decreases it. This is because the lateral stiffness of the spokes is proportional to the square of the sine of the bracing angle. A single spoke at a 10 degree bracing angle has a more than twice the stiffness of a spoke at 5 degrees, so a dished wheel with spoke angles of 10 degrees on the left and and 0 degrees will be stiffer than a non-dished wheels with equal 5 degree spoke angles on either side.

Of course, the the greater stiffness of dished wheel holds only up until the point where the left spokes become completely slackened. The force to reduce the left spokes to zero tension on a dished wheel is lower than for a non-dished wheel, so overall a dished wheel is weaker than a non-dished wheel. But under moderate lateral force from the right, low enough to keep the left spokes from slackening, a dished wheel is stiffer.

The reason that rear wheels are less laterally stiff than front wheels is not because of the dish, but because of the reduced flange spacing. Typical front wheels have a flange width of 70mm, whereas typical rear wheels only have a flange spacing of 55mm.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
Mark McM said:
Interestingly, dish actually increases lateral stiffness, not decreases it. This is because the lateral stiffness of the spokes is proportional to the square of the sine of the bracing angle.
I can believe that the angle doesn't matter... I was imagining the limiting case of 0 degrees and 10 degrees and how that wouldn't work... but it is only because all the spokes are at zero tension... so as you say, it is the spokes going slack that is the problem, not the dish.

But... the *square* of the sine of the angle? I'm not seeing that... How is it derived?

And if that is true, we could improve rear wheels by moving the left flange over some more... *and* using an OC rim
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,860 Posts
Stiffness, dish, and tension

rruff said:
I can believe that the angle doesn't matter... I was imagining the limiting case of 0 degrees and 10 degrees and how that wouldn't work... but it is only because all the spokes are at zero tension... so as you say, it is the spokes going slack that is the problem, not the dish.

But... the *square* of the sine of the angle? I'm not seeing that... How is it derived?
That's easy. First to define a few terms:

L = Spoke length
R = Spoke radius (i.e. the length of the spoke projected along the radius)
O = Lateral distance from flange to rim

The lengths L, R, O form a right triangle, where R and O are at a right angle, and L is hypotenuse.

A = Angle of spoke (from radial)
T = Tension of spoke
Ks = Spring constant of the spoke (i.e longitudinal stiffness)
Kl = Component of lateral stiffness contributed by the spoke.
Fl = Portion of lateral force distributed to spoke

Kl = dFl / d O ( change in lateral force for change in lateral deflection )

dFl / dO = ( dFl / dT ) * ( dT / dL ) * ( dL / dO )

dFl / dT = sine( A ) ( change of lateral force for change in spoke tension)

dT / dL = Ks (change in spoke tension for change in change in spoke length)

dL / dO = sine( A ) ( change in spoke length for lateral offset )

Kl = ( sine( A ) ) * ( Ks ) * ( sine( A ) ) = Ks * sine^2 ( A )


Of course, the stiffness of the rim will also affect how much the spoke deflects for a given lateral deflection, but none the less, the lateral stiffness of the wheel will be greater with one set of spokes at a shallow angle, then with two sets of spokes at a steeper angle.

rruff said:
And if that is true, we could improve rear wheels by moving the left flange over some more... *and* using an OC rim
Yup. This part of the fallacy of narrow flanged rear hubs to reduce dish - although the dish is reduced (by making the left spokes steeper), the wheel stiffness is also decreased, as well as reducing overall wheel strength. That's why "traditional" hubs (like Shimano and Campagnolo) have stayed with the standard rear hub flange spacing as dish increased, instead of trying to reduce dishing by moving the left flange inward.

If you look at the HPW hubs used on Campagnolo pre-built wheels, they actually move the left flange outward compared to standard hubs, increasing dish, but also increasing wheel stiffness. Of course, this only works if you make sure that the spoke tensions are very high, to prevent the left spokes from completely slackening in use. I wonder if the makers of narrow flange hubs realize that they are attacking a symptom, and not the problem - that the real problem with their wheels is not that they have too much dish, but that the spoke tensions are too low.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
Mark McM said:
That's easy.
Uh... maybe for you! Thanks... you surely saved me from a headache...

Mark McM said:
I wonder if the makers of narrow flange hubs realize that they are attacking a symptom, and not the problem - that the real problem with their wheels is not that they have too much dish, but that the spoke tensions are too low.
Making the spoke tension higher isn't a great cure either, because rims need to be beefier to take the tension.

I thought Campy's G3 lacing made sense... at least it addresses the "slack spoke" problem under radial loads, plus you can get rid of a few spokes... but lateral stiffness suffers there too... unless you also move the flange over. If you do that as well, you should be able to get both... the sin^2 factor is our friend... you can improve lateral stiffness more than the tension decreases. Seems like the best solution...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,860 Posts
G3 lacing is an old idea

rruff said:
I thought Campy's G3 lacing made sense... at least it addresses the "slack spoke" problem under radial loads, plus you can get rid of a few spokes... but lateral stiffness suffers there too... unless you also move the flange over. If you do that as well, you should be able to get both... the sin^2 factor is our friend... you can improve lateral stiffness more than the tension decreases. Seems like the best solution...
... Which is probably why it was already thought of 80 years ago. The Ford Model A used dished 30 spoke wheels with a variation of the G3 lacing. The wheel had 20 cross laced spokes with small bracing angle on the inner "drive" side, and 10 radially laced spokes with a large bracing angle on the outer "non-drive" side. Here are some photos of the Model A wheels:



 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top