Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
41 - 49 of 49 Posts
Discussion starter · #41 · (Edited)
Thanks for the clarification, Mike. One thing I have noticed is that often, if Method 2 doesn't throw the wheel back out of true, Method 6 will - a sure sign that it does what it's supposed to do - unless it is in two large waves which isn't a good sign.

One other thing I started doing that one of my bike shop mechanics does, is squeeze the non-parallel pairs in addition to the parallel pairs of spokes. Jobst Brandt sheds some light on doing this as making a permanent bend as the spoke leaves the nipple, so it won't flex there. It makes sense that it also will shorten the distance, hence throwing the wheel out of true.
Lom, if you do what I suggest (and every reasonable method of spoke optimization I know of is there, without similar duplicates) and put some muscle into it then you will have a "no touch until rim bent" wheelbuild. It's never failed me. But yes there are slightly different ways of doing things. And that's ok too. They work fine.
 
Lom, if you do what I suggest (and every reasonable method of spoke optimization I know of is there, without similar duplicates) and put some muscle into it then you will have a "no touch until rim bent" wheelbuild. It's never failed me. But yes there are slightly different ways of doing things. And that's ok too. They work fine.
I did. And so far, so good. :) Only 160 miles on my wheels so far. Still as true as before the virgin ride. :)

Now I just have 54 more years and x wheelsets to go before I'm as good as you. :)
 
Everyone usually reaches their maximum potential Lom so don't be too upset if you don't make it.
Well when you consider that in 54 more years, I'll be over 100, if I'm still building wheels, I think someone else will be stress relieving them for me. :)

Not upset at all when you consider that only a year ago, I couldn't have even imagined I would ever build a successful wheelset. :)
 
We just got our first delivery of them recently. My initial impression on pulling them out of the bag was that it's hard to notice the difference between them and CX Rays. You notice that they're thicker, but in a build you would think they're the same unless you really scrutinized things.

The per spoke weight is just about 1g more than a CX Ray. Make of that what you will, some people will call it nothing and for others it's the end of the world.

We've build up a few test builds and immediately we're going to use them in similar applications as we now use D-Lights - drive sides of rears and disc sides of fronts. I very much consider the CX Sprint to be to a CX Ray what a D-Light is to a Laser, as opposed to being more like what a Race is to a Laser.

They're still way more money than Lasers and D-Lights, and way way way more than Races, but they've got a place in the spectrum for sure.
 
Discussion starter · #49 ·
[CX-Sprint have]......a place in the spectrum for sure.
The more I think about them, the more I agree with you Dave. They're the "poor man's" CX-Ray; the sturdier DS (Drive Side rear and Disc Side front) spoke [to compliment CX-Ray] for those who go that route; the "gateway" aero spoke to CX-Ray.

They're still way more money than Lasers and D-Lights, and way way way more than Races
Sure but we do that kind of stuff whenever we opt for more expensive parts than 105; whenever we buy more than a $1200 (approx) bicycle; more than $50 rims; more than $120 hubsets. And who bothers about the cost of a King headset if they simply lust after a King headset?
 
41 - 49 of 49 Posts