shelbyfv

Geeze Louise. Climbing=Light. Touring=Load=Strong. Stiffness doesn't get much discussion because it's hard to find a current wheel that is not adequately stiff for its purpose. That said, nothing to stop you from soldering spokes or obsessing over 2X vs 3X or heads pointing whichever.

base2 

What I am meaning is a narrow rim with a small tire is going to be very "buzzy." All that vibration is energy lost that is not going forward in the direction of travel. True, that tires make a huge difference in this regard and this explains the recent trend of wider tires at lower pressures and the wider rim widths necessary to support the tire sidewalls to this end. But, the rims ability to "flex" to absorb vibration is also a selling point for rider comfort. In fact, vibration Absorption to the extreme of grounding out a rim that is intended to take an impact, absorb it by deforming over the obsticle and spring back into shape at speed is the selling point of many so-called "gravel" carbon rims. Look for the term "radial compliance" in various marketing mumbo-jumbo.

Check this out for an extreme case of what carbon can do.

grumpus

I wonder who remembers the ACS Z-Rim.

PromptCritical 

So, I've decided to build the wheels myself. Back in the day, we built a 3x spoke wheel. Is this still the best? Also, I've seen a "3G" spoke wheel referred to. Is this marketing fluff or is it some variation of a 3x install?

Koyote

Hubs, spokes, and rims. Oh, yeah, nipples too.

(Ask a very general question, get a very general answer.)

PromptCritical 

Well, bless your heart for the help.

PromptCritical 

Totally insane. Both the riding and the rim. Finally achieved destruction @ 3:51. That should end the debate over tubeless tires. Just ride 'em flat!

Thanks for sending.

FBinNY 

These days, I build the vast majority of my 32h wheels 3x. IMO, there has to be a specific reason not to, ie. I'll build pursuit wheels radial front & 2x rear to gain a slight edge in lateral rigidity.

The one thing I do a bit different, is build all dished rears with lighter spokes on the left side, so the ratios of the cross sections more closely matches the ratio of hub CTF distances. I also us lighter spokes in front. Lastly, I build to lower tensions than most current builders, staying below 100-105kgf whenever possible.

SoSmellyAir

I wish you the best of luck but your hope seems unrealistic unless the person for whom the custom frame was built had torso, inseam, and arm length measurements very similar to yours. IMHO, if the bikes you already own have more of a race geometry (i.e., longer reach and lower stack), you may be better served test riding a few contemporary endurance road bikes.

PromptCritical 

Thanks. I haven't ridden it yet, but I've sat on it and it is a great fit!

I really wanted to put my own bike together for a couple of reasons and it's been a lot of fun. All the parts are here, so when we get back from a bike tour vacation next week, I'll finish up and take it for a spin. The wheels aren't final, just some that I've been dragging around for 40 years, but they fit and spin, so they'll be fine for a test ride.

Duragrouch

Z-Bend: Clever and versatile, just need spoke wire. But IMO, they didn't show another advantage: I saw somewhere on here I think months back, a race bike (Trek?) for Greg LeMond, and instead of the spoke holes at the inner apex of the rim, they looked like Z-bend with holes halfway up each side of the rim, then crossing to the opposite hub flange, with adjustment nipple at hub. This has a number of BIG advantages:
- The spoke hole is at the neutral axis in bending of the rim, so lower stressed area, and a stronger rim, possibly also less mass at rim so less rotating inertia.
- The spoke hole is loaded in shear, not bending tension, perhaps better fatigue life.
- Crossing to opposite hub flange means better lateral angle so a stronger wheel.
- Easy to replace spoke in field, even rear on drive side, no need to remove cassette, or even dismount wheel.

I saw something interesting the other day, a disc road bike stopped at a stoplight, front and rear wheels had spokes in groups of 3, with the 2 outer spokes going to the "flatter" side of the dished wheel, and the middle 1 going to the more dished side; That would allow each spoke on the flatter side to be lower in tension (whereas they are normally higher in tension), thus better spoke life, I most frequently break a rear drive-side spoke. It also means the 2 flat-side spokes are laced tangential leading and trailing, whereas the middle 1 is radial.

PromptCritical 

ohhhh, that is clever. Someone has some serious machinist skills.

PromptCritical 

Would this qualify as an endurance road bike?
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...de=reddark_red

base2 

You are describing a "triplet" lacing pattern The pattern is the same as a 2-cross half/radial but minus every-other spoke so the remaining radial spokes must be an even higher NDS tension to make up the difference. The result is nearly equal 50/50 DS/NDS tensions as if the hub flanges were symmetrical even with wide 11-12 speed free hub bodies.

In a 2-cross/half radial lacing pattern the benefits are huge WRT evening out spoke tension. The results instead of being 70/100kg/f like a standard build are more like 85/100kg/f. The radial side spoke tension is elevated because each spoke is straight pulling from the nearest point of the hub to its designated spoke hole and not tangential from further away like they would be in the usual 2 or 3 cross. The result is the bracing angle is improved, which is always a positive characteristic. The net effect of the bracing angle improvement is less tension differential between the drive and non-drive side.

In a we'll designed hub, the drive side flange can also help with the bracing angle (& thus tension equality) by elevating the drive-side hub flange higher to intersect the imaginary perfectly symmetrical ideal. Effectively truncating the spoke as if an imaginary spoke continued on through the area the cassette occupies and replacing it with rigid structure.


From this page on Extralite: Click here.

In the picture below the improvement is from 4.9 to 5.4 degrees That is a ~10% improvement.


There are 2 things at work. Improving the individual spoke tension with radial and improving the symmetry by changing the connection point.

I think a 2x/half radial on an assymetric rim is as ideal as can be hoped for with today's wide free hubs. It would have more spokes than a triplet lacing and still achieve the triplets perfect 50/50 tension equality.

FBinNY 

This was a concept introduced but Shimano, some decades back. As you point out, there are structural advantages, however they didn't fare well in the marketplace, and ended up in the same place as 10mm pitch chain.

SoSmellyAir

Not per my personal definition of stack : reach ratio > 1.5 (in my size, i.e., 54, which has an effective top tube length of 544 mm, which is in the ballpark of what I need). But that is just me. The 1.5 stack : reach ratio is not a universal magic threshold; it is just the first step for me to eliminate bike frames that is very unlikely to fit me. At the end of the day, you need to find your own ideal geometry, whether that is by a fitting or by getting a bike which you can incrementally tweak to fit you perfectly

PromptCritical 

Thanks to everyone for their help (especially to Koyote who reminded me to use spoke nipples) with this project, especially the link to Wheel Fanatyk.

I ordered https://www.wheelfanatyk.com/product...-dishing-tool/ and https://www.wheelfanatyk.com/product...-lacing-stand/

Looking forward to building some wheels. I used to find it zen like when I was in college.

SoSmellyAir

It would be less Zen than back then because presumably you would be using fewer spokes and nipples?

PromptCritical 

Hmmmmmm.

Guess I’ll have to build more of them!