Make sure that you have the correct spoke tension that we won't tell you... GRRR.
#1
Generally bewildered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,036
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
250 Posts
Make sure that you have the correct spoke tension that we won't tell you... GRRR.
Ok, the replacement spokes for the 40 yo corroded spokes from my Schwinn Superior arrive today. And I have a new Park Tool tension meter. And I've read how important spoke tension is. And I noted that Gerd Schraner, an expert, cited his skepticism about tension meters until he tried one and found out how inconsistent his tensions had been. So I want to use the right tension, and I can measure that tension, and I even may create my own calibrator*. And all the experts say "use the rim manufacturer's recommended tension.
I can find no recommendations for tension for my wheel or similar (non-boxed) rims. What kind of cruel joke is this?
Velocity Wheels kindly recommends between 110 kgf and 130 kgf. But this is for all of their rims, and they have a lot of different kinds. And they state "the mark of an excellent wheel builder is the ability to find the highest tension a rim will allow while maintaining its radial and lateral true." I don't agree. I mean, they have some experience, but this statement is at odds with people like Damon Rinard, Jobst Brandt, Musson, and Schraner. In fact, Rinard's stiffness test would seem to indicate that you get the same lateral stiffness at a range of tensions. And engineering reasoning would have you use a tension that is in that range, perhaps near the high end, but with some allowance for increased stress due to bumps, moshing the pedals, etc. Further, if you get close to the max, you stand a higher chance of potato-chipping the rim. It seems to me (PhD in engineering FWIW), that there's no need to get the rims to the point just adjacent to buckling.
Mavic has nice datasheets for their rims. For their Ksyrium SLRs They recommend 110 to 130 kg for front, and 90 to 110 kg for rear drive side. Which is weird, because it means that the non drive side is gonna be much lower. For the Aksium, they give Front: 80 to 90 kg and Rear drive side: 150 to 165 kg.
But Weinmann doesn't give values. Nor does Alex. It would be great to find an archive of historic values (as I'm using the old 27 inch rims). I can't find that table in the Sheldonopedia.
Anyway, I'm planning on using 95kgf for front and 105kgf for rear DS. Hopefully, this puts the rear NDS at about 95.
* The most accurate calibrate would use a spoke, a frame with adjustment ability, and a scale. You'd put the exact spoke type you're using into the frame, tension it to a measured tension, and then you'd note (for non-adjustable) or adjust the meter reading. Unior apparently no longer stocks their spoke tensionometer, but they had two great ideas. First, include a small bar that can be used to calibrate the meter without a frame, etc. Second, their spring adjustment was continuous and so you could "dial in" their meter. We'll see out the Park meter does. Right now, not impressed, as the edges of the meter are sharp and the parts scrape (audibly) in use.
I can find no recommendations for tension for my wheel or similar (non-boxed) rims. What kind of cruel joke is this?
Velocity Wheels kindly recommends between 110 kgf and 130 kgf. But this is for all of their rims, and they have a lot of different kinds. And they state "the mark of an excellent wheel builder is the ability to find the highest tension a rim will allow while maintaining its radial and lateral true." I don't agree. I mean, they have some experience, but this statement is at odds with people like Damon Rinard, Jobst Brandt, Musson, and Schraner. In fact, Rinard's stiffness test would seem to indicate that you get the same lateral stiffness at a range of tensions. And engineering reasoning would have you use a tension that is in that range, perhaps near the high end, but with some allowance for increased stress due to bumps, moshing the pedals, etc. Further, if you get close to the max, you stand a higher chance of potato-chipping the rim. It seems to me (PhD in engineering FWIW), that there's no need to get the rims to the point just adjacent to buckling.
Mavic has nice datasheets for their rims. For their Ksyrium SLRs They recommend 110 to 130 kg for front, and 90 to 110 kg for rear drive side. Which is weird, because it means that the non drive side is gonna be much lower. For the Aksium, they give Front: 80 to 90 kg and Rear drive side: 150 to 165 kg.
But Weinmann doesn't give values. Nor does Alex. It would be great to find an archive of historic values (as I'm using the old 27 inch rims). I can't find that table in the Sheldonopedia.
Anyway, I'm planning on using 95kgf for front and 105kgf for rear DS. Hopefully, this puts the rear NDS at about 95.
* The most accurate calibrate would use a spoke, a frame with adjustment ability, and a scale. You'd put the exact spoke type you're using into the frame, tension it to a measured tension, and then you'd note (for non-adjustable) or adjust the meter reading. Unior apparently no longer stocks their spoke tensionometer, but they had two great ideas. First, include a small bar that can be used to calibrate the meter without a frame, etc. Second, their spring adjustment was continuous and so you could "dial in" their meter. We'll see out the Park meter does. Right now, not impressed, as the edges of the meter are sharp and the parts scrape (audibly) in use.
Last edited by WizardOfBoz; 06-07-19 at 10:55 AM.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,826
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4743 Post(s)
Liked 3,860 Times
in
2,509 Posts
If you shoot for the middle of the range suggested by Park for the spoke diameters you've got, you won't be far off. Right rear will have to be highish to get the left rear into acceptable. (A very good reason for going one thickness heavier for the right rear.)
These spokes are going into 40 year rims, right? No one measured spoke tension then. I doubt you will find a published recommendation for those rims anywhere.
This is not rocket science. "Feel" counts for a lot. Getting spoke tensions as even as possible for that rim and hub counts a lot. The exact number? Not nearly so much.
Ben
These spokes are going into 40 year rims, right? No one measured spoke tension then. I doubt you will find a published recommendation for those rims anywhere.
This is not rocket science. "Feel" counts for a lot. Getting spoke tensions as even as possible for that rim and hub counts a lot. The exact number? Not nearly so much.
Ben
Likes For 79pmooney:
#4
Old fart
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,935
Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3571 Post(s)
Liked 3,367 Times
in
1,916 Posts
The use of specific spoke tensions for consumer-level wheels didn't become common until low spoke count, high tension consumer level wheels became commonly available. If your wheel has 32 or more spokes, adjusting the tension by ear and/or feel is quite adequate.
#5
Generally bewildered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,036
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
250 Posts
If you shoot for the middle of the range suggested by Park for the spoke diameters you've got, you won't be far off. Right rear will have to be highish to get the left rear into acceptable. (A very good reason for going one thickness heavier for the right rear.) These spokes are going into 40 year rims, right? No one measured spoke tension then. I doubt you will find a published recommendation for those rims anywhere.
... "Feel" counts for a lot. Getting spoke tensions as even as possible for that rim and hub counts a lot. The exact number? Not nearly so much.
Ben
... "Feel" counts for a lot. Getting spoke tensions as even as possible for that rim and hub counts a lot. The exact number? Not nearly so much.
Ben
But I want it to be.
Seriously, thanks. Glad to know that my original values are in the reasonable range.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that? And if I followed that guideline, how would I justify the purchase of another tool? Geez, John, you're getting all practical on me here.
#6
It's MY mountain
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mt.Diablo
Posts: 9,991
Bikes: Klein, Merckx, Trek
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4311 Post(s)
Liked 2,954 Times
in
1,601 Posts
Velocity Wheels kindly recommends between 110 kgf and 130 kgf. But this is for all of their rims, and they have a lot of different kinds. And they state "the mark of an excellent wheel builder is the ability to find the highest tension a rim will allow while maintaining its radial and lateral true." I don't agree. I mean, they have some experience, but this statement is at odds with people like Damon Rinard, Jobst Brandt, Musson, and Schraner. In fact, Rinard's stiffness test would seem to indicate that you get the same lateral stiffness at a range of tensions. And engineering reasoning would have you use a tension that is in that range, perhaps near the high end, but with some allowance for increased stress due to bumps, moshing the pedals, etc. Further, if you get close to the max, you stand a higher chance of potato-chipping the rim. It seems to me (PhD in engineering FWIW), that there's no need to get the rims to the point just adjacent to buckling.
Basically you need enough tension that the spokes don't go slack, and not so much that the rim starts to fail or potato chip. The stronger your rims are, the more of a range in acceptable tension you'll have. I don't remember if it was Brandt's book, but somewhere in the literature I've read it said to keep laying on the tension until the wheel starts to potato chip, and then back off a half turn or so all around, and that's basically the same idea.
The real value in your tensionometer is getting all the spokes with even tension, rather than one specific tension value.
And here's a photo of my rim with the important stats printed right on the decal... I think they sell a lot of these to engineers.
I'd be really surprised if your 40-year old rims could stand this much. I'm sure you can do the conversion, but 1200N = 122kgf so that's in the middle of the range Velocity is giving.
Last edited by DiabloScott; 06-07-19 at 12:56 PM.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,826
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4743 Post(s)
Liked 3,860 Times
in
2,509 Posts
...
The real value in your tensionometer is getting all the spokes with even tension, rather than one specific tension value.
And here's a photo of my rim with the important stats printed right on the decal... I think they sell a lot of these to engineers.
I'd be really surprised if your 40-year old rims could stand this much. I'm sure you can do the conversion, but 1200N = 122kgf so that's in the middle of the range Velocity is giving.
...
The real value in your tensionometer is getting all the spokes with even tension, rather than one specific tension value.
And here's a photo of my rim with the important stats printed right on the decal... I think they sell a lot of these to engineers.
I'd be really surprised if your 40-year old rims could stand this much. I'm sure you can do the conversion, but 1200N = 122kgf so that's in the middle of the range Velocity is giving.
...
All that info on the rim? That's just completely wrong. (A weight that's around 50 grams less than actual could be there.) The ERD? You are supposed to have access to the local "Sheldon Brown" guru or have to build yourself a tool to measure it. )
Edit: the engineers screwed up on that label. A max pressure without saying the tire size tells you very little. 9 bar (130 psi in a 19c tire is very different from 9 bar in a 35c tire.
Ben
Last edited by 79pmooney; 06-07-19 at 01:24 PM.
#8
Generally bewildered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,036
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
250 Posts
The idea behind this is that the higher the tension, the more of a hit you can take without a spoke going slack. How much tension you can apply is a function of the rim strength (lateral and radial and tensile - for spoke pull-out)
Basically you need enough tension that the spokes don't go slack, and not so much that the rim starts to fail or potato chip. The stronger your rims are, the more of a range in acceptable tension you'll have. I don't remember if it was Brandt's book, but somewhere in the literature I've read it said to keep laying on the tension until the wheel starts to potato chip, and then back off a half turn or so all around, and that's basically the same idea....
Basically you need enough tension that the spokes don't go slack, and not so much that the rim starts to fail or potato chip. The stronger your rims are, the more of a range in acceptable tension you'll have. I don't remember if it was Brandt's book, but somewhere in the literature I've read it said to keep laying on the tension until the wheel starts to potato chip, and then back off a half turn or so all around, and that's basically the same idea....
I guess I'd also speculate that one hits bumps that stress you to the limit only rarely. That is, if my rims are pretty darn tight (say 80% of the start of tacos, or of spoke pullout), there will be very few bumps that will slacken the spoke even given that I'm a big heavy guy. Put another way, I'm not sure how important it is to be at 99% of max tension, vs 80%. Nor do I trust myself (or the Park tensionmeter, for that matter) to get near the 99% limit.
Ben, Agree. Wonder how many people thing through this and understand that the 35mm tire while a 19mm tire has about 3800 pounds force trying to split the rim in half, while the 35mm tire has about 7000 lbs.
Last edited by WizardOfBoz; 06-07-19 at 02:31 PM.
#9
It's MY mountain
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mt.Diablo
Posts: 9,991
Bikes: Klein, Merckx, Trek
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4311 Post(s)
Liked 2,954 Times
in
1,601 Posts
For example, the other spokes in the wheel get MORE tension when the wheel is stressed by a bump. If the other spokes are at a limit, you have failure. This was my point about being in the higher end of the permissible range of spoke tension, but not at the very limit.
That's certainly true, and no one is recommending that. If pull-out tension happens before taco tension, your rims are in bad shape.
#10
Generally bewildered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,036
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
250 Posts
Ok. I'm not arguing for a "bump" in the rim on top when the rim on the bottom hits a bump. I would argue for a slight increase in circumference. This would increase in all spoke tension. I did a back of the envelope estimate below (sorry, its a large envelope).
Suppose we hit a bump, get air, come down on the wheel, and the bottom of the wheel gets deflected. At maximum deflection, our "altitude" will be a matter of millimeter lower than normal. The wheel will start to recover and will push our axle up to acclerate us (and the bike) back toward normal altitude). When the wheel is accelerating us upward, it is exerting more upward force than it does on level ground. Therefore, the net force upward of all spokes (force up minus the force down of all spokes) MUST be greater than normal. This could be, though, just the reduction of downward force of the slack spokes or an actual increase in upward force from spoke tension increase.
Back to the point about there not being a bump. Instead, I'd argue that a portion of the rim is somewhat flattened and that this increases the effective circumference and radius of the wheel.
Let's assume a 27 inch wheel, with an ERD of 630 mm.
The circumference is then 1979 mm.
Assume we hit a bump and a 3 inch chunk of rim is temporarily flattened (this is an assumption, based as much upon the drawings in Jobst Brandt's book as the SWAG method".
3 inches is 76.2mm of the circumference.
The angle this 3 inch circumferential chunk includes is 76.2/1979 * 360, or 13.86 degrees
The chord function of the circle of this is crd(theta) = 2 * sin (theta/2) = 0.24
The initial chord length is radius * crd(theta), or 0.24*630/2 = 76.014mm
But we are assuming that this is the 3 inch section that was flattened, so the chord is now the whole 3 inchs or 76.2mm.
Difference is .185mm.
Making some assumptions we assume that the wheel rim now has a circumference of the original, plus 0.185mm.
Because radius is linear with circumference, the radius increases by 315* .185/1900 , or about 0.03mm.
The pitch of spoke thread is 56 per inch, or about 0.45mm/turn.
This would make the increase in effective diameter be equivalent to about 1/15 of a turn of the spoke for each spoke not in that flattened 3 inch section.
We can back check this. The geometry assumed above would give a radius from the deflected rim to the center of the hub of about 312.7, or about 2.3 mm smaller than normal. Is this even remotely related to the normal amount of spoke stretch? If its close but less than normal spoke stretch, then perhaps we can have some confidence in our geometric assumptions. Would this amount of contraction loosen a properly tensioned spoke?
Assume a 1.8mm spoke (unbutted, for simplicity). This has an area of 2.544 square mm. At 100kg force tension, this means that there's 39.3 kgf/mm^2 of stress. Stainless steel (indeed, all steels, which is remarkable) has a Young's modulus of 29GPa, or 2960 kgf/mm^2. So divide the stress of 39.3 by the modulus of 2960 and we get a strain of 0.0133. Again, Let's assume that our spoke is about 290mm. So our total normal amount of stretch in the spoke would be about 4mm. Given that we've assumed values consistent with a well-built wheel, and that our spoke tension reduction is close, but not in excess of the normal spoke tension gives, perhaps, some confidence that our geometric assumptions are not entirely unreasonable.
We could also infer that the ratio of (0.03mm + 4mm) /4mm can be used to calcualate the increase in spoke tension elsewhere, to get about a 0.75% increase. That is, spoke tension increased from 100 to 100.75kgf.
This lines up with experience. That is, most wheels with spoke tension of 100kgf don't blow up, but some wheels - after hitting a rare bump - do fail, I'm gonna call it a day and go have a Gin and tonic.
But the point is, point rim deflection DOES affect all other spokes even if only in the 1% range. Also, if we hit bumps that flatten 3 inch sections a lot, and if our spoke tension were lower - say 70kg - then we'd expect to see failure modes deriving from slack spokes.
Suppose we hit a bump, get air, come down on the wheel, and the bottom of the wheel gets deflected. At maximum deflection, our "altitude" will be a matter of millimeter lower than normal. The wheel will start to recover and will push our axle up to acclerate us (and the bike) back toward normal altitude). When the wheel is accelerating us upward, it is exerting more upward force than it does on level ground. Therefore, the net force upward of all spokes (force up minus the force down of all spokes) MUST be greater than normal. This could be, though, just the reduction of downward force of the slack spokes or an actual increase in upward force from spoke tension increase.
Back to the point about there not being a bump. Instead, I'd argue that a portion of the rim is somewhat flattened and that this increases the effective circumference and radius of the wheel.
Let's assume a 27 inch wheel, with an ERD of 630 mm.
The circumference is then 1979 mm.
Assume we hit a bump and a 3 inch chunk of rim is temporarily flattened (this is an assumption, based as much upon the drawings in Jobst Brandt's book as the SWAG method".
3 inches is 76.2mm of the circumference.
The angle this 3 inch circumferential chunk includes is 76.2/1979 * 360, or 13.86 degrees
The chord function of the circle of this is crd(theta) = 2 * sin (theta/2) = 0.24
The initial chord length is radius * crd(theta), or 0.24*630/2 = 76.014mm
But we are assuming that this is the 3 inch section that was flattened, so the chord is now the whole 3 inchs or 76.2mm.
Difference is .185mm.
Making some assumptions we assume that the wheel rim now has a circumference of the original, plus 0.185mm.
Because radius is linear with circumference, the radius increases by 315* .185/1900 , or about 0.03mm.
The pitch of spoke thread is 56 per inch, or about 0.45mm/turn.
This would make the increase in effective diameter be equivalent to about 1/15 of a turn of the spoke for each spoke not in that flattened 3 inch section.
We can back check this. The geometry assumed above would give a radius from the deflected rim to the center of the hub of about 312.7, or about 2.3 mm smaller than normal. Is this even remotely related to the normal amount of spoke stretch? If its close but less than normal spoke stretch, then perhaps we can have some confidence in our geometric assumptions. Would this amount of contraction loosen a properly tensioned spoke?
Assume a 1.8mm spoke (unbutted, for simplicity). This has an area of 2.544 square mm. At 100kg force tension, this means that there's 39.3 kgf/mm^2 of stress. Stainless steel (indeed, all steels, which is remarkable) has a Young's modulus of 29GPa, or 2960 kgf/mm^2. So divide the stress of 39.3 by the modulus of 2960 and we get a strain of 0.0133. Again, Let's assume that our spoke is about 290mm. So our total normal amount of stretch in the spoke would be about 4mm. Given that we've assumed values consistent with a well-built wheel, and that our spoke tension reduction is close, but not in excess of the normal spoke tension gives, perhaps, some confidence that our geometric assumptions are not entirely unreasonable.
We could also infer that the ratio of (0.03mm + 4mm) /4mm can be used to calcualate the increase in spoke tension elsewhere, to get about a 0.75% increase. That is, spoke tension increased from 100 to 100.75kgf.
This lines up with experience. That is, most wheels with spoke tension of 100kgf don't blow up, but some wheels - after hitting a rare bump - do fail, I'm gonna call it a day and go have a Gin and tonic.
But the point is, point rim deflection DOES affect all other spokes even if only in the 1% range. Also, if we hit bumps that flatten 3 inch sections a lot, and if our spoke tension were lower - say 70kg - then we'd expect to see failure modes deriving from slack spokes.
Last edited by WizardOfBoz; 06-07-19 at 08:43 PM.
#11
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,092 Times
in
2,325 Posts
Ok, the replacement spokes for the 40 yo corroded spokes from my Schwinn Superior arrive today. And I have a new Park Tool tension meter. And I've read how important spoke tension is. And I noted that Gerd Schraner, an expert, cited his skepticism about tension meters until he tried one and found out how inconsistent his tensions had been. So I want to use the right tension, and I can measure that tension, and I even may create my own calibrator*. And all the experts say "use the rim manufacturer's recommended tension.
I can find no recommendations for tension for my wheel or similar (non-boxed) rims. What kind of cruel joke is this?
Velocity Wheels kindly recommends between 110 kgf and 130 kgf. But this is for all of their rims, and they have a lot of different kinds. And they state "the mark of an excellent wheel builder is the ability to find the highest tension a rim will allow while maintaining its radial and lateral true." I don't agree. I mean, they have some experience, but this statement is at odds with people like Damon Rinard, Jobst Brandt, Musson, and Schraner. In fact, Rinard's stiffness test would seem to indicate that you get the same lateral stiffness at a range of tensions. And engineering reasoning would have you use a tension that is in that range, perhaps near the high end, but with some allowance for increased stress due to bumps, moshing the pedals, etc. Further, if you get close to the max, you stand a higher chance of potato-chipping the rim. It seems to me (PhD in engineering FWIW), that there's no need to get the rims to the point just adjacent to buckling.
Mavic has nice datasheets for their rims. For their Ksyrium SLRs They recommend 110 to 130 kg for front, and 90 to 110 kg for rear drive side. Which is weird, because it means that the non drive side is gonna be much lower. For the Aksium, they give Front: 80 to 90 kg and Rear drive side: 150 to 165 kg.
But Weinmann doesn't give values. Nor does Alex. It would be great to find an archive of historic values (as I'm using the old 27 inch rims). I can't find that table in the Sheldonopedia.
Anyway, I'm planning on using 95kgf for front and 105kgf for rear DS. Hopefully, this puts the rear NDS at about 95.
* The most accurate calibrate would use a spoke, a frame with adjustment ability, and a scale. You'd put the exact spoke type you're using into the frame, tension it to a measured tension, and then you'd note (for non-adjustable) or adjust the meter reading. Unior apparently no longer stocks their spoke tensionometer, but they had two great ideas. First, include a small bar that can be used to calibrate the meter without a frame, etc. Second, their spring adjustment was continuous and so you could "dial in" their meter. We'll see out the Park meter does. Right now, not impressed, as the edges of the meter are sharp and the parts scrape (audibly) in use.
I can find no recommendations for tension for my wheel or similar (non-boxed) rims. What kind of cruel joke is this?
Velocity Wheels kindly recommends between 110 kgf and 130 kgf. But this is for all of their rims, and they have a lot of different kinds. And they state "the mark of an excellent wheel builder is the ability to find the highest tension a rim will allow while maintaining its radial and lateral true." I don't agree. I mean, they have some experience, but this statement is at odds with people like Damon Rinard, Jobst Brandt, Musson, and Schraner. In fact, Rinard's stiffness test would seem to indicate that you get the same lateral stiffness at a range of tensions. And engineering reasoning would have you use a tension that is in that range, perhaps near the high end, but with some allowance for increased stress due to bumps, moshing the pedals, etc. Further, if you get close to the max, you stand a higher chance of potato-chipping the rim. It seems to me (PhD in engineering FWIW), that there's no need to get the rims to the point just adjacent to buckling.
Mavic has nice datasheets for their rims. For their Ksyrium SLRs They recommend 110 to 130 kg for front, and 90 to 110 kg for rear drive side. Which is weird, because it means that the non drive side is gonna be much lower. For the Aksium, they give Front: 80 to 90 kg and Rear drive side: 150 to 165 kg.
But Weinmann doesn't give values. Nor does Alex. It would be great to find an archive of historic values (as I'm using the old 27 inch rims). I can't find that table in the Sheldonopedia.
Anyway, I'm planning on using 95kgf for front and 105kgf for rear DS. Hopefully, this puts the rear NDS at about 95.
* The most accurate calibrate would use a spoke, a frame with adjustment ability, and a scale. You'd put the exact spoke type you're using into the frame, tension it to a measured tension, and then you'd note (for non-adjustable) or adjust the meter reading. Unior apparently no longer stocks their spoke tensionometer, but they had two great ideas. First, include a small bar that can be used to calibrate the meter without a frame, etc. Second, their spring adjustment was continuous and so you could "dial in" their meter. We'll see out the Park meter does. Right now, not impressed, as the edges of the meter are sharp and the parts scrape (audibly) in use.
That said, look at the range of force that is recommended. 110 kgf is about 1100N. 130kgf is almost 1300N. That’s a very wide range. And everyone will tell you that the tension used is absolutely critical! Critical measurements shouldn’t have a 200N window. That’s more of an “about” than a specification.
And I don’t agree with 70Mooney about the “science” of wheelbuilding. It is akin to rocket science in that it is a highly difficult system to model and understand. There is far more art to wheelbuilding than there is science but there really should be more science. The wide range of recommended tensions (and lack of data on those tensions) says to me that the “recommendations” come more from a lawyer than an engineer.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
Hypothetically one could possibly do this on the road in ordinary usage with some kind of logging electronic accelerometer recording the angular position of each notable impact in the wheel's history, and study that once a failure occurs.
#13
Generally bewildered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,036
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
250 Posts
That said, look at the range of force that is recommended. 110 kgf is about 1100N. 130kgf is almost 1300N. That’s a very wide range. And everyone will tell you that the tension used is absolutely critical! Critical measurements shouldn’t have a 200N window. That’s more of an “about” than a specification.
Using the 8 turn range for which no effect on stiffness is observed in the graph below, and assuming 56 tpi nipple threads, I get nearly a 3.6mm variation in acceptable spoke stretch! Let's cut that in half to allow for some engineering safety margin. So 1.8mm. Using the numbers in my previous post, this 1.8mm window is a 50 kgf (ok, 490N) range of spoke tension.
And I don’t agree with 70Mooney about the “science” of wheelbuilding. It is akin to rocket science in that it is a highly difficult system to model and understand. There is far more art to wheelbuilding than there is science but there really should be more science. The wide range of recommended tensions (and lack of data on those tensions) says to me that the “recommendations” come more from a lawyer than an engineer.
I agree that there's science in wheel building, and that we should do more to understand the wheel quantitatively. Hence my longwinded explanation, above. But the above is a "back of the envelope" approximation. The Finite Element Analysis that Jobst Brandt did was back in the day and was limited by software and hardware of the time*. Today's FEA software is much more user-friendly and you can run a program on a laptop now that once required a Cray. It would be good to get a better, more granular analysis of what happens to a rim and spokes when the tire hits a bump.
In fairness, though, what's going on in a wheel in use is surprisingly complex. You don't just come up with simple equations to get accurate answers. Bike stability is another area like this. Conceptually simple (I don't want the bike to fall down, and a 7 year old can do this while riding the bike). Analytically VERY hard (see Bicycling Science. The 1st edition has bit more math expressly stated and may be better if you are interested).
I've gotten several information sources telling me to tighten the spokes till the wheel starts to taco, then back off. I guess this works if the nipple holes don't fail at this tension. I think I'm going to start with about 85 and 90kgf and tighten to about 100kgf (DS) and 90 kgf (front and, hopefully, NDS). But if the wheel is mushy, I'll report back.
BTW, if we engineers could get a more accurate predictive model of wheel and spoke failure (ala UniChrises method), the safety margins that lawyers mandate could be shrunk.
*On edit, I note that others had suggested that software had evolved since Jobst's FEM analysis, and that Jobst had noted and rejected this criticism asking "What was deficient in the original analysis? What has changed? How would the more modern software improve the analysis?".
Last edited by WizardOfBoz; 06-11-19 at 07:53 AM.
#14
Generally bewildered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,036
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
250 Posts
Nope, you have to earn that drink! Design an experiment where a wheel repeatedly hits a bump in the *same* place, with an indicator mark, and run it until spoke breakage or pull-out. Then see if the failure happened at the bump (slack stress), opposite it (tension increase), or if even after many trials with fresh components remains uncorrelated in position - in which case you may mix a double.
Hypothetically one could possibly do this on the road in ordinary usage with some kind of logging electronic accelerometer recording the angular position of each notable impact in the wheel's history, and study that once a failure occurs.
Hypothetically one could possibly do this on the road in ordinary usage with some kind of logging electronic accelerometer recording the angular position of each notable impact in the wheel's history, and study that once a failure occurs.
*This number is easily found in a fatigue chart for the material of interest
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
That would be interesting - run it at various tension levels and see when you get a flex fatigue at the spoke elbow or whatever, vs if there are places where you get a tension failure.
The analysis would have to re-load the spokes though - if I recall, conventional wisdom is that your flex fatigue cases break when whey roll off the road and get their preload tension back.
The analysis would have to re-load the spokes though - if I recall, conventional wisdom is that your flex fatigue cases break when whey roll off the road and get their preload tension back.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
I just built my first wheel (28 2.0-1.5 spokes, 11 speed hub) following Roger Musson's ebook. I took my time and tuned the spokes by tone, like he suggests. When I went to the coop to check the tension, I was spot on consistent all the the way around, but way low in tension. If I had a similar wheel at home I would've just got it to a similar feel/pitch and called it good.
#17
Generally bewildered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,036
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
250 Posts
I just built my first wheel (28 2.0-1.5 spokes, 11 speed hub) following Roger Musson's ebook. I took my time and tuned the spokes by tone, like he suggests. When I went to the coop to check the tension, I was spot on consistent all the the way around, but way low in tension. If I had a similar wheel at home I would've just got it to a similar feel/pitch and called it good.
So did you go home and tighten everything? Did you buy a tension meter tool?
I have access to an older edition of Musson's book, but its good enough and so inexpensive that I'm going to buy the most recent edition.
Last edited by WizardOfBoz; 06-08-19 at 01:22 PM.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,847
Bikes: Schwinn Varsity
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1931 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times
in
421 Posts
I just built my first wheel (28 2.0-1.5 spokes, 11 speed hub) following Roger Musson's ebook. I took my time and tuned the spokes by tone, like he suggests. When I went to the coop to check the tension, I was spot on consistent all the the way around, but way low in tension. If I had a similar wheel at home I would've just got it to a similar feel/pitch and called it good.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
nazcalines, I'm building my first wheel, too, even though I've been involved in bike wrenching for more than 40 years. I wanted to avoid the situation you found yourself in.
So did you go home and tighten everything? Did you buy a tension meter tool?
I have access to an older edition of Musson's book, but its good enough and so inexpensive that I'm going to buy the most recent edition.
So did you go home and tighten everything? Did you buy a tension meter tool?
I have access to an older edition of Musson's book, but its good enough and so inexpensive that I'm going to buy the most recent edition.
The coop's meter was pretty clearly well used, so for all I know it might have been out of calibration. I trusted it anyway, and my wheel seems solid. I guess time will tell.
#20
Senior Member
It sure would be helpful if you would tell us what rim is on the Superior. Also helpful to know if the spokes are corroded but the rim is in good shape.
See if you can find some Velocity wheels built by Velocity. Any other mfr who provides recommended tensions for their rims and also sells built wheels would be as good. Check the drive side tension in the 11 and 12 speed rears. I am not going to tell you what I have found doing just that. If you do this simple test you will worry a whole lot less. Sometimes engineering is mostly coming from legal department.
It takes a big hit to deflect a rim and loosen a spoke. It is not happening constantly. At Paris-Roubaix it will be happening often enough but not continually. There are close-up slo-mo videos posted here and there (which I have not bookmarked unfortunately) showing high speed impact and spokes flapping loose. Deflection is much more localized and much smaller in amplitude than you are imagining.
See if you can find some Velocity wheels built by Velocity. Any other mfr who provides recommended tensions for their rims and also sells built wheels would be as good. Check the drive side tension in the 11 and 12 speed rears. I am not going to tell you what I have found doing just that. If you do this simple test you will worry a whole lot less. Sometimes engineering is mostly coming from legal department.
It takes a big hit to deflect a rim and loosen a spoke. It is not happening constantly. At Paris-Roubaix it will be happening often enough but not continually. There are close-up slo-mo videos posted here and there (which I have not bookmarked unfortunately) showing high speed impact and spokes flapping loose. Deflection is much more localized and much smaller in amplitude than you are imagining.
#21
Generally bewildered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,036
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
250 Posts
It sure would be helpful if you would tell us what rim is on the Superior. Also helpful to know if the spokes are corroded but the rim is in good shape.
See if you can find some Velocity wheels built by Velocity. Any other mfr who provides recommended tensions for their rims and also sells built wheels would be as good. Check the drive side tension in the 11 and 12 speed rears. I am not going to tell you what I have found doing just that. If you do this simple test you will worry a whole lot less. Sometimes engineering is mostly coming from legal department.
It takes a big hit to deflect a rim and loosen a spoke. It is not happening constantly. At Paris-Roubaix it will be happening often enough but not continually. There are close-up slo-mo videos posted here and there (which I have not bookmarked unfortunately) showing high speed impact and spokes flapping loose. Deflection is much more localized and much smaller in amplitude than you are imagining.
See if you can find some Velocity wheels built by Velocity. Any other mfr who provides recommended tensions for their rims and also sells built wheels would be as good. Check the drive side tension in the 11 and 12 speed rears. I am not going to tell you what I have found doing just that. If you do this simple test you will worry a whole lot less. Sometimes engineering is mostly coming from legal department.
It takes a big hit to deflect a rim and loosen a spoke. It is not happening constantly. At Paris-Roubaix it will be happening often enough but not continually. There are close-up slo-mo videos posted here and there (which I have not bookmarked unfortunately) showing high speed impact and spokes flapping loose. Deflection is much more localized and much smaller in amplitude than you are imagining.
For calibration, I'll probably just cob together a jig with a cheap 300kg electronic scale, and get a much more exact calibration with the exact spoke used. Sure, I can check my wheel against some bike shop bikes but I'd rather check the thing against measurable and calibrated standards. This leaves less guessing. Also, I suspect that Victory makes very few wheels in 27 inch and 4 cross. But to your point the 27 inch wheels on my World Voyaguer have similar rims (27 inch alloy, Araya though) and spokes and the spoke tension is low. But no spokes have broken in 45 years.y
The spokes were plated steel and they are pretty corroded. But they were 2.0/1.65/2.0. I've purchased the same for front and NDS, but upgraded the rear drive side o 2.0/1.8/2.0.
As a PhD in engineering, I can assure you that sometimes engineering comes from wanting stuff to work, and wanting to know why and how it might fail, and knowing how to avoid that failure. Yes, sometimes the lawyers get involved but there's probably value in understanding the problem conceptually and quantitatively and not just checking other wheels.
Jobst Brandt was an engineer. In his book, he suggests that dynamic load is spread out over about 4 spokes, which is close to but a bit wider (~8 inches) than my 3 inch assumption. So his support area is about 3 times my assumed value. But his deflection is significantly less than mine, about 0.15 mm. I'll check my units, but if Damon Rinard's graph (above) is correct and there's an 8 turn range where the wheel is stiff, then the spoke is stretching about 3.6 mm (or the rim is compressing). So how does the spoke get loose if its stretched 4mm and a bump only allows it to relax by 0.15mm? Something's fishy. I'll check my units, and also see if I can figure out the rim compression.
Spoke failure at the Paris Roubaix IS rare. Spoke failure in general is rare. I don't recall ever breaking a spoke, and I weigh 240#, and
*TT is engineering terminology. Stands for Tension - Taco.
Last edited by WizardOfBoz; 06-09-19 at 09:46 PM.
#22
Senior Member
All catalog says for OEM rims is Weinmann. In photos they look to be A-125. No concave section on top face of rim? Sidewalls are vertical, do not flare out? Probably A-125. If they are the original rims on this 41 year old bike. These are old parts. No, there is no spec for tension. I would go ahead and build to 120kgpf, with more uncertainty than usual about what happens next. One large reason to go ahead and pull tight is the load that is going on these wheels.
Jobst Brandt said all kinds of things and buried much of his content under a rhetorical style that is more than a bit offputting. He was also grounded in an earlier era. For starters no one pulled wheels as tight as we do now. Many rims would fail in the wheelstand if pulled as tight as we do now. And there were basically no customers walking into the shop who weighed 240#. If they did they were likely to be sent away without a bike. Big guys were refused because the wheels, as built then, would not hold them. Refusing to sell to large people did not put a dent in business because there were not that many people so big. Those who were that big had no aspiration to any sort of active lifestyle.
Another thing you are going to find is that the joint on the rim is nothing like as precise as with current production. I recently had a pair of dated 1977 NOS Weinmann A-124 concaves in the wheelstand. Those are big step up from the rims I believe you have. First thing noticed was the very crude grinding that had been done at factory to make the spot where the two ends of rim were joined even a little bit flat. No way were those rims going to be as true as modern rims and no way were they going to be close to uniform tension. Any who cared about precision back then were on tubulars. Any who were on clinchers were assumed to be not so fussy.
Spokes are not rubber bands. Rims are not taffy. Four millimeters of spoke elongation does not occur. The lower figure for compression is at least in ballpark.
Araya rims are way higher quality than old Weinmann clincher. Any rim or spoke alive after 45 years is in a wheel not much used.
Slightly later Superiors used Super Champion #58 rims. Those will take current spoke tension easily. Modern rims that look a lot like the old Super Champs can be had.
If this is going to work at all use widest tires available that fit and lowest tire pressure practical.
Jobst Brandt said all kinds of things and buried much of his content under a rhetorical style that is more than a bit offputting. He was also grounded in an earlier era. For starters no one pulled wheels as tight as we do now. Many rims would fail in the wheelstand if pulled as tight as we do now. And there were basically no customers walking into the shop who weighed 240#. If they did they were likely to be sent away without a bike. Big guys were refused because the wheels, as built then, would not hold them. Refusing to sell to large people did not put a dent in business because there were not that many people so big. Those who were that big had no aspiration to any sort of active lifestyle.
Another thing you are going to find is that the joint on the rim is nothing like as precise as with current production. I recently had a pair of dated 1977 NOS Weinmann A-124 concaves in the wheelstand. Those are big step up from the rims I believe you have. First thing noticed was the very crude grinding that had been done at factory to make the spot where the two ends of rim were joined even a little bit flat. No way were those rims going to be as true as modern rims and no way were they going to be close to uniform tension. Any who cared about precision back then were on tubulars. Any who were on clinchers were assumed to be not so fussy.
Spokes are not rubber bands. Rims are not taffy. Four millimeters of spoke elongation does not occur. The lower figure for compression is at least in ballpark.
Araya rims are way higher quality than old Weinmann clincher. Any rim or spoke alive after 45 years is in a wheel not much used.
Slightly later Superiors used Super Champion #58 rims. Those will take current spoke tension easily. Modern rims that look a lot like the old Super Champs can be had.
If this is going to work at all use widest tires available that fit and lowest tire pressure practical.
#23
Señor Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,065
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 648 Post(s)
Liked 291 Times
in
215 Posts
Discussion above about spoke tension relating to wheel stiffness is missing the point. Spokes generally suffer fatigue failures, which are caused by many excursions from high to low tension and back. The higher the tension in the wheel, the further away from zero tension, and by extension, failure, the spokes will experience as the wheel goes around.
A heavier rider generally needs wheels with more highly tensioned spokes as the excursion between high and low tension will be greater than under a lighter rider.
A heavier rider generally needs wheels with more highly tensioned spokes as the excursion between high and low tension will be greater than under a lighter rider.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 3,059
Bikes: Homebuilt steel
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2180 Post(s)
Liked 419 Times
in
332 Posts
This will be fine. Park has a chart (and an ap on their website) to guide you on what number to target on the tool. Don't overthink. I will say though that those rims are OLD so apply some judgement and don't overtighten.
#25
It's MY mountain
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mt.Diablo
Posts: 9,991
Bikes: Klein, Merckx, Trek
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4311 Post(s)
Liked 2,954 Times
in
1,601 Posts
While we're at it, pounds-mass is also a totally made up unit that substitutes for a perfectly adequate measure of mass, but almost everybody uses it instead of the slug.