mapleleafs-13 

ok can someone give me some background info on rims with these hole sizes, what was each number more commonly used in, was 32 and 36 in different time periods or was it just an option or so. i believe i saw a bunch of 28 h in track wheels?

anyways any info would be great

Chombi

36h @ 3 or 4 cross pattern was pretty much standard spoke count for most OEM wheels from the 70's to the first half of the 80's. Then from the mid 80s to the early 90's 32h at 3 cross started being more common on higher model sport and race bikes. I still remember how nervous I was when I built up my first 32h, 3 cross wheels, I thought I was going too radical with the lesser spoke count and might end up with wheels that blew apart on the road, which of course, never happened. 28h then started to be more common in the 90's when stronger designed rims and hubs became more available before the wheel suppliers started going all out with what was track only spoke count and patterns which at present makes 18 and less spokes and radial front wheel lacing not unusual anymore on bikes you can buy off the rack today.
For C&V, wheels I think as long you ar not a "Clydsdale" and is at or under 160 pounds, you can safely use 28h, three cross wheels with strong designed deeper sectioned rims like the aero shaped rims of the late 80's. I have a 28h aero section rimmed (Wolber Profil 20 with DT aerolite oval spokes and beefy Stronglight Delta hubs) wheels that feels much stiffer and stronger than my conventional section 32h, Mavic GL330 rimmed, 3 cross wheels. As long as you have the right combination of rims, spoke and spoke patter and not a heavyweight, I dont think you need to be too nervous about 28h rimmed wheels.
JMOs,

Chombi

khatfull

Speaking of track, don't NJS rims/wheels have to be 36H?

wahoonc

Variety of reasons and periods. My Raleigh full size bikes all sport 40 hole rear and 32 hole front. The later ones are 36/36. I also have 48 hole tandem rear wheels.

As a general rule the less holes the lighter the wheel, back in the 1970's the materials and engineering had not developed to the point where you could anything under 28 holes. It has now. When I was racing circa 1974 I ran 32 spoke rear and 28 hole front, but I was a lightweight at the time, but even then could still collapse a wheel if not careful.

Aaron

Velognome 

I think your being too conservative. I'm a clyde, just south of 240lbs and have been riding a 28h 3 cross for several years without a problem, even in the NE where a smooth road means they filled the pot holes. I won't jump curbs with them but I don't think twice otherwise. As for keeping them true, they get no more attention than my 32H, 36H or even 40H rims. Maybe I'm a fool and have been lucky so far but I think wheels are generally overbuilt.

MetinUz

I weigh 140lbs, build my own 32h wheels, typically don't need to true them ever -- until the rim needs to be replaced because of break wear. I look at this as carrying spare spokes, as I can still continue the ride if a spoke breaks. With fewer spokes, a broken spoke may result in the rim rubbing the brakes.

Ex Pres 

Were the 28h rims back in the 70's box style, or did they have any aero profile? I have several 28h wheelsets from the early-mid 80's, but the rims at least have a little [aero] depth to add strength. And I ride them at my [barely] sub-Clyde weight. I've had one spoke break - but the wheel is over 25 yrs old now.

JohnDThompson 

The first "aero" profile rim I remember seeing was the Nisi "Laser" in the early 80s.

clubman 

You have to include 40 holes in the discussion. Traditional brit bikes would use 32/40 front/rear lacing allowing them to use just one spoke length on the assembly line and put extra strength over the rear wheel. This practice seems to have disappeared in the 70's...I think Kurt identified '73 as the time when Raleigh went with 36 hole rims front and rear.

Chombi

Yes, conservative, but what I noted was pretty much conventional wisdom for those time periods. lots of people did push the then known "envelope" and tried out lighter rims, less spokes, fewer crosses than what usually came as OEM from the bicycle companies, but I still remember a few (mostly older) people from LBS's in my area back (Milwaukee) then that I was nuts risking riding a 32h, 3 cross clincher wheelset on the street back in the 80's, even though I see so many of my sport cyclist friiends already doing the same without any problems. Maybe they saw us "adventurous" young 32h wheel riders as some sort of wreckless hipster precursors??.
Heck, I kinda shake my own head when looking at the radial spoke front wheels that my college age cyclist nephew has on his Giant and Ridley race bikes, so the same still goes on as technology progresses.

Chombi

triplebutted

I think NJS standards are 36h. Rims need NJS stamped on it.

Velognome 

I wasn't questioning your historical explanation but rather your 2nd paragraph, " I think as long as your not a Clydsdale that is under 160 pounds" and " not a heavyweight".

Just saying I think 28h set ups are stronger than that, apparently they support my mass over bumpy roads and high speed turns,...that's all. From my saddle, a 160lb'er is a whispy little thing

mapleleafs-13 

kool, thanks for the fast replies, and to Chombi and Khatfull, it's good to see that i wasn't the only one lurking on these forums at 3am

bikingshearer 

FWIW, when I first got into serious cycling c.1973 as a high school kid with delusions of racing, 36-spoke wheels were pretty much all I ever saw in person. It was to the point that I didn't even think about it - a road wheel had 36 spokes.

Between college, law school (), getting married, having a kid, starting what passes for a career, and the like, I was largely out of the loop from the early 1980s until about 1992. By then, 32 spoke wheels were pretty much the norm, and lower spoke counts evolved over time after that. Aero wheels of various persuasions (discs, four- or five-blades, etc.) had also arrived, but they were pretty exotic.

I am talking about wheels for every-day road use, not track wheels or wheels for TdF TT bikes. And this is solely what I was seeing on the road and on road bikes in shops - I am not claiming that absolutely nobody out there used other configurations. But I was paying enough attention to think my observations are reasonably valid in terms of what most roadies were riding at those times.

Italuminium

My modern zonda wheel has 16 spokes. My mavic gel 330/record hubs twenty more. They wheigh about the same, I like 'm both.

repechage

I would actually give the "aero" nod to the Pista Fiamme rims, not a teardrop, but the rim was a pretty severe trapezoid as presented on a built wheel.

The Saavadra may have been fighting for first "teardrop" aero production rim in the 80's.

As for spoke count, 32/32 is really versatile. I rode 28's in a mass start track race, and I had to wait for the bike to settle under the rims when I pulled off pace and swung up to the top of the banking. An odd feeling... but they were Nisi 200 gram Oro rims and Clement No. 1's, at 9.5 atm. Won the race.

noglider 

You're forgetting that there's huge variety in riding style. I've seen lots and lots of very trashed wheels. You could argue that overengineering wheels for those riders wouldn't help, and you might be right. But not everyone can ride as skillfully as you, so wheels do get trashed.

Also, I'll bet you're fastidious about maintaining your tire pressure. That helps, too.

I understand that one reason Raleigh used 32 in front and 40 in the rear is that it allowed them to use the same length spokes for both wheels. Remember, the flange sizes were different. I don't know if this is true. I do know that the rear wheel needs to be stronger. On a road bike, it is intrinsically weaker because of dishing. And it works harder, generally speaking. Those reasons add up to why rear wheels get trashed often and fronts don't.

Rims and spokes have definitely improved. I used to recommend 36 to everyone. Now 32 are adequate or more than adequate.

well biked

Remember, too, that if you're using the same number of spokes front and rear, you either have too many spokes on the front wheel or not enough on the rear wheel.

divineAndbright

A good look at your riding style is a rather important factor in wheel selection as well as rider strength, back in the ole days and today if you're using traditional wheels, I wouldnt just focus on your own weight. I'm a "fly weight" rider and built myself some really light 28 spoked wheels, basically the lightest kinlin clincher rims which were available, built 2 cross with 1.8. Super awesome for time trialing, but almost unusable for anything else, don't get me wrong I can sprint on them, and they will hold up, but I find they are too flexy to be effective in sprinting. Im sure if I did a 3x pattern with them and 2.0 spokes maybe they would be just fine. I have no doubt a set of open pros in 28 drilling would be ok 3 crossed with 1.8 spokes.

wahoonc

Pretty much box style. Aero rims didn't come into use until very late 70's early 80's and I had already stopped racing by then.

Aaron

Casey Jones

At 220-230lbs I like to stick with 32 hole on "vintage" wheels, especially for commuting. I have twice had to carry my bike for miles because I took off from a light in high gear and taco'd the back wheel. 1 set was a 36 hole steel wheel and the other a 32 hole aluminum(araya I think). Since then I have also been paying more attention to my spoke tension.

fietsbob

Smaller wheels, like Brompton, 28 spokes were the design.. same rim,
but the spoke gage differs.
12 gage for the back, 14 for the front, due to weight bias ..
always heavier in the back.

BoB trailers another 16" wheel also 28 spoke ..

mountain bike 26" wheels are stronger because they are slightly smaller ,
32 spokes became the Norm , Rohloff hubs are only made in 32 hole.

have a 700c light sport wheelset, Mavic E2 rims , 36 hole , 15 gage,
have been good for decades.

noglider 

Smaller wheels need fewer spokes.

Casey Jones (!), I doubt the gear you used had anything to do with it. A higher gear transfers less torque, not more. I wonder what did that. I've never heard of that happening just from pedaling.

Six jours

Racing in the eighties (at 170 pounds) I trained on 400 gram rims with 36 holes. I raced on that combo as well, when the roads were especially bad, but for most road races and crits I used 330 gram rims with 32 spokes. That was pretty typical, although lighter guys often raced on lighter rims, like the GEL 280s, and often with 28 spokes. I personally felt fine on 400 gram rims with 28 spokes, or 280 gram rims with 36 spokes, but found light rims with low spoke counts flexed enough to make me nervous.

On the track I used the 400/36 hole combo indoors on tight tracks because lateral stiffness was so important. For outdoor tracks I could get away with 330s and 32 spokes for most events, but again, lower spoke counts started to feel weird. The 400/36 hole was apparently universal on indoor tracks even for very light riders, but on the outdoor tracks I saw a lot of very light equipment being used, like the Roval stuff, etc.

Casey Jones

Both times I hopped on the right pedal hard and got half a revolution before it locked up. If I were in low gear it would have required a higher rpm to exert the same amount of force on the rear wheel, right? I'm no physisisisisist but I think that if I were in low gear, "hopping" on the pedal would have not turned the rear wheel as quickly and probably would not be as likely to twist the freewheel so quickly, bending the spokes. I agree, more tourque in low gear, that's why you put it in 4 wheel low when you go through the mud. Sorry I live in the south.