On Friday, September 6, 2013 6:33:48 PM UTC+3, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/6/2013 9:17 AM, jim beam wrote:
>
> > On 09/06/2013 02:19 AM, wrote:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic
>
> >>>>> bullet on
>
> >>>>> wheel building books. jobst's book will allow you to
>
> >>>>> calculate spoke length from first principles [although,
>
> >>>>> not
>
> >>>>> allow for the elongation that happens as they tension],
>
> >>>>> lace, true and tension, but it'll also have you
>
> >>>>> over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives
>
> >>>>> you a
>
> >>>>> very iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no
>
> >>>>> initial clue on how to position a hub so the label aligns
>
> >>>>> with the valve hole, as per conventional practice.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position
>
> >>>>> problem, and have you stress relieve better, but you'll be
>
> >>>>> reliant on others for spoke length. his lacing method is
>
> >>>>> also unnecessarily complicated.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub
>
> >>>>> positioning, but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst
>
> >>>>> bullied into him. and his stress relief method blows
>
> >>>>> chunks.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding
>
> >>>>> guide is
>
> >>>>> pretty good. absolutely the best stress relief method. but
>
> >>>>> it tells you nothing about spoke length calculation,
>
> >>>>> presumably because if you're rebuilding a mavic wheel,
>
> >>>>> you're already using spokes of predetermined length.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and
>
> >>>>> if you're thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics
>
> >>>>> and don't already have a strong understanding of
>
> >>>>> mechanical
>
> >>>>> principles and materials, it'll badly **** you up
>
> >>>>> because a
>
> >>>>> lot of what he says is just plain wrong.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this
>
> >>>>> before. there are definitely benefits to learning in that
>
> >>>>> most people don't have access to a good builder.
>
> >>>>> statistically, that includes you. once you can build
>
> >>>>> yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most
>
> >>>>> shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains
>
> >>>>> true
>
> >>>>> and stable almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in
>
> >>>>> "other people built" wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with
>
> >>>>> unconventional rear spoking pattern*, have remained
>
> >>>>> completely true despite some fearful abuse. same for my
>
> >>>>> townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked
>
> >>>>> streets.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> * convention is that you go
>
> >>>>> trailing-leading-leading-trailing when looking at the four
>
> >>>>> hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes with
>
> >>>>> increasing tension from drive torque to distort the
>
> >>>>> wheel's
>
> >>>>> dish less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following
>
> >>>>> this principle, you need to lace
>
> >>>>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction
>
> >>>>> opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to
>
> >>>>> lace, but it's specified in the shimano hub manual.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Good overview.
>
> >>>> That rear spoking pattern for disc/drum rears is also
>
> >>>> the preferered
>
> >>>> 'old guy' way for fronts, which need no particular bias.
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> thanks for the comprehensive wrapup,
>
> >> took the time to setup thunderbird w eternal september
>
> >> again so I can
>
> >> crosspost at will ;-)
>
> >>
>
> >> My CXP-33 is laced over-4 whatever that means and the
>
> >> ceramic open pro
>
> >> is over-3
>
> >
>
> > "three cross" is conventional with an open pro. "4x" on a
>
> > cxp33 is not something i'd do because it's not got as much
>
> > socket angle available as the open pro - which is precisely
>
> > what "4x" requires. i'd therefore expect spokes to be more
>
> > likely to break at the threads.
>
> >
>
> > presumably the builder was looking to make the cxp33 a
>
> > slightly "softer" ride - the cxp33 is very deep and thus
>
> > rigid so it can ride "harsh" compared to others. ["4x"
>
> > spokes are longer and thus theoretically slightly more
>
> > elastic.] i'd have gone with a lower spoke count and "2x"
>
> > personally.
>

Maybe I have cross 2 in front and cross 3 in the back.
Tell me how to count and I'll tell for sure :^)

I wanted higher rigidity for the rear to I asked for higher cross
count for the rear wheel. To tell the truth it's probably an overkill
for the amount of power I deliver to the wheel anyway, but ferrari
owners don't use even half of the capacity also. So what the heck.