# My Pacenti experience



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Just thought some of the wheel-builders here might be interested in my recent experience with Pacenti.
In mid-September, 2018 I purchased a wheel-build kit from Brandon at Bikehubstore which included their SL hubs, Sapim CX-Ray spokes and the Pacenti Forza rims.
I built these up according to the tensions listed on the Pacenti website, and with even tension according to my Park tension meter (yep, I know all tension meters can have some variances).

Wind forward 9 months and 4,000km, and I find my Forza rear rim has multiple cracks around the spoke holes so I reach out to Brandon who advises me that based on past experiences with Kirk he will send me a replacement rear rim. Soon after I got another email from Brandon saying that the new owners of Pacenti had advised that they would manage the warranty replacement from their end.

After some questions about my spoke tensions and requests for pics and additional information it was agreed that they would send me a replacement rim (which is great), but here is the reason for my post. Luke from Pacenti provided the following reason for the rim breakage, which I believe may impact many wheelbulders who use the Forza rim (or are considering it).



> Stephen
> 
> Brandon confirms the kit was sold with CX-Ray spokes. We and our best wheel builders disagree with Brandon on this subject. We find that the CX-Ray spoke is not compatible with this rim and hub combination. We build all our wheels with D-Light spokes. Both our independent whee building contractors agree that the d-light spike builds the best rear wheel. I would like to replace you rim and have asked Brandon to supply d-light spokes for your rebuild.
> 
> ...


So be aware that if you intend to use Sapim CX-Ray spokes, your wheels may not be covered by Pacenti's warranty.

Just FYI. Brandon has been awesome to deal with and has done everything he could to assist me.
I would 100% recommend buying from Brandon and will do so in the future should the opportunity arise.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Great customer service...

But it's complete BS that the type/brand of spoke used would cause this. Same w/ a wheel having a 'much better ride' because it's built w/ one brand/type of spoke instead of another. Tension is tension. The spoke never touches the rim, the nipple does. I'd love to see the data behind this claim.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

I would think elasticity of the spoke would impact spoke hole cracks so it doesn't sound like BS to me.

But I could swear I've read CX Rays are one of the more elastic spoke out there.

Either way, that's absurd.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Elasticity? There's over 100kg of tension on a finished wheel, you don't want any elasticity. You want the spokes and thus the tension to be as stable as possible. That's what keeps a wheel round and straight. Complete BS.


----------



## MudSnow (Sep 18, 2015)

First of all, the tension is exactly the same for CX-Ray or the biggest spoke that will fit through the hole.
And if the elasticity of the spoke makes any difference, a more elastic spoke will absorb shock.

And here is the word from the man, Kirk Pacenti, himself.



> Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:21 PM, xxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Hi Kirk,
> I am curious, what is the reason for D-Light spokes on the rear? Stiffness? Cost?
> ...


And for the record, thousands of Forza wheels have been built with CX-Ray spokes. This is the only reported failure that I know of.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

MudSnow said:


> First of all, the tension is exactly the same for CX-Ray or the biggest spoke that will fit through the hole.
> *And if the elasticity of the spoke makes any difference, a more elastic spoke will absorb shock.*
> 
> And here is the word from the man, Kirk Pacenti, himself.


yeah, that was my point. Or more specifically be a bit more forgiving on pulling on the spoke hole and nip interface.

A spoke that results in a stiffer wheel (less elastic) would do the opposite I think. 

So from what I can gather D-lights are suggested for wheel stiffness (per Kirk) and the dude in the OP BS'd him by saying not using them is the cause of rim cracks. When in reality CX-Rays, if anything, would be BETTER at preventing rim cracks.


----------



## Enoch562 (May 13, 2010)

That's just crazy. Sounds more like a big blame shift. Who is running that outfit now?


----------



## cdhbrad (Feb 18, 2003)

No idea, but I'm glad I never bought any Pacenti Rims. Bike Hub Store is my "go to" for all Wheel components and Brandon has never steered me wrong in all the years I've known him. 
If I were him.....I'd drop Pacenti products immediately.


----------



## MudSnow (Sep 18, 2015)

*cdhbrad*, I will emphasize again, the Forza rims have been awesome for quality. I have never had a failure and this is the only problem with nipple cracks Brandon has seen, and Pacenti has sold thousands. The Forza quality, durability, and weight is on par with HED. Which is the best alloy rim there is.


----------



## cdhbrad (Feb 18, 2003)

Curious then as to why BHS site shows this for the Forza Rim: https://www.bikehubstore.com/product-p/forza.htm . If so great, why discontinued and offering prior purchasers a 15% discount on a substitute rim?


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

cdhbrad said:


> Curious then as to why BHS site shows this for the Forza Rim: https://www.bikehubstore.com/product-p/forza.htm . If so great, why discontinued and offering prior purchasers a 15% discount on a substitute rim?


I will hazard a guess it is due to my experience and Pacenti's blame game outlined above. 
Brandon is not impressed with what has occurred and has stated this very clearly in a number of emails that he has sent to me.


----------



## MudSnow (Sep 18, 2015)

The main reason I have heard is that sales have been too slow lately, and not just for BHS. Which is a shame because it is one of the best alloy rims out there. I consider it in second place behind HED, with HED mainly winning on style. I prefer the asymmetrical design because spoke tension really is better.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

MudSnow said:


> . I have *never had a failure and this is the only problem with nipple cracks Brandon has seen, and Pacenti has sold thousands*. The Forza quality, durability, and weight is on par with HED. Which is the best alloy rim there is.


You might be right. But after hearing the same thing about the SL23 over and over, until the reports became to frequent to ignore, and now to see the problem was 'fixed' by making a design that apparently can not be used with the most common and popular spoke on the market I'd think it pretty easy to understand why Chbrad is just glad he never bought any of their rims.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Jay Strongbow said:


> You might be right. But after hearing the same thing about the SL23 over and over, until the reports became to frequent to ignore, and now to see the problem was 'fixed' by making a design that apparently can not be used with the most common and popular spoke on the market I'd think it pretty easy to understand why Chbrad is just glad he never bought any of their rims.


TBH I have had the "we have never seen any failures of this type before" from many bike manufacturers. The best example of this was my experience from Niner bikes. I had 2 breakages of their Jet9 before they suddenly and without warning made a global recall of the model.


----------



## prowheelbuilder.com (Oct 21, 2014)

So I figured I would though my two cents into the mix to try and bring as much objectivity to this discussion as possible. First off, I do not agree with the notion that the CX Ray spoke choice had anything to do with the rim failure. The rim failed most likely do to either metal fatigue or simply porosity within the extrusion. The later does happen from time to time and is not caught as it requires qc to x ray of the product.

Now onto the spokes:

Regarding the pulling force transmitted to the rim through the nipple. There is a miss understanding that the vertical force applied to the rim will transmit directly through the spokes and therefore back into the rim with no loss of energy however this is not the case (unless the lacing pattern in radial in nature). By introducing a crossed lacing pattern the force is dissipated due to the cantilevered angles and therefore removing some of the energy passed through the wheel.
Next, tensile strength. The CX Ray spokes have one of the highest tensile strengths available in this gauge. That means the notion of elasticity being one of the reasons the CX Ray would have caused this rim to fail is silly.
When not to use CX Ray spokes. despite having one of the highest tensile strengths out there, they do not resist lateral forces well due to there narrow cross section. Therefore, if the rim you are using lacks structure i.e. width or depth and/or running a low spoke count and finally you are a heavier rider then these spokes are probably not for you. The other reson to not purchase them is for durability. The way one of the smallest / lightest spokes is able to achieve such a high tensile strength is due to the hardness of the alloy and the work hardening the alloy goes through to achieve its shape. So hard and lots of movement equals failure. So if you want a super durable build steer clear of these types of spokes.
Lastly, what type of spoke can lead to a rim failure? The shorter the spoke the steeper the angle of attack is between the rim and the hub i.e. supper deep carbon rims. Given that the nipples do not articulate enough to compensate for this extreme angle (do to the need for the nipple to be accessed for the back end) this causes allot of stress at the rim. That being said, any super stiff spoke such as Sapim Strongs of DT Alpines which are both made from the same higher grade stainless alloy as the upper end spokes such as CX Ray's but are larger in diameter over there entire length. This is a where a softer alloyed Sapim Leader or smaller diametered Race, Laser, CX Ray or yes even D Lite's would work better.

To conclude, I believe the Pacenti Forza rim is one of the better ones given its dimensions and should still be considered for your builds however not with CX Rays. I know it flies in the face of all that I have said but when a manufacture states something like this and you have an issue not related to the spokes then you have no legal standing in case of injury. Please note, If in the future Pacenti rims are removed from our site it is not due to there quality but simply do to a lack of ability on our part to exclude builds with CX Rays.


----------



## changingleaf (Aug 20, 2009)

Agreed.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Post deleted. I'm just changing its place.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

delete


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

!! I'm coming out of Forum retirement for this one. I got tipped off that a load of bullshit was being spread at RBR and that the new Pacenti people had thrown good ol' Brandon at BikeHubStore under the bus. The Pacenti people claim that it was Brandon's fault for specing CX-Rays for a Forza rim build that led to the cracked nipple holes. And they did this without any reasoning, let alone any proof.

I'm no engineer but if they can have an unproven opinion then so can I. I would think that the "elasticity" of thinner gauge spokes like CX-Ray and Laser would lead to LESS spoke hole cracking, not MORE. It's been long opinionated that straight gauge spokes would tend to absorb less shock and therefore transfer it to the rim and hub flanges.

I see that Brandon made the wise move of cessation of dealings with Pacenti -
https://www.bikehubstore.com/product-p/forza.htm

What the hell else is he going to do? You don't throw a good customer like Brandon under the bus when he's sold thousands of their product. And if he thought for one second that a certain spoke was contributing to rim cracks, I'm damn sure he would stop specing that spoke and offer compensation in a heartbeat to anyone affected.

That frikkin does it. I've been running v2 of the P-word rim for the last 3-4 years even though the rear rim's plug has rattled since Day 1. I'm just too lazy to fix it. But I'm gonna support the most honest retailer I've ever dealt with and get a set of rims & spokes that he recommends for my beautiful DuraAce hubs. Harrummpphh. That'll lern 'em eh? Ok, back to retirement................


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

cxwrench said:


> Great customer service...
> But it's complete BS ... I'd love to see the data behind this claim.


I agree with cxwrench. It ain't the spokes.


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

Mike T. said:


> ...
> I'm no engineer but if they can have an unproven opinion then so can I. I would think that the "elasticity" of thinner gauge spokes like CX-Ray and Laser would lead to LESS spoke hole cracking, not MORE. It's been long opinionated that straight gauge spokes would tend to absorb less shock and therefore transfer it to the rim and hub flanges.
> ...


I AM an engineer, and I'd like to add my $.02 to this highly hypothetical discussion. Yes, a thinner spoke can cause fatigue at the holes. Fatigue is caused not by tension (that would be more ductile failure), but rather by the number of stress CYCLES of certain tension limits. If the thinner spoke is more elastic, the tension cycle would have greater limits, and will cause fatigue failure quicker than a spoke in which the stress cycle has limits which are less severe. Also, if the spoke goes completely slack during the cycle (as a leading spoke during a heavy climb might), then you will also be adding cyclical impact from the nipple seats into the equation, which will hasten fatigue failure measurably.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

No Time Toulouse said:


> I AM an engineer, and I'd like to add my $.02 to this highly hypothetical discussion. Yes, a thinner spoke can cause fatigue at the holes. Fatigue is caused not by tension (that would be more ductile failure), but rather by the number of stress CYCLES of certain tension limits. If the thinner spoke is more elastic, the tension cycle would have greater limits, and will cause fatigue failure quicker than a spoke in which the stress cycle has limits which are less severe. Also, if the spoke goes completely slack during the cycle (as a leading spoke during a heavy climb might), then you will also be adding cyclical impact from the nipple seats into the equation, which will hasten fatigue failure measurably.


I won't insult you by arguing engineering principles with you even if I truly think we're talking minuscule differences here between the effects of one type spoke and another slightly heavier swaged spoke. But what kind of a marketer says stuff like they did in public? Even if they were 100% right.


----------



## cdhbrad (Feb 18, 2003)

Mike: Talk to Brandon about the AForce Al33 Rims. He suggested I try them when I wanted to build new wheels about a year ago. WI T11s and Cxray Spokes. Couldn’t be happier with the results.


----------



## prowheelbuilder.com (Oct 21, 2014)

No Time Toulouse said:


> I AM an engineer, and I'd like to add my $.02 to this highly hypothetical discussion. Yes, a thinner spoke can cause fatigue at the holes. Fatigue is caused not by tension (that would be more ductile failure), but rather by the number of stress CYCLES of certain tension limits. If the thinner spoke is more elastic, the tension cycle would have greater limits, and will cause fatigue failure quicker than a spoke in which the stress cycle has limits which are less severe. Also, if the spoke goes completely slack during the cycle (as a leading spoke during a heavy climb might), then you will also be adding cyclical impact from the nipple seats into the equation, which will hasten fatigue failure measurably.


I would fully agree with your argument if there was greater elasticity in the CX Ray spoke over say a Leader or any other straight 14 gauge spoke. However that is not the case (see tensile strengths listed below). Even though the CX Ray lacks girth which will lead to more lateral movement which supports your conclusion of movement at the nipples work hardening the rim (just that the movement is not generated by elasticity). This still does not support Pacenti's claim that the CX Ray spokes shouldn't be used while the D lite's are the preferred spoke? The D Lite has a lower tensile strength i.e. greater elasticity and has a 0.05 greater amount of surface area (trivial) than the CX Ray which means it would not resist later forces any significantly better. That would also suggest that Pacenti does not want there rims built with Lasers either. Then there is also the argument that Hed Belgium's and Easton 90 rims that share similar dimensions also shouldn't be build with the fore mentioned spokes while empirical evidence points to the contrary. 
At this point I am officially calling BS to Pacenti's argument. That being said, unless they retract there claim no one should build with the CX Ray spokes on there rims. Anyone that does, rides at there own peril as Pacenty clearly is stating that they take no liability for any harm that befalls someone that is harmed due to there rims failure while using the CX Ray spokes. What a shame! 

Sapim Leader 1180nm tensile strength 2.0 gauge (*greatest elasticity*)
Sapim Race 1300nm tensile strength 2.0 x 1.8 x 2.0 gauge
Sapim D Lite 1370nm tensile strength 2.0 x 1.65 x 2.0 gauge
Sapim CX Sprint 1430nm tensile strength 2.0 x 2.25-1.25 x 2.0 gauge
Sapim Laser 1500nm tensile strength 2.0 x 1.5 x 2.0 gauge
Sapim CX Ray 1600nm tensile strength 2.0 x 0.9-2.2 x 2.0 gauge (*least elasticity*)


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

These new Pacenti owners are jokers with this and a bunch of other stuff they've done (which isn't for me to comment on). At one time, Kirk P told us that we were his biggest independent wheel build customer. For all I know there are a dozen others he told that to, as honesty wasn't exactly his strongest suit either, but it gives some idea of how much we were doing with Pacenti rims. And we sure had our share of problems with the rims, though not to the percentages that others had. 

When the new owners took over they reached out and said we'd love to have you back, tell us what it will take to get your business, blah blah blah. For once in my life I said exactly the right thing in that situation (normally I'm way too charitable) and told best of luck your brand is dead to me we have no interest. Boy am I happy with that choice. 

We've built thousands of aluminum wheel sets with CX Rays, as have many many others who no doubt build WAY more wheels than we do (Chris King, for one). I can count on one hand the number of rim failures we've had with non-Pacenti alloy rims and still have a finger or two left over. That's, um, not the case with Pacenti. There are too many good rims on the market to waste time with jokers. 

Hi Mike T!


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

prowheelbuilder.com said:


> At this point I am officially calling BS to Pacenti's argument. That being said, unless they retract there claim no one should build with the CX Ray spokes on there rims. Anyone that does, rides at there own peril as Pacenty clearly is stating that they take no liability for any harm that befalls someone that is harmed due to there rims failure while using the CX Ray spokes. What a shame!


I think it's best that everyone forgoes P-word rims rather than CX-Ray spokes. IMO P-word rims will soon go the way of the do-do bird and we'll all keep on merrily using CX-Rays on our rims of choice. And with zero problems.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

cdhbrad said:


> Mike: Talk to Brandon about the AForce Al33 Rims. He suggested I try them when I wanted to build new wheels about a year ago. WI T11s and Cxray Spokes. Couldn’t be happier with the results.


Thanks Brad. I was going to contact Brandon to see what he recommends. In the meantime, I'll check those rims out and read up on them.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

November Dave said:


> Hi Mike T!


Hi ya ND!! Yep I'm still around even though you and I haven't been in touch for a while. BTW I'm following the production of the new Hugo Boss boat. Wouldn't we both like to check that boat out in person?


----------



## RoadCube (Nov 22, 2006)

This thread is like a family reunion with Mike T.
Are u going to announce another retirement? Or are u officially retired after this thread?

RC


----------



## MudSnow (Sep 18, 2015)

prowheelbuilder.com said:


> lower tensile strength i.e. greater elasticity ...
> 
> Sapim Leader 1180nm tensile strength 2.0 gauge (*greatest elasticity*)
> Sapim Race 1300nm tensile strength 2.0 x 1.8 x 2.0 gauge
> ...


Richard, this is mistaken. Less tensile strength does not mean more elasticity. Tensile strength measures breaking point and elasticity measures how much something stretches and still be able to snap back to original. For example, a suspension spring is both very elastic and also has a very high tensile strength.

The narrow area of a CX-Ray does in fact make it stretch more than a thicker spoke. So a CX-Ray is more likely to rub the rim on the brake pads than a thicker spoke. Sapim themselves advertise the flexibility of CX-Ray and the relative stiffness of CX-Sprint. https://www.sapim.be/spokes/aero/cx-sprint

https://www.sapim.be/spokes/aero/cx-ray


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Well I got my wheels back from my wheelbuilder (I just did not have the interest in building them myself, too many other issues including unemployment on my mind at the moment).
He agrees with everyone else here that this failure had nothing to do at all with the spokes (and in fact kept the CX-Rays , which he said were still in perfect condition).
Maybe I will get a chance to ride them tomorrow and experience the ride improvement that these D-lite spokes will supposedly provide for myself.
The Pacenti stickers are also a PITA to remove.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

MudSnow said:


> The main reason I have heard is that sales have been too slow lately, and not just for BHS. Which is a shame because it is one of the best alloy rims out there. I consider it in second place behind HED, with HED mainly winning on style. I prefer the asymmetrical design because spoke tension really is better.


I strongly urge you to look into Boyd and Astral for alloy rims. Both have been serving me well of late. Hed and Easton are still top choices as well. Those 4 brands all have rims that have been around long enough to have a clear track record and build up extremely straight and true with even tension.

For those that prefer, Astral rims are the only ones mentioned above that are made here in the USA.


----------



## oleritter (Mar 10, 2017)

I'm a builder, too...I have built a fair number of Pacenti rims. Mostly Forza disc, some Brevets, and some of the other disc rims a few years back.

I'm no engineer, and don't have as many wheels under my belt as others, but this CX Ray thing does sound like total rubbish. Common sense? I can't recall if I've built any Forza's with CX Ray, but may very well have, and also likely others than the prescribed D Light.

Don't want to be a thread hi-jacker, but found my way here as a result of having my own warranty issues with Forza rim brake rims. What I am finding out after already replacing a rim once, and now offered a third, is that these rims are not being made to uniform width - resulting in untruable wheels which cause brake pulsing because of their variable width. 

The greatest difference seems to be in the first rim, and that difference is .43mm.









This you can see is occurring about 6 spoke holes distance apart. Thought some here would find this interesting.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Rode the new rear wheel for the first time last night.
I don't feel any difference in ride quality.
But at least there is no cracking around the spoke holes I guess?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

oleritter said:


> I'm a builder, too...I have built a fair number of Pacenti rims. Mostly Forza disc, some Brevets, and some of the other disc rims a few years back.
> 
> I'm no engineer, and don't have as many wheels under my belt as others, but this CX Ray thing does sound like total rubbish. Common sense? I can't recall if I've built any Forza's with CX Ray, but may very well have, and also likely others than the prescribed D Light.
> 
> ...


Interesting...and definitely not confidence inspiring.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

OK, I'm late to the party here, but really, it should be perfectly obvious to any reasonable person at this point that Pacenti cannot be trusted. After all the reports on the SL23, with so many other great quality rims out there, why would anybody jump in the water again? And what does Pacenti do? They try and blame CX-Ray spokes when there have never been reports of failures on any other rims due to using these?? I agree - total BS.

That being said, a ridiculously low spoke count paired with a heavy rider WILL challenge even the most robust rim on the market. Looking carefully at the pic of the OP's rear wheel, it looks like a 28 spoke, so it's a reasonable spoke count. We don't know the OP's weight though. 

Hi Mike!


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Lombard said:


> We don't know the OP's weight though.


85kg.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

FTR said:


> 85kg.


So definitely not a clyde and not at a weight that would be stressful on wheels.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> So definitely not a clyde and not at a weight that would be stressful on wheels.


My question is, how many lbs. or kilos. does a clyde make? 

85kilo\187lbs is not a small man. I'm 6'1" and about 185lbs and consider myself a "large" cyclist.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> My question is, how many lbs. or kilos. does a clyde make?
> 
> 85kilo\187lbs is not a small man. I'm 6'1" and about 185lbs and consider myself a "large" cyclist.


You are tall, but not what I would consider "large" except maybe within the range of elite racer cyclists who look like all arms and legs. Your weight is at the high end of normal for your height. At 5'10" and 170lbs, I fall into the same 24-25BMI range as you do.

I generally consider "clyde" to be 250lbs or more and someone who is 200 to 250lbs to be a "baby clyde".


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

'Clydesdale' has been defined by 200 lbs + forever. Probably over 25 years.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> You are tall, but not what I would consider "large" except maybe within the range of elite racer cyclists who look like all arms and legs. Your weight is at the high end of normal for your height.  At 5'10" and 170lbs, I fall into the same 24-25BMI range as you do.
> 
> I generally consider "clyde" to be 250lbs or more and someone who is 200 to 250lbs to be a "baby clyde".





cxwrench said:


> 'Clydesdale' has been defined by 200 lbs + forever. Probably over 25 years.


Can I just call 200lb and over or 250lb and over fat cyclists? Or will that be frowned upon?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> 'Clydesdale' has been defined by 200 lbs + forever. Probably over 25 years.


Well then with the increasing girth of the American population, that's a lot of cyclists!


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Lombard said:


> So definitely not a clyde and not at a weight that would be stressful on wheels.


Definitely not, and my mechanic always comments on how "gentle" I am on my gear.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

velodog said:


> My question is, how many lbs. or kilos. does a clyde make?
> 
> 85kilo\187lbs is not a small man. I'm 6'1" and about 185lbs and consider myself a "large" cyclist.


I am 6'2" tall, and about your weight.
Would post a pic, but the forum seems to have stopped hosting pics?


----------



## changingleaf (Aug 20, 2009)

For the sake of more spoke knowledge, are these tensile strength results assuming they are measured by testing the center area of the spoke only?

Do you know which alloy each of these spokes are made of or which ones share the same material?

Do you know the strain of each of these spokes?

Do you know the tensile strength of the Sapim Strong spoke, which you mention in an earlier post has the same alloy as the CX-Ray?

Thanks.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

FTR said:


> I am 6'2" tall, and about your weight.
> Would post a pic, but the forum seems to have stopped hosting pics?


Recently, I can still post pics, but they will only show as a file which you have to click on.


----------



## Bremerradkurier (May 25, 2012)

velodog said:


> Can I just call 200lb and over or 250lb and over fat cyclists? Or will that be frowned upon?


That range would include a lot of very fit track cyclists.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Bremerradkurier said:


> That range would include a lot of very fit track cyclists.


Point taken.


----------



## Enoch562 (May 13, 2010)

So what I don't understand is, If Pacenti wants to use certain spokes on their rims, Shouldn't they have posted that information somewhere on their web page ?


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

prowheelbuilder.com said:


> Sapim Leader 1180nm tensile strength 2.0 gauge (*greatest elasticity*)
> Sapim Race 1300nm tensile strength 2.0 x 1.8 x 2.0 gauge
> Sapim D Lite 1370nm tensile strength 2.0 x 1.65 x 2.0 gauge
> Sapim CX Sprint 1430nm tensile strength 2.0 x 2.25-1.25 x 2.0 gauge
> ...


Please forgive me for a zombie thread bump but I've been researching rims and came across this thread and couldn't help but comment.

The information above is exactly BACKWARDS. 

Steel as a material, regardless of strength, has the exact same elasticity per unit of volume. In other words, the thinner the cross section the more elastic the spoke. Strength comes into the equation as related to how much stretch the spoke can take before it fails. The reason Sapim uses a strong tensile strength material in the CX Ray spokes is because they are thin and stretchy and if they didn't use strong material they would be failing at a very high rate.


----------

