# 32h or 36h for the bigger rider? HED Belgiums Plus 32h vs Velocity Dyads 36h.



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

I created a thread asking something a little bit more broad/vague but i have a specific question and request opinions versus my ignorant thoughts.

Im currently 270ish and I will be riding road for the majority of my rides with the hope to get on a little gravel just to get from one trail to another. Both wheelsets will be for disc version bikes.

Im thinking about picking up one of these two wheelsets:
1. HED Belgium Plus 32h with Chris King hubs. 3x lacing with double-butted spokes.
2. Velocity Dyad 36h with White Industries hubs. 3x lacing with double-butted spokes.

Im really trying to understand if there is a "large" difference between 32h vs 36 hole? I understand that 36h is heavier and better suited for my weight right now but in 6+ months... my weight will change and the 32h should be fine? While Im more of a fan of the HED Belgiums mainly because Im familiar with the name and they just look "better" to me... the Velocity Dyads might fit the gravel profile better in the long term use if I choose to take a ride in that direction.

From my understanding... a 40h is said to not produce much differences than the 36h in regards to 4x lacing or anything else but Im asking to confirm that current train of thought.

TIA


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

I would look at it this way... why not get the 36h and have peace of mind? Any potential weight penalty will be wiped away as you lose weight.


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

Opus51569 said:


> I would look at it this way... why not get the 36h and have piece of mind? Any potential weight penalty will be wiped away as you lose weight.


I know this answer is not adequate but mainly because I like the HED Belgiums more in terms of aesthetics but the Belgiums do not come in 36h. They stop at 32h. =(


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

dirtiClydesdale said:


> I know this answer is not adequate but mainly because I like the HED Belgiums more in terms of aesthetics but the Belgiums do not come in 36h. They stop at 32h. =(


I'll offer a bit of a different view. 32h on a modern rim is a lot of spokes. The mere percent increase in spoke count from 32 to 36 is just under 10% (obviously) whereas going from 20 to 24 to 28 to 32 is a series of much bigger though diminishing steps. 

When we've done static stiffness testing we've found a near flatline beyond 28. Plus at 36 the distance between spoke holes in the rim is tiny, the hub flanges are just perforated... Nothing's ever free. 

It's quite strange to be on this side of the conversation after years and years of railing against the 'how few spokes can I get away with?' trend.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

dirtiClydesdale said:


> I know this answer is not adequate but mainly because I like the HED Belgiums more in terms of aesthetics but the Belgiums do not come in 36h. They stop at 32h. =(


So... we're really looking for validation...  NTTAWWT. Get the Belgiums then, and keep an eye out for errant potholes. You should be fine.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

The real difference for you, IMO, are that you may be riding your bike home if you brake 1 of the 36 spokes but you may be calling for an Uber if 1 of the 32 spokes brakes. However, neither of these outcomes is warranted; just anticipated probable outcomes under different degrees of safety.

Would a 32h HED Belgium+ build to a good wheel for you? I think so. Would it be less worthy than a 36h Dyad? I dont think so.
I think at that level and particularly between these two rims, one being wider than the other, the difference in spoke count is somewhat bridged and the builder quality remains the important variable. Additionally, the HED seems to have higher consistency in quality than the Dyad and that often means more even spoke tensions which tends to help spoke longevity.

If you prefer to remain with a 36h rim the likes of HED Belgium+, then the H+Son Archetype may also be a decent choice for you at the same quality, almost the same finish and half the cost of the HED. Its got rim brake tracks but is non-machine-walled so the finish remains on them. 

Another choice you may consider is triple-butted spokes for a bit of extra insurance at the elbows.


----------



## tka (Jun 11, 2014)

Just my opinion, but I'd go with the 32h Belgium Plus.

Background: I have 2 wheelsets that are in almost constant use. 1 is my Campag Record 32h w/Belgium Plus, the other is a Campag Chorus 32h w/Dyad, DT Competition spokes w/brass nipples on both. The Belgium are on my primary road bike, the Dyad are on my fast commuter. 

I've had the Dyad a couple of years longer than the Belgium, but they have approx 1/2 the miles the Belgium have on them. The miles might be a bit tougher since it is commuting so I have about 15 lbs more on the bike + the bike itself is 5 lbs heavier (I'm 185, not quite a clydesdale) but the Dyad are showing signs of cracking around the spoke holes. 

Spoke tension is within the range Velocity recommends, but I'm seeing discoloration around the spoke holes as well as the start of some cracks. The guy that built the wheels (he built both sets) was and wasn't surprised with the Dyad. He said his early builds with them were bulletproof, but the latter builds seemed to have cracking problems. Given my weight he didn't expect any issues with them. FWIW he no longer builds Dyad but that is more likely due to supply issues than too many issues with the rims.


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

I've actually ridden 70 miles with a friend who broke one of his 32 spokes literally 3 miles into a big ride. This was pre-November. He ripped the broken spoke out and said "eh, there's 31 more." 

I haven't done it in a while, but have on several occasions tested (on purpose) that a well-built 24h rear only needs 11 non-drive spokes. It needs all dozen drive side spokes, but it'll do pretty well without one of the nds spokes. And a 20h front is going to be pretty hopeless if a spoke breaks. But we're a LONG way from any of that with a 32h build. 

I would choose a HED rim over a Velocity rim 11 times out of 5. And H+ are pretty nice, but "almost the same finish"? A stretch. Archetypes are also machined as other rim brake rims usually are, their nuance (similar to FLO30) being that they are anodized post-machining. That anodized finish can be thought of as temporary - it's not durable.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

dirtiClydesdale said:


> I created a thread asking something a little bit more broad/vague but i have a specific question and request opinions versus my ignorant thoughts.
> 
> Im currently 270ish and I will be riding road for the majority of my rides with the hope to get on a little gravel just to get from one trail to another. Both wheelsets will be for disc version bikes.
> 
> ...


There is a notable problem in both the rims recommended. Both Dyad and Belgium don't have brass eyelets in the spoke holes. The eyelets prevent the rims from cracking around the spoke holes. You'll replace the rim from the brake surfaces on the sidewalls getting concave and thinning out, to the point I've seem them pull apart from spoke tension. If the rim doesn't have eyelets, it'll likely start coming apart around the spoke holes sooner than the brake blocks get paper thin.

Campy has some great 32 and 36 spoke rims that are "wide" and have these brass eyelets. Ambrosio and Sun have some inexpensive 32 and 36 hole rims with eyelets, perfect for carrying loads and touring. They'll last 2 or 3 times the Dyad and Belgium.

Also: butted spokes are lighter, absorb shocks nicely, and are torsionally very strong and stiff. But they're really easy to "wind up," twist, when building or touch up truing, and then they break. Straight gauge spokes, like 14 mm in back and 15 mm in front, don't twist as easily and true with less hassle. Straight gauge are also the most commonly available at bike shops if you commute or tour.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> butted spokes.............are torsionally very strong and stiff. But they're really easy to "wind up," twist, when building or touch up truing, and then they break.


What?  I'll give you this on the mechanics of Torsion from Wiki -"torsion is the twisting of an object due to an applied torque". So if they're "very strong and stiff" how can they be "easy to wind up"?

And if anyone is winding up a spoke "when building or touch up truing" to the point that they break, they have no business building a wheel. I can't even break a Sapim Laser (2.0/1.5/2.0 - the ultimate in butting) from applied torsion.

I won't even comment on the eyelets preventing rim cracking. Don't make me go to the trouble of posting a photo.


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

I was nearly the same size and weight as the OP (I was 270lbs at that time) when my bike shop ordered me some 'bomb proof' wheels for a bike I had just purchased back in 2014. I didn't know what questions to ask, so trusted them to make the right decisions. I ended up putting 15k miles on a set of HED Belgiums on King hubs. They were 28/28 and I never even had to have them trued. 

Finally, last last summer, on an easy recovery ride after a big long ride with lots of climbing (105 miles/8400ft), one of the aluminum nipples failed on the drive side. I took them to a local wheel builder who rebuilt them with brass nipples. I full expect them to last a long long time.

If I had it to do again (and I do - new bike with 12mm thru axles) I'd order the same wheels again, but definitely brass nipples instead of alloy (because duh, now I know better!). I'm lighter now (215-220lbs) and I fully expect them to last long long time. If it were another rim brake bike I'd even consider 24h/28h, but with the 160mm rotor in front I think I'll stick with 28h/28h and see how it goes.

I know it seems crazy to some, and I know a lot of people lighter than me have had terrible experiences with wheels. Maybe I just got lucky... Maybe I'm just easy on wheels.. I dunno. For my own needs, 32h front wheels seems like overkill (24h is likely plenty), and arguably 28h is plenty in the back, given the right combination of components and build quality.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Mike T. said:


> What?  I'll give you this on the mechanics of Torsion from Wiki -"torsion is the twisting of an object due to an applied torque". So if they're "very strong and stiff" how can they be "easy to wind up"?
> 
> And if anyone is winding up a spoke "when building or touch up truing" to the point that they break, they have no business building a wheel. I can't even break a Sapim Laser (2.0/1.5/2.0 - the ultimate in butting) from applied torsion.
> 
> I won't even comment on the eyelets preventing rim cracking. Don't make me go to the trouble of posting a photo.


You've built more wheels than I have, that's for sure. So why not be a little less dismissive of the idea that perhaps a brass eyelet will strengthen a spoke hole so the spokes can't pull out and shred the aluminum rim around the hole? True or false?

My experience with butted spokes is what I said, they're harder to true because they twist very easily. I had to hold the spoke above the nipple with a needle nosed wrench to make sure it didn't turn when truing, so am surprised at your response. I also edited out a phrase on brass eyelets: yes, the aluminum rims will fracture around the hole even under the brass eyelets, as you imply but don't explain. But they still last much longer than the identical rim would without the eyelet. Rim alloys may be improved, but aluminum still cracks under repeated stress such as a wheel goes through.

"Torsion" is the wrong word perhaps. Meant to say "tension" if there's a difference in result, as in "tensioning spokes" to a given tension, determined by plucking or a tensionometer. An old idea passed around by wheel builders is that thinning the spoke down in the middle absorbs shocks better. Straight gauge transfers significantly more of the stress to the elbows on the hubs, which is where most spokes break. 

At the same tension as straight gauge, these skinny spokes also held up as well, because the stress was from the ends, along the length of the spoke. Very hard to break a wire by pulling it only. It doesn't bend. In fact a few builders would tell you the 1.5 mm would absorb just enough shocks to prevent the spoke from breaking at the bend on the hub. Straight gauge spokes would transfer all the shocks to the bend, and would break sooner than butted spokes. What was your experience on that issue?

If the spoke twists and doesn't twist back when the wheel is stress relieved by hand, it will break. So you're agreeing, a person who has any bidness truing wheels better be careful not to twist the spokes when tensioning. I'm saying that is very easy to do with butted spokes, not as easy to do with straight gauge spokes. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## beanpole (Dec 8, 2016)

Fredrico said:


> I had to hold the spoke above the nipple with a needle nosed wrench to make sure it didn't turn when truing,


Let the spoke twist!
Instead of squeezing (and thus nearly cutting) the spoke with a wrench you could apply a piece of duct tape on the spoke, so you can see when the twisting stops and the pulling begins. After that you can take out the twist.


----------



## beanpole (Dec 8, 2016)

Fredrico said:


> If the spoke twists and doesn't twist back when the wheel is stress relieved by hand, it will break.


No, it won't.
The "stress relieve" will happen during the ride, the spoke snaps back and you end up with a wheel that is out of true.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> There is a notable problem in both the rims recommended. Both Dyad and Belgium don't have brass eyelets in the spoke holes. The eyelets prevent the rims from cracking around the spoke holes. You'll replace the rim from the brake surfaces on the sidewalls getting concave and thinning out, to the point I've seem them pull apart from spoke tension. If the rim doesn't have eyelets, it'll likely start coming apart around the spoke holes sooner than the brake blocks get paper thin.
> 
> Campy has some great 32 and 36 spoke rims that are "wide" and have these brass eyelets. Ambrosio and Sun have some inexpensive 32 and 36 hole rims with eyelets, perfect for carrying loads and touring. They'll last 2 or 3 times the Dyad and Belgium.
> 
> Also: butted spokes are lighter, absorb shocks nicely, and are torsionally very strong and stiff. But they're really easy to "wind up," twist, when building or touch up truing, and then they break. Straight gauge spokes, like 14 mm in back and 15 mm in front, don't twist as easily and true with less hassle. Straight gauge are also the most commonly available at bike shops if you commute or tour.


I am sorry to say this but you are fundamentally incorrect in all of the points you brought up. The reasons on Why? are available in the higher quality wheelbuilding books. 
We could discuss it further after you become more familiar with these concepts.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

November Dave said:


> I've actually ridden 70 miles with a friend who broke one of his 32 spokes literally 3 miles into a big ride. This was pre-November. He ripped the broken spoke out and said "eh, there's 31 more."
> 
> I haven't done it in a while, but have on several occasions tested (on purpose) that a well-built 24h rear only needs 11 non-drive spokes. It needs all dozen drive side spokes, but it'll do pretty well without one of the nds spokes. And a 20h front is going to be pretty hopeless if a spoke breaks. But we're a LONG way from any of that with a 32h build.
> 
> I would choose a HED rim over a Velocity rim 11 times out of 5. And H+ are pretty nice, but "almost the same finish"? A stretch. Archetypes are also machined as other rim brake rims usually are, their nuance (similar to FLO30) being that they are anodized post-machining. That anodized finish can be thought of as temporary - it's not durable.


My last experience with a broken spoke was several years ago and left me stranded in the middle of nowhere. Wheel was a Mavic Ksyrium SL with the gigantic aluminum spokes and in perfect working order. I was riding the back-country roads when two farm dogs took after me. One caught up but missed my right heel and got its snout in the wheel. I must of been doing 25-28mph at the time. The impact was so much I thought the chainstay on my Specialized was toast. Was able to keep the bike right-side up and kept on going. A hundred yards or so later, I stopped to check the damage. The spoke (DS) was rotated more than 90 deg starting at about 1" above the nipple but was still in one piece. The chainstay seemed ok under the mucus and hair left on it. Both dogs disappeared after the lead dog got injured. I thought of bending the spoke back but looking at how all of the black anodizing had disappeared I was skeptical about damaging it further and decided to leave as it was. I rode the bike for about a mile, maybe a bit less, and then with a loud "snap" the spoke broke into three pieces and the wheel became totally unridable no matter what I tried of doing. Weight wise, I must of been in the 230lbs range at that time.

I would also choose a HED over a Velocity, 11 out of 11 times but for reasons more prevalent to the wheel builder than the wheel rider (although I may make an exception with the Quill to try it out).

Incidentally, the OP uses disk brakes so the anodizing on the Archetype brake tracks should not be affected.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Lots of replies here, some of it conflicting. Dirti C., the most helpful advice here is from the two known Clydes in this thread - DCGriz and Migen. So I'm sure both of them have first hand experience of the frustration of wheel failures. In fact, I was about to post and caution to you about the aluminum CK hub freebody until I saw Migen's post about his success with these. Somehow, common sense was telling me an aluminum freehub body and a 270lb. man were a bad combo. I was obviously wrong. After 15K miles, a wheel doesn't owe you anything.

Mike T., while not a Clyde, also knows what he's talking about - he's a very experienced wheelbuilder who has been building wheels for about 5 decades. It was he and DC Griz who encouraged and motivated me to take up wheel building. Lots and lots of excellent info on his website.

Sorry Fred, your advice conflicts with everything I have read. I am really surprised you as a longtime bike mechanic, you would be giving advice like this. As others have said, spoke windup is not the bogeyman you see it to be. Mike T. explains the "two steps forward, one step backward" method of dealing with this. And as Migen said, any spoke windup will be relieved after a few rides and will result in an out-of-true wheel. Irrelevant point as a good wheel builder will stress relieve his/her wheels before they even go on the bike.

Also not a relevant point is eyelets vs. no eyelets. There are both good and crappy rims with eyelets and without eyelets. Eyelets do not necessarily make a better rim. More likely, eyelets are sometimes a crutch on an already weak rim to compensate. In other words, saying rims with eyelets are always stronger is like saying when you are shopping for a mortgage, you should always look for the lowest interest rate and ignore things like fees, points, balloon payments, etc.

Bottom line is you probably won't go wrong with the HED Belgium Plus 32h with Chris King hubs. 3x lacing with double-butted spokes. I have yet to hear of a HED Belgium rim failing. I have heard of quite a few QC issues with Velocity rims. As Migen said, you might want to find out whether the nipples on those are brass or aluminum as that was his point of failure. You want brass as aluminum can corrode over time.


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Those 15k mile King hubs still have the original freehub body. There are some gouges, but insignificant at this point.

Body weight isn't a direct correlation to freehub body stress. Power to weight ratio is a better determinant. But being 250+ pounds, and having 55 year old knees, it's not like I was seeking out climbing challenges either.

I told the OP in PMS that I'm always very careful how I verbalize things in threads like this. 

28/28 HED/King wheels work really well for me. Everything I could ask for in an all around wheel. 

That may not be everyone's experience.

I have a riding buddy who is 30 pounds lighter than me (still a Clyde), who shreds wheels and tires like they are made out of paper. I think he has gone through three sets of wheels (varying sources and quality) in the time I've owned my HED/Kings. I very rarely get flats. He gets them quite frequently. I would be comfortable putting the ratio at 10 to 1.

We live in the same neighborhood, and ride the same roads and trails for the most part. It's all difficult to explain.

Some people are just harder on wheels than others, and he and I are on opposite ends of that spectrum.

I told the OP that my experiences are my own, and ultimately for him I'm only one data point. He needs to consider many and the be willing to accept the risk vs reward of his wheel options. 

$1200 is a lot of money.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Migen21 said:


> Those 15k mile King hubs still have the original freehub body. There are some gouges, but insignificant at this point.
> 
> Body weight isn't a direct correlation to freehub body stress. Power to weight ratio is a better determinant. But being 250+ pounds, and having 55 year old knees, it's not like I was seeking out climbing challenges either.
> 
> ...


Point well taken. $1,200?? The OP didn't quote a price on those wheels. IMHO, $1,200 is too much to pay for a set of wheels, period. But that's just me. I would be willing to spend $700 tops. I'm guessing the CK hubs are the most expensive part of those. A pair of Shimano Ultegra 6800 hubs are about one fourth the cost and just as strong and durable, if not more. The expense in the CK hubs is in the lightweight.


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

Lombard said:


> The expense in the CK hubs is in the lightweight.


This is a bit of an oversimplification. CK is one of the few hub manufacturers that DOESN'T play the "my hubs are lighter than yours" game. Their product descriptions are laced with references to "responsible product weights" and hubs that "weigh what they need to weigh in order to do what we want them to do." As someone who's aware of most everything on the hub market and has built with a huge subset of that, I find their approach to be noteworthy. 

There is an enormous array of hubs that are both lighter and less expensive than CK. Literally zero percent of the cost driver behind CK hubs is weight.

Cost drivers for CK, in no particular order, include but are not limited to medical-grade machining precision (CK actually started out making medical devices), domestic US production, expensive processes that do drive quality (material stock, forging, machining), superior bearings produced in-house, availability of color and lacing options, and a 5 year warranty (warrantees don't come for free). Some of the price is also due to the cachet and appeal of CK, so there is a bit of "what the market will bear" in there. 

The OP's application is one where Ultegra hubs are an applicable choice, as they are only available in 32 and 36 hole drilling, and Ultegra hubs are generally regarded as very good hubs. Depending on application, they may offer as much as a CK does in any particular application. I don't think you'll find a ton of support for the notion that they are in any respect superior to CK hubs, though. 

This is all coming from a person who has had more frank conversations about the price implications of CK hubs than certainly all but a few in the world. They are expensive. The overwhelmingly most common sentiments among people who get them - "I've always wanted a set of them," "they are the most beautiful things you can put on a bike," and "I can afford it and I just want to know I'm getting the best there is." And it is more or less those and only those people to whom I don't present a more objective argument that favors other less expensive choices.

I get critiqued and criticized on the internet all day every day, and I welcome it, and I think that consumers should critique any component of any purchase decision. But as we do that, can we please at least keep the facts straight?

On other thread-related topics, if you or your builder can't control spoke windup please find someone else to build your wheels. That is a primary element of basic wheel building competence. And the arguments against eyelets significantly outweighs those for. Anything that an eyelet does can be done better by a washer, and drilling larger spoke holes than necessary simply to accommodate an eyelet is terrible engineering.


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Point well taken. $1,200?? The OP didn't quote a price on those wheels. IMHO, $1,200 is too much to pay for a set of wheels, period. But that's just me. I would be willing to spend $700 tops. I'm guessing the CK hubs are the most expensive part of those. A pair of Shimano Ultegra 6800 hubs are about one fourth the cost and just as strong and durable, if not more. The expense in the CK hubs is in the lightweight.


Chris King Wheels

$1200 is MSRP for the disc version of the Alloy Ride wheel in 28/28 - built. You can likely get them cheaper online or if your LBS offers you a frequent buyer discount (I got my rim brake set for ~$800 a few years ago). 

$1200 is low compared to the price of the high end carbon wheelsets.

Worth noting that I've seen 'custom' builds featuring this hub/rim combo on Ebay for less money, but if you dig into the details, they are not using the same spokes, and are expensive to ship - the build quality is also unknown - which is a big deal for us non-wheelbuilder types.

This hasn't been discussed much in this thread, but I'm sure the wheel builders here will agree with this - probably more important than the number of spokes or the quality of the components is the quality of the build itself - and the willingness of the builder to stand behind their work. Especially as a clyde.

My next set of wheels, regardless of what it is, will come from a small local shop who employs a custom builder who is well regarded and stands behind his work. I like supporting folks like this.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Good observations & opinions as usual ND. I've had King hubs (still have 'em on my MTB) for about 20 years and it's never been about "extra longevity" above other hubs. It's always about 1) I want 'em, 2) I can afford 'em, 3) my Mrs is ok with the purchase. Nothing else. One thing about them that gets coffee-shop bragging points (or rolled eyes) is that King makes ball bearings in house. Who else does that eh?

I would never buy them again though as I know that less expensive hubs will do what I need from them - even BHS type hubs.

I'm not getting any deeper into the "wheelbuilding" aspects of this thread as the topics are non-arguable and at least you and Griz has it sorted.

But someone might enjoy this pic. It's an old early '90s Bontrager offset rear MTB rim of mine. The ferrule didn't stop this nipple hole from cracking. The radial crack (diagnosed by hacksaw) was along the base of a radial web that linked the two faces of the rim. The anecdote to go along with it is that it's the last rim of mine that ever suffered a cracked nipple hole. All my non-eyelet rims and eyeletted Open Pros have never cracked.


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Lots of replies here, some of it conflicting. Dirti C., the most helpful advice here is from the two known Clydes in this thread - DCGriz and Migen. So I'm sure both of them have first hand experience of the frustration of wheel failures. In fact, I was about to post and caution to you about the aluminum CK hub freebody until I saw Migen's post about his success with these. Somehow, common sense was telling me an aluminum freehub body and a 270lb. man were a bad combo. I was obviously wrong. After 15K miles, a wheel doesn't owe you anything
> 
> ....
> 
> Bottom line is you probably won't go wrong with the HED Belgium Plus 32h with Chris King hubs. 3x lacing with double-butted spokes. I have yet to hear of a HED Belgium rim failing. I have heard of quite a few QC issues with Velocity rims. As Migen said, you might want to find out whether the nipples on those are brass or aluminum as that was his point of failure. You want brass as aluminum can corrode over time.


I appreciate your input with DCGriz and Migen. Overall, I honestly thought of Chris King RC45 hubs because I saw an article with them on. But, your point in regards to aluminum and big guys is very accurate. While Im sure each mfg hub can have its issues... I would prefer to make the wheelset as bombproof as possible. With that said... going with White Industries with the titanium freehub might alleviate the aluminum vs big dude weight factor. 

I surely didnt pick CKs because of the expense but honestly... for myself, my health is worth whatever expense. TBH. Im just truly looking for the a set of wheels that can get me down 75+ lbs and then I can re-evaluate the situation. But even then... I kinda feel that I would like this to be my 5-year rims that last as long as the bike does.

From what Im grabbing from this post... Im thinking HED Belgium Plus rims with CK/White Industries Titanium freehub 32h on front/back with double butted spokes and brass nipples. I honestly have no clue what that will run me but I do intend to strike some sort of deal with the lbs I plan to purchase the bike from. Like asking for 10-15% off of parts and creation of the wheel instead of asking it off the bike? If anything, that will be my two most wanted items, the custom wheelset creation and the pro fit! (Im sure pro fit is not the appropriate term but the "advanced" fit.)


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Making value judgments about how much something worth in terms of money on a message board is fraught with peril.

It's a very individual thing. One persons $1200 is another persons $12000 dollars and another persons $12. 

I get a kick out of the '_is this used bike worth $500?_" or '_is this upgrade worth it'_? threads. The answer is always 'Maybe!'. It's your money - how much do you like having it vs that shiny new thing? I can't tell you how much your money means to you - but, if I have some experience to share, I can tell you about that and let you use that information to make a decision. What I can't do is say 'yes, that upgrade is easily 'worth it'.

Back on topic... any hub or rim that will get you down the road safely and reliably is 'good enough'. Everything else is just icing, right? How light is it? how much faster will it make you go up the hill (or down the hill), how long will it last? How difficult is it to service? How much curb appeal does it have? We all give all of these things weight when we buy things - some people drive Mercedes, when a 12 year old Kia works just as well for driving to work and to buy groceries. 

I really appreciate Dave's take on the King hubs. His description of them is exactly what my impression is of them after 3 years of having them. and I LOVE them (I just wish they could be easily converted to different axle standards). Does anyone 'need' a Chris King hub? Is it going to make their bike faster, or stronger, or last longer than a hub half that price? Not in any measurable way.

I was new (again) to cycling in 2014 when I started riding again after about 25 years of being a fat guy sitting on the couch watching TV. When I bought my 'nice' bike (BMC GF-01), it was explained to me that the supplied wheels were more of a lightweight racing wheel. I dont recall specifically, but it was something made by DT Swiss with 20/24 spoke, and probably not suitable for my application int he long term - and suggested I get something a little more robust. The gave me some store credit for them which I applied to something 'better'. Most of the wheels they had hanging on the wall were carbon Enve's and Reynolds, and most of the Dura Ace line of wheels, which were also not really applicable. I had never heard of Chris King or HED and didn't know anything about them (or any other wheel/hub sets for that matter), but the shop manager described the wheel to me, explained why the HED Belgium Plus on CK hubs was a good match, and said they had several customers riding them who were very happy. I took them at their word and had them order them. 

Did they oversell me? Absolutely - they could have sold me a much less expensive 36 hole double-walled touring/rando rim on a decent hub with heavy gauge spokes and I would have probably been fine, and maybe even had a similar experience with them. And if that were the case I'd probably be here in this thread telling everyone about how great they are. 

You guys are all experienced riders, and some of you are experienced wheel builders - you've had your own experiences to reference, and all kinds of customer stories to share. I don't have that - I just have me - As I said, I may be a statistical outlier. All I can do is share my own experience and let the folks reading make their own decisions about how to spend their money.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

dirtiClydesdale said:


> I appreciate your input with DCGriz and Migen. Overall, I honestly thought of *Chris King RC45 hubs *because I saw an article with them on. But, your point in regards to aluminum and big guys is very accurate. While Im sure each mfg hub can have its issues... *I would prefer to make the wheelset as bombproof as possible*. With that said... going with White Industries with the titanium freehub might alleviate the aluminum vs big dude weight factor.
> 
> I surely didnt pick CKs because of the expense but honestly... for myself, my health is worth whatever expense. TBH. Im just truly looking for the a set of wheels that can get me down 75+ lbs and then I can re-evaluate the situation. But even then... I kinda feel that I would like this to be my 5-year rims that last as long as the bike does.
> 
> From what Im grabbing from this post... Im thinking HED Belgium Plus rims with CK/White Industries Titanium freehub 32h on front/back with double butted spokes and brass nipples. I honestly have no clue what that will run me but I do intend to strike some sort of deal with the lbs I plan to purchase the bike from. Like asking for 10-15% off of parts and creation of the wheel instead of asking it off the bike? If anything, that will be my two most wanted items, the custom wheelset creation and the pro fit! (Im sure pro fit is not the appropriate term but the "advanced" fit.)


I bolded and underlined a segment of your post because I'll attempt to make this the focus of my post.

I have several CK R45 hubs and I do really like them for what they are. Every time I take them apart to oil them I remind myself how Impressed I am of how they are put together. If there is one thing I dont like about them is the constant attention their preset needs and at this note I would offer my opinion that the CK R45 (or the T11 for that matter) is not the right hub for what you are starting out to do.

The hub I would use if I was at your position (and I have been close to it, BTW) is the Ultegra 6800. Its a very durable, set-and-forget. Maybe you grease it once a year if you get caught riding in the rain. It's not very popular because of its availability only in 32 or 36h and its weight but rest assured the extra 80 or so grams will not affect you one bit.

Later on its quite possible your focus will be on other cycling related aspects and that time may be more appropriate for more "racy" oriented stuff like the CK Racing45.

Just my $0.02 having been there...


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Are Ultegra 6800 Hubs available in Disc now?


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Migen21 said:


> Are Ultegra 6800 Hubs available in Disc now?


Shoot! I forgot he has discs. No, they are not and I doubt they will ever be.

The OP mentioned R45 not R45D which is the centerlock or ring drive version of the R45. Anyway, my bad......the equivalent in the Shimano line would be the XT centerlock; only in 32h though.


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Ok, mea culpa - I just looked at November Wheels custom disc clinchers - 28/28 HED Belgium Plus clincher with bladed spokes, brass nipples on White T11's and custom built by November Dave himself for just a tad over $900 (Dave am I seeing this right)?

OP, go buy those wheels.


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

dcgriz said:


> I bolded and underlined a segment of your post because I'll attempt to make this the focus of my post.
> 
> I have several CK R45 hubs and I do really like them for what they are. Every time I take them apart to oil them I remind myself how Impressed I am of how they are put together. If there is one thing I dont like about them is the constant attention their preset needs and at this note I would offer my opinion that the CK R45 (or the T11 for that matter) is not the right hub for what you are starting out to do.
> 
> ...


dcgriz... yes my fault. I just shortened the CK R45 on my own ignorance because I had no clue on the difference in nomenclature. 

My future plans, if this information helps, will never to race but to only include centuries for causes. I liked to do the Amtrak (SoCal) century from Irvine to San Diego and they also had a wounded warrior project century but it was never as large as the amtrak one. Now, that I moved to North Dallas... the only one Im aware of is the hotter than hell but this heat is something I have never dealt with so I need to learn where I stand after I get some semblance of getting back to 100 miles. Im 46 years old and the most I hope to obtain is maybe a gravel ride someday other than the centuries. 

Of course, I would like to research options, in regards to hubs or even possibly a replacement rim for the velocity? HED Belgiums were what I had on my Cervelo R3 and that lasted me 5 years so thats pretty much the main reason why Im following it up with another HED rim. The Chris King R45D hubs come in orange, (I know... kinda stupid reason, but I thought why not match the hub to the bike for some aesthetic niceties?) but the option is going with the White Industries only for the stronger freehub. If titanium is actually stronger than a CK alu hub?

edit: I forgot to mention that the shop stated that they would give me credit for the existing wheelset on either the BMC RM 01 or the Trek Domane that I plan to purchase. Also, they were willing to give me 10% off the price as long as I order the wheels the same day as the bike. So, that should cut some expense on the wheels somewhat. The shop said that they have a "master wheelbuilder" but I have no clue what the "master" portion means other than typical sales lingo. So, overall, I think the price of the new wheelset will not totally kill the budget since I will have the percentage plus credit from the stock wheelset. /crossing-fingers


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

As I understand it, the benefit of a Titanium freehub body is that it's less susceptible to being 'notched' by the cassette rings, which can be problem for big powerful riders. Aluminum is more susceptible.

Here is a picture of a severely notched freehub body I found randomly on the Internet.










When they get notched like this, the cassette cog rings can rotate and cause issues, and not to mention it can make getting the cassette off pretty challenging. 

That said, I don't think aluminum freehub bodies are a deal breaker (I guess that is obvious for me). Quite a few manufacturers use freehub bodies made from aluminum. If you aren't andre griepel and keep your cassette torqued down tight, I don't think you are going to have too much trouble.

Also, this is a replaceable part.

The one in my 15k mile wheelset have some signs of notching, but nothing severe enough to warrant replacing it. I'm definitely not making Andre Griepel power, and my knees don't love climbing, so I mostly stick to flats and rollers unless I'm on a charity ride or something.


----------



## Enoch562 (May 13, 2010)

Put some spokes in your wheel. At 270 you really need all you can get. THe gains may be little, but they are still gains. We always had a saying when building motors, You can't argue with Cubic inches.

I would never recommend 28 tiny bladed spokes to someone of your size.


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Enoch562 said:


> Put some spokes in your wheel. At 270 you really need all you can get. THe gains may be little, but they are still gains. We always had a saying when building motors, You can't argue with Cubic inches.
> 
> I would never recommend 28 tiny bladed spokes to someone of your size.


Did you read November Dave's post (Post #4 in this thread), or any of my personal experiences with 28/28's at 270lbs? 

36h and even 32h spokes are really overkill for most general purpose road cycling applications (again, see Daves comments about diminishing returns).

Maybe if you are out riding in the wilderness and your life depends on your ability to ride home, it might be worth doing, but for daily rides out of your garage, on your local roads, it's really not necessary to go that high in most cases.


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

Sounds about right. But... Normally this isn't the kind of thing I'd ever do on a forum but this also isn't the kind of thing that happens normally. Anyhow, a guy bought a set of HED Belgium+ Disc with red WI CLD hubs in November (great month) then promptly blew his back out and probably will never be able to use them. He's in SD area. We'd agreed to list them as this week's featured build on our site, but this is literally a perfect fit here - right wheels, seems like a local-ish situation...

He will sell them for roughly 20% off his original cost. The wheels have never even had tires installed. 

PM me for details if you'd like, OP


----------



## Enoch562 (May 13, 2010)

Migen21 said:


> Did you read November Dave's post (Post #4 in this thread), or any of my personal experiences with 28/28's at 270lbs?
> 
> 36h and even 32h spokes are really overkill for most general purpose road cycling applications (again, see Daves comments about diminishing returns).
> 
> Maybe if you are out riding in the wilderness and your life depends on your ability to ride home, it might be worth doing, but for daily rides out of your garage, on your local roads, it's really not necessary to go that high in most cases.


What Dave would do and I would do are 2 different things. He doesn't build my wheels.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Mike T. said:


> Good observations & opinions as usual ND. I've had King hubs (still have 'em on my MTB) for about 20 years and it's never been about "extra longevity" above other hubs. It's always about 1) I want 'em, 2) I can afford 'em, 3) my Mrs is ok with the purchase. Nothing else. One thing about them that gets coffee-shop bragging points (or rolled eyes) is that King makes ball bearings in house. Who else does that eh?
> 
> I would never buy them again though as I know that less expensive hubs will do what I need from them - even BHS type hubs.
> 
> ...


Wait a minute!

Easy to see the original crack was along the rim to the side of the spoke hole, then as the rim weakened, the spoke pulled the rim and eyelet up and caused the radial crack. This is obvious from the length of the parallel crack, which is much further along than the radial crack off the hole. 

So in this pix the eyelet didn't make a difference. The rim alloy was so weak, it didn't separate at the hole, but alongside. The rim couldn't hold its shape against the tug of the spoke.

Agree, eyelets are probably used to strengthen the spoke holes on cheap alloy rims, but in 35 years, 8 of them meching in shops, I only ran into rims splitting radially beneath the eyelets a few times. I encountered cracked rims around non-eyeleted spoke holes much more frequently. As I never knew how strong the alloys used in a given replacement rim would be, and also treated rims as replaceable as hubs always outlast rims, I've always taken the eyelet route. 

I'm also quite skeptical that enlarging the holes to accommodate eyelets provides a LESS durable wheel. The strength is determined by how snug the nipple seats on the spoke hole/eyelet, not necessarily the diameter of the hole. Spokes in eyeleted rims are quite strong, as the nipple is wider than the spoke and has more area to seat on, making it as strong as the alloy, brass, and stainless steel materials provide. 

Properly tensioned, the eyeleted rims I've encountered have always held up longer than non-eyeleted ones. If we're talking about loads of 270#, this is a good reason to go with eyelets. Add a few more spokes, like go to 36, the problem of rim deformation goes down even more. 

The spokes hold the wheel true, not the rims. The fewer the spokes, the more the rim has to take up the stress. The weaker the link created by the spokes becomes, and if one breaks, forget truing with a spoke wrench and pedaling home. You're done. Call home.

Bontragers were crap, witness this one breaking outside the spoke hole first. So this is a bad example if one is trying to prove a point.


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

Enoch562 said:


> What Dave would do and I would do are 2 different things. He doesn't build my wheels.


To clarify, I wouldn't recommend 28/28 for the Op or someone his size. Chances are it would be fine so long as they're very well built. There is a point of diminishing returns in lateral stiffness at 28, but there are still other things that happen that 32 would help with. 

I checked the set I mentioned and they're 28/28, I'd thought they were28/32. 

Largely because a good built on a Belgium+ rim (and to further clarify, a Belgium+ is a better rim than a regular Belgium - the tooling for the B+ must just be about perfect) allows for something approaching perfectly even spoke tension, all the spokes are hard at work all the time. I believe that that difference to a Velocity rim, which in my experience can't be built to as uniform a spoke tension, makes the B+ 32 a straight up better wheel than a 36h Dyad. 

We also spec heavier gauge spokes on the loaded side of wheels. The benefit to stiffness is debatable but the benefit to stability of the build seems to have proven itself beyond doubt in our experience. 

A couple of people sent PMs about theeheels, I'll be able to return them Monday. Unplugging now and racing tomorrow. Because when it's 55* in February why not have a race?

Oh - R45 is so named because it has a 45 point ratchet mechanism. Not because it's a racing hub.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

November Dave said:


> ........._snipped_
> 
> Oh - R45 is so named because it has a 45 point ratchet mechanism. Not because it's a racing hub.


I tried to illustrate the point that the OP does not need a hub designed for racing applications.

If you dont believe me that the R45 is such hub, then you may believe the manufacturer; from the CK website:

_PRODUCT DETAILS
When we set out to design our R45 hub we had over 30 years of bearing experience and 20 years of building hubs under our belts. The R45 is the culmination of that experience; we focused on creating a lightweight road *racing* hub that utilized hallmarks of Chris King components: precision, performance, and quality. Our R45 rear hub combines a redesigned RingDrive™ system with 45 teeth for lower drag and near instant engagement with a lightweight hub body and our legendary made-in-house bearings._

The R45 release followed the now called Classic for the purpose of addressing what was stated above.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

beanpole said:


> No, it won't.
> The "stress relieve" will happen during the ride, the spoke snaps back and you end up with a wheel that is out of true.


Thanks for the correction. Yes, the preferable way is to overturn the spoke more than needed and turn back to take out the twist, rather than holding it with a metal tool. Don't crimp that sucker.

Also didn't mention the obvious: after stress relieving the spokes by pressing the rim sideways all around, you have to true it again, this time not a lot, so its easier to get it right turning the wrench and backing off with each adjustment. I always found this easy on straight gauge spokes, more difficult on butted spokes. They twist in the middle 1.5 section more than at the ends.

So yeah, the wheels should be stress relived before riding on them, that's for sure. Twisted spokes straightening under rider loads may not break initially, but they'll get scored at the bends and break down miles later on the road. I also go around the rim and squeeze the spokes with the hands, then check the true, before considering the wheel ready for mounting on the bike.


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

November Dave said:


> To clarify, I wouldn't recommend 28/28 for the Op or someone his size. Chances are it would be fine so long as they're very well built. There is a point of diminishing returns in lateral stiffness at 28, but there are still other things that happen that 32 would help with.


November Dave... FYI, I plan on keeping a 32h front/rear. Migen was only using his personal example of using a 28h.



November Dave said:


> Largely because a good built on a Belgium+ rim (and to further clarify, a Belgium+ is a better rim than a regular Belgium - the tooling for the B+ must just be about perfect) allows for something approaching perfectly even spoke tension, all the spokes are hard at work all the time. I believe that that difference to a Velocity rim, which in my experience can't be built to as uniform a spoke tension, makes the B+ 32 a straight up better wheel than a 36h Dyad.


 I also appreciate this info and makes me feel alot comfortable in going with the HED B+ 32h rim.

In regards to the hub... racing or not, I just liked the hub for its color possibilities to match the bike. I really dont care for a "super light" hub but again Im just looking for more durable and bombproof hubs. In this thread, I think the CKs have been proven to have great durability as long a Im not treating them hard! My rides will primarily be on the road losing weight... not jumping off curbs or tree stumps! =)


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> The fewer the spokes, the more the rim has to take up the stress. The weaker the link created by the spokes becomes, and if one breaks, forget truing with a spoke wrench and pedaling home. You're done. Call home.
> 
> Bontragers were crap, witness this one breaking outside the spoke hole first. So this is a bad example if one is trying to prove a point.


I broke a spoke on one of the infamous Bontrager paired spoke wheels mid-ride. It was a 24 spoke rear. To be fair, I was able to true the wheel well enough to ride 30 more miles without any brake or stay rub. Took the bike to my shop that evening and he found the spoke hole cracks. Junk at only 4K miles and I'm only 170lbs!


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

dirtiClydesdale said:


> In this thread, *I think the CKs have been proven to have great durability* as long a Im not treating them hard! My rides will primarily be on the road losing weight... not jumping off curbs or tree stumps! =)


They are durable. But so are pretty much all decent hubs so durability isn't a reason to pay the premium for CK over, say, White Industries.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Thanks for the correction. Yes, the preferable way is to overturn the spoke more than needed and turn back to take out the twist, rather than holding it with a metal tool. Don't crimp that sucker.
> 
> Also didn't mention the obvious: after stress relieving the spokes by pressing the rim sideways all around, you have to true it again, this time not a lot, so its easier to get it right turning the wrench and backing off with each adjustment. I always found this easy on straight gauge spokes, more difficult on butted spokes. They twist in the middle 1.5 section more than at the ends.
> 
> So yeah, the wheels should be stress relived before riding on them, that's for sure. Twisted spokes straightening under rider loads may not break initially, but they'll get scored at the bends and break down miles later on the road. I also go around the rim and squeeze the spokes with the hands, then check the true, before considering the wheel ready for mounting on the bike.


I have never had to do a "follow up" truing after the first ride. Anybody who says you have to do this is not stress relieving their wheels properly.

Granted I have never built wheels with 2.0/1.5/2.0 spokes. The builds I have done are with DT Competitions (2.0/1.8/2.0) and DT Aero Comps (2.0/2.3-1.2/2.0). Aero Comps are a bit more expensive, but a breeze to build with compared to round spokes as you can instantly see the spoke wind.

I follow Mike T.'s stress relieving bible here:

*Optimizing your spokes - 
*
*Method 1*. Perform this once only, just after you have got a fair amount of tension in the wheels. Where the "heads in" spokes exit the hubs – take the plastic tipped hammer and tap the spoke bend a little flatter. This does not take much effort. *You can also use your thumb to flatten this curve when lacing these "heads in" spokes. They will reach the rim easier and better.* You're actually bending the spoke where it exits the hub. *You need to do this so that the spoke contains no residual tension due to this curve. Verrrry important!
*
*Method 2*. Perform this after every "round" of truing or tensioning. Grasp parallel pairs of spokes on each side – one pair in each hand - while wearing leather gloves and squeeze them in the hands as hard as you can. Go all around the wheel once.

*Method 3*. Perform once. Take the screwdriver handle and slightly twist the final spoke crosses around each other. Be gentle here. Place the screwdriver handle in the final cross and above it, press down slightly and twist the two spokes around each other. This is not really a "twist" but just a slight, very slight bending. The spokes will do this themselves if you don't do it but then they might lose a minute bit of tension too.

*Method 4. *Do this after each "round" of added tension - press downinto the final spokecrossing, from the rim side of the cross, towards the hub. I use an old screwdriver handle for this (it's my nipple driver above).Use a screwdriver handle, an old LH crank or a wooden dowel (like a 6" piece of old broom handle).

*Method 5*. Do this once after you have a fair amount of tension on the spokes. Take a thin punch and a hammer. Tap the head of each spoke to seat the head squarely in the hub flange. I said "tap"................not "pound the **** out of". We're just seating the head in the flange and aligning the head.

*Method 6.* Place wheel flat on floor with the rim part nearest to you touching the floor. A piece of cardboard or carpet will prevent the QR from scratches. With hands at 9 & 3 o'clock, press down gently but firmly and quickly. Rotate wheel 1/8th turn & repeat for one full turn of the wheel. Turn wheel over and repeat. The pings you hear are spokes unwinding. But if you have identified and removed all twist, as outlined above in the section "Spoke Twist......" there shouldn't be any left. Check for true afterwards. *Repeat this after each stage or "round"*. You can't repeat this one too often.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Migen21 said:


> As I understand it, the benefit of a Titanium freehub body is that it's less susceptible to being 'notched' by the cassette rings, which can be problem for big powerful riders. Aluminum is more susceptible.
> 
> Here is a picture of a severely notched freehub body I found randomly on the Internet.
> 
> ...


Some people have problems with aluminum freehub gouging, others don't. My only guess other than rider weight and riding style is probably the fact that there are different alloys of aluminum - some softer, some harder. Just my guess.


----------



## beanpole (Dec 8, 2016)

Lombard said:


> I have never had to do a "follow up" truing after the first ride. Anybody who says you have to do this is not stress relieving their wheels properly.


Nobody said that.


----------



## beanpole (Dec 8, 2016)

Lombard said:


> Granted I have never built wheels with 2.0/1.5/2.0 spokes.


You should start, you will get better wheels.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Granted I have never built wheels with 2.0/1.5/2.0 spokes.





beanpole said:


> You should start, you will get better wheels.


Really?? And what is your basis for this wisdom? What could I hope to achieve besides saving a few grams of weight? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## beanpole (Dec 8, 2016)

Lombard said:


> Really?? And what is your basis for this wisdom? What could I hope to achieve besides saving a few grams of weight? Inquiring minds want to know.


First, do you get any kind of tension on the rear left side spokes when you have thick spokes on both sides? Thinner spokes on the left side helps you to get a tension there that is not close to zero.
Second, due to being more elastic in the middle part thinner spokes are less prone to breaking at the elbows.

Ever heard of "The bicycle wheel" by Jobst Brandt? Good reading for the inquiring mind...


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

beanpole said:


> First, do you get any kind of tension on the rear left side spokes when you have thick spokes on both sides? Thinner spokes on the left side helps you to get a tension there that is not close to zero.


With my DS tensions at around 130kgF, I get around 55kgF NDS tensions which is sufficient tension. I doubt that any experienced wheel builder would consider this a serious problem.



beanpole said:


> Second, due to being more elastic in the middle part thinner spokes are less prone to breaking at the elbows.


2.0/1.8/2.0 or the bladed spokes I mentioned have enough butting so they flex in the middle, not at the more vulnerable j-bend or nipple. If a little is good, more isn't necessarily better. Have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?



beanpole said:


> Ever heard of "The bicycle wheel" by Jobst Brandt? Good reading for the inquiring mind...


I own it and I'm quite familiar with it. Another excellent book for wheel builders is Roger Musson's "Professional Guide to Wheelbuilding". It is $12 and includes lifetime free revisions:

Wheelbuilding book for cycle wheels 

It is an excellent read.


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> They are durable. But so are pretty much all decent hubs so durability isn't a reason to pay the premium for CK over, say, White Industries.


 Thats a great point and an easy substitute to save money overall! Especially if they are both durable! I really appreciate the clarification!


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

OP, a couple of posts ago you mentioned that you just liked the CK R45D hub because of its color possibilities and in particular orange. This is a very true statement and often enough the main reason of choice for a lot of people when faced with the dilemma which hub to use. This and the preconceived notion that "most expensive" equates to an indiscriminate "best" for all and everything.

At this point you have been exposed to a considerable discussion about the subject and hopefully with enough information to start formulating your own assessment or at least questions. IMO, one of the best sources available to you is the manufacturer of the hubs you are considering. The Chris King bunch is good group of people and IMO will guide you right. They also have a wide array of offerings so they may suggest a more robust hub for you than the R45D. At the end of the day, these are the people who will warranty your hub so their suggestion should count more. Same holds true with the White Industries folks (no orange hub there though).


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

dcgriz said:


> OP, a couple of posts ago you mentioned that you just liked the CK R45D hub because of its color possibilities and in particular orange. This is a very true statement and often enough the main reason of choice for a lot of people when faced with the dilemma which hub to use. This and the preconceived notion that "most expensive" equates to an indiscriminate "best" for all and everything.
> 
> At this point you have been exposed to a considerable discussion about the subject and hopefully with enough information to start formulating your own assessment or at least questions. IMO, one of the best sources available to you is the manufacturer of the hubs you are considering. The Chris King bunch is good group of people and IMO will guide you right. They also have a wide array of offerings so they may suggest a more robust hub for you than the R45D. At the end of the day, these are the people who will warranty your hub so their suggestion should count more. Same holds true with the White Industries folks (no orange hub there though).


dcgriz... I whole heartedly agree with you. I have sent inquiry emails to both vendors a few days ago and Im hoping to hear anything back. I do acknowledge that the "contact" emails may or may not be replied to but my hope is for some detailed guidance between the differences of the two.


----------



## MudSnow (Sep 18, 2015)

Jay Strongbow said:


> They are durable. But so are pretty much all decent hubs so durability isn't a reason to pay the premium for CK over, say, White Industries.





dirtiClydesdale said:


> Thats a great point and an easy substitute to save money overall! Especially if they are both durable! I really appreciate the clarification!


I have disassembled or rebuilt several brands of hubs, and I believe Novatec and Bitex are made just as well as any of the brands that cost 3-4 times as much. Though they do have a more plain vanilla appearance.

The Novatec freehub has a steel insert called the Anti Bite Guard which prevents the notching that many aluminum freehubs have trouble with.

I built these 32h HED wheels with centerlock disc hubs just last week.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

dirtiClydesdale said:


> dcgriz... I whole heartedly agree with you. I have sent inquiry emails to both vendors a few days ago and Im hoping to hear anything back. I do acknowledge that the "contact" emails may or may not be replied to but my hope is for some detailed guidance between the differences of the two.


Forget the emails and get on the phone. You will get results.

Edit to add: Dont ask about the differences with another hub. Tell them what your intended purpose is, your weight, your pedaling style, your desires on performance, etc. and ask them to recommend the most suitable hub from their line-up for you.


----------



## beanpole (Dec 8, 2016)

Lombard said:


> With my DS tensions at around 130kgF, I get around 55kgF NDS tensions which is sufficient tension. I doubt that any experienced wheel builder would consider this a serious problem.


That is not even half, more close to a third! How can one be satisfied with that?
I like the spokes on both sides to go zing when plucked and not zing on the right and clonk on the left side, maybe I'm strange that way.



Lombard said:


> Have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?


No, but after I looked it up, I don't see why it applies here, because working with thinner spokes is hardly more difficult than working with thicker spokes.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

beanpole said:


> That is not even half, more close to a third! How can one be satisfied with that?


There are at least a few experienced wheelbuilders in this thread, a couple who weigh at least 50lbs more than I do who build perfectly reliable wheels this way. To my knowledge, none of them have had wheels fail due to insufficient NDS spoke tensions.



beanpole said:


> I like the spokes on both sides to go zing when plucked and not zing on the right and clonk on the left side, maybe I'm strange that way.


Strange? We all have our quirks.


----------



## beanpole (Dec 8, 2016)

Lombard said:


> There are at least a few experienced wheelbuilders in this thread, a couple who weigh at least 50lbs more than I do who build perfectly reliable wheels this way. To my knowledge, none of them have had wheels fail due to insufficient NDS spoke tensions.


I don't doubt that, but I can't bear these imbalances.
My rear wheels have Shimano 7speed hubs spacered up to 130mm or former 9/10 speed hubs with 7speed freehub bodies on them.
With today's hubs it would be 2:1 or nothing for me.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

beanpole said:


> I don't doubt that, but I can't bear these imbalances.
> My rear wheels have Shimano 7speed hubs spacered up to 130mm or former 9/10 speed hubs with 7speed freehub bodies on them.
> With today's hubs it would be 2:1 or nothing for me.


The 130/55 tensions I mentioned are with an 11-speed freehub. With a 7-speed or an 8-9-10 speed freehub, it's not even worth a thought.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Lombard said:


> There are at least a few experienced wheelbuilders in this thread, a couple who weigh at least 50lbs more than I do who build perfectly reliable wheels this way. To my knowledge, none of them have had wheels fail due to insufficient NDS spoke tensions.


 I waited to see how you would reply to beanpole's comment on:



beanpole said:


> That is not even half, more close to a third! How can one be satisfied with that?
> I like the spokes on both sides to go zing when plucked and not zing on the right and clonk on the left side, maybe I'm strange that way.
> .


A couple of thoughts to add to your statement :
Regardless of what we would have desired to have on NDS tension we are severely limited by four things. DS tension, hub flange offset, hub flange diameter and symmetric or asymmetric shape of rim. The resulting DS/NDS tension ratio dictates what the NDS tension would be, given the DS tension. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why the DS tension has been creeping up since the 11s cassettes came out to fix the problems we did not have.

The 11s hubs of today have made the bracing angles to be steeper and thus reducing the tension ratio of the past eras. What this means is that where NDS of 65 kgf for a 7s hub was acceptable before, now a NDS of 55 kgf is, because there arent any other choices left other than maybe asymmetric rims and fancy lacing patterns which come with their own sets of problems. Nevetheless, 55kgf at the NDS is a good tension to have with a symmetric rim and usually you pay top dollar for the hub that will allow you to have it. The real problem is if you cant develop anything over 47 or 48kgf and there would be the case for the more exotic lacing patterns to be possibly considered rather than picking another hub which is what I would do. 

So basically, a rear symmetric wheel will go zing on the DS and 45%zing on the NDS. I dont know if 45%Zing=Clonk but I do know that as long as the DS Zing is uniform across the DS and the NDS 45%Zing is uniform across the NDS, the wheel is good to go.

Interestingly enough and to demonstrate how the 11s has changed our thoughts on what hub geometry is acceptable, the 11s DT 240S has developed to be a top performance hub when referring to its tension ratio compared to its peers while a 10s DT 240 was really at the bottom of the list before. Same exact hub.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

beanpole said:


> Nobody said that.


I think he was saying he gets it right before taking a ride so he doesn't get home finding the wheel out of true. Very bad. The spokes should be well seated and equally tensioned around the rim, before putting the wheel on the bike. No thuds. You want those spokes to sing!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

dcgriz said:


> I waited to see how you would reply to beanpole's comment on:
> 
> A couple of thoughts to add to your statement :
> Regardless of what we would have desired to have on NDS tension we are severely limited by four things. DS tension, hub flange offset, hub flange diameter and symmetric or asymmetric shape of rim. The resulting DS/NDS tension ratio dictates what the NDS tension would be, given the DS tension. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why the DS tension has been creeping up since the 11s cassettes came out to fix the problems we did not have.
> ...



Excellent detailed explanation, DC.

I think what Beanpole was insinuating is that he uses thinner spokes on the NDS in order to get more equal spoke tensions. Is this really a good practice?


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

You don't get measurably more tension on the NDS by using thinner spokes. I built 6 dished wheels yesterday, each of them with differentiated spoke gauges (thicker on loaded side, thinner on unloaded side). 

Lifetime I have built about 1.5 zillion dished wheels with same spokes both sides, and 1.25 zillion with differentiated spokes. Obviously I'm speaking hyperbolically, I've no idea how many I've built of either, but the total is several thousand. 

The reason we began and persist with it is that the thicker spokes give, through our iterative testing and observation, more long term radial stability to the build. They don't stretch. The thinner spokes on the unloaded side are not tensioned to nearly the same percent of their tensile strength, so that extra strength/stretch resistance is unnecessary. 

In foregoing that unnecessary strength on the unloaded side, you get in return a slightly lighter wheel and spokes that yield more easily should they come out of tension in a momentary shock/overload. Both might be distinctions without differences, but we feel strongly enough that it all works that we suffer the operations and stocking headache of doing it.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

November Dave said:


> You don't get measurably more tension on the NDS by using thinner spokes. I built 6 dished wheels yesterday, each of them with differentiated spoke gauges (thicker on loaded side, thinner on unloaded side).
> 
> Lifetime I have built about 1.5 zillion dished wheels with same spokes both sides, and 1.25 zillion with differentiated spokes. Obviously I'm speaking hyperbolically, I've no idea how many I've built of either, but the total is several thousand.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this clarification, Dave. So in short, it sounds like there are some minute advantages to thinner NDS spokes, but more equal spoke tensions are not a measurable advantage.

It could be that Beanpole got the false impression that you get more NDS tension because of a higher tone - zing instead of clunk.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

@Lombard

A thinner butted spoke arrives to its elastic tension range at a lower tension than a thicker butted spoke when tensioned at the same load. This is desirable as it helps to maintain spokes from loosening up and eventually break when the wheel is exposed to impacts.

That's the theory anyway behind using lighter gauge spokes on the NDS than the DS. It took hold after the effects of the poor tension ratio of the 11s hubs started being felt when the NDS spokes were struggling to keep tight at tensions below 50 kgf. Nothing to do, IMO, with maintaining equal tensions if I understand the claim you mentioned correctly.

I respect November Dave's explanation on why he is doing this, considering the wide audience he is dealing with and its diverse requirements. However, I have not found this to be a necessary evolution on how I build my own wheels, at least as is demonstrated by the results of my own use.

The first thing I do when considering a build is to calculate what would be the theoretical NDS tension based on the hub and spoke length I plan on using. If I don't get a NDS tension around 55 kgf or more then I look for another hub. I use the same type spokes on both sides; mostly Race or Force. I no longer use cx-ray or Lasers as much as I used to, because, frankly, I haven't found the performance benefits of doing so. Also, I dont race, so a millisecond speed increase is not something I care about any longer. The extra few grams in savings from spoke gauge reduction is not in my crosshairs either. The lightest wheelset I would want to have underneath me would not go below the 1650 gram range anyway. I know, quite boring, but my wheels stay put as I build them. Tire selection however is a different story as I opt for the supplest I can find and often run them with latex tubes.

Edit to add: In case anybody is interested, the formula to calculate the theoretical NDS tension is Td/Tn=(Wn/Wd)*(Ld/Ln)
Where T=tension, W=hub flange spacing, L=spoke length, n=NDS and d=DS


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

dcgriz said:


> The first thing I do when considering a build is to calculate what would be the theoretical NDS tension based on the hub and spoke length I plan on using. If I don't get a NDS tension around 55 kgf or more then I look for another hub. I use the same type spokes on both sides; mostly Race or Force. I no longer use cx-ray or Lasers as much as I used to, because, frankly, I haven't found the performance benefits of doing so. Also, I dont race, so a millisecond speed increase is not something I care about any longer. The extra few grams in savings from spoke gauge reduction is not in my crosshairs either. The lightest wheelset I would want to have underneath me would not go below the 1650 gram range anyway. I know, quite boring, but my wheels stay put as I build them. Tire selection however is a different story as I opt for the supplest I can find and often run them with latex tubes.


I totally get this, 100%. There's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma as regards weight when you actually sell wheels - make them as light as people want but below the limits of what they can be and suffer the consequences (some have done this), merely _*claim*_ that they're as light as people want them to be so you get the sale and suffer rare consequences as people who shop on weight rarely actually weigh what they buy (this is perhaps prominent to prevalent), or make them what weight they need to be and state the weight as such and suffer low sales. 

We do as much as we can to slalom through that minefield, which certainly includes getting rid of whatever weight we know is not beneficial that is not heinously expensive to get rid of. Obviously if you are building wheels for yourself you can choose to go in whichever direction you decide with only yourself to answer to. 

The point that dcgriz makes about thinner gauge spokes getting to an elastic tension range, which I did a poor job of articulating in my earlier post, may have some fruit. I've never gotten into the metallurgy of how different spokes behave at various percents of their tensile strength. It could be that there is a difference there, I don't know, I just know that what we do works and works well and sometimes that has to be good enough. 

I know that in ropes (for those who don't know I have an extensive background in high performance sailing) you actually match a rope material and diameter to a purpose based on that. Dyneema ropes, for example, actually much better at very high percents of their tensile strength. Aramids not so much. You'll be hearing more about Dyneema in bikes as it's making its way into frames under the Innegra (sp?) trade name. Dyneema is itself a trade name, as I recall it's actually classed as UHMWPE - Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly Ethylene.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Rope on a sailboat? *ROPE?*  Just don't say "the rope that runs up to the pointy end".


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

@November Dave

If this was my livelihood, I would not change anything from my winning formula either :thumbsup:


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

Mike T. said:


> Rope on a sailboat? *ROPE?*  Just don't say "the rope that runs up to the pointy end".


On a spool, it's rope. When it gets cut, it becomes line. True story. But no one calls it line - it's sheets, halyards, braces, etc.

Thanks DC!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

dcgriz said:


> That's the theory anyway behind using lighter gauge spokes on the NDS than the DS. It took hold after the effects of the poor tension ratio of the 11s hubs started being felt when the NDS spokes were struggling to keep tight at tensions below 50 kgf. Nothing to do, IMO, with maintaining equal tensions if I understand the claim you mentioned correctly.


OK, I worded that badly. When I said "more equal spoke tensions", I meant DS vs. NDS, not equal spoke tensions within a side. Sorry, my bad.

And what Dave said was that thinner spokes will not really help that. But the impression I get from your explanation is that since the thinner spoke gets to its elastic range at a lower tension, it is less likely to come loose over time. But in life, there is theory, and then there is practice. You have built exactly the same wheels that I did with the same hubs. I believe you weigh at least 50lbs more than I do and none of them have failed you.



November Dave said:


> I totally get this, 100%. There's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma as regards weight when you actually sell wheels - make them as light as people want but below the limits of what they can be and suffer the consequences (some have done this), merely _*claim*_ that they're as light as people want them to be so you get the sale and suffer rare consequences as people who shop on weight rarely actually weigh what they buy (this is perhaps prominent to prevalent), or make them what weight they need to be and state the weight as such and suffer low sales.


OK, if you build and sell wheels commercially and it's your lively hood, that's a totally different story. In the road bike world, a little less is good, much less is better and dangerously less is just enough. And what you can charge is inversely proportional to what the end product weighs. So I clearly understand where you are coming from. Another issue is while you have deadlines to build before customers become impatient and go somewhere else, I can take as long as I want and only have my own sanity to contend with.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Lombard said:


> OK, I worded that badly. When I said "more equal spoke tensions", I meant DS vs. NDS, not equal spoke tensions within a side. Sorry, my bad.


No problem. Just to be clear ..... the tension on the NDS is what is being developed by the tension on the DS and the bracing angles of the spokes. The gauge of the NDS spokes will neither increase or decrease that. What they will do is stretch proportionally to their thickness so a thinner spoke is expected to reach its elastic range sooner. 
Don't ask me for quantitative numbers 'cause I dont recall anymore. They may be floating around in Google-land though ......


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

dcgriz said:


> No problem. Just to be clear ..... the tension on the NDS is what is being developed by the tension on the DS and the bracing angles of the spokes. The gauge of the NDS spokes will neither increase or decrease that. What they will do is stretch proportionally to their thickness so a thinner spoke is expected to reach its elastic range sooner.
> Don't ask me for quantitative numbers 'cause I dont recall anymore. They may be floating around in Google-land though ......


Interesting. Some time just for S&G's, I'll get out one of my old guitars, put the spoke tensiometer on each string and see what it reads. Then I can find out for sure how much tension I need to get a zing instead of a clonk.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Lombard said:


> Interesting. Some time just for S&G's, I'll get out one of my old guitars, put the spoke tensiometer on each string and see what it reads. Then I can find out for sure how much tension I need to get a zing instead of a clonk.


Much simpler to clip this on your stand


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

dcgriz said:


> Much simpler to clip this on your stand


A couple of years ago I tried my guitar tuner clamped onto my wheel stand and it worked fine but I found that plucking and listening to the tones was just as accurate as reading off the screen. So I shelved the idea. It's not a bad idea though (for relative tensions!) for someone with not a great sense of tone (I take weekly guitar lessons).


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Mike T. said:


> A couple of years ago I tried my guitar tuner clamped onto my wheel stand and it worked fine but I found that plucking and listening to the tones was just as accurate as reading off the screen. So I shelved the idea. It's not a bad idea though (for relative tensions!) for someone with not a great sense of tone (I take weekly guitar lessons).


Look at it as an artificial enhancement of a not so enhanced musical ear. Good to quickly equalize tensions during the build. I'm still a numbers man though and that's how I finish it.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

dcgriz said:


> Much simpler to clip this on your stand



I did get one of these and tried it for awhile. But I didn't find it gave consistent readings. And like you, I'm more of a numbers guy, so I went back to my tensiometer.


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

All... I went to a wheelbuilder today to speak about this wheelset HED Belgium Plus 32h disc and White Industries hubs... but he recommended the DT 240s since it wont break the bank. My question is are the 240s a worthwhile investment vs the White Industries or are the 350s better to get into? (Im not really sure what the difference from the 240s vs 350s? Other than weight.) Or should I just plainly stick with White Industries?


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

dirtiClydesdale said:


> All... I went to a wheelbuilder today to speak about this wheelset HED Belgium Plus 32h disc and White Industries hubs... but he recommended the DT 240s since it wont break the bank. My question is are the 240s a worthwhile investment vs the White Industries or are the 350s better to get into? (Im not really sure what the difference from the 240s vs 350s? Other than weight.) Or should I just plainly stick with White Industries?


The 240 is a high-end hub and an excellent one but having owned 240 and WI I'd take the WI anytime. The 240 needs a special tool if a bearing swap is done - the ring drive remover. The WI is rebuildable with normal workshop tools and it's made in the USA. Plus it has a titanium cassette carrier. Even King (mega $ plus it needs a $200 special tool) doesn't have a Ti carrier.


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

Mike T. said:


> The 240 is a high-end hub and an excellent one but having owned 240 and WI I'd take the WI anytime. The 240 needs a special tool if a bearing swap is done - the ring drive remover. The WI is rebuildable with normal workshop tools and it's made in the USA. Plus it has a titanium cassette carrier. Even King (mega $ plus it needs a $200 special tool) doesn't have a Ti carrier.


 Mike T... thx. It really looks like I should get the WI hub as long as the price delta is not crazy! The CK hubs were insanely expensive... almost +$450 more between WI vs CK for the same build.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

A couple of thoughts to add in the discussion pertaining to the choice between the DT 240 and the WI hubs for a heavier rider.

The comparative demerits of the DT that Mike brought up, namely the Ti freehub body and the special tool needed for bearing replacement, are true but not the primary reasons, IMO, why the WI may be better suited for a heavier rider.

Ti freehub - the DT uses a star ratchet over the traditional pawl system the WI does. They also offer a ratchet upgrade which further reduces the amount of movement prior to engagement.

Special bearing replacement tool - the DTs are common enough being OEM hubs for a lot of bike companies; most bike shops should have this tool at hand. 

What I personally consider the single best reason distinguishing the WI over the DT for the heavier riders is their steel rear axle which I consider significant for riders over 250 lbs.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

dcgriz said:


> the DT uses a star ratchet over the traditional pawl system the WI does. They also offer a ratchet upgrade which further reduces the amount of movement prior to engagement.


This is of almost zero interest (or benefit) to most road riders. It's primarily a MTB tool.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Mike T. said:


> This is of almost zero interest (or benefit) to most road riders. It's primarily a MTB tool.


You dont think the reduction in movement reduces the impact to the hub splines from the cogs prior to engagement?


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

dcgriz said:


> You don't think the reduction in movement reduces the impact to the hub splines from the cogs prior to engagement?


I wish you had put a winkey-face after that question. Oh I'm sure it does but does it really matter? Hmmm, maybe an Al hub shell will indent more and faster with larger clicks being stomped on by a 300lb powerlifter than with my smooth-pedaling 170lbs. IMO, for most of us the point is moot. 

I'd like to see a test to destruction between a Taiwan hub, a King hub and a modified DT240. I think I know how it would go but the vast majority of us could never reach that point in the lifespan of a wheelset, or should I say, hubset. They'd get sidelined for other reasons. I used my MTB DT240 until the hubshell split (4 years of 100% MTB racing and training) but my subsequent King set will last three lifetimes under current usage. I'm sure my Taiwan pawl hubs are good for at least one lifetime underneath the current me.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Mike T. said:


> I wish you had put a winkey-face after that question.


You are right....I should have......here you go....😉


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

dcgriz said:


> You are right....I should have......here you go....😉


Ahh thanks Grizz. Due to the winkey-face I'll substitute "Yeah right" as a response to your question to replace my long-winded version.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Come on Mike, I dont want to be rude cutting it short but I'm on my way out to a ride. It has finally reached a balmy 34 F.
Later...


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Mike T. said:


> I wish you had put a winkey-face after that question. Oh I'm sure it does but does it really matter? Hmmm, maybe an Al hub shell will indent more and faster with larger clicks being stomped on by a 300lb powerlifter than with my smooth-pedaling 170lbs. IMO, for most of us the point is moot.
> 
> I'd like to see a test to destruction between a Taiwan hub, a King hub and a modified DT240. I think I know how it would go but the vast majority of us could never reach that point in the lifespan of a wheelset, or should I say, hubset. They'd get sidelined for other reasons. I used my MTB DT240 until the hubshell split (4 years of 100% MTB racing and training) but my subsequent King set will last three lifetimes under current usage. I'm sure my Taiwan pawl hubs are good for at least one lifetime underneath the current me.


Ok, I'm back. New bike and new set of wheels I laced in anticipation. TB14 with WI MI5 for the rear and Son 28 for the front. 35mm tires open tubular type tires at 55/65 lbs. Sweet to say the least.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that an Al freebody is just fine for the most of us?


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

dcgriz said:


> I'm not sure I follow you.


I understand. I know I get a bit deep at times.



> Are you saying that an Al freebody is just fine for the most of us?


I didn't say that. But...............there are more aluminum cassette carrier hubs than there are steel or ti or Biteguard ones. Just sayin.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Mike T. said:


> I understand. I know I get a bit deep at times.
> [/QUOTE
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

dcgriz said:


> Ok, lets start again. You said earlier on to choose the WI because of the special tool the DT needs and the Ti freebody the WI has. I commented that neither distinction is significant enough on its own to warrant the preference. I mentioned the drive system of the DT, because of its design, is more forgiving to the aluminum hub splines than a 3-pawl drive system like the WI has. I also mentioned that the steel rear axle of the WI is the significant difference between these two hubs when used by riders the weight of the OP.
> Your last statement regarding the abundance of the aluminum freebody hubs and their expected longevity for at least one lifetime, as you put it, seems to be agreeing with what I mentioned about the DT not having a Ti freebody is not a significant factor on its own to warrant its dismissal from consideration. 


What's that again?  It's kinda late.


----------



## roger-m (Jul 1, 2015)

This discussion on using thinner spokes on the rear left appears to be focussing on the additional stretch of the thinner spokes being the advantage. Using a rear DT 240 hub, here's how the left side spokes will stretch (tension ratio left-right is 52%)

2.0 dia spoke stretches 0.27mm
1.8 dia spoke stretches 0.33mm
1.5 dia spoke stretches 0.47mm

Not much difference from changing a 1.8 spoke to a 1.5, and whether this gives any benefit is difficult to assess.

From previous discussions a long time ago (on usenet), the reason for thicker spokes on the right is that the thicker spoke takes more of the vertical load. This means the wheel can carry more weight before the left side spokes slacken.

Build a wheel with 2.0 straight gauge spokes either side, wheel in bike and keep it vertical, rider sat on bike, measure left and right spoke tension of the bottom spokes. Build a wheel with 1.5 spokes left, and 2.0 right, and repeat the test. If the theory is correct, then the left tension in wheel #2 will be greater than wheel #1.

If anyone would like to give it a go I'd be interested in looking at the results. Can't do it myself because these days I don't have the facilities to do a test.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Mike T. said:


> What's that again?  It's kinda late.


Don't worry about it. It's quite alright.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

roger-m said:


> This discussion on using thinner spokes on the rear left appears to be focussing on the additional stretch of the thinner spokes being the advantage. Using a rear DT 240 hub, here's how the left side spokes will stretch (tension ratio left-right is 52%)
> 
> 2.0 dia spoke stretches 0.27mm
> 1.8 dia spoke stretches 0.33mm
> ...


roger-m from UK welcome to this forum. Looking at your forum handle I cant stop wondering about your association, if any, with another Roger M from UK whose published work a lot of us in this forum are very familiar with.


----------



## beanpole (Dec 8, 2016)

roger-m said:


> 1.8 dia spoke stretches 0.33mm
> 1.5 dia spoke stretches 0.47mm
> 
> Not much difference from changing a 1.8 spoke to a 1.5, and whether this gives any benefit is difficult to assess.


When 0.33mm are 100% then 0.47mm are 142% so the thinner spoke stretches 42% more if I'm not mistaken.
I wouldn't call that "not much difference".


----------



## roger-m (Jul 1, 2015)

dcgriz said:


> roger-m from UK welcome to this forum. Looking at your forum handle I cant stop wondering about your association, if any, with another Roger M from UK whose published work a lot of us in this forum are very familiar with.


Yes, it's me, I wrote the book. 

I'm currently finishing off a new spoke length calculator that takes into account spoke stretch, and also has the facility for specifying left and right spoke gauges (only for spoke length purposes). Hence my interest in this thread.

Stiffening up the right improves the wheel, the theory says so, although it's never been quantified (probably needs FEA). It was good to read November Dave's positive experiences of using different gauges which tend to support the theory. The question is, what is giving the most benefit, the extra stretch of a thinner left spoke, or the thicker right spoke taking more of the vertical load. I'm going with the latter.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

roger-m said:


> The question is, what is giving the most benefit, the extra stretch of a thinner left spoke, or the thicker right spoke taking more of the vertical load. I'm going with the latter.


You do know that you're inciting WWIII don't you Roger? 

(WW = Wheel Wars)


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

roger-m said:


> Yes, it's me, I wrote the book. ,,,,,,,


Very glad to have you posting on the board, Roger. Several of us here are very enthusiastic about your Wheelbuilding Book and always recommend it to folks getting into wheelbuilding. Very well written, illustrated and instrumental in helping people being successful with their first build so they keep at it. I know it helped me when I first started building wheels and I thank you for that.





> This discussion on using thinner spokes on the rear left appears to be focussing on the additional stretch of the thinner spokes being the advantage. Using a rear DT 240 hub, here's how the left side spokes will stretch (tension ratio left-right is 52%)
> 
> 2.0 dia spoke stretches 0.27mm
> 1.8 dia spoke stretches 0.33mm
> ...


It doesnt seem to me that the experiment with the two wheels as described is on an even keel if the hub of Wheel #2 is not adjusted to counteract the loss of stiffness due to the lighter gauge spokes. Wheel #2 needs to have its hub selection adjusted to one with higher tension ratio to allow for capturing the stiffness lost from the lighter gauge spokes. If Wheel #1 uses the DT 240 you mentioned, then Wheel #2 needs a hub with a left offset in the 39 mm range (very rough estimation here based on the stiffness difference between 2.0 and 1.5 spokes and the 17/33 offset of the DT 240). Doing this would allow you to start from the same base for either wheel. Assumption here should be that the wheels are properly spoked for the anticipated loads.

The last paragraph in your statement indicates to measure the tension of the left and right spokes to the bottom spokes. I'm assuming you are referring to the spokes where the wheel has just lifted of the ground. Tension on these spokes is by definition higher than the tension of the bottom spokes as the rim diameter "bulges" out. I am not clear why you picked these spokes and not the bottom spokes that are at the least tension as they get compressed and more prone of getting slack. 

I raise the question because stopping the NDS spokes from getting slack is the basis of the theory behind the so called "light gauge NDS spokes" which originated as an alternate to triple lacing to counteract the effects of the 11s hubs. I think it is based on the swagged spoke principles authored by Jobst Brandt that diameter reduction increases spoke elasticity. The idea is that the lighter gauge spoke will reach its elastic range at a lower tension than a heavier gauge spoke. This, at least in theory, is expected to keep the spoke from going slack and compromise the wheel. How much is enough is a question with multiple answers because of all the variables involved. If we are to consider a spoke nominal elongation of 1 mm at a load of 100 kgf then the elongation chart at the beginning of your post shows encouraging results as the difference in elongation between the 2.0 and 1.5 mm spokes is 75% more for the thinner spoke. Is this enough and does it make a difference in real life applications? I dont think this is a one-size-fits-all kind of an answer. Doing a FEM analysis would be the most accurate estimation but then it would be only for the components used. Another consideration that murks the applicability of the results even more is that in real life applications loads on a wheel are very seldom applied in a true radial fashion; most often are a combination of radial, lateral and torsional.




> I'm currently finishing off a new spoke length calculator that takes into account spoke stretch, and also has the facility for specifying left and right spoke gauges (only for spoke length purposes). Hence my interest in this thread.
> 
> Stiffening up the right improves the wheel, the theory says so, although it's never been quantified (probably needs FEA). It was good to read November Dave's positive experiences of using different gauges which tend to support the theory. The question is, what is giving the most benefit, the extra stretch of a thinner left spoke, or the thicker right spoke taking more of the vertical load. I'm going with the latter.


Proving which side is doing the most work in keeping the wheel intact would be a tedious task, at the least. I dont think anything short of a FEM analysis would be reliably documenting the results considering all the variables involved.
However, the bright side is that regardless which side is giving the most benefit, the wheel is build the same in either case so for the non-wheelbuilder in pursuit of these ideas this may be nothing more than a 6-on-one or half-a-dozen-on-the-other kind of a thing.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

dcgriz said:


> Very glad to have you posting on the board, Roger. Several of us here are very enthusiastic about your Wheelbuilding Book and always recommend it to folks getting into wheelbuilding. Very well written, illustrated and instrumental in helping people being successful with their first build so they keep at it. I know it helped me when I first started building wheels and I thank you for that.



I'll second this, Roger. Two years ago, I never would have thought in my wildest imagination that I would take up wheelbuilding. With the encouragement of DCGriz and Mike T., I decided to give it a shot. They recommended your book and I followed it step by step. Needless to say, I recently finished building my second wheelset and already have almost 3K miles on my first set. Now I have the wheelbuilding bug and am already thinking about what to do for my next build. Decisions, decisions!

Many thanks!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

dcgriz said:


> Don't worry about it. It's quite alright.


Discussions on spokes and wheels has always been fascinating. When you refer to the lesser spoke tension on NDS, what's acceptable? 

The NDS spokes must be tensioned enough to hold the rim centered between the dropouts. Are 11 speeds dished so much that the NDS spokes can't be tensioned to a musical note without pulling the rim off center? 

With the old 126 mm dropouts, the wheel could be centered with both sides taking up equal tension, thereby distributing the load laterally. I've seen rear wheels where the DS spokes are tight as hell, and the NDS spokes are not tensioned enough to hold the wheel true in climbs and sprints, and sooner or later, a spoke breaks. 

Found the trick is to pull the rim over to DS a quarter turn too far, so that when you do a final tightening on the NDS spokes, they pull the rim back to center, and interestingly enough, the DS spokes let the rim move over but without an increase in tension.

Just plucked the 36 spokes on the "race bike." Both DS and NDS make a musical tone, DS about an octave higher than NDS. The NDS spokes make the same tone as the spokes on the front wheel, about a middle "C." The spokes on each side make the same tone all way around. The wheel has withstood several crashes and about 20,000 miles, with one very minor truing a few years ago after the last crash. 

Don't have a tensionometer, but seems to me when the spoke starts to sing, its tensioned enough so won't loosen up when riding and that's what you want. Loading up more tension would then seem counter productive. It would not make the wheel stronger, but would over stress the hub flanges and the spoke holes in the rims.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> Discussions on spokes and wheels has always been fascinating. When you refer to the lesser spoke tension on NDS, what's acceptable?


To me, mostly from empirical deduction, my targeted minimum is 55 kgf with tire non fitted. This gives me enough cushion for a reasonable drop in tension when the tire is fitted and still adequate tension on the NDS spokes for my style of riding.



> The NDS spokes must be tensioned enough to hold the rim centered between the dropouts. Are 11 speeds dished so much that the NDS spokes can't be tensioned to a musical note without pulling the rim off center?


Some hubs result at a better tension ratio than others. It's the way it is and the race to 18mm DS offset.



> With the old 126 mm dropouts, the wheel could be centered with both sides taking up equal tension, thereby distributing the load laterally. I've seen rear wheels where the DS spokes are tight as hell, and the NDS spokes are not tensioned enough to hold the wheel true in climbs and sprints, and sooner or later, a spoke breaks.


I think this may be more lack of technique than anything else




> Just plucked the 36 spokes on the "race bike." Both DS and NDS make a musical tone, DS about an octave higher than NDS. The NDS spokes make the same tone as the spokes on the front wheel, about a middle "C." The spokes on each side make the same tone all way around. The wheel has withstood several crashes and about 20,000 miles, with one very minor truing a few years ago after the last crash.


This doesn't sound like an 11s wheel, is it? Older hubs were able to develop much higher tensions on the NDS because of their bracing angles.



> Don't have a tensionometer, but seems to me when the spoke starts to sing, its tensioned enough so won't loosen up when riding and that's what you want. Loading up more tension would then seem counter productive. It would not make the wheel stronger, but would over stress the hub flanges and the spoke holes in the rims.


It may very well be but it also depends on how conservative your build is. If you stretch the envelope with lightweight rims, fewer spokes and tubeless tires, a tensiometer can be very useful.


----------



## roger-m (Jul 1, 2015)

dcgriz said:


> It doesnt seem to me that the experiment with the two wheels as described is on an even keel if the hub of Wheel #2 is not adjusted to counteract the loss of stiffness due to the lighter gauge spokes. Wheel #2 needs to have its hub selection adjusted to one with higher tension ratio to allow for capturing the stiffness lost from the lighter gauge spokes....


The experiment is to show the effect of changing just the spoke gauge, in which case the hub must be the same in both wheels. By stiffness I assume you mean lateral stiffness, which is not really relevant since different spoke gauges only allow the wheel to carry a higher vertical load before the left spokes become slack (go to zero tension).



> The last paragraph in your statement indicates to measure the tension of the left and right spokes to the bottom spokes. I'm assuming you are referring to the spokes where the wheel has just lifted of the ground. .... I am not clear why you picked these spokes and not* the bottom spokes that are at the least tension* as they get compressed and more prone of getting slack.


That's what I meant, the left and right side bottom spokes.



> I raise the question because stopping the NDS spokes from getting slack is the basis of the theory behind the so called "light gauge NDS spokes" which originated as an alternate to triple lacing to counteract the effects of the 11s hubs. I think it is based on the swagged spoke principles authored by Jobst Brandt that diameter reduction increases spoke elasticity.


The benefits come from having stiffer right side (drive side) spokes, with those spokes taking more of the vertical load, and thus protecting the lower tensioned left side. The left will eventually become slack, but at a greater load than if the two sides were the same gauge. Maybe this is what you mean, however, for others reading this then take a look at this diagram:








It's not exactly a wheel, but it serves to illustrate the point. Imagine the red column is concrete and the others are wooden. The stiff concrete column will take a greater share of the load. It's the same in a wheel (although not as extreme). For this simple diagram you can calculate the effect of altering the stiffness of the columns, but a wheel is more complex (columns at an angle, and rim deflection, etc.).



> The idea is that the lighter gauge spoke will reach its elastic range at a lower tension than a heavier gauge spoke. This, at least in theory, is expected to keep the spoke from going slack and compromise the wheel.


I don't understand this. Surely the spoke in a cycle wheel is always in its elastic range regardless of tension. The only thing that matters is that the spoke has 'some' tension.



... all interesting stuff, and a good discussion.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

roger-m said:


> The experiment is to show the effect of changing just the spoke gauge, in which case the hub must be the same in both wheels. By stiffness I assume you mean lateral stiffness, which is not really relevant since different spoke gauges only allow the wheel to carry a higher vertical load before the left spokes become slack (go to zero tension).
> --------------------
> Surely the spoke in a cycle wheel is always in its elastic range regardless of tension. The only thing that matters is that the spoke has 'some' tension.


Exactly. The NDS spokes should never go to "zero" tension.

"Some" tension meaning just enough so the bottom spokes don't go "slack" under the load and start unscrewing out of the nipples, or develop stress fractures at the bends on the hub? 

Brandt mentioned that on a strong wheel, the upper spokes don't stretch enough to allow the bottom spokes to lose tension, go slack, as the rim tries to ovalize under the load.

This would require enough tension for all the spokes, NDS as well as DS, to stay tensioned all way around the rim. They keep the rim round while the load is trying to make it oval, that is, compress at the bottom and top, and stretch at 9 and 3 o'clock. 

Butted spokes probably make that more possible, as the thinnest middle section stays elastic over a slightly wider range of loads. Torsional loads are present at the ends; that's where they break. The middle section only has to handle longitudinal stresses, so is very strong.


----------



## oleritter (Mar 10, 2017)

36 hole rims, there aren't that many. But you should be fine with 32. And I don't see a problem with 28 on the front, if you wanted. I just read another guy, 260, with 3 years on his Belgium Plus's, with no broken spokes and once trued. And his are *28/28. *Because that is what was available at the time.

Someone mentioned triple butted spokes. Good idea. Maybe just on the drive side, though, of rear wheel. Yes, alloy nips can fail, but not really a problem with proper length spokes. Maybe your wheelbuilder can put nipple washers in your rear wheel, as extra insurance, if it gave you piece of mind. 

Get whatever hubs your budget allows. Mountain bikers are putting more abuse on their Taiwanese hubs than you will with your road riding, and those hubs (mostly) are holding up. Get DT's if you can afford it, nothing wrong with 350's. Get Shimano XT if you want a low cost, durable option, with no worries of freehub bite (steel freehub). 

Other rims might suit you as well. Pacenti Forza's are offset and will yield more harder working spokes as a result. I didn't write it down, but a recent rear wheel with Forza rims had only ~10% difference in tension, drive to non drive side.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

roger-m said:


> ... all interesting stuff, and a good discussion.


Good discussion indeed.....and thanks for the clarifications.




> The experiment is to show the effect of changing just the spoke gauge, in which case the hub must be the same in both wheels. By stiffness *I assume you mean lateral stiffness,* which is not really relevant since different spoke gauges only allow the wheel to carry a higher vertical load before the left spokes become slack (go to zero tension).


Yes, I do mean lateral stiffness and the reasons I brought it up is because I believe that, outside of a laboratory controlled environment, it would be affecting the wheel as the load is seldom applied dead true. My understanding also is that heavier gauge spokes result in laterally stiffer wheels as it has been exhaustively documented by Damon Rinard's work.




> The benefits come from having stiffer right side (drive side) spokes, with those spokes taking more of the vertical load, and thus protecting the lower tensioned left side. The left will eventually become slack, but at a greater load than if the two sides were the same gauge. *Maybe this is what you mean*, however, ......


This is not what I meant. See below for hopefully a better explanation on my part




> I don't understand this. Surely the spoke in a cycle wheel is *always in its elastic range regardless of tension*. The only thing that matters is that the spoke has 'some' tension.


Yes, but not to the same extent, at least to my understanding. The thicker spokes have a lower modulus of elasticity. 

A couple of posts earlier on you mentioned the elongation you measured under the same load for a 2.0 mm spoke and a 1.5 mm spoke. Assuming the applied load was 120 kgf and the original spoke length was 280 mm in either case (for the purpose of a numerical demonstration), the modulus of elasticity of the 2.0 mm spoke calculates to be at 55% of the modulus of elasticity of the 1.5 mm spoke. 

The stress-strain curve of a steel wire is linear within its elastic range until the yield point is reached. Hooke's Law applies within this range and states that the force needed to extend or compress such wire by some distance X is proportional to that distance. 

In my understanding, these two principles put together dictate how and at what parameters a spoke stretched within its linear elastic range will react to the exerted forces upon impact (i.e pothole at speed) and whether would develop enough tension drop to temporarily exit its elastic region thus allowing the associated nipple to possibly partially unscrew. The thinner spokes are anticipated to be able to remain in their elastic region under lower tension than their heavier brethren and are also expected to withstand greater modulation of applied load (ie impacts from potholes). An extension of this principle is that a wheel built with a greater number of thinner spokes may be more durable than a wheel built with heavier but fewer spokes.

However, this "extra elasticity" of the thinner spokes come at a price that is reduced ability for load support per unit basis so they need to be viewed as supplemental to the DS spokes and not in replacement of the DS as far as load bearing is concerned.

Analysis of the subject could be broadly qualitatively considered although a FEM quantitative analysis to establish where the real thresholds are is really needed to further understand the effects of all of the inner stresses at hand. Unfortunately, such analysis is not commonly financially feasible for this application.

A couple of months ago a buddy of mine brought me one of his wheels after an incident he had. One of the NDS spokes was so slack I could turn the nipple by hand. Sapim Leader spokes all around, 32h alum. mid-depth rims, about 165 lbs rider weight, easy pedaling.
I think this is a case where lighter spokes on the NDS (ie Race for this particular wheel) might have helped keeping things tight. However, if his wheel was laced with 24 spokes I would not have drawn the same conclusion.


NOTE to OP: Apologies for derailing this thread so much. To our defense, the subject is very interesting and general awareness on the subjects of the discussion may be of good value to a wide audience.


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

I came across this question from one of the shops and I do not know the answer. I asked him to quote me a HED Belgium Plus with WI hubs with DT Swiss Comp double-butted spokes. But, he told me that I should be getting "straight gauge" (ive read also called plain gauge?) spokes. Especially since it makes the wheel stronger.

Im trying to validate his response. Is he correct? Should I be getting plain gauge spokes to help make the wheelset stronger? Im hoping to get some guidance which route I should be taking on the spoke piece of the wheelset? Straight vs double-butted?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

dirtiClydesdale said:


> I came across this question from one of the shops and I do not know the answer. I asked him to quote me a HED Belgium Plus with WI hubs with DT Swiss Comp double-butted spokes. But, he told me that I should be getting "straight gauge" (ive read also called plain gauge?) spokes. Especially since it makes the wheel stronger.
> 
> Im trying to validate his response. Is he correct? *Should I be getting plain gauge spokes to help make the wheelset stronger? * Im hoping to get some guidance which route I should be taking on the spoke piece of the wheelset? Straight vs double-butted?


Everything I've read on the subject says: No.

The theory is that spokes break at the elbow and double butted allows more flex in the middle so take some stress of the elbows.
That's how I understand it anyway. I'm sure someone who actually knows for sure what they are talking about can correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Stronger? What's his definition of that word? All spokes, even the skinniest, are strong enough. Can I assume he means plain gauge are supposed to be stronger in the mid section due to their extra material over butted spokes? Spokes never (never say never eh?) break in the middle. The vast majority break at the elbow due to fatigue.

I'd say that butted spokes "last longer" (I didn't say "are stronger") due to their center section absorbing some of the shock loads that would otherwise be transmitted to the elbows.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

What Jay and Mike said is correct. While it may seem counter intuitive, butted spokes are more durable. The weak parts of a spoke are at the j-bend and the nipple threads. You want these points to be thicker than the middle.

The only reason to use straight gauge spokes is if you are trying to save a few pennies and don't care how long the wheel goes trouble-free.

Dirti, sorry to say, your bike shop guy is wrong.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Lombard said:


> What Jay and Mike said is correct. *While it may seem counter intuitive,* butted spokes are more durable. The weak parts of a spoke are at the j-bend and the nipple threads. You want these points to be thicker than the middle.
> 
> The only reason to use straight gauge spokes is if you are trying to save a few pennies and don't care how long the wheel goes trouble-free.
> 
> Dirti, sorry to say, your bike shop guy is wrong.


A simple way to look at this is that butted spokes cause the peak stresses to transfer from the elbows to the middle thinner section thus extending the life cycle of the spoke.
An additional, but less prominent, effect is that the thinner middle section allows the spoke to remain within its elastic range at a lower tension as the spoke goes through its loading-unloading cycle. This helps keeping the nipples in place thus safeguarding the integrity of the wheel.


----------



## dirtiClydesdale (Jun 20, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Dirti, sorry to say, your bike shop guy is wrong.


 And this small statement pretty much sums up why I appreciate all of your information and posts!!! I knew that he was wrong from everything I read on this thread and others but I couldnt argue it with him. Mike, Jay, Lombard and everyone... sincerely tyvm! Im just hoping that is not the guy who is going to "build up" the new wheelset!?!?!


----------

