# New rear wheel 24 or 28?



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I will be building some wheels for a new bike. Will be using WI T11 hubs and Pacenti 2015 rims.
My current bike has the same wheelset except with H2 hubs and has 20F 24R.
I weigh 140lbs and have had no issues at all with the 24 hole rear, but I am wondering if it would make sense to go with 28 for added strength and stiffness or will it not be noticeable?
The extra weight of 28g isn't a big deal for me if there is a benefit.

Thanks


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

24. At your weight there's no need for 28.

IMO.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

jnbrown said:


> I will be building some wheels for a new bike. Will be using WI T11 hubs and Pacenti 2015 rims.
> My current bike has the same wheelset except with H2 hubs and has 20F 24R.
> I weigh 140lbs and have had no issues at all with the 24 hole rear, but I am wondering if it would make sense to go with 28 for added strength and stiffness or will it not be noticeable?
> The extra weight of 28g isn't a big deal for me if there is a benefit.
> ...


While it's tough or impossible for us to quantify the benefit of four extra spokes, there has to be a big strength increase - and all you're giving up is a weight increase of about 7 grams per spoke - 28 grams; ONE ounce.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

If you aren't breaking things after significant mileage on the 24h wheel no need to go to 28 with essentially the same rim and hubs.


I weight all of 5 lbs more but I build my aluminium rim training wheels 28h in the rear because I do break stuff.


----------



## Bridgestone (Sep 6, 2007)

If you presently have a ten speed hub and are going to a eleven most likely you are giving up some stiffness. Adding spokes might be a good idea.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Bridgestone said:


> If you presently have a ten speed hub and are going to a eleven most likely you are giving up some stiffness. Adding spokes might be a good idea.


Explain that, please.


----------



## Bridgestone (Sep 6, 2007)

tvad said:


> Explain that, please.


Trick question? Flange spacing , check it out.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

Bridgestone said:


> Trick question? Flange spacing , check it out.


it's totally possible to have the same flange spacing as well..kinda up to the hub mfg.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Go for the 24's so you can convert them to disc brakes if you decide to. 20's won't work well.


tvad said:


> 24. At your weight there's no need for 28.
> 
> IMO.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Mike T. said:


> While it's tough or impossible for us to quantify the benefit of four extra spokes, there has to be a big strength increase...


You're a wealth of wheel building knowledge, Mike T, but this statement seems like an oxymoron. 

If it's tough or impossible to quantify the benefits of four extra spokes, then it must also follow that it's tough or impossible to determine the degree of increased strength. 

However, it's not tough or impossible for the right person equipped with the required engineering skills.

This is where "ibericb" would help since he's an engineering expert. I'll bet he could quantify the increased strength.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

tvad said:


> You're a wealth of wheel building knowledge, Mike T, but this statement seems like an oxymoron.
> If it's tough or impossible to quantify the benefits of four extra spokes, then it must also follow that it's tough or impossible to determine the degree of increased strength.
> However, it's not tough or impossible for the right person equipped with the required engineering skills.
> This is where "ibericb" would help since he's an engineering expert. I'll bet he could quantify the increased strength.


If a degree in engineering is required then I stand by my statement. There are lots of engineers around** so why have we never seen the calculations for the increased strength of more spokes?

**Engineers into wheelbuilding (that I'm aware of) -

Roger Musson.
Jobst Brandt (I haven't read the late great Jobst's book in years; the calcs could be there)
Meltingfeather (frequent poster at MTBR "Wheels" section)


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

tvad said:


> However, it's not tough or impossible for the right person equipped with the required engineering skills.
> 
> This is where "ibericb" would help since he's an engineering expert. I'll bet he could quantify the increased strength.


First, I'm a materials / chemistry / physics guy, not an engineer. I have no idea how to calculate the increase in strength or stiffness that might come with increasing spoke count. But to my simple mind I would expect it would depend highly on rim design and tension too. 

My non-engineering understanding is the load on the wheel is the load on the wheel, and increasing spoke count merely distributes the pre-load tension across more spokes. So isn't spoke count about better managing tension distribution in the wheel? Does increasing spoke count from 24 to 28 increase wheel strength or stiffness and what strength or stiffness (e.g., lateral, radial, tangential)?

The issue with loading spokes is that it is the cyclic reduction/increase in tension during rolling that is the problem, and more spokes helps by lessening the extent of those changes for any one spoke. Brandt pointed out in one of his books that the load changes are concentrated over a few spokes, so it won't be linear. But using a liner approximation, going from 24 to 28 spokes represents a ~17% increase in spoke count, so I would think a first approximation would be that the range of tension changes for any one spoke decreases by 10-20%. To the extent that the changes are concentrated over fewer spokes I would suspect the relative decrease will be reduced.

To my thinking the primary advantage of decreasing tension changes in any given spoke is about reducing cyclic stress changes, which is about fatigue, which means better expected durability. The price for the improved durability is increased weight, and probably drag too. I have no clue at all how, for a given rim, hub, spoke, and lacing pattern, an increase in just spoke count alone might alter wheel strength and stiffness in any direction or how those changes would alter wheel performance, however determined or stated.


----------



## Bridgestone (Sep 6, 2007)

spdntrxi said:


> it's totally possible to have the same flange spacing as well..kinda up to the hub mfg.


If the flange spacing was optimized on the 10 speed hub (Shimano) it would be impossible to have the same flange spacing , the freehub is wider, the axle spacing is still 130 mm. Something has to give. If the flange spacing was marginal to begin with , it might be the same on a eleven. Either way, more spokes is more spokes and that in itself is beneficial.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Bridgestone said:


> If the flange spacing was optimized on the 10 speed hub (Shimano) it would be impossible to have the same flange spacing , the freehub is wider, the axle spacing is still 130 mm. Something has to give. If the flange spacing was marginal to begin with , it might be the same on a eleven. Either way, more spokes is more spokes and that in itself is beneficial.


If the hub is the same, then the flange spacing will be the same (e.g., Shimano 11-speed freehub with spacer for 10-speed cassette). If the hub changes between 10 and 11 speed systems, then yes. You're right - it's about flange spacing, not numbers of gears in the rear cassette.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

Bridgestone said:


> If the flange spacing was optimized on the 10 speed hub (Shimano) it would be impossible to have the same flange spacing , the freehub is wider, the axle spacing is still 130 mm. Something has to give. If the flange spacing was marginal to begin with , it might be the same on a eleven. Either way, more spokes is more spokes and that in itself is beneficial.


The OP already specified the two hubs he's swapping between.

The new White Industries T11 actually has its drive side flange 1mm further to the right compared to the hub he's coming from so it is in fact stiffer. Very few aftermarket hubs saw a flange spacing change when Shimano/SRAM 11spd drivetrains were introduced because they were already spaced to accommodate Campagnolo 11spd since about 2008.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Follow-up:

After sufficient coffee and dealing with the usual morning kid's traumas, I went back and reviewed the pertinent parts of Brandt's _The Bicycle Wheel_, 3rd ed to clear my own mind on the strength / durability issue.

First, strength is the maximum load a wheel can carry without collapsing. According to Brandt the wheel can collapse when the spokes in the “load affected zone” become loose. The load affected zone is that area of the rim that deforms from bicycle / wheel loading, and for a 36-spoke wheel that zone extends to 4-5 spokes. The strength is then the sum of the spoke tensions in the load affected zone. 

So let's consider that principle and play it out across different spoke counts, assuming the load affected zone is the same length of rim circumference regardless of spoke count. If 5 spokes reflects the length of the load affected zone in a 36 spoke wheel it would be ~ 4 spokes in a 28 spoke wheel. If the tensions were identical in both cases, then a 28 spoke wheel would be expected to have ~78% of the strength of a 36 spoke wheel, and a 24 spoke wheel would be expected to have ~66% of the 36 spoke wheel. The problem here is that assumes spoke tensions are equal in all three cases. Spoke tension should, ideally, be set by the desired or intended compressive force on the rim, which again ideally would be same in each case. So as the spoke count goes down, the tension on each spoke should increase to maintain the same total compressive force on the rim. If that were actually done, then the strength of the wheel would be essentially the same regardless of spoke count, but the stress on individual spokes would increase as spoke count decreased. 

So the answer to the strength question appears to be it depends on relative spoke tensions.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

I'm 145 and have two otherwise identical wheels except one has 24 and one has 28 spokes.

I see no reason not to error on the side of caution (especially in your case with a light rim with a history of rim cracks). While it's probably 99% sure you don't need 28 spokes it's 100% sure you don't have a 'need' for 24 so why not 28?


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

Unless you do a lot of starts from a track stand and out of the saddle sprinting, 24 spokes is perfectly adequate.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

jnbrown said:


> ... but I am wondering if it would make sense to go with 28 for added strength and stiffness or will it not be noticeable?
> 
> The extra weight of 28g isn't a big deal for me if there is a benefit.
> 
> Thanks


Putting a bunch of pieces together, here is what I surmise the differences would and could be going from 24 to 28:

- increased durability -- this is from the reduced cyclic fatigue described previously; at your weight it's unlikely to be an issue relative to other wheel wear issues; consider it like durability insurance.
- strength -- as noted previously, depends on how the wheel is tensioned, and what differences in spoke tension might result between the two; this will come down to the builder and his craft. but do you need or want more strength?
- stiffness -- radial and lateral no discernible difference, and tires and inflation will have a much greater effect here; torsional stiffness could be improved in the 28 spoke version by using a 3X pattern not readily do-able in the 24 spoke wheel. Not sure you could notice the difference.
- weight -- what, + 28 grams for 4 spokes? won't be noticed (you'd loose that much blowing your nose and spiting).
- aerodynamics -- probably a measurable difference in a wind tunnel, but practically for a recreational rider not an issue. If you were after aero advantage you'd probably be looking at very different rims or wheels altogether.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ibericb said:


> First, I'm a materials / chemistry / physics guy, not an engineer. I have no idea how to calculate the increase in strength or stiffness that might come with increasing spoke count.


My fault. 

Thanks for playing anyway.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

tvad said:


> My fault.
> 
> Thanks for playing anyway.


Don't want the engineers to be insulted, compared to us science type they're rather temperamental .


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Certain wheel builders publish suggested spoke counts and weight limits. November Bicycle, for example, publishes 20/24 for 175lbs and 20/28 for 200lbs for the Alloy Nimbus Ti build (with an asterisk comment "sorta. Weight guidelines can vary widely based on terrain and riding style. If you're unsure which build will provide you with the best performance, contact us").

With that in mind, would those here who recommend 28 spokes over 24 spokes for the OP who weighs 140lbs agree or disagree with the November Bicycle spoke count/weight guidelines?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

tvad said:


> Certain wheel builders publish suggested spoke counts and weight limits. November Bicycle, for example, publishes 20/24 for 175lbs and 20/28 for 200lbs for the Alloy Nimbus Ti build (with an asterisk comment "sorta. Weight guidelines can vary widely based on terrain and riding style. If you're unsure which build will provide you with the best performance, contact us").
> 
> With that in mind, would those here who recommend 28 spokes over 24 spokes for the OP who weighs 140lbs agree or disagree with the November Bicycle spoke count/weight guidelines?


I most certainly would especially with Stans 340 being one of the rim options.

All I know is I'm 145 and have had issues with 24 but not 28 and that I don't see 28 taking any performance away from me. Granted my riding style and high volume combined with really bad roads might require more than the typical person my size.

My case for 28 might be shakey but what's the case for 24 other than 'because you can get away with it"?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> **Engineers into wheelbuilding (that I'm aware of) -
> 
> Roger Musson.
> Jobst Brandt (I haven't read the late great Jobst's book in years; the calcs could be there)
> Meltingfeather (frequent poster at MTBR "Wheels" section)


And me. 

For someone who weighs 140 and isn't in the habit of destroying things, 16f and 20r would be plenty with those rims. 18f and 24r should have a ton of margin. I weigh 170, and if I could buy 16h SL23s I'd run 16f and 20r myself. This is based on my (good) experience with much lighter rims. 

Quantifying the degree of strength or life increase would require a detailed FEM or destruction testing, and I'm not aware of any being published. And it still wouldn't answer the question of how much is enough for a particular rider. 

IME the likely scenario for ruining a rim is to hit a sharp pothole or rock and dent the brake tracks. Normally the number of spokes is not a factor, unless the rim is prone to cracking, or you regularly put loads on it that causes spokes to go slack.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

rruff said:


> And me.


Ron, I'll add you to my list. I dunno what I'm going to do with it though. I have enjoyed Meltingfeather's (engineer over at MTBR) debates about wheel structures over the years. He never backs down from his stand on skinny spoke gauges (DT Rev in his case) for most people - and he builds mostly 29'er disc brake MTB wheels and whether a bike stands on its spokes or hangs from them. That latter "debate" is always classic.



> For someone who weighs 140 and isn't in the habit of destroying things, 16f and 20r would be plenty with those rims. 18f and 24r should have a ton of margin. I weigh 170, and if I could buy 16h SL23s I'd run 16f and 20r myself. This is based on my (good) experience with much lighter rims.
> Quantifying the degree of strength or life increase would require a detailed FEM or destruction testing, and I'm not aware of any being published. And it still wouldn't answer the question of how much is enough for a particular rider.
> IME the likely scenario for ruining a rim is to hit a sharp pothole or rock and dent the brake tracks. Normally the number of spokes is not a factor, unless the rim is prone to cracking, or you regularly put loads on it that causes spokes to go slack.


I'm someone to whom the tiny benefit of a few less spokes isn't worth the potential penalty of less spokes - a wheel might not turn in frame or fork if a spoke breaks. I would think that the warp in the rim would be greater if there are less spokes in a wheel. Yes, rim stiffness would be a variable factor here - of unknown effect to a mere mortal like me. I could be called a wheel curmudgeon or overly cautious as even I can't ever remember a front wheel spoke snapping on me and it's got to be 20+ years since a rear spoke broke on me** I just like to think of me as "practical". I'm just lucky that I don't have to satisfy those who think they have to have wheels with the least possible spoke numbers.

**Never a broken rear spoke ever since I found out about the benefits of careful spoke tension balance.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

jnbrown said:


> My current bike has the same wheelset except with H2 hubs and has 20F 24R. I weigh 140lbs and have had no issues at all with the 24 hole rear


How old are these wheels? Miles etc? 

Have those rims even been out on the market for long enough time [compared to 90s velocity rim I built] where one can take your 'no issues' comment to be significantly relevant. Which kind of follows with which, a 24 or 28 will be in service longer in higher likelihood... 

I always am weary of space between the spokes.  The lower profile the rim, the more weary I am. I trust the spoke more than the rims is what I am getting at I guess...

I can say I love the SL23 rims/wheels I built. But @ 210lb and 28 Spokes and 100 miles on them, I sure can not make any claims of 10k miles. Although my sense is they should be good wheels in the long run from experience of the process and similar? products I can make claims about...


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

It seems there is no clear right or wrong answer to this.
I happen to be an engineer, but electrical not mechanical, but have built quite a few wheels.
Since 24 has worked for me and I think hub dimensions are the same, I will stick with 24. You have to draw a line somewhere, you can argue if 28 is better then why not 32? i think its diminishing returns.
One thing I didn't see mentioned much was the stiffness of the rim which i believe these rims are pretty good in that category.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

jnbrown said:


> It seems there is no clear right or wrong answer to this.



If it was my question "how old are said wheels" there is actually no answer. 

I'd lean towards feeling the wider and thus stiffer rim make for the correct side of the equation. But again, in my minds eye low spokes = more tension and stress on each spoke hole/bed/area and expect the lower the weight of rim and spoke bed thickness the more that feeds to the other side of the equation...

Will they rims last 5 year or ten. Or 3 and not 10 etc...


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

jnbrown said:


> It seems there is no clear right or wrong answer to this.
> I happen to be an engineer, but electrical not mechanical, but have built quite a few wheels.
> Since 24 has worked for me and* I think hub dimensions are the same*, I will stick with 24. You have to draw a line somewhere, you can argue if 28 is better then why not 32? i think its diminishing returns.
> One thing I didn't see mentioned much was the stiffness of the rim which i believe these rims are pretty good in that category.


They're not.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> whether a bike stands on its spokes or hangs from them. That latter "debate" is always classic.


Jobst RIP was the originator of that one I believe. I'm still amazed that some people can't get it.



> I'm someone to whom the tiny benefit of a few less spokes isn't worth the potential penalty of less spokes


Yes, but it is easy to get carried away, too. If 28 is good, then how about 32 or 36? If the guy is a normal rider and weighs 140 lbs then a well built rear wheel with 20 light spokes and the SL23 should be fine for 20-30k miles, or more. 24 is extra safe IMO. 



> Yes, rim stiffness would be a variable factor here - of unknown effect to a mere mortal like me.


It's a large one. Radial stiffness effects lateral stiffness of the wheel a lot also. I built a lot of wheels with the XR200 rim and 28 spokes for riders considerably heavier than him. The SL23 makes a much stiffer wheel. 

Rim stiffness doesn't effect the torque loading on the spokes, which is something to consider. But a 140lb rider won't be putting a lot of torque into a wheel. Even if he is strong (high power/ weight), he will climb fast because he is so light. It is the really heavy guys who can over-torque a light wheel on a steep climb. 



> **Never a broken rear spoke ever since I found out about the benefits of careful spoke tension balance.


Yep, balance is very important, and a broken spoke is a very rare occurrence in a well built wheel. Your site is a great primer for getting it right.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Take two wheels using the same type rim and spokes. One wheel uses 36 spokes at a tension of 1000 N per spoke and the second wheel uses 24 spokes at a tension of 1500 N per spoke. What these two wheels share in common? Identical rim compression at 5730 N or 1288 lbf. 

But it's not wise to drive the spoke tension that much high, you say. Ok, then add four more spokes and your 28 spokes, now tensioned at 1285 N, will give you your 5730 N rim compression. How about 32 spokes @ 112 N? Same rim compression.

That's what adding or taking away spokes means, IMO. Whether or not the resulting rim compression is optimized to offset the load applied by the rider's weight, pedaling stroke output and the direction its being applied from for a number of load cycles are questions that need significantly more input and analysis than is typically offered by simply stating the rider's weight. However, even if one had this information, it is doubtful what he would do with it short of a Finite Element analysis which still would be subject to variables to predict deflections. Since hiring proffesionals to conduct a FE analysis is not what most are willing to do, they rely on the wisdom of the wheelbuilder to determine the "correct" number of spokes from empirical exposure to what seems to be working for most people with perceived similar predicaments.

So, if you have a wheel that seems to be indestructible for thousands of miles, it would be a fair assumption to make that the number of spokes could be reduced while maintaining the same spoke tension as the original wheel and still end up with a rim compression suitable for the rider's load profile. Can't be more specific than that so its best to stop obsessing about it and go ride your bike.


----------



## Aladin (Oct 5, 2014)

Skimming this thread.. it's hilarious. Typical.

Sans any measurables... hub width etc.. one can't make comparisons. Comparing identical builds just adding 4 spokes a 28 divides those stresses over of course more units. Only the rider can decide if an ounce is worth carrying. I've no use or interest in 11's, I wonder what left side tensions are though... compared to what you riding now. Likely at that weight level it'd be irrelevant. Build quality is the bottom line.

I ride a 28 at 200 lbs.. albeit 18-10 .. a hybrid triplet design of my own lacing. Left side tensions around 85% of DS.. you don't need to run excessive tensions right side to get a stable left. No spoke prep.. glue here. And they stand.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Aladin said:


> I ride a 28 at 200 lbs.. albeit 18-10 .. a hybrid triplet design of my own lacing. Left side tensions around 85% of DS.. *you don't need to run excessive tensions right side to get a stable left. No spoke prep.. glue here*. And they stand.


Nor you need exotic lacing patterns or 85% tension ratios. All you need is the NDS at a tension value above 55 kgf to keep *unglued* spokes from loosening up. Most 11s hubs will let you do that with a normal 2x or 3x lacing, just by raising the DS tension a tad. If you need fancy lacing and glued spokes to keep a wheel together, you havent used enough spokes or enough tension or enough care to equalize the tensions.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

Aladin said:


> Skimming this thread.. it's hilarious. Typical.
> 
> Sans any measurables... hub width etc.. one can't make comparisons. Comparing identical builds just adding 4 spokes a 28 divides those stresses over of course more units. Only the rider can decide if an ounce is worth carrying. I've no use or interest in 11's, I wonder what left side tensions are though... compared to what you riding now. Likely at that weight level it'd be irrelevant. Build quality is the bottom line.
> 
> I ride a 28 at 200 lbs.. albeit 18-10 .. a hybrid triplet design of my own lacing. Left side tensions around 85% of DS.. you don't need to run excessive tensions right side to get a stable left. No spoke prep.. glue here. And they stand.


I believe the spacing on the WI T11 and H2 hubs are the same, so you are not loosing anything by going to 11 speed and you are gaining a gear. I will going from 12-28 to 12-29 so slightly wider gear range and less jumps between gears. On my current wheels I used DT revs on the NDS, with the thinner spokes there is less chance of them going slack.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

jnbrown said:


> *I believe the spacing on the WI T11 and H2 hubs are the same*, so you are not loosing anything by going to 11 speed and you are gaining a gear. I will going from 12-28 to 12-29 so slightly wider gear range and less jumps between gears. On my current wheels I used DT revs on the NDS, with the thinner spokes there is less chance of them going slack.


Again, it's not.

Anyway, the debate isn't so much about what the answer is but what the question is. It's either "is 24 enough" or "is 28 too many". Almost certainly and no are the answers so either 24 or 28 is fine depending which question you ask so I'd prefer to ask the latter and be on the side of caution. "because I can get away with it" isn't a good enough reason for me to choose 24 over 28 (though in the past it was) given I can't detect any down side to 28. I own and ride otherwise identical 24 and 28 spoke rear wheels and if I'm slower with the 28s I certainly can't tell so can't think of a reason why not.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Maybe go with 28h and 14/17 spokes, or 24 with 14/15.

I am 210lb and just did SL23 28hole with 14/17 except I used 14/15 for the 7 drive side trailing spokes and used brass nip for the 7 and AL nips for the rest. So you could do that if you have the ability to wind up a wheel more so than not. I don't think I would go less that 28 for me for a rear, and no less than 24 for a front and would use 14/15 on those. If you weigh less than me you could push farther than I. But I think I you save 2 gram approx per spoke with 14/17 over 14/15. X 56 spokes is 1/4 lb lighter simply put. Another bit with AL nips over brass etc etc.


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

jnbrown,

Can I ask, since you write _"I weigh 140lbs and have had no issues at all with the 24 hole rear...._", do you have a friend who has 32 or 36H rear wheel they could loan you, so you could ride a couple of days? What I mean is, I think if you were somehow made to wear those lower eye blinders and you were not allowed to see your bike and/or its components before you got on & pedalled away, do you think you could tell the difference between a 24H and 28H rear rim (with all other components remaining the same)? With 24 to 32, you might and/or should. But between 24 and 28?? I honest to Gosh think you couldn't tell any difference between a 24H and a 28H rim (with everything else remaining equal) if you weren't told about it before you got on the bike and/or knew it from building it yourself. It's just way too subjective for most of us. But, that said, if you are one of those incredible 140lb power sprinters and/or out of the saddle long power climbers, then maybe you might and there'd be no harm, no foul, in adding four more little itty-bitty spokes (wheel life, in terms of durability, sure would go up...that you might notice). 

And if you forsee increasing amounts of Ben & Jerrys pints raining down on you & your body's aging future, having 4 more spokes in the rear is going to be de rigueur :thumbsup:


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

robt57 said:


> Maybe go with 28h and 14/17 spokes, or 24 with 14/15.
> 
> I am 210lb and just did SL23 28hole with 14/17 except I used 14/15 for the 7 drive side trailing spokes and used brass nip for the 7 and AL nips for the rest. So you could do that if you have the ability to wind up a wheel more so than not. I don't think I would go less that 28 for me for a rear, and no less than 24 for a front and would use 14/15 on those. If you weigh less than me you could push farther than I. But I think I you save 2 gram approx per spoke with 14/17 over 14/15. X 56 spokes is 1/4 lb lighter simply put. Another bit with AL nips over brass etc etc.


yeah, thicker drive side and brass nips is another one with no definitive answer (that I'm aware of) so probably, like the original question, I'd answer with why not error on the side of caution. I say that inspite of doing the opposite with my most recent wheel build.

I've spoken with several extremely qualified wheel builders about both thicker spokes on the drive side and brass nips and opinions are mixed. Some say good idea and others don't see the benefit. No one has said it's a bad idea and only mention weight as a reason not to.


----------



## Aladin (Oct 5, 2014)

dcgriz said:


> Nor you need exotic lacing patterns or 85% tension ratios. All you need is the NDS at a tension value above 55 kgf to keep *unglued* spokes from loosening up. Most 11s hubs will let you do that with a normal 2x or 3x lacing, just by raising the DS tension a tad. If you need fancy lacing and glued spokes to keep a wheel together, you havent used enough spokes or enough tension or enough care to equalize the tensions.


LMFAO. Thanks for the good chuckle.

To the 'from the tad' world.. ahhhh... I'll practice 'catch and release'. You couldn't wrap your noodle around it.


----------



## Aladin (Oct 5, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> yeah, thicker drive side and brass nips is another one with no definitive answer (that I'm aware of) so probably, like the original question, I'd answer with why not error on the side of caution. I say that inspite of doing the opposite with my most recent wheel build.
> 
> I've spoken with several extremely qualified wheel builders about both thicker spokes on the drive side and brass nips and opinions are mixed. Some say good idea and others don't see the benefit. No one has said it's a bad idea and only mention weight as a reason not to.


Count me Jay from the 'no benefit' camp. I've come to the conclusion so long as the NDS has enough stretch NOT to completely de-tension and give 'head slap' they don't break. Most all riders won't notice/benefit from heavier spokes DS... with a tension of 120 kgf. 'Heavier' spokes just stretch less during the cycle... and that butted section no matter the gauge wire keeps the elbows fatigue and breakage down.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Aladin said:


> LMFAO. Thanks for the good chuckle.
> 
> To the 'from the tad' world.. ahhhh... I'll practice 'catch and release'. You couldn't wrap your noodle around it.


Quoting you seems a tad silly (oops, here's that word again) but that's all you offered so it'll have to do.

You seem to have an issue with my earlier statement about 11s hub flange spacing able to maintain a NDS tension above 55 with a tad higher DS tension.
Typically common flange offsets from 11s hubs are at the range of 16mm and 35.5mm. This results to an approximate tension ratio of 45% and an estimated NDS tension of around 58 kgf when the DS tension is increased to 130 kgf which is a tad over the "normal" 120-125 kgf. 
In my view, tension above 55kgf on the NDS is able in keeping the NDS spokes reliably tensioned. Values of 50kgf and below is what I have empirically found to be an issue.
The above assumes you have enough spokes to produce adequate rim compression to react to the load the wheel sees.


----------



## Aladin (Oct 5, 2014)

dcgriz said:


> Quoting you seems a tad silly (oops, here's that word again) but that's all you offered so it'll have to do.
> 
> You seem to have an issue with my earlier statement about 11s hub flange spacing able to maintain a NDS tension above 55 with a tad higher DS tension.
> Typically common flange offsets from 11s hubs are at the range of 16mm and 35.5mm. This results to an approximate tension ratio of 45% and an estimated NDS tension of around 58 kgf when the DS tension is increased to 130 kgf which is a tad over the "normal" 120-125 kgf.
> ...


To each their own.

What does humor me .. is the sheep flocking to anything new/light/sexy in this 21st century game of marketing plastic bikes. All the while clinging to the old concept of the rear dished bike wheel whereas only half of the spoke bed is being actually WORKED. Now if one of those fellas marketing this plastic sheeitt today would grow the ka-humas to simply widen the rear to a symmetrical lacing .. image the new wave of wheels.. components they could peddle.


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

We're actually much more in line with your thinking than you might be assuming. For example we've suggested a switch to 28h rear for everyone who's ordered Stan's 340 in 20/24 (with 100% uptake on the suggestion). 

Even with the guidance we put up, and no guidance can ever be one size fits all when you are talking about different riders and different components, "how many spokes do I need" is the question we are most often asked. We take it as significant progress that people now ask "how few spokes can I get away with" much less frequently. We've been cheerleaders for more conservative spoke count alloy wheels for a long time. 

We've also done a lot of testing, and with most alloy rims, lateral stability in a rear build does benefit an easily measurable amount from going to 28 from 24 spokes. I'm a subscriber to Brandt's "load affected spokes" concept, for sure. That one's a bit harder to measure with a high degree of accuracy. 

When we did our first order of Nimbus Ti hubs, we stocked up very hard in 20h front and 28h rear hubs, as we so often recommend that build. It's a great combo for a ton of people with a lot of different rims. 

Aerodynamic cost of 4 extra spokes in a front wheel is generally on the order of 1/2 to 3/4 of a watt when going from 20 to 24 spokes, from the testing we've done (measured a couple of times at A2). The rear wheel is less than half as important as the front, aerodynamically speaking (tested last summer at A2), so to go from 24 to 28 from an aerodynamics perspective is well under .5 watts in any case. 

The weight cost of 4 extra spokes is 20 grams with Lasers/CX Rays/Revolutions/Aerolites. 

24h alloy rears have their place and for some riders, and with some rims and hubs, they are great. We also think very highly of 28h alloy rears.


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

Aladin said:


> To each their own.
> 
> Now if one of those fellas marketing this plastic sheeitt today would grow the ka-humas to simply widen the rear to a symmetrical lacing .. image the new wave of wheels.. components they could peddle.


You mean rear dropouts wide enough to have a non-dished 11 speed wheel? The bottom bracket would need to be be about 50% wider than it now is in order to have chainrings and heels not hit drive side chain stay. If you've ever ridden a fat bike, you know how uncomfortable (and injurious, especially to IT bands) this kind of Q factor can be.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

There's a lot of sensible info there November Dave.


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

NovemberDave,

Have a question about something you said: you said in one of your messages..

"._..You mean rear dropouts wide enough to have a non-dished 11 speed wheel? The bottom bracket would need to be be about 50% wider than it now is in order to have chainrings and heels not hit drive side chain stay_....."

I realize we may never get to a non-dished rear wheel (at least the way wheels are currently constructed) but why can't the industry...especially the carbon frame guys along with the component guys....experiment with making wildly asymmetric rear stays, at least more asymmetric than they currently are, along with a wider axle, say 135-140mm, and only a BB that is 20-30% wider than it currently is?? 

Wouldn't these combos allow a possible setup on the rear of a much better dished wheel, and all the benefits that would bring, along with a still reasonable Q-factor? Or am I asking too much of carbon wonders in constructing asymmetric rear triangles and have them still functional? Just trying to think outside the box.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

If the cassette is moved out the crank set has to move out the same amount to maintain chain line. Moving the cassette 10mm out requires a 20mm wider Q factor with current standard cranks, because the left side has to move out the same as the right to maintain symmetry. The distance from the pedal hole to the chainring could be narrowed some, with a narrower crank arm but there is not a lot of space to be given up there. Maybe 3-5mm at most. Of course even 5mm better DS flange spacing would help wheel strength quite a bit. But it would require special non standard cranks to go with the non standard frame and non standard hubs.


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

Thanks Mike.

Belgian Hammer - Upon further consideration, I misjudged the amount the BB would need to widen by. It would be closer to 18mm, making a ~ 148 rear dropout and an ~ 86 BB width. My disc brake road bike has the same chain stay lengths as its rim brake brother, the rear dropout is 135mm, and the Q factor is one very thin shim wider. 135mm disc hubs are already better balanced than 130mm road hubs, even with a disc. That's the direction we're all headed anyway. According to the Shimano manual, my bike's chain stays are 5mm too short to work with an 11 speed drive train, but it works perfectly. 

I notice a very negative pedaling difference going from either of my road bikes to my mtb, which has about a 7 or 8mm wider Q than the road bikes. If the choice is between rear wheels with 4 extra spokes or suffer such a Q factor increase, I'd pick the wheel with more spokes 1000 times out of 1000, and more if I could. 

I think everyone who reads this would absolutely hate riding a road bike with an 84 or 85mm BB, whereas no one would ever likely notice any detriment to a rear wheel with 4 or 8 more spokes.


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

Here's a few things to keep in mind, from my perspective. Yeah, I had the ME courses that cover static and dynamic loads, and remember the principles of drawing / analyzing load and force diagrams 

It's important to remember the rear wheels are subjected to lateral loads. With a lateral load (= side load on the wheel) you have spokes top and bottom being tensioned higher *and* lower. And you also have spokes on the bottom de-tensioned by weight *and* dynamic forces on the wheel (rough surface, potholes, etc). 

So you have 3 additive forces in a worst case scenario to de-tension spokes on bottom, all 3 are somewhat dependent on rider weight. But those 3 forces are dependent on riding style, and the road surface. 

A rider that stands up and mashes up a steep hill at low cadence rocking the bike will put lateral loads on the wheel from the torque delivered by the pedals. This side force from torque comes comes from the pedals being offset from the hub center. Also from the rocking (there is a side force on wheels when the bike is not vertical). When standing this weight is applied off center when all the and leg down force weight is applied on the one pedal, again offset from the center. Torque = force x distance, so here the distance is from pedal center to hub or wheel center. 

The more these worst case triple force scenarios happen statistically, the higher the chances for fatigue failure of the spokes. 

When you add more spokes, you increase the wheels ability to resist both side (lateral) loads, as well as dynamic loads. This is because the spoke density in the affected area (say a 25 degree arc top and bottom) is increased, distributing force across more spokes, meaning less spoke stretch per spoke, = less de-tensioning per spoke. 

The wheel rigidity also comes into play - the more laterally rigid it is, the more the top spokes are stretched in addition to the bottom spokes. On a shallow rim, analysis by others showed that only the bottom of the rim flexed due to side loads. But the spokes will still de-tension due to side loads in both cases. 
Back to work.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

BelgianHammer said:


> Wouldn't these combos allow a possible setup on the rear of a much better dished wheel, and all the benefits that would bring, along with a still reasonable Q-factor?


Doesn't help. If the rim is in the centerline of the frame (and it needs to be), then the DS offset is controlled by the distance of the DS dropout from centerline. Doesn't matter how wide you make the NDS dropout.


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

Thanks NovebmerDave (and thanks ericm979).

I'm already a proponent of more spokes, get yelled at a few times when I keep saying it, but thankfully Mike T and others (like you all) come on and set people straight. When I was 170-175lb, I think 28H would've been good, especially since I am fairly easy on wheels (can't sprint to save myself and stay in the saddle most all of the time spinning as much as I can). But over the years, as 190-195lbs now stares at me, I am perfectly happy with 32H in the rear, and either 28H or 32H on the front. I always joke with myself that, well, at least I got to try 28H rims, only thing is that they are on the front, lol.

Thanks again.

P.S. NovemberDave, I know this sounds crazy, but if you ever get a deal with WI industries where we can get those same awesome wheels you now have except we can choose one of the WI colors, I will put my order in yesterday!! Your rims and one of the WI colors, oh boy, this old codger would be one seriously happy camper


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Why couldn't the bike companies have called a truce at 10-cog cassettes? Where does this fight for cog-upmanship end? What is the limit that will never be exceeded?

I'll tell ya something that is only partially tongue-in-cheek - I was far faster with 5-speed freewheels than with 10-speed cassettes. In fact as I progressed (regressed?) through 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 speeds, I got slower, not faster. Of course, aging 35-40 years at the same time might have had a little to do with it. But, I go just as fast on my 9-speed cassette bike as I do on my 10-speed one.

I'm staying at 10 as long as e-bay and e-tailing exist. In fact I have two 9-spd and three 10-spd cassettes tucked away in my cupboard.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

November Dave said:


> For example we've suggested a switch to 28h rear for everyone who's ordered Stan's 340 in 20/24 (with 100% uptake on the suggestion). ...24h alloy rears have their place and for some riders, and with some rims and hubs, they are great. We also think very highly of 28h alloy rears.


I'm 170lb and like to push the envelope in the interest of being a guinea pig. I built a set with some really light 340s (330 and 340g) in 18f and 24r, but that was with old Alchemy hubs which are the best you can get for flange spacing. No issues at all until the DS spoke holes cracked after ~8k miles. For most people I built 20f and 28r unless they weighed <150lb and had a history of being easy on equipment. Built lots of the Kinlin XR200s in 20f and 28r, and never used 24. 

20f and 28r really is the most sensible for the most people. The front will still be stronger and stiffer than the rear. 

But with all the good rims coming in wider, stiffer, and heavier these days, I wish that 16h was available for the light weight riders wanting to optimize.


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

_"...I'm staying at 10 as long as e-bay and e-tailing exist. In fact I have two 9-spd and three 10-spd cassettes tucked away in my cupboard...."_

I hear ya, Mike, about not going to 11. I too have refused, though I did sell all of my 9-spd full group systems early this year on Ebay. I was surprised at how much I got for two full gruppo Ultegra 9-spd sets. 

Since I'm fully on 10spd now, I weekly check Ebay, Craigslist, etc for any deals on Ultegra 10 6600 hubs, 10 speed 105 or Ultegra cassettes and also backup 10 spd shifters (sticking to 105 there, I think). I've also bought new cones for the Ultegra 6600 hubs, and new ball bearings, so when the time comes, I can keep those going for a long time. I did this with my 9 spd Ultegra hubs (backup cones and new ball bearings) and I still have two sets of these hubs. They roll as wheel as my new 6600 Ultegra hubs if not better. 

And as far as I am concerned, 9 spd Ultegra hubs look a whole lot sexier to the eye than what Shimano did when they went to the fatter not appealing hubs on the 105 up thru Dura Ace (for 10 and 11 spd).


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

BelgianHammer said:


> ... P.S. NovemberDave, I know this sounds crazy, but if you ever get a deal with WI industries where we can get those same awesome wheels you now have except we can choose one of the WI colors, I will put my order in yesterday!! Your rims and one of the WI colors, oh boy, this old codger would be one seriously happy camper


It's not crazy, and we do it right now. It's just that they come with T11 hubs and cost $100 more (which is still a pretty fantastic deal). That's not a snarky answer, at all. The majority of the cost savings is in process and inventory efficiency, and the ability to series build. The cost of goods isn't that wildly different, but managing a custom build program is really quite expensive. 

A guy recently took me to task, aggressively, when he wanted to name his own price for having us put colored nipples into a set of Nimbus Ti alloy. He said "let's be reasonable, there's no way it costs $100 to manage putting colored nipples into one build!" When you manage production as we do in order to sell Nimbus Ti at the price we do, it costs quite comfortably more than $100 to put custom nipples into a build. Hidden costs demolish you.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Mike T. said:


> Why couldn't the bike companies have called a truce at 10-cog cassettes? Where does this fight for cog-upmanship end? What is the limit that will never be exceeded?


With a wide spread cassette (11-28) I really like 11 speed. The 28 -> 25 is a lot better than the 28 -> 24 jump as far as shifting is concerned. Marginal gain, for sure, but I still can tell the difference.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> With a wide spread cassette (11-28) I really like 11 speed. The 28 -> 25 is a lot better than the 28 -> 24 jump as far as shifting is concerned. Marginal gain, for sure, but I still can tell the difference.


You'll be waiting a couple of years for the 1-tooth jump 11-28 18-spd cassette then?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Mike T. said:


> You'll be waiting a couple of years for the 1-tooth jump 11-28 18-spd cassette then?


If it works, doesn't cost a fortune, shifts smoothly, and doesn't sacrifice wheel strength to a really high degree I say why not . Hopefully by that time Di2 will be so pervasive you don't have to click the shifter 15 times though when you crest a hill though!


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

If we could have a 14 cog cassette with reasonable bike and wheel geometry I'd get it. I often use 11-30 cassettes for extreme climbing races and would love to have narrow gaps between the gear ratios so I can have exactly the right gear all the time. Once the cog size gets to 19 or 21 I'm ok with two tooth gaps.

However I'm still on 10sp due to inertia. I've been building my new wheels 11sp but I still have some 10sp race wheels.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> Hopefully by that time Di2 will be so pervasive you don't have to click the shifter 15 times though when you crest a hill though!


By then you will have a brain implant and the shifters will work off thought-waves. Think "Legs, shut the ^%$& up!" and the tranny will downshift the needed number of cogs for the legs to shut the ^%$#& up. Shimano will automatically send a royalty to Jensie and he'll live happily ever after, looking like the Pillsbury Dough-boy.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Mike T. said:


> By then you will have a brain implant and the shifters will work off thought-waves. Think "Legs, shut the ^%$& up!" and the tranny will downshift the needed number of cogs for the legs to shut the ^%$#& up. Shimano will automatically send a royalty to Jensie and he'll live happily ever after, looking like the Pillsbury Dough-boy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWzdWMapJ-c

It's ALREADY here!! I just can't wait to calibrate my brain waves to my bike computer.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

deviousalex said:


> Hopefully by that time Di2 will be so pervasive you don't have to click the shifter 15 times though when you crest a hill though!


You haven't used Campy shifters, eh? 

All this talk about the virtues of a bazillion gears seems a bit odd. Of *course* there are tradeoffs, to the drivetrain as well as the wheels. Cost, weight, durability, shift quality. I suppose the later can be mitigated by a good electronic system, and they will be ubiquitous in a few years. 

I'm an old man and live in an area as hilly as any. I'm on 9spd still (with Chorus 11 shifters) and that is more than I need. 50/36 and 11-23. If you want a bigger spread, just get used to the gaps. Learn to vary your cadence! There are plenty of people riding around on fixies and single speeds. It isn't that big of a deal. 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Change is a substitute for progress when real progress is difficult to come by. And bikes standards will be changing regularly whether I see the point or not.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

ericm979 said:


> If we could have a 14 cog cassette with reasonable bike and wheel geometry I'd get it.


I use 14-25 10-spd and 9 spd cassettes.


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

The bliss of this cassette range, riding/training alone (or even with friends), is hard to explain unless you've ridden it for awhile. For myself, given the 20+% sharp, short bergs 'round here, the only that would make this cassette (as a standalone purchase) _perfect_ would be if the 20 cog was removed and a 28 cog was added. 

Actually, I do this already: I take these 14-25 Youth Cassettes, gently tap out the useless (_and yes, in the middle of the cassette's 20-16 cogs like this, these 3 pins are useless, and that is direct from Shimano service reps at races here in Europe---those 3 pins only serve to restrict the swap-ability of cassettes_)...so, as recommended to me by them quite awhile ago, I tap out those 3 cassette restraining pins holding the 20-16 cogs together. Then, everything falls apart nicely, with the fixed 25-23-21 spider section still solid on its own, I next use a 28T cog (along with its spider support) from a similarly tapped out Tiagra 12-28 10 spd cassette. These Tiagra 10 spd 12-28 cassettes only cost ~$15 here in Europe, which is nearly the same price as one 28T cog costs from JensonUSA with shipping). End result? Voila, I've a 14-28 nearly-all Ultegra cassette. 

I've been doing this for quite awhile (as have others I know and ride/race with my age), and the shifting is great because the cassette is basically all Ultegra with only a 28T Tiagra cog. 

Being in my 50s, where my daily avg per hr speeds hover between 25kmph on recovery days up to 32-35 kmph on alone and/or with friends training days, a 14-28 like this is god-send. Especially, as noted, having that tight cog range along with a 25 and 28, for those slow recovery days when I am struggling and need the 28 to get up over the aforementioned steep bergs.

If I am doing local races (Kermesses) and/or noted hard weekend club get togethers, I swap this homemade 14-28T out and use a dedicated Shimano 105 12-25 cassette-----as I still need the 12 and 13 cogs that 12-25 provides for when the attacks inevitably come. And obviously a 28T cog isn't going to do me much good during a kermesse, but Lord I do think about it, haha. (FWIW, these cassettes are all paired to 50/39 front chainring bikes...gave up the 52/53 outers a few yrs ago.)


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

Large solo cogs can be tough on aluminium freeehub bodies, though they're ok on steel or Ti ones.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

I weigh 150 and I'm on Dura Ace wheels (16 front 20 rear). I don't see 24 as really being all that needed, and you come in at 140.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> I weigh 150 and I'm on Dura Ace wheels (16 front 20 rear). I don't see 24 as really being all that needed, and you come in at 140.


This doesn't take into account riding style, etc. I've seen some bigger riders on 16/20 wheels and they say they like them, while I find them to have too much flex.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

deviousalex said:


> This doesn't take into account riding style, etc. I've seen some bigger riders on 16/20 wheels and they say they like them, while I find them to have too much flex.


Right, and it doesn't take into account that Dura Ace is an apples to oranges reference. What works for spokes with rims that strong or however they manage to do it shouldn't be used to determine how many spokes is good for different rims and hubs.


----------

