# Sapium CX Rays vs Double butted.



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

As I said in the another post, I'm looking for a $500 wheelset. I seem to spend most of my road time climbing and descending ( I like the descending way more)

I'm 175 lbs. In mtb, the CX rays are strong and light. You beat the piss out of your rims in mtb. So, it's nice to have something that will hold up and not weight too much on the climbs.

Are the CX rays worth it on road?

They are lighter, but is the extra stiffness helpful? (Especially with a lot of radial laced front wheels)


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

Although I think Cxrays are great spokes, they aren't going to help keep your budget below $500. If your willing to spend a bit more, go for it. However if your absolute max is $500, double butted would save you a few bucks.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

Zen Cyclery said:


> Although I think Cxrays are great spokes, they aren't going to help keep your budget below $500. If your willing to spend a bit more, go for it. However if your absolute max is $500, double butted would save you a few bucks.


but would spending more on the cx rays give me any real benefits? 

Better hill acceleration because of lower rotating mass?

Stiffer later wheel to help on the fast turns or out of the saddle efforts? 

I have had good luck with mtb especially when branch goes in the wheel. It's nice to see the branch cut, not your spoke broken. I can't say my front wheel faired so well with it's Mavic Al spokes (ST front) in that situation.


----------



## valleycyclist (Nov 1, 2009)

CX-Rays will make the wheels lighter, but not stiffer than 14/15G spokes.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Heck if you want light weight why not DT Revolution spokes instead CX Rays? Their about 18 grms less then CX for 64 spokes, so if you have low spoke count wheels then the margin becomes less. But I wouldn't use Revolutions on the rear. I use the Revolution on the front and Competition on the rear. I've heard nothing but good reports on the CX's but you do have to use their polyax nipples. 

Aero wise the bladed spoke is a tad better BUT only if there is zero side wind, if there is any side wind you lose all benefits and actually lose ground over a round spoke. A round spoke always presents the same small profile to the air stream, whether the angle of attack is head on or from the side. When you consider the wind direction, speed of the bicycle, and rotational speed of the wheel, it becomes apparent that there is an alphabet soup of aerodynamic considerations happening throughout the course of the ride. For this reason, I believe that butted round spokes present the best real-world aerodynamic profile.

IMO, I would save your money, and get DT Rev's for the front and the Comp's for rear.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Physics?*



ziscwg said:


> Better hill acceleration because of lower rotating mass?


Do you mean better acceleration when you change speed, or are you thinking that rotating mass somehow applies differently when you are climbing hills (a common misconception). 

Acceleration is acceleration whether you are on a hill or on the flats. Lower rotating mass means that you expend less energy to spin the wheels up, but then you lose speed faster when you quit pedaling. However, since this is a very small energy savings in the first place, the spoke weight savings is closer to the hub, and you are not going that fast uphill, the difference due to lower spoke weight would be tiny (compared to the same weight loss from anywhere else on the bike or rider). IOW, dumping out a little water from your bottle would have about the same effect as lighter spokes when climbing.


----------



## sanrensho (Jan 2, 2003)

You could go Laser on the front (only 1 gram heavier than CX-Rays) and save the CX-Rays for the rear wheel.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

CX-Rays have an aero benefit on the road... and that is one of their best features. They are the same stiffness as Lasers, XL14s, and Revolutions... which means they are less stiff than heavier spokes.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> Do you mean better acceleration when you change speed, or are you thinking that rotating mass somehow applies differently when you are climbing hills (a common misconception).
> 
> Acceleration is acceleration whether you are on a hill or on the flats. Lower rotating mass means that you expend less energy to spin the wheels up, but then you lose speed faster when you quit pedaling. However, since this is a very small energy savings in the first place, the spoke weight savings is closer to the hub, and you are not going that fast uphill, the difference due to lower spoke weight would be tiny (compared to the same weight loss from anywhere else on the bike or rider). IOW, dumping out a little water from your bottle would have about the same effect as lighter spokes when climbing.


I actually was interested in how it is changing speed. My biggest weakness are the long climbs at a good pace. I can however go at a more moderate pace with a number of 10-30 sec bursts to keep up. (I guess I'm good at over/unders, not steady state efforts) So, less effort to accelerate is helpful.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

2.0/1.8/2.0mm spokes
DT Competitions
Sapim Race

2.0/1.7/2.0mm spokes
Wheelsmith DB14

2.0/1.5/2.0mm spokes
Sapim Laser
Sapim CX-Ray
DT Revolution spokes
DT Aerolites

The thickness of the spokes will determine their stiffness and weight. Bladed spokes are more aero, but rim shape and depth are much bigger determining factors.

-Eric


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

rruff said:


> CX-Rays have an aero benefit on the road... and that is one of their best features. They are the same stiffness as Lasers, XL14s, and Revolutions... which means they are less stiff than heavier spokes.


The aero effect on the road is nonsense. Only time you will have an aero advantage if it's completely windless day, or the wind is either going directly straight at you or from directly behind otherwise you will be at a disadvantage, read my earlier post to find out why. Problem is the wind changes directions and so does your bike.


----------



## El Caballito (Oct 31, 2004)

go with the lasers


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

froze said:


> The aero effect on the road is nonsense. Only time you will have an aero advantage if it's completely windless day, or the wind is either going directly straight at you or from directly behind otherwise you will be at a disadvantage, read my earlier post to find out why. Problem is the wind changes directions and so does your bike.


It is obvious that you lack any real world experience whatsoever. I have been riding Cxrays on every single bike that I own (ranging from 29ers to a P2) and I have never ever ever felt negative due to crosswinds simply due to spokes. The rim that your running has a much bigger effect than spokes. But you really think that Cxrays aren't going to give you an advantage in a vicious headwind? Sounds to me like someone didn't do their homework.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

froze said:


> I've heard nothing but good reports on the CX's but you do have to use their polyax nipples.


Then there's us; lots of us, that have much *personal* experience with CX-Rays (building, using) and have *never* used Polyax nipples. Nor have we suffered from not using them. So you've just heard we have to use Polyax nipples right?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

froze said:


> The aero effect on the road is nonsense. Only time you will have an aero advantage if it's completely windless day, or the wind is either going directly straight at you or from directly behind otherwise you will be at a disadvantage, read my earlier post to find out why. Problem is the wind changes directions and so does your bike.


CX-rays are more aerodynamic from 0 to 30 degrees than either bladed or round spokes.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

rruff said:


> CX-Rays have an aero benefit on the road... and that is one of their best features. They are the same stiffness as Lasers, XL14s, and Revolutions... which means they are less stiff than heavier spokes.


Correct. I don't know how people get the impression that CX-Rays are stiffer than any other spokes. When it comes to modulus of elasticity, steel is steel, therefore, cross-sectional area (weight) equals stiffness. The actual weight is about 2% more than same-length Revolutions, and about 26% less than same-length DT Comps.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Mike T. said:


> Then there's us; lots of us, that have much *personal* experience with CX-Rays (building, using) and have *never* used Polyax nipples. Nor have we suffered from not using them. So you've just heard we have to use Polyax nipples right?


I don't use CX Rays, true, but I knew several people who have, and the ones that didn't not use the Polyax nipples had problems that occured after about 15,000 miles (was the lowest mileage) with spoke breakage, and Sapim blamed the lack of use of their Polyax nips caused premature fatigue due to poor seat angle from using competitors nips. The riders I knew that did use the Polyax nips had no long term issues. So I only went by not only what I heard but also experiences of others I knew.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

froze said:


> I don't use CX Rays, true, but I knew several people who have, and the ones that didn't not use the Polyax nipples had problems that occured after about 15,000 miles (was the lowest mileage) with spoke breakage, and Sapim blamed the lack of use of their Polyax nips caused premature fatigue due to poor seat angle from using competitors nips. The riders I knew that did use the Polyax nips had no long term issues. So I only went by not only what I heard but also experiences of others I knew.


I've been using CX-Rays since 1999 on home-built wheels on both mountain and road bikes and have never broken one and, of course, I haven't used their nipples.

Plus, I get them from a N.American Sapim importer and he also provides the aluminum nipples - generic ones. He's never said that I must use Polyax nipples. He's never even mentioned them.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> CX-rays are more aerodynamic from 0 to 30 degrees than either bladed or round spokes.


Here's a interesting discussion that occured here back on 3/23/04: Thoughts on Sapim CX-Ray vs. WS AE15/XE14 

And here's an unbias research done on wheels and spokes: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~aijf197/Wheels.pdf

Why not the less expensive Wheelsmith AE15 spokes?


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Coasting*



ziscwg said:


> I actually was interested in how it is changing speed. My biggest weakness are the long climbs at a good pace. I can however go at a more moderate pace with a number of 10-30 sec bursts to keep up. (I guess I'm good at over/unders, not steady state efforts) So, less effort to accelerate is helpful.


Sure, but since you are then going to slow down, you get essentially all of that energy back. The only place where reduced rotating weight is different from any other weight is when you are using your brakes to scrub off the extra speed and so losing all of the kinetic energy of the rotating wheel to heat in the brake pads. Otherwise, you spend a bit more energy to spin the wheel up to the new speed, and you get it back when you slow back down. Simple conservation of energy.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

froze said:


> And here's an unbias research done on wheels and spokes: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~aijf197/Wheels.pdf


That is an interesting, although very limited study. For cycling outdoors, it would be interesting to see the effect of non-zero yaw angles, where one spoke is not following in the wake of another. In that case, I suspect that fewer spokes would always be better.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

froze said:


> The aero effect on the road is nonsense. Only time you will have an aero advantage if it's completely windless day, or the wind is either going directly straight at you or from directly behind otherwise you will be at a disadvantage, read my earlier post to find out why. Problem is the wind changes directions and so does your bike.


You are mistaken. The oval shape of these spokes performs quite well at high yaw angles, and the drag is about 1/3 that of a 1.5mm round spoke.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I love all the aerodynamic experts here. If you haven't personally taken them to the wind tunnel or reference any actual research on the matter, you have no idea what you are talking about. So far, all that has been mentioned is one article and a whole bunch if useless speculation.

http://www.zipp.com/_media/pdfs/technology/spokeshape.pdf

Before you go pounding your chest about the source, Zipp's wind tunnel data has been verified by the folks at the German Tour magazine more than once.

I'm not saying everyone needs bladed spokes. Look at the data and make the decision for yourself whether you believe the money spend vs. the benefits gained are worth it.

-Eric


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Here's a web site by Trek that shows aero savings on all sorts of different things being applied, but note the savings of using disk wheels. So according to this information performed by wind tunnel tests, we should all be using disk wheels front and back. Except for one small itsy bitsy problem...did they put the bike at 45% angle to the wind to find out just how effective disk wheels would be? Hmmm I wonder what would have happen to the bike if they had?

And we keep saying that CX Ray spokes are bladed, their not, their ovalized which aerodynamically are actually better then bladed both from the front and from the side, which is the same design that Wheelsmith AE15 uses and does so for less money then CX Ray's. 

And Zipp says one thing but Velomax says another, here's what they wrote: 

From www.velomax.com (http://www.velomax.com)

Q. Why doesn't Velomax use bladed spokes?

We carefully considered using bladed spokes, but decided against it. In wind tunnel tests, bladed (and ovalized - hereafter "profiled") spokes have proven to be very effective. The caveat here is that they show their greatest advantages vis-a-vis round spokes when the airflow is from straight ahead. As soon as you introduce even a small component of side wind (yaw angle as low as 2 degrees), the larger surface area of profiled spokes acts either as a lifting surface, or develops airflow separation (with related generation of vortices), or both. The bottom line - creation of lift cannot be accomplished without corresponding increases in drag.

Simply stated, a profiled spoke in a static or head-on air stream can be very effective. However, a profiled spoke in a side wind is a propeller.

A round spoke always presents the same small profile to the air stream, whether the angle of attack is head on or from the side. When you consider the wind direction, speed of the bicycle, and rotational speed of the wheel, it becomes apparent that there is an alphabet soup of aerodynamic considerations happening throughout the course of the ride. For this reason, we believe that swaged (butted) spokes present the best real-world aerodynamic profile.
Da real truth.
George

Well, I'm no expert in this by any means, just asking questions and making comments that jump out at me. And it appears that two different sites have different opinions. But another question jumps out at me is, wouldn't the tire and the rim itself disrupt enough of the air flow before hitting the spokes to virtually eliminate any savings that an aero spoke would provide? since it's the tire especially, followed by the rim that strikes into the air stream first? Isn't that why pro racers use 19, 20 and 22 width tires instead of us street roadies using 23 and 25's? It's kind of like taking a speed boat with it's sharp bow and covering the bow with a car tire and see if the boat takes more power to move. Of course it would regardless of the technology used behind the bow to make the boat faster in the water. Just questions.


----------



## Ligero (Oct 21, 2005)

froze said:


> Isn't that why pro racers use 19, 20 and 22 width tires instead of us street roadies using 23 and 25's?


I don't know which pro racers that you know that are running narrow tires but the ones that I know are all running 23's and even some are on 25's depending on the race.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Ligero said:


> I don't know which pro racers that you know that are running narrow tires but the ones that I know are all running 23's and even some are on 25's depending on the race.


Right you are for road races! and you made my point even more valid! You have even a wider tire disrupting the air flow around the spokes, so again, now that we all agree that they use wider tires, what benefit are aero spokes if the tire, a wider tire, is slicing through the wind ahead of the spokes disrupting even more air current then narrow ones like the 19's? Compound that situation with lower speeds the non racer rides. Just makes me wonder the wisdom of buying expensive spokes. Please shed some light on this.

By the way for time trials where speed is essential they use mostly 19's tubulars, to reduce rolling resistance and to cut through the air cleaner, with the Most riders use the Continental Podium Tubular Tire which only come in 19. BUT, the trend is now going toward wider tires, see: http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/images/BQ64TireTest.pdf


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

froze said:


> Right you are for road races! and you made my point even more valid! You have even a wider tire disrupting the air flow around the spokes, so again, now that we all agree that they use wider tires, what benefit are aero spokes if the tire, a wider tire, is slicing through the wind ahead of the spokes disrupting even more air current then narrow ones like the 19's? Compound that situation with lower speeds the non racer rides. Just makes me wonder the wisdom of buying expensive spokes. Please shed some light on this.
> 
> By the way for time trials where speed is essential they use mostly 19's tubulars, to reduce rolling resistance and to cut through the air cleaner, with the Most riders use the Continental Podium Tubular Tire which only come in 19. BUT, the trend is now going toward wider tires, see: http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/images/BQ64TireTest.pdf


I humbly suggest you do some more homework before you go making conclusions and stating them as fact. The most aerodynamic rims available are designed around 23mm tires, not 19mm. Do some research into elite level time trials and see what rim/tires they use. Then do some more research into the spokes used as well. When you can show me some actual data that suggests round spokes are faster, I'm all ears.

You source an article that's a commercial for tires they sell. They don't even discuss aerodynamics.

-Eric


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

froze said:


> Compound that situation with lower speeds the non racer rides. Just makes me wonder the wisdom of buying expensive spokes. Please shed some light on this


That's easy. It's for the same reason anyone here rides a bike costing more than about $800. No-one who has time to spend here is a rider that can do *real* justice to a $1000 ~ $18,000 bike (a friend spotted an $18,000 Passoni in a Vancouver bike shop recently). We buy them because we want to buy them whether it be bikes, carbon widgets, CX-Ray spokes and all the rest. How about you froze?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

froze said:


> Here's a web site by Trek that shows aero savings on all sorts of different things being applied, but note the savings of using disk wheels. So according to this information performed by wind tunnel tests, we should all be using disk wheels front and back. Except for one small itsy bitsy problem...did they put the bike at 45% angle to the wind to find out just how effective disk wheels would be? Hmmm I wonder what would have happen to the bike if they had?


you write as though no one has thought about the effect of yaw angle. That's not true.
rouesartisanales, for example, models it as a Gaussian distribution, which is probably a decent assumption for an all-round estimate. Besides, a wheel will almost never see a 45% yaw angle in real world conditions- you need to estimate apparent wind as Hed does to take into account the rider speed/direction. a 10 mph wind hitting a rider at 45 degrees at 0 miles/hour reduces to an effective yaw angle of 12 degrees at 25 mph. Deep wheels with aero spokes have lower drag as yaw angles increase up to 15-17 degrees. .


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

ergott said:


> I humbly suggest you do some more homework before you go making conclusions and stating them as fact. The most aerodynamic rims available are designed around 23mm tires, not 19mm. Do some research into elite level time trials and see what rim/tires they use. Then do some more research into the spokes used as well. When you can show me some actual data that suggests round spokes are faster, I'm all ears.
> 
> -Eric


That's why I humbly put a question mark in my statement looking for answers. I humbly suggest you reread my statement/question instead of jumping off the handle. All the pro shops I went to that sold pro time trial tires had none larger the 21 with the narrowest being 19. So, here's a question so as not to appear to making a statement, So why are the web sites I go to that sell TT tires have nothing wider then 22? 

I only gave one web site and it's not an advertisement, it was an article from B I C Y C L E QU A R T E R LY without any bike ads till you get to the bottom they they have 3 small ads for Coffee, Banjo Cycles, and Ilvecchio handmade bikes, nothing to do with the tires or the discussion of tires and the direction they were going. And you criticize me for a "commercial site" yet your info came from Zipp...surly not even a remote possibility of a bias report there! 

And I never said round spokes were faster, I gave a web site earlier that mentioned cross wind studies showed that bladed, no ovalized, were slower.

Look man, I'm not looking for a pissin match. I simply asked questions and instead of getting constructive answers I got ridiculed.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> you write as though no one has thought about the effect of yaw angle. That's not true.
> rouesartisanales, for example, models it as a Gaussian distribution, which is probably a decent assumption for an all-round estimate. Besides, a wheel will almost never see a 45% yaw angle in real world conditions- you need to estimate apparent wind as Hed does to take into account the rider speed/direction. a 10 mph wind hitting a rider at 45 degrees at 0 miles/hour reduces to an effective yaw angle of 12 degrees at 25 mph. Deep wheels with aero spokes have lower drag as yaw angles increase up to 15-17 degrees. .


THANKYOU! a constructive answer. So according the one Trek site I mentioned earlier they showed various items in wind tunnel test, one was using disk wheels. Won't disk wheels suffer from even the slightest off angle wind? Yet in their wind tunnel test they showed the disk wheel to be the best.


----------



## Mike Prince (Jan 30, 2004)

froze said:


> Look man, I'm not looking for a pissin match. I simply asked questions and instead of getting constructive answers I got ridiculed.


If you have a question, try asking it in a way that someone can actually give you an answer. The way you are asking now is forcing people who know an awful lot about this stuff to wade through and dispute your assumptions/statements which is not productive for them or you. If you want to challenge or question what they say, that's fine. But at least let them answer your question first without trying to build the case for the answer you want to hear in the actual question.

I do believe that CX-Rays are faster too and this thread is helpful to confirm that (at least to me).


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

froze said:


> THANKYOU! a constructive answer. So according the one Trek site I mentioned earlier they showed various items in wind tunnel test, one was using disk wheels. Won't disk wheels suffer from even the slightest off angle wind? Yet in their wind tunnel test they showed the disk wheel to be the best.


no, drag on disc wheels decreases as yaw angle increases - at least for the HED stinger and Zipp disc (ones I've seen data on) drag becomes negative at 10 degrees and at that point is starting to produce forward lift.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

froze said:


> snipped.


If you reread your posts you do make statements that just have no backing. You didn't ask questions. 

Your use an advertisement (read the disclaimer at the end of the article) to suggest that wider tires make spoke shape irrelevant. That magazine is nowhere near the current trends of bicycle racing. If you look at a time trial tire that was designed in the last 10 years it's Zipp Tangente tire. It's 23mm wide and because most pros these days prefer that tire size for it's balance of Crr, handling and frontal surface, rims have been developed accordingly. The days of 19mm tires are all but gone on the pro level.

I made reference to an article that while is sourced from one specific company, has been verified by independent testing from Tour Magazine and their collaboration with Roues Artisanales. There's just no doubt that ovalized spokes like the CX-Ray are more aerodynamic in typical road conditions. The purchaser can decide the cost/benefit.

Read their conclusions for yourself. I'm not trying to ridicule you. I just want to correct misinformation that turns into fact when it's repeated enough.

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html

-Eric


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Mike T. said:


> That's easy. It's for the same reason anyone here rides a bike costing more than about $800. No-one who has time to spend here is a rider that can do *real* justice to a $1000 ~ $18,000 bike (a friend spotted an $18,000 Passoni in a Vancouver bike shop recently). We buy them because we want to buy them whether it be bikes, carbon widgets, CX-Ray spokes and all the rest. How about you froze?


I only buy something if I can see a real useful benefit, by that I mean usable riding factor and not for the bling factor.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

froze said:


> Here's a web site by Trek that shows aero savings on all sorts of different things being applied, but note the savings of using disk wheels. So according to this information performed by wind tunnel tests, we should all be using disk wheels front and back. Except for one small itsy bitsy problem...did they put the bike at 45% angle to the wind to find out just how effective disk wheels would be? Hmmm I wonder what would have happen to the bike if they had?
> 
> And we keep saying that CX Ray spokes are bladed, their not, their ovalized which aerodynamically are actually better then bladed both from the front and from the side, which is the same design that Wheelsmith AE15 uses and does so for less money then CX Ray's.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure the Velomax stuff is BS. Aero profile spokes offer advantages at a variety of the relatively shallow angles that we see while riding. Unless your average speeds are closer to 15 mph (ie 45 deg), they won't cause drag. 

Re: AE15s. Have you seen the wheelsmith spokes? They're not the same as CX-rays. DT swiss Aerolites are much more similar. The AE15s aren't as light, don't have the same profile and aren't as strong as the others. Still good spokes though.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Awww deleted. WTH.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> no, drag on disc wheels decreases as yaw angle increases - at least for the HED stinger and Zipp disc (ones I've seen data on) drag becomes negative at 10 degrees and at that point is starting to produce forward lift.


But starts to increase at higher yaw angles. A disc is the fastest until you start to race in a hurricane.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Mike T. said:


> Awww deleted. WTH.


Very good web site Mike. Not sure what you deleted, but I'm sure it would have been interesting. Since you build so many wheels do you find that some of the techniques used to build wheels, like soldering, to be a favored by some and not others? The reason I asked that is because Jobst Brandt disagrees. Uncle Al over at RBR only agrees with soldering if the wheel has a lot of dish. If you were to build a touring wheel would you tie and solder? and why?


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

froze said:


> Very good web site Mike. Not sure what you deleted, but I'm sure it would have been interesting. Since you build so many wheels do you find that some of the techniques used to build wheels, like soldering, to be a favored by some and not others? The reason I asked that is because Jobst Brandt disagrees. Uncle Al over at RBR only agrees with soldering if the wheel has a lot of dish. If you were to build a touring wheel would you tie and solder? and why?


Good question froze. Tying & soldering of the final spoke cross is an old technique that is more folklore than science. On my page I even say that I don't make any claims for its usefulness; I just tell you how to do it.

We used to think that it increased the effective hub diameter thus providing more drive torque and preventing hub windup under torque. Fellows like Jobst Brandt (an engineer) refuted that and the technique lost favor in the past couple of decades.

Recently, over at sister site Mountain Bike Review, regular poster and eloquent speaker *meltingfeather* (also and engineer) lambasted tying & soldering. He explained that it would have an effect on increasing the hub diameter *if* the tied final spoke cross was a rigid joint. But it isn't. The solder doesn't stick to the stainless steel spokes; it just stops the wire from unraveling. So the spokes are free to move along their length and thus have no pulling effect on their partner spoke.

If a touring wheel *needed* T&S then you would have more problems than T&S could even potentially cure - meaning, the wheel would be too overloaded.

But I'm going to contradict myself here froze as I do have a set of wheels T&S'd and I would repeat the exercise if I built another set for the same purpose. I ride an indoor board velodrome that is 50 degrees steep (arguably the steepest in the world). The g-force when in the banking is quite high (when I rode there 3x per week I used to wear my shorts' crotches out quickly) and I know it's maybe superstition but I hope that it gives my wheels vertical stability (from my weight pressing down through the wheels). I've occasionally ridden one of the rental bikes (non T&S) and the wheels are very squirelly compared to mine. That's just an anecdote though as I have no proof.

But if any of you stood 10' from the banking while the top sprinters went by under full gas (doing 7 second laps at over 40+mph) you would be a believer in T&S too. How those wheels don't collapse under the g-forces of a 200lb rider is beyond comprehension. You'd take any potential gain, even if you thought it probably didn't exist, from T&S.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Mike T. said:


> But if any of you stood 10' from the banking while the top sprinters went by under full gas (doing 7 second laps at over 40+mph) you would be a believer in T&S too. How those wheels don't collapse under the g-forces of a 200lb rider is beyond comprehension. You'd take any potential gain, even if you thought it probably didn't exist, from T&S.


Very interesting, thanks for the response. I saw a web site during all this but now I can't locate it, anyway they were applying side stress with a machine to simulate fast sharp turns and with a slow motion camera it showed the spokes "deflection?" and/or "tweaking?" (for lack of a better word) on one side. Their demonstration was to show that the spokes would snap the wheel back, but to also show how much stress spokes take and how resilient they are. When you mentioned track racing and the G force encountered doing that I can only imagine what those spokes are doing which have to be more "defection" then the test I saw since they were only doing road racing simulation. I bet that squirrelly feeling you got was that same thing going on just much more extreme with track racing.

Now I understand the tie and soldering, in your case for what your using it for, and after seeing the video I mentioned, I think your right on. Not that it matters what I think, well you know what I mean. Anyways thanks for the educated response again.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

froze said:


> Very interesting, thanks for the response. I saw a web site during all this but now I can't locate it, anyway they were applying side stress with a machine to simulate fast sharp turns and with a slow motion camera it showed the spokes "deflection?" and/or "tweaking?" (for lack of a better word) on one side. Their demonstration was to show that the spokes would snap the wheel back, but to also show how much stress spokes take and how resilient they are. When you mentioned track racing and the G force encountered doing that I can only imagine what those spokes are doing which have to be more "defection" then the test I saw since they were only doing road racing simulation. I bet that squirrelly feeling you got was that same thing going on just much more extreme with track racing.
> 
> Now I understand the tie and soldering, in your case for what your using it for, and after seeing the video I mentioned, I think your right on. Not that it matters what I think, well you know what I mean. Anyways thanks for the educated response again.


I'm not an engineer but I wonder whether all the stresses felt by a spoke are pure tensile stresses. Even if we're whipping our bike side-to-side in sprint or on a track banking, are the stresses still pure tension stresses felt by the spokes? I think so. MTBR poster *meltingfeather* (an engineer don't forget) makes a great case for spokes experiencing *compressive* forces too. Let's not discuss that here though.

Anyway, here's a pic of our banking. It's not the steepness that creates the wheel stress but a product of that steepness plus the banking's radius. With 135 metre laps the fast guys change direction 180 degrees in 1.75 seconds - twice every 7 seconds. Even at my pedantic speed, it's just three seconds per banking for me. That's a pile of g-force.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

MikeT, just a unrelated question; when you track race what kind of bike and components do you use? I ask this because of some track bike parts places I've seen still sell steel bikes and cro-mo steel handle bars, double toe straps, etc, are there two types of track racers, one with old school technology and one with modern technology? If so, which are you? 

See this for some old school track stuff still being manufactured, (they have a blend of old and new): http://businesscycles.com/trpix.htm


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

froze said:


> MikeT, just a unrelated question; when you track race what kind of bike and components do you use? I ask this because of some track bike parts places I've seen still sell steel bikes and cro-mo steel handle bars, double toe straps, etc, are there two types of track racers, one with old school technology and one with modern technology? If so, which are you?
> 
> See this for some old school track stuff still being manufactured, (they have a blend of old and new): http://businesscycles.com/trpix.htm


More good questions even though we're getting way off topic here. Yes there are two types of trackies - old & new, as you noticed. When our track opened - 5 years ago - many old track bikes came out of the woodwork, owned by old geezers who raced track decades ago. And there's not a damn thing wrong with them. The first one I used was an early '70s Colnago Piste until I custom ordered a steel Marinoni. I'm definitely old school as I started track racing in 1962. I use Cinelli quill stem stuff and '70s Campagnolo Piste hubs but modern OpenPro rims and clinchers plus "clipless" (I hate that term) pedals. Toe clips & straps are mostly used by just the out & out dedicated track sprinters (plus the rental bikes for Newbs).

So there are both types on our track; old bikes & new - the Forest City Velodrome in London Ontario Canada. And yes I'm well aware of Business Cycles. I've bought stuff from them. And another thing - I don't race on this track and never have. I use it now for winter training and about 80% of its users are what's called "recreational riders" - they do what I do, train through the winter, which is light-years better than riding rollers in the basement.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Mike T. said:


> I use it now for winter training and about 80% of its users are what's called "recreational riders" - they do what I do, train through the winter, which is light-years better than riding rollers in the basement.


1962 you started? Good grief you must be in spectacular shape for your age after doing track all those years! Congratulations!! I'm 56 and still ride but not competitively any more due to work and family, when I retire I plan to take a bike tour across the USA and then consider racing after that by joining the Geritol Racing Team...ok, there's no such team as that but you know what I mean.

It must be a blast to run that track, I wish we had something like that here in Fort Wayne IN, because using my trainer during the winter in the basement like you is incredibly boring even with a TV and a movie or a training tape.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

froze said:


> 1962 you started? Good grief you must be in spectacular shape for your age after doing track all those years! Congratulations!!


Actually, from '64 to 2005 I didn't ride a track at all. I didn't live near one. It was just rollers in the winter for those years.



> I wish we had something like that here in Fort Wayne IN, because using my trainer during the winter in the basement like you is incredibly boring even with a TV and a movie or a training tape.


As there are only four indoor tracks in all of N.America (2 in Canada, 2 in the States) you're a long way from one of them. We're your closest by far - you're only about 6 hours away


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Careful compression*



Mike T. said:


> MTBR poster *meltingfeather* (an engineer don't forget) makes a great case for spokes experiencing *compressive* forces too.


Be careful with this one. There is a mindset among some mechanical engineers who want to describe aa reduction in tension as compression. Technically this is correct if you chose the static tension of the unloaded wheel as "zero" and then describe the "negative" tension number as compression. 

However in a practical sense that us mere mortals can comprehend, it's obvious that a bicycle spoke is either under tension or has gone slack. It is not under compression in the way that most people would think of it - as for example a power pole is under compression from the weight of the wires it carries.

Don't confuse "reference point" or "relative" compression with a spoke actually supporting something in compression.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Kerry Irons said:


> Be careful with this one. There is a mindset among some mechanical engineers who want to describe aa reduction in tension as compression. Technically this is correct if you chose the static tension of the unloaded wheel as "zero" and then describe the "negative" tension number as compression.
> 
> However in a practical sense that us mere mortals can comprehend, it's obvious that a bicycle spoke is either under tension or has gone slack. It is not under compression in the way that most people would think of it - as for example a power pole is under compression from the weight of the wires it carries.
> 
> Don't confuse "reference point" or "relative" compression with a spoke actually supporting something in compression.


If I was mean & nasty I'd rattle *meltingfeather's* cage and get him over to this site (I've done it before) to give you chapter & verse on his specialty - pre-stressed structures (a bike wheel is a fine example of one). And he would prove that a bike sits on its spokes (and doesn't hang from them) all the way until their tension reaches zero. Don't shoot the messenger (me in this case).


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Reference*



Mike T. said:


> If I was mean & nasty I'd rattle *meltingfeather's* cage and get him over to this site (I've done it before) to give you chapter & verse on his specialty - pre-stressed structures (a bike wheel is a fine example of one). And he would prove that a bike sits on its spokes (and doesn't hang from them) all the way until their tension reaches zero. Don't shoot the messenger (me in this case).


There is no doubt that the spokes that see any significant change in tension are the ones at the bottom of the wheel. Therefore, if you use the spoke tension of the unloaded wheel as your reference, it is these bottom spokes that "support" the rider. Again, this has some people claiming that these spokes are acting in compression and again, this is correct from an "engineering purist" standpoint when you assume that the unloaded spoke is at a "zero" reference point. 

In reality of course all of the other spokes in a wheel increase slightly in tension when the wheel is loaded, so you could also argue that the hub load "hangs" from every spoke in the wheel except the ones where the rim is slightly deformed where it "touches" the road (through the tire/tube).

However, in the sense that a vertical beam is in compression when it is carrying a load, spokes do not/can not act this way.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

Kerry Irons said:


> In reality of course all of the other spokes in a wheel increase slightly in tension when the wheel is loaded, so you could also argue that the hub load "hangs" from every spoke in the wheel except the ones where the rim is slightly deformed where it "touches" the road (through the tire/tube).


This is a very poor argument, who's only use is to appease non-engineers who can't accept the facts, or are uninterested in educating themselves. The weighted hub is supported by compression of the lower spokes, up until the compressive force exceeds the tensile preload. As long as the lower spokes remain under tension, it makes no difference if they're rigid rods, or Kevlar strands. Other spokes increase in tension very slightly to balance the reduction in tension of the supporting lower spokes (because the sum of the spoke tensions must remain constant). Admittedly, these are not intuitive concepts for the layperson. I will grant that if you have a rim with a tall and stiff section, it acts a little differently than a light, box-section rim, but that's not worth confusing the issue with.

Here's another point that people don't like to believe: Driving torque causes the hub to rotate forward slightly relative to the rim, and compression (reduction in tension) of the pushing spokes contributes as much to driving the rim as does increase in tension of the pulling spokes.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Kerry Irons said:


> There is no doubt that the spokes that see any significant change in tension are the ones at the bottom of the wheel. Therefore, if you use the spoke tension of the unloaded wheel as your reference, it is these bottom spokes that "support" the rider. Again, this has some people claiming that these spokes are acting in compression and again, this is correct from an "engineering purist" standpoint when you assume that the unloaded spoke is at a "zero" reference point.
> 
> In reality of course all of the other spokes in a wheel increase slightly in tension when the wheel is loaded, so you could also argue that the hub load "hangs" from every spoke in the wheel except the ones where the rim is slightly deformed where it "touches" the road (through the tire/tube).
> 
> However, in the sense that a vertical beam is in compression when it is carrying a load, spokes do not/can not act this way.


I'm tempted to unleash the monster.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Again, it's reference*



fallzboater said:


> This is a very poor argument, who's only use is to appease non-engineers who can't accept the facts, or are uninterested in educating themselves. The weighted hub is supported by compression of the lower spokes, up until the compressive force exceeds the tensile preload.


Which is exactly what I said. You are describing a reduction in tension as compression, and I know that from a technical perspective, that is correct. However, when engineers use that terminology it's not a matter of people not accepting facts, it's a matter of them getting confused. 

When people think of something as "supported in compression" their mind pictures a vertical beam carrying weight. As I said, this is NOT what spokes due when "in compression." It would be technically correct and a LOT clearer to most people to talk about a reduction in tension of the spoke rather than compression of the spoke.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

OK, but just don't bring any nonsense about the hub hanging from the upper spokes into your discussion; that's where people are not just confused, but just dead wrong. It doesn't work for wooden wagon wheels (hub supported by compression of lower spokes with no tensile preload), and it doesn't work for wire-spoked wheels (hub supported by compression of lower spokes with tensile preload).


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

froze said:


> IMO, I would save your money, and get DT Rev's for the front and the Comp's for rear.


While one can argue the demerits of 2.0/1.5mm spokes, as long as you're using them in the front wheel you might as well use them for the rear-non-drive side where they're less trouble building due to the lower tension and more likely to provide some benefit because the low tension makes the NDS spokes more likely to go slack on a big impact and improvement from thinner spokes is more likely to be helpful.

And as long as you're trying for a "light" wheel and using DT Competition spokes on the drive side you might as well run the 1.8/1.6mm flavor.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> While one can argue the demerits of 2.0/1.5mm spokes, as long as you're using them in the front wheel you might as well use them for the rear-non-drive side where they're less trouble building due to the lower tension and more likely to provide some benefit because the low tension makes the NDS spokes more likely to go slack on a big impact and improvement from thinner spokes is more likely to be helpful.
> 
> And as long as you're trying for a "light" wheel and using DT Competition spokes on the drive side you might as well run the 1.8/1.6mm flavor.


Agreed about the NDS spokes, which would ideally be the lightest spokes in the wheelset (or fewer in number). More elongation is better. 

I haven't used 1.8/1.6 spokes, but I think they're unpopular due to the necessarily weaker elbows.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> While one can argue the demerits of 2.0/1.5mm spokes, as long as you're using them in the front wheel you might as well use them for the rear-non-drive side where they're less trouble building due to the lower tension and more likely to provide some benefit because the low tension makes the NDS spokes more likely to go slack on a big impact and improvement from thinner spokes is more likely to be helpful.
> 
> And as long as you're trying for a "light" wheel and using DT Competition spokes on the drive side you might as well run the 1.8/1.6mm flavor.


Interesting; my wheel builder didn't even come up with that! The wheel set I have on one of my bikes has DT Rev's on the front and Comp's on the rear laced to Torelli Master Series and these rims now have about 30,000 miles on them and haven't had any issues with spokes breaking, heck I rarely have to true them and when I do it's just a fraction. But I like what you said, and have a set of Wolber rims I want to build so I'm going to check into what you said. Thanks for the information.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> no, drag on disc wheels decreases as yaw angle increases - at least for the HED stinger and Zipp disc (ones I've seen data on) drag becomes negative at 10 degrees and at that point is starting to produce forward lift.


True, (though I'm not certain about the 10 deg. figure, and am too lazy to look it up.)

But we gotta be careful with that one. It's largely a case of a bad marriage between the marketers and engineers. There aren't any outright lies, but there is a lot of important stuff that's not being said.

No free lunches here. It is (or can be, with carefully constructed conditions) that forward 'lift' is created. However, it necessarily comes at the expense of significant side force. When discussing aerodynamic forces, it's often useful to talk about lift and drag. In those terms, lift is always perpendicular to airflow, and drag parallel to it. So once you get off-angle, yes, it's true that there is a forward (relative to the bike)component to the 'lift' vector. But what of all that drag?

In application it's often more useful to talk in reference to the lifting structure, where we can break down these components into 'normal' force (perpendicular to the airfoil's centerline) and axial (parallel to it.) When viewed this way, it becomes easy to see that for any angle of lift-generating apparent wind, the total aerodynamic force vector will rarelyhave a net forward component. By the time you normally get the airflow to an angle where the net resultant force would have true forward axial component, the airfoil has long since stalled and stopped producing lift. 

However, for some shapes and angles, it is possible to get a small negative axial force, which is the only thing a cyclist would really care about. Unfortunately, it's at the expense of a large normal force, and here we need to worry about physics rather than aerodynamics. That side force would push us off the road unless we did something about it - essentially, pointing the bike slightly 'upwind' of the intended direction of travel, and letting wheel scrub allow us to stay on line. And guess what? Entropy wins yet again - those frictional losses exceed the axial 'lift' gains.

Simply put, you couldn't 'sail' a bike in any condition of forward apparent wind, no matter how you minimized the drag of frame and rider. To do so requires yawing the airfoil section off of the direction of movement, which is obviously impossible on a bike wheel. Under certain conditions, a wheel's 'lift' might contribute to a reduction in it's overall 'cost' to the bike as a system, but it's simply impossible for the wheel to be accretive to forward speed. 

Here's a little something that might help show more than my words can:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0194.shtml

The same set of factors come into play for the behavior of bladed / profiled spokes in yaw conditions, though that's a much messier reality. Truth is, both velomax and Sapim/zipp claims are accurate there, if you read the conditional sets and mind the language carefully. There are sets of angles where either type has an advantage - but unfortunately a bike wheel in a frame on the road is a very aerodynamically 'noisy' place, and there's no good way to prove which set of conditions is 'right' for which spoke, and the conditions change constantly. Ya pays your money and ya takes yer chances. Despite both claim sets, there is no clear winner. 



And while I'm at it, the lift/drag vs normal/axial argument is much the same as the hanging / standing argument. Very smart people can say things that are at once absolutely accurate, and completely false, often without realizing it. The magic of a wheel's strength isn't in the tension / compression of it's spokes, but the roundness of the rim. The function of the spokes is to keep the rim round - via tension for wire-spoked wheels, in compression for wagon wheels. The question of 'hanging' vs 'standing' is a false one created by choosing an improper frame of reference. 

Here's a question for the would-be engineers: Can a bicycle wheel support more weight by loading the axle, or by stacking it on the top circumference? The answer settles the 'hanging' vs 'standing' riddle once and for all. 

The most useful 'laymans' understanding for the support of a bicycle wheel is that the hub is held in place by the horizontal tension component of the spokes, similar to a hammock. As a force is applied, the vertical-component tension changes try to force the rim out-of-round, attempting to lengthen it horizontally. It's the horizontal tension vectors that keep things together - both the 'hanging' and 'standing' force components (as wrongly imagined) are working to destroy the wheel, neither to support it.

It's true that a wheel most often fails when spokes go slack, rather than when they break, but that's not because of the 'standing' that some imagine. It's because wheels are three-dimensional structures. A sufficiently slack spoke allows the tension of the other spokes (aided by the external force) to deviate the rim from plane, compromising the lateral rigidity of the wheel such that it tacos and buckles. Meanwhile, when the failure is from a broken spoke, that spoke is unlikely to be on top - it'll usually be at front or rear of the wheel, where the tension is highest, on a 'pulling' spoke if applicable, or (practically speaking) at whichever has a sufficient material weakness.

Peace.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

Wow. I don't have the time or inclination to pick apart your whole post, but I will comment on two points.

I can't picture how any sort of hammock analogy is relevant, where'd you pull that one out of? A vertical force downward at the hub is resisted by a vertical force upward applied through the lower spokes. (You can push on a string, until the string goes slack.) I don't see how it could be much simpler. What do you mean by horizontal tension vectors? If you mean axial force, just say it. Of course a spoke can only apply or resist forces along its axis, since it has no bending stiffness and its ends are pinned (think simple truss structure). 

It seems that you'd at least agree that the tensioned wheel structure is compromised when the lower spokes go slack (by the compressive force exceeding the preload tension), and certain span of the rim is unsupported. Suppose that happens when a load of 500 lbf is applied vertically at the hub, allowing a small lateral force to then collapse the wheel. If the same 500 lbf was applied to the top of the wheel (and it wouldn't be, so who cares?), spokes at the top and bottom would both go slack, with similar results. I don't see how this supports or disproves any particular argument, though.

I'm not a would-be engineer, I actually have a stamp to show it (I took the Machine Design specialty in the PE a couple of years ago, after working in R&D for a number of years). I will say that some other MEs I've talked to have had to give this some thought, and there are probably some that don't get it.

Have you read and understood everything written in "The Bicycle Wheel"? Many laymen can understand it, if they keep an open mind. Review it and let us know if you have any questions.

Crap, I wasted too much time with this, anyway.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

danl1 said:


> Here's a question for the would-be engineers: Can a bicycle wheel support more weight by loading the axle, or by stacking it on the top circumference? The answer settles the 'hanging' vs 'standing' riddle once and for all.


I can't imagine what difference it would make regardless of the answer. One is how a wheel is actually loaded, and the other isn't. 



> The most useful 'laymans' understanding for the support of a bicycle wheel is that the hub is held in place by the horizontal tension component of the spokes, similar to a hammock.


If that was true, the the horizontal spokes would see a big tension increase when the wheel is loaded... and they don't. Only the bottom spokes change a significant amount.


----------



## SaddleTime (Nov 23, 2009)

I don't mean to get things going again now that tensions have relaxed (tensions re: emotions, not engineering) but I wanted to ask another (dare I say it?) simple question relating to the original post.

I understand that, in an effort to reduce drag, a cyclist would rather have wheels with fewer spokes and deeper diameter rims, but imagine for a moment that a hypothetical cyclist (actually, me) does not financially have access to said deeper diameter rims and already has some good quality 32H hubs that they'd like to lace up.

It seems to me that the aerodynamic/drag-reducing benefits of ovalized/"aero" spokes would actually be relatively more beneficial to a high spoke count/non-"aero" rim wheelset than a low spoke count"/"aero" rim wheelset.

Does that make sense or am I splitting hairs?

I only ask because I'm in the process of choosing spokes for a wheel build with Velocity Aeroheads and 32H Record hubs... (The two main choices are Sapim CX-Rays and Sapim Lasers.)

Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## valleycyclist (Nov 1, 2009)

Sapim CX-Rays with 23mm wide rims like HED C2 or Velocity A23 with 23mm wide tires is probably as aero as you can get with a 32 spoke wheel. It makes sense that with more spokes the amount of drag reduced will be greater by switching to bladed spokes than by switching from round to bladed spokes with a low spoke wheelset.

FYI, someone just told me that his average pace for a local route just went up 0.3MPH since switching to a 32 spoke wheelset with DT Swiss TK540 rims. The old wheelset was Xero (don't remember the exact model but it had deeper rims and fewer spokes). He feels that the new wheels are not as soft and have better power transfer than the old ones, especially on hills. So it isn't just aero that makes someone go faster.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

SaddleTime said:


> am I splitting hairs?


Yes you are splitting hairs. Who knows if it might make a point two, two or twenty two second difference over a 40km time trial. But does that matter for 999 of us out of 1000? Would losing one pound of body weight make more difference? That being said, I have CX-Rays in more of my wheels than any other spokes but for the same reason I have an expensive Ti stem on my mountain bike - because I wanted it.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

SaddleTime said:


> I don't mean to get things going again now that tensions have relaxed (tensions re: emotions, not engineering) but I wanted to ask another (dare I say it?) simple question relating to the original post.
> 
> I understand that, in an effort to reduce drag, a cyclist would rather have wheels with fewer spokes and deeper diameter rims, but imagine for a moment that a hypothetical cyclist (actually, me) does not financially have access to said deeper diameter rims and already has some good quality 32H hubs that they'd like to lace up.
> 
> ...


Have you considered the IRD NioBium Cadience Aero rim instead of Velocity? And Sapin CX-Rays work with them too. You can get these with the Record hub for $625 for the pair. If interested I know a web site.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

valleycyclist said:


> FYI, someone just told me that his average pace for a local route just went up 0.3MPH since switching to a 32 spoke wheelset with DT Swiss TK540 rims. The old wheelset was Xero (don't remember the exact model but it had deeper rims and fewer spokes). He feels that the new wheels are not as soft and have better power transfer than the old ones, especially on hills. So it isn't just aero that makes someone go faster.


There's scientific proof if I ever saw it. I record average speeds on all my rides and have for decades. Without changing anything but my shorts, color of waterbottle and the date on the calendar my averages vary by about 1.5mph.


----------



## valleycyclist (Nov 1, 2009)

Mike T. said:


> There's scientific proof if I ever saw it. I record average speeds on all my rides and have for decades. Without changing anything but my shorts, color of waterbottle and the date on the calendar my averages vary by about 1.5mph.


Sure, 0.3MPH sounds excessive, but that is what he told me. For me I was happy to hear that they felt so much better than his old wheels.


----------



## asad137 (Jul 29, 2009)

valleycyclist said:


> Sure, 0.3MPH sounds excessive, but that is what he told me. For me I was happy to hear that they felt so much better than his old wheels.


I think you missed the point. Mike T was saying 0.3mph is likely to be effectively within the normal variance of his average speed.

Asad


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

My average speed varies 5mph depending on temperature! I dont think 180 dollars worth of spokes are going to speed me up.


> That being said, I have CX-Rays in more of my wheels than any other spokes but for the same reason I have an expensive Ti stem on my mountain bike - because I wanted it.


I think that sums it up. If you can swing the extra ~150 cxrays cost over db spokes, go for it.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

TomH said:


> My average speed varies 5mph depending on temperature! I dont think 180 dollars worth of spokes are going to speed me up.
> 
> I think that sums it up. If you can swing the extra ~150 cxrays cost over db spokes, go for it.


Before you start thinking about $180 worth of spokes, you forgot to substract the cost of good spokes like DT Competition's. Once you calculate it with that figured in your cost of the CX Rays is not that much more. And if your building a wheel that will last 15 years or more, the extra cost per year is very little.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

asad137 said:


> I think you missed the point. Mike T was saying 0.3mph is likely to be effectively within the normal variance of his average speed.


Yes and I wish it was that low. Not that it matters at all how much my average speed varies but there are days when everyone flies and there are days when it feels like we're riding in wet cement. To make a conclusion about a 0.3mph one-time variance and relate it to a specific bike part is just pure anecdotal.


----------



## valleycyclist (Nov 1, 2009)

asad137 said:


> I think you missed the point. Mike T was saying 0.3mph is likely to be effectively within the normal variance of his average speed.
> 
> Asad


My point was about ride quality of different wheelsets, not speed. I always tell people not to get wheels if they expect to go faster with them. But if a difference in seconds over a course is desired then wheels can help make that difference. Of course, training is the first thing to do to get fast.


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

DT swiss revolutions in the front and non-drive side rear would lower the spoke cost by half if that matters at this point. go with Db14 on the drive side. consider KINLIN 270 rim for a slightly deeper rim (more aero but lets not start that again) for about the same weight or go with a Kinlin 200 in the front to keep rotating weight low.


----------



## SaddleTime (Nov 23, 2009)

These wheels will be for training and racing and will be my only wheels for the foreseeable future. After doing a lot of pricing research I know that I can get the CX-Rays for CN$200 and the Lasers for CN$110, making the difference $90, which is a relatively small difference.

When I look at wheel builders like Zen, etc. putting CX-Rays in all their stock wheelsets, and hear that closet cynics (Mike T? ) make good arguments against relying on them too much but still put them in their wheels, it seems that, given the choice between using them or not using them, the majority of people would/do use them.

Like Mike T said, we buy these things because we want them. If there is likely 0.1% difference between them, I'll keep my $90; if there is a potentially noticeable difference (whatever "noticable" means), especially in winds and on flats, then I'll take the chance, spend the money and ride with an easy mind, comfortable in my ignorance...


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

SaddleTime said:


> When I look at wheel builders like Zen, etc. putting CX-Rays in all their stock wheelsets, and hear that closet cynics (Mike T? ) make good arguments against relying on them too much but still put them in their wheels, it seems that, given the choice between using them or not using them, the majority of people would/do use them.


I guess my realist stance could be referred to as cynicism. I'd just prefer to tell people to get them because chicks dig 'em rather than make claims that they're faster, last longer or other things that are tough to back up. 



> if there is a potentially noticeable difference (whatever "noticable" means)


I have bikes with 'em and without 'em and I have wheelsets for the same bike with 'em and without 'em too and it's not possible to tell which spokes I'm using at any given time except, of course, by the amount of chicks chasing me. Thank gawd for some unit of measurement.


----------



## SaddleTime (Nov 23, 2009)

Mike T. said:


> I have bikes with 'em and without 'em and I have wheelsets for the same bike with 'em and without 'em too and it's not possible to tell which spokes I'm using at any given time except, of course, by the amount of chicks chasing me. Thank gawd for some unit of measurement.


That's awesome!  I guess the smartest idea is to buy the cheaper spokes and TELL the chicks they're CX-Rays...

You've answered my question: if you can't tell the difference when you're riding, there's not much point spending the extra money...


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Don't agree at all. . .*



froze said:


> But I wouldn't use Revolutions on the rear. I use the Revolution on the front and Competition on the rear.


Unless you fit 2 situations: 1) you're a 200+ pound giant and these are training wheels in bad terrain; 2) your wheels were made by an idiot, without any knowledge of stress relieving, tension balancing, and no idea what a tensiometer is; Then Revos may be a bad choice. 
But Revos for a large population of road (and off-road less disc brake bikes) cyclist are MORE than adequate in regards to strength.:thumbsup:


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Yes. . .*



Drew Eckhardt said:


> And as long as you're trying for a "light" wheel and using DT Competition spokes on the drive side you might as well run the 1.8/1.6mm flavor.


And chew the crap out of your hub and and have the j-bend fail. The 1.8mm hole is not the friend of the modern road hub without PITA washer. Smarter idea is either use the revos all around or go 14/15 competition (drive-side if you're making a mountain bike/clydesdale wheel). If you think the additional 11.XX% more area of the 16 versus the 17 gauge cross section makes of difference. . Hummmmm? Don't think so. Spokes get their beatings at the j-bend, and where the spoke transitions into the spoke hole at the rim (spoke alignment important here too) hence favoring a 14 versus 16 gague spoke end. A 15/16 is an utterly useless spoke, it's good for perception only.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

froze said:


> Before you start thinking about $180 worth of spokes, you forgot to substract the cost of good spokes like DT Competition's. Once you calculate it with that figured in your cost of the CX Rays is not that much more. And if your building a wheel that will last 15 years or more, the extra cost per year is very little.


Cx rays are 194 a set for 32 spoke, if you can find them for 3/ea.. sapim db's are 40 cents a piece, 25 bucks.. so $169 difference. Even with more expensive dt comps, paying full price at most places, thats only 64 bucks a set.. cx rays are three times more expensive, or over seven times more than sapim db's. I dont think seven times the cost is insignificant.


----------



## asad137 (Jul 29, 2009)

TomH said:


> Cx rays are 194 a set for 32 spoke, if you can find them for 3/ea.. sapim db's are 40 cents a piece, 25 bucks.. so $169 difference. Even with more expensive dt comps, paying full price at most places, thats only 64 bucks a set.. cx rays are three times more expensive, or over seven times more than sapim db's. I dont think seven times the cost is insignificant.


Well, of course, you should be looking at it in the context of the cost of the whole wheel (hubs + rims + nipples + spokes), not just comparing the cost of spokes.

Asad


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

Ok, a very expensive wheelset is $1000. cx rays would make up 19.4% of the entire cost of your wheelset. Changing spokes to dbs makes it a $850 wheelset, 2.9% of which is spoke cost 

If you want them you want them.. but justifying them is like justifying a rolex. In the end you just buy them because they're nice.


----------



## SaddleTime (Nov 23, 2009)

TomH said:


> Cx rays are 194 a set for 32 spoke, if you can find them for 3/ea.. sapim db's are 40 cents a piece, 25 bucks.. so $169 difference. Even with more expensive dt comps, paying full price at most places, thats only 64 bucks a set.. cx rays are three times more expensive, or over seven times more than sapim db's. I dont think seven times the cost is insignificant.


Hi, TomH.

Are the "sapim db's" you refer to the Lasers? I'm looking for black Lasers, and if I could get them for $0.40 each I would take that route in a heartbeat. So far the lowest I've seen the black ones for is around $1.30 - $1.40 (most places charge an extra $0.20 for black spokes...) If you know of a source at the $0.40 range please let me know - I'd really appreciate it.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

Thats for the races. 

DT revs are 60 cents a piece at cambra though, best price ive seen on those.


----------



## bent steel (Dec 28, 2007)

TomH said:


> If you want them you want them.. but justifying them is like justifying a rolex. In the end you just buy them because they're nice.


Actually it's easier to justify a Rolex (or other mechanical, Swiss watches) as they have excellent resale, something minor brands don't have. I'm not arguing against CX-Rays, just pointing out that nice timepieces have other intrinsic value aside from just being nice. My watches held up better than the markets over the last few years, my bikes, not so much.


----------

