# Wheel lateral stiffness and 11 speed Shimano drive hubs?



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Looks like the DS center-to-flange is being squeezed down to the 16mm range from the 19mm range for the 10 speed Shimano drive hubs while the DS/NDS bracing angle ratio is being increased.
I am considering building a set with the new White Industries T11 and I am concerned with the effect the new bracing angle could have on the wheel lateral stiffness which is very important to me.
Any tips from the more experienced wheel builders on ways to counteract the loss in expected wheel stiffness? Do you find that rim selection becomes more paramount (deeper profile and wider rims like a 23x28 vs. 23x24)? Heavier spoke gauge on the DS to stiffen the wheel and also help NDS spokes from non loosening?


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

When compared back to back to my old H3 hub, I cannot tell any difference in rigidity. Both are on XR270s and they seem to ride exactly the same. 

I do think that rim selection and spoke count could exacerbate the flange spacing issue though. We do a wheel set called the Anna Purna, which is Stans 340s laced to T11s. Now, in the higher spoke counts (24/28, 24/32), it is quite rigid, especially considering its weight. 
However, building it in a lower spoke count of 20/20 or 20/24, it is noticeably softer, and almost too soft for most riders.

With that said, go with a stiff hoop and you will be fine. Something like the XC279 from Kinlin, or the Archetype from H+ Son.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

@zen

Thanks. What tension do you end up at the NDS?


----------



## jukebox (Sep 6, 2005)

Offset rims on the rear will obviously help as well. Both the DT 440 and Velocity A23 are good bets.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Is the A23 offered in an off center configuration? I thought the Aerohead and the Synergy were the only O/C Velocity rims.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

They just released the A23 OC which is replacing the Aerohead OC. 

Regarding tension, 120 KGF ish on the DS, and if in dish, que sera sera for the NDS.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

That's a good option then. I just checked the Velocity site and it has not been updated yet. Both of you are pretty well informed.👍

The NDS reduced tension on a std rim (relative to that of a hub with c-f of 19mm and bracing angle ratio of 2) has me concerned for possibly causing the NDS spokes to loosen up over time. 

Lacing on O/C rims, as pointed out earlier, is a definite possibility dealing with the NDS tension although the shallow profile of the A23 is not my personal favorite.


----------



## mattotoole (Jan 3, 2008)

Zen Cyclery said:


> They just released the A23 OC which is replacing the Aerohead OC.


Nice!

But let me point out that Shimano's own rims are 23mm and offset, and come built into nice wheels for a fraction of what you'd pay for Velocity with your favorite boutique hubs.

That said, while my own Shimano wheels have been great, I hate to see flange spacings becoming precarious enough to _require_ offset rims.


----------



## Enoch562 (May 13, 2010)

I wonder how long it will be before road bikes go to wider rear dropouts?
Oh goody, another standard to sell more parts.


----------



## coachboyd (Jan 13, 2008)

Enoch562 said:


> I wonder how long it will be before road bikes go to wider rear dropouts?
> Oh goody, another standard to sell more parts.


I was actually hoping that with the 11 speed shimano would have changed the standard to 135mm. that way mountain bikes, cross bikes with disc, and road bikes would all have the same spacing. It would also be nice to have a road hub with 22/44 spacing to make for a crazy stiff rear wheel.
As it stands with the wider cassette we had to use a 131mm axle in our newest hubs to get the drive side flange spacing to be over 17mm for maximum stiffness and tension balance between drive and non drive sides.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

dcgriz said:


> Do you find that rim selection becomes more paramount (deeper profile and wider rims like a 23x28 vs. 23x24)? Heavier spoke gauge on the DS to stiffen the wheel and also help NDS spokes from non loosening?


Vertical rim stiffness is helpful, along with heavier DS spokes. I also lace most of these radial heads out NDS. If you don't care to run 11spd you could lace the DS 1x heads-in and the NDS 2x or 3x. 

The large offset ratio doesn't make the wheel less stiff under nominal forces... but it is easier to get to the point where NDS spokes lose tension and then stiffness drops off a cliff... and other bad things can happen.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

coachboyd said:


> It would also be nice to have a road hub with 22/44 spacing to make for a crazy stiff rear wheel.


If the max is 17mm with 131mm, wouldn't the max with 135mm be 19mm?


----------



## coachboyd (Jan 13, 2008)

rruff said:


> If the max is 17mm with 131mm, wouldn't the max with 135mm be 19mm?


I was thinking along the lines of if you still had 10 speed. . but running around 19mm with 11 speed also sounds fairly nice.

And you can always shift the hub shell along the axle to favor the drive side flange spacing a bit more. When we did the extra 1mm on our axles we were able to get that all in the drive side vs. having to do 16.5.


----------



## Enoch562 (May 13, 2010)

Since this thread is drifting around abit.... Would a 2:1 Hub be a good way to even up the spoke tensions? I'm getting ready to build up some 50 mm rims with a 24 hole drilling. THe 2:1 set up with higher tesioned NDS spokes looks like a nice way to stiffen up the wheel


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

coachboyd said:


> And you can always shift the hub shell along the axle to favor the drive side flange spacing a bit more.


I think what you mean is that *if* you have any extra clearance between the lockring and the dropout, it's a really good idea to use it. Otherwise there isn't any shifting around that you can do. 

Alchemy is a great example of this. Jeremy has always known that getting the maximum DS spacing is very important. He spent a lot of time testing different combinations to make that as great as possible. He has always had a 131mm axle, and lockring-dropout clearance that's as small as possible. The other thing to check is the derailleur-spoke clearance, which is a bit trickier because you need to consider a lot of combinations and hangars that aren't quite perfect. He claims he'll be able to get just a hair under 18mm with S11. 

When I measure the WI T11, I get a little under 16mm, but Eric Gottsman (who is more precise in his measurements) says it is pretty much right on 16mm. 

It is getting pretty ridiculous... but Campy hubs have been like this for many years now, so it can be lived with. But... whenever I build a single speed or fixy hub I'm amazed at how much stronger the wheel is...


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Enoch562 said:


> Since this thread is drifting around abit.... Would a 2:1 Hub be a good way to even up the spoke tensions?


Triplet basically solves the "NDS spokes going slack" issue, but introduces other issues. Stiffness will otherwise drop unless you use a hub that has a extra wide NDS spacing. If an NDS spoke breaks the rim will be very warped. And you need to use a stiff rim that is center drilled.

The best approach IMO would be to use NDS spokes that are ~60-70% of the stiffness of those on the DS, with a fairly wide spaced NDS flange (between normal and triplet). That would give you the triplet benefits without the downsides. Unfortunately, CX-Rays are plenty strong for the DS, and the only spokes that are significantly less stiff are the Pillar Ti... which seem to have some durability issues... and are a different color. Still... they might be ok on the NDS rear. Pillar makes the Mega Lite SS now which should be ~82% as stiff as the CX-Ray, but they are expensive and hard to come by. I have used them in a few builds though with the T11 hubs and I like them.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

rruff said:


> It is getting pretty ridiculous... but Campy hubs have been like this for many years now, so it can be lived with. But... whenever I build a single speed or fixy hub I'm amazed at how much stronger the wheel is...


Yes, it does. IMO, the benefits of the extra cog are eclipsed by the effect it has on the hub and by association on the wheel stiffness, specially if the rider is north of the 200lbs mark.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Thank you all for your input. It has been very informative.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

One more thing....... Any idea when the new Alchemy and Chris King 11 speed Shimano drive hubs will be available?


----------



## biker jk (Dec 5, 2012)

mattotoole said:


> Nice!
> 
> But let me point out that Shimano's own rims are 23mm and offset, and come built into nice wheels for a fraction of what you'd pay for Velocity with your favorite boutique hubs.
> 
> That said, while my own Shimano wheels have been great, I hate to see flange spacings becoming precarious enough to _require_ offset rims.


The current (10-speed) model Shimano rims are 20.8mm wide. They have gone to a 23mm wide rim for the new Dura Ace 50 and 75mm wheels (D2 rim). The 9000 series C24 isn't 23mm wide.


----------



## heedongyee (Nov 29, 2010)

rruff said:


> The best approach IMO would be to use NDS spokes that are ~60-70% of the stiffness of those on the DS, with a fairly wide spaced NDS flange (between normal and triplet). That would give you the triplet benefits without the downsides. Unfortunately, CX-Rays are plenty strong for the DS, and the only spokes that are significantly less stiff are the Pillar Ti... which seem to have some durability issues... and are a different color. Still... they might be ok on the NDS rear. Pillar makes the Mega Lite SS now which should be ~82% as stiff as the CX-Ray, but they are expensive and hard to come by. I have used them in a few builds though with the T11 hubs and I like them.


Could you get there with DT Comp (1.8mm) DS and SuperComp (1.5mm) NDS?
Seems like the stiffness difference there is 70%. Also, can you confirm that you're talking about standard lacing (like 2x both sides for 24h)?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

My triplet wheel is with Tune hub which has one of the widest NDS flange dimensions of a non triplet hub. I laced the drive side with 16 CX-Rays and to account for the lost stiffness on the NDS, I used 8 Sapim Race spokes (1.8mm along the middle). The Race spokes are laced 1X with all the heads in. Since the tension is near equal between both sides it's a good idea to use heaver gauge spokes on the NDS which might seem counterintuitive. It makes for a pretty strong wheel.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

ergott said:


> My triplet wheel is with Tune hub which has one of the widest NDS flange dimensions of a non triplet hub. I laced the drive side with 16 CX-Rays and to account for the lost stiffness on the NDS, I used 8 Sapim Race spokes (1.8mm along the middle). The Race spokes are laced 1X with all the heads in. Since the tension is near equal between both sides it's a good idea to use heaver gauge spokes on the NDS which might seem counterintuitive. It makes for a pretty strong wheel.


Do I understand your statement right? Are you saying that because the tension ended up almost equal between the DS and NDS you could have used stiffer spokes than the Race on the NDS? Could you have stayed then with Cx-Rays all around? What tension values did you end up with?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

The tension on the NDS was about 95% of the DS.

Because the tension was relatively high on the NDS, I could use Race spokes instead of CX-Rays. If I used CX-Rays all around one a hub that doesn't have the flanges optimized for the triplet pattern the wheel the wheel wouldn't have been laterally stiff enough. You are using only 8 spokes on the NDS instead of the 12 you would use with a normal pattern. You lose the lateral stiffness you gain on the DS if you use the same spoke on both sides. This coincides with what ruff talks about. Ideally, a triplet hub will have the NDS flange further outboard than a regular hub to recover the difference in lateral stiffness 4 fewer spokes results in.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

@ ergott

I misunderstood your first post. Thanks for the explanation.

Edit to add: Since it's the relative reduction in stiffness between the DS and NDS spokes that makes the difference, would you have the same (or better?) end results (as far as lateral stiffness goes) if you were to use Strong instead of the Cx-rays on the DS?


----------



## Whale_520 (Aug 16, 2012)

dcgriz said:


> One more thing....... Any idea when the new Alchemy and Chris King 11 speed Shimano drive hubs will be available?


Chris King was saying Jan 1 so hopefully something soon. As far as Alchemy's new hubs they're saying the first rear hubs will start being available in February. But that's for Shimano 10. Campy and finally Shimano 11 will be released in that order. Honestly, it looks like we’re still a long way out from the Shimano 11 hub.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Whale_520 said:


> Chris King was saying Jan 1 so hopefully something soon. As far as Alchemy's new hubs they're saying the first rear hubs will start being available in February. But that's for Shimano 10. Campy and finally Shimano 11 will be released in that order. Honestly, it looks like we’re still a long way out from the Shimano 11 hub.


Thanks. I decided to wait for a while and see what else becomes available. Lateral stiffness to me is more important than grams or aero. Nothing bothers me more than a wheel rubbing the pads when I get on it.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

I did a bit of digging trying to better understand the 1X heads-in DS which, frankly, would have been the lesser suspect in my mind on how to better deal with the issue at hand. I did run across a formula posted on the CTC forum that helped me put in prospective what effect lacing patterns could have on balancing the NDS tension. The logic and the math appear solid and I have confirmed the results from wheels I have built, however, use as you see fit.

The formula is Td/Tn=(Wn/Wd)(Ld/Ln) where T is tension, W is center to flange spacing, L is spoke length, n is NDS and d is DS.

The following example uses components that maximize the wheel lateral stiffness in an effort to eliminate other variables. Namely, 32 spokes (spoke count increases wheel stiffness) and 30mm rim (rim depth increases rigidity; a deeper carbon could be used but let's keep it aluminum for now). The hub is the new T11 as it seems to be the only S11 option at this time. 

Spoke length calcs are done using Wheelpro and an ERD of 583.5

Spoke length NDS: 1X 274.3, 2X 278.9, 3X 285.7
Spoke length DS. : 1X 265.6, 2X 272, 3X 281.4

Assuming a DS tension of 130 kgf (I understand the number is arguably on its max limit so consider it will be reduced by 5kgf or so when the tire is inflated; the point is to determine the max tension on the NDS)

Results:
Lacing DS/NDS. Tension NDS
3x/3x. 55.57 kgf
2x/3x. 57.49
1x/3x. 58.87 (heads-in further increases the tension to 60+)
1x/2x. 57.47 
2x/2x. 56.12
3x/2x. 54.25

The above shows a couple interesting things, a) 1x/3x will derive the highest tension with 1x/2x and 2x/3x trailing behind, b) increasing the NDS tension appears to be at the expense of torsional rigidity.

Arguably the differences in tension are small and possibly not detectable if a higher accuracy tension meter is not utilized. However the underlying physics remain what they are and if we were to build with lower DS tension, say 100 kgf, then the NDS tension range could approach the point of no return at around 40 kgf.

What the formula does not show is at which point the benefits of higher NDS tension values are eclipsed by the loss of torsional rigidity when the number of crosses is reduced. 
Is the 2x/3x on the above example a better overall choice than the 1x/3x? My gut feeling at this juncture of my understanding of wheel building tells me it may be for the 32 spoke wheel at hand. However, 1x heads-in may be the ticket when dealing with 20 or 24 spokes.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Latest update on the Alchemy hubs.

First release will be the Shimano 11 version unlike previously reported. He decided that by releasing the 11 first there is at least backwards compatibility for 10 speed. Next will be Shimano 10. Both Shimano hubs will have different internals than the Campagnolo version. You can fit bigger bearings under a Shimano freehub and he will (28mm OD vs 26mm). The Campagnolo hubs won't be fore a few more months after the Shimano 11 release.

I'm in the Campagnolo boat and will look into using a Shimano 11 freehub and cassette using a couple of .3mm spacers in there. Campagnolo 11 is about 0.9mm wider than Shimano 11.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

dcgriz said:


> snipped


Interesting stuff. I've been favoring 2X/3X for 32 spoke builds thinking it felt a little better in the hands and that confirms it. I'm quite sure that the torsional differences between 3X/3X and 2X/3X are undetectable so I will continue using 2X/3X unless I have to match the lacing pattern on a previously built up hub.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

ergott said:


> I'm quite sure that the torsional differences between 3X/3X and 2X/3X are undetectable so I will continue using 2X/3X unless I have to match the lacing pattern on a previously built up hub.


I have a set I use for experimentation, sort to speak, trying different lacing patterns and can not tell or feel the difference between 2x/3x and 3x/3x on 32 spoke arrangement using Race and Force. I am sure there is a difference in torsional rigidity as the angles differ but as you said they seem to be undetectable.


----------



## Whale_520 (Aug 16, 2012)

ergott said:


> First release will be the Shimano 11 version unlike previously reported.


Good to hear, thanks the correction E.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

What brand is the Force spoke? I don't know that one.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

ergott said:


> What brand is the Force spoke? I don't know that one.


Sapim. 2.18-1.8-2.0, basically a Race with a stronger elbow. It gives a bit of extra insurance at the elbow if the rider is hard on wheels.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Are you in the US? I haven't heard any mention of them here.

Thanks!


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

ergott said:


> Are you in the US? I haven't heard any mention of them here.
> 
> Thanks!


Yes, Wash. DC. Last batch I bought was from Thor USA (ThorUSA), they do not show them on the website; call and ask Thor for them, he had them in quite a few sizes last time I talked to him. I think another source is QBP if you could buy from them.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

heedongyee said:


> Could you get there with DT Comp (1.8mm) DS and SuperComp (1.5mm) NDS?
> Seems like the stiffness difference there is 70%. Also, can you confirm that you're talking about standard lacing (like 2x both sides for 24h)?


Yes. Although I think it would work better with lighter spokes, because they will deflect farther before they go slack, which forces the rim to take more of the load.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

ergott said:


> Campagnolo 11 is about 0.9mm wider than Shimano 11.


Are you sure? There was a thread on WW that indicated they were about the same. I've heard S11 is a hair wider than C11.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

dcgriz said:


> Is the 2x/3x on the above example a better overall choice than the 1x/3x? My gut feeling at this juncture of my understanding of wheel building tells me it may be for the 32 spoke wheel at hand. However, 1x heads-in may be the ticket when dealing with 20 or 24 spokes.


1x needs to be heads in, and spokes should have short butts. You get a couple mm extra DS bracing angle... assuming you have clearance for it. If you use lighter spokes on the NDS too, that's about as good as you can get. NDS should have as many crosses as you can do (usually 2x for <=24, and 3x for >24).


----------



## heedongyee (Nov 29, 2010)

As an engineer I find these wheel building discussions very interesting.

I'm rebuilding my singlespeed into a geared bike this winter and need to rebuild the rear wheel. I'll get a new hub, but will reuse my 24h XR300. It seems like there are two ways to improve lateral stiffness over the standard lacing pattern of 2x both sides (for my 24h case):

1) 8 NDS spokes laced heads in radial or 1x; 16 DS spokes laced 3x; same type of spokes all around
2) 12 NDS lightweight spokes laced 2x; 12 DS stiffer spokes laced radial or (if clearance allows) 1x heads in.

I'm eager to run some calcs to figure out which gives better lateral and torsional stiffness given the same hub dimensions...

Is there any way to determine whether you'll have clearance issues with 1x DS lacing before you buy your parts?


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

rruff said:


> 1x needs to be heads in, and spokes should have short butts. You get a couple mm extra DS bracing angle... assuming you have clearance for it. If you use lighter spokes on the NDS too, that's about as good as you can get. NDS should have as many crosses as you can do (usually 2x for <=24, and 3x for >24).


Yeah, clearing the derailleur is one more thing to worry about. 1x would also be the case for straight pull, won't it? Have you worked with the straight pull road Novatec?

Finding the optimum balance between the steps taken on the spoke end to help balance the DS-NDS tension and the steps taken on the rim end (deeper profile, more spokes) to possibly recapture some of the lost lateral stiffness is getting to be an exercise and long term results are still greatly unknown for riders pushing north of 185lbs or riders with aggressive riding styles. I wonder if the S11 or C11 really worth this trouble for the rider that is keen on lateral stiffness while the road hub axle remains at 130mm.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

heedongyee said:


> As an engineer I find these wheel building discussions very interesting.
> 
> I'm rebuilding my singlespeed into a geared bike this winter and need to rebuild the rear wheel. I'll get a new hub, but will reuse my 24h XR300. It seems like there are two ways to improve lateral stiffness over the standard lacing pattern of 2x both sides (for my 24h case):
> 
> ...


If I was not building to S11 I would not consider lacing 2:1, using lightweight spokes on the NDS or doing anything else in an effort to balance the DS-NDS tensions. The tried and true ways of building with S10 hubs of proper dimensions will give you solid and stable wheels with enough tension on the NDS not to worry about loosening spokes. You are not indicating your weight so I am assuming you are less than 180 lbs based on your spoke count choice.

However, if you want to experiment, plug the hub, spoke and tension numbers on NDS tension formula for the exact components you plan on using and start from there. Keep the DS tension at 120kgf and plug away. A wide DS flange hub should give you NDS tensions in the high 60s and that's good. A narrow DS flange will give you less than 50% tension on the NDS and that's not so good; here is where you start playing with OC rims, 2:1, lighter gauge NDS spokes, etc. Too wide of a flange on the NDS will give you more lateral stiffness but will take tension away from the NDS spokes. It's a juggling act.


----------



## Andreas_Illesch (Jul 9, 2002)

heedongyee said:


> 1) 8 NDS spokes laced heads in radial or 1x; 16 DS spokes laced 3x; same type of spokes all around
> 2) 12 NDS lightweight spokes laced 2x; 12 DS stiffer spokes laced radial or (if clearance allows) 1x heads in.
> 
> I'm eager to run some calcs to figure out which gives better lateral and torsional stiffness given the same hub dimensions...


If you're aware of all the constraints and no-gos (at least to me) here you won't need any calculations at all.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

rruff said:


> Are you sure? There was a thread on WW that indicated they were about the same. I've heard S11 is a hair wider than C11.


That's what Jeremy told me as we discussed his hub. I didn't think it was that different, but he's a stickler for measurements even more than I am;-)

edit, I will get in touch with him again to confirm that. Perhaps I misunderstood him. We were talking about so many different numbers!


----------



## bdaghisallo1 (Sep 25, 2007)

Eric,

I understand the new ORC-UL will be a simpler construction and will not need special tools to service. Do you have any detail on those changes?

Geoff


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

No special tools. Jeremy hasn't released many details because he's doing something really new. The little I know is that the hub shell continues under the freehub so there is no flex at the shell/freehub interface at all. This puts load bearing bearings much closer to the ends of the axle than ever before. I can't wait to see how he pulled this off too. The additional weight loss is the least important new feature to me, but I know it's a nice selling point.


----------



## bdaghisallo1 (Sep 25, 2007)

Eric,

do you know what flange distances Jeremy is targeting with the ORC-UL S11 setup?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

ergott said:


> That's what Jeremy told me as we discussed his hub.


When I talked to him a couple months ago I'm pretty sure he said his S11 hub DS spacing would 0.1-0.2mm less than he has had for C11.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

DS will be 18mm for both 11 speed options. I think that is worth waiting for if anyone wants 11 speed. White Industries is about 16mm. 2mm goes a long way towards durability and lateral stiffness.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

heedongyee said:


> 1) 8 NDS spokes laced heads in radial or 1x; 16 DS spokes laced 3x; same type of spokes all around
> 2) 12 NDS lightweight spokes laced 2x; 12 DS stiffer spokes laced radial or (if clearance allows) 1x heads in.


No...

There are a couple of things going on. NDS spokes going slack is the biggest one IMO... because the wheel strength and stiffness drops a lot when that happens. The other is wheel lateral stiffness *before* you get to that point. 

Note that the sole reason we are discussing this is because *some* hubs have have poor DS offset and a low tension ratio. That may not be the case with the rear hub you use.

The stiffness imparted by the spokes is proportional to the *square* of bracing angle (or ~offset), and linear with the cross-sectional area of the spoke (assuming they are SS).

What does that tell you? You will lose lateral stiffness if you lace a normal hub triplet... but you won't have trouble with spokes going slack. 

Do *not* lace the DS radial... the flanges aren't made for that. Don't lace the NDS triplet radial for the same reason.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

Sorry if this is a dumb question. I'm just here treading water in the wheel building pool with the olympic team doing laps around me.
If 11 speed will be the new upcoming standard and the problems arise in building due to the flange spacing, will this change wheel building as a whole from what is being done currently? And are the makers of hubs like WI who are droping the 10 H2 and 3 and going to the 11 losing some customers?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Any 11 speed Shimano hub will still be compatible with 8-10 speed groups with an added spacer. Same with Sram, you can use Shimano 11 wheels with a spacer.

If designed correctly, building with Shimano 11 will be no different than Campagnolo since they only had 9 speed. That's well over a decade.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

ergott said:


> DS will be 18mm for both 11 speed options. I think that is worth waiting for if anyone wants 11 speed. White Industries is about 16mm. 2mm goes a long way towards durability and lateral stiffness.


Great news!


----------



## woz (Dec 26, 2005)

This week I have been working on an update for 11 speed conversions on some of our most popular hubs including actual offset numbers, and tension ratios. Alchemy, DT, Tune, Extralite, White Industries, and Chris King. If you're interested the numbers can all be found here: Hub Conversions for Shimano 11 Speed - Fair Wheel Bikes


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

woz said:


> This week I have been working on an update for 11 speed conversions on some of our most popular hubs including actual offset numbers, and tension ratios. Alchemy, DT, Tune, Extralite, White Industries, and Chris King. If you're interested the numbers can all be found here: Hub Conversions for Shimano 11 Speed - Fair Wheel Bikes


Thanks for posting! Interesting to see how DT, the worst performing S10 hub from the bunch relative to lateral stiffness, has now the best tension ratio based solely on the extra cog and has switched places with WI.
My excitement about the Shimano 11 speed is quickly vanishing.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Tension ratio and stiffness are two different things. 

Thanks for that, Jason! Good info.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

T K said:


> If 11 speed will be the new upcoming standard and the problems arise in building due to the flange spacing, will this change wheel building as a whole from what is being done currently? And are the makers of hubs like WI who are droping the 10 H2 and 3 and going to the 11 losing some customers?


The relative loss in lateral stiffness because of the reduction of the tension ratio will be better sensed by the heavier riders and by all riders with an aggressive riding style. Countermeasures will be essential if a stable wheel is to be built and such measures may not be the cup of tea of the kid at the neighborhood bike store lacing wheels which may bring more business to the proffesional wheel builders.
On the other hand, it may also make a better case for the factory built high(er) end wheels because if there is one thing the factory wheels do well is the weight to stiffness ratio.
Oops.......I just dropped my crystal ball......no more predictions......


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

dcgriz said:


> On the other hand, it may also make a better case for the factory built high(er) end wheels because if there is one thing the factory wheels do well is the weight to stiffness ratio.


Oh? They have the same constraints as everyone else. 

And once again, lateral stiffness and tension ratio are not the same. In fact stiffness improves as the NDS offset gets bigger... up to the point where the spokes go slack.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

rruff said:


> Tension ratio and stiffness are two different things.
> 
> Thanks for that, Jason! Good info.


Yes they are two different things; but aren't they directly related and able to cause a chain reaction of events? 

In other words, won't a low tension ratio result on a low tension on the NDS spokes which in turn could result in the possibility of loosing tension easier on the NDS spokes when the wheel goes over bumps etc causing the wheel to loose lateral stiffness and eventually go completely slack or brake spokes?


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

rruff said:


> Oh? They have the same constraints as everyone else.
> .


I hope you don't misunderstand what I 'm saying. The constraints are the same but factories have the benefit of specially made hubs and spokes to help maximize rigidity while keeping the weight of the wheel down. Not all factories do it and not all factory wheels are created equal, the same as not all hand built wheels are created equal.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

If low tension ratio was the only problem, then the solution would be simple... make the NDS offset less. But that makes the wheel less stiff and more susceptible to tacoing. 

Basically, anytime you lower the DS offset you present compromises that make the wheel weaker. DT S hubs have made weak rear wheels for a long time (relative to most S hubs), yet most people are fine with them. Campy hubs have been "compromised" for many years. 

The Alchemy S11 hubs will be fine... as are their C11 hubs. IMO the WI T11s could be have better geometry... more DS and less NDS offset. Even though they completely remade their hub bodies, they kept the same geometry as the H3 hub bodies and just moved them over... and so we deal with it.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

rruff said:


> If low tension ratio was the only problem, then the solution would be simple... make the NDS offset less. But that makes the wheel less stiff and more susceptible to tacoing.


I think I understand where the disconnect is. I fully understand the effect of wider NDS offset and the resulting increase in lateral stiffness at the expense of reducing the NDS tension and the consequences of the low NDS tension on the loosening and possibly breakage of the spokes.
The point of focus in my thinking process has been what I call the tension ratio. The formula I have been using uses the NDS and DS offsets to establish the tension ratio and because the inherited lateral stiffness is already associated with the particular NDS offset at hand I used the tension ratio term in my attempt to quickly describe the effect of the parameters of the particular situation. Anyway, I do understand your point and how confusion could result if the same logic deduction is not used. Point well taken.
Thanks for the additional explanation.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

dcgriz said:


> The constraints are the same but factories have the benefit of specially made hubs and spokes to help maximize rigidity while keeping the weight of the wheel down.


That would imply that there is some magic formula they can use that no one else knows about. It just isn't the case. The Alchemy Orc will build a stiffer wheel than any factory hub.


----------



## heedongyee (Nov 29, 2010)

rruff said:


> Note that the sole reason we are discussing this is because *some* hubs have have poor DS offset and a low tension ratio. That may not be the case with the rear hub you use.
> 
> The stiffness imparted by the spokes is proportional to the *square* of bracing angle (or ~offset), and linear with the cross-sectional area of the spoke (assuming they are SS).
> 
> What does that tell you? You will lose lateral stiffness if you lace a normal hub triplet... but you won't have trouble with spokes going slack.


Ok so stiffness imparted by the spokes on one side of the wheel may be qualitatively examined by computing the product of the number of spokes, their cross sectional area, and the square of the offset.

Let's say we're using a hub with 19/38mm offset, 1.8mm spokes on the DS and 1.5mm spokes on the NDS.

Triplet lacing gives
DS: 16 * .81 * 19^2 = 4679
NDS 8 * .5625 * 38^2 = 5832

Standard lacing gives
DS: 12 * .81 * 19^2 = 3509
NDS: 12 * .5625 * 38^2 = 9747 

Taking the smaller of the two sides, it looks like the triplet is stiffer. If you lace the DS heads-in on the standard pattern (effective offset 21mm), then "stiffness" jumps to 4287, but that's still less than triplet DS stiffness. Am I missing something?


----------



## Andreas_Illesch (Jul 9, 2002)

heedongyee said:


> Am I missing something?


4 spokes.
Obviously 16 spokes on drive side give more stiffness than 12 spokes.

Have you thought about what you do to those poor spokes in therms of sharp bendings and low leverages when you lace them 1x all heads in?


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

rruff said:


> That would imply that there is some magic formula they can use that no one else knows about. It just isn't the case. The Alchemy Orc will build a stiffer wheel than any factory hub.


I am neither defending nor pushing factory wheels in any way shape or form but I don't want to generalize either. No doubt Alchemy will built to a very stiff wheel however I did refer to the weight to stiffness ratio.
Tour had an interesting article last winter; the hand built wheel with R45 hubs had the second best stiffness and the 7th best weight to stiffness ratio. (http://www.tour-magazin.de/services/qtr/epaper_4_2011/mobile.html#/page/88). Ofcourse the results are best applied to the sample lot only.

BTW, this has been a very informative thread to say the least. I much appreciate all your contributions and explanations on the matter.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

heedongyee said:


> Am I missing something?


You have to add the two. Stiffness will be the same in both directions with the spokes on both sides contributing. 

It would be best to use heavier spokes on the NDS for triplet.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

Somewhere between post #57 and 62 somthing just clicked. I had an ah ha moment. I am now starting to understand the relationship between flange spacing and spoke tension. I also found a great read online. Looked to be a couple years old.
A lot of you, I'm sure, know all this but it may help others.

rruff, is this you?

Lacing Patterns


What lacing pattern would be best for a road wheelset? 

Most riders seem to think this is critical and also that it is mysterious, but really it is neither. Most "normal" lacing patterns will work well... and also a few that aren't normal.

Cross lacing is necessary for transferring torque via the rear wheel, so at least one side of the hub must be cross-laced... usually the drive side (DS). Generally a rider will be fine with only 10 crossed spokes in a rear wheel, but there are special circumstances where this could be inadequate. Many have the impression that powerful sprinters subject the rear wheel to high torque loads, but this is untrue. They put a lot of torque on the *cranks* but the torque that the rear wheel sees is inversely proportional to gear ratio. Consequently, the highest torque loads possible occur when a rider stomps with high force while in a low gear... for instance sprinting up a very steep hill in a 34/27. In this case the load on the spokes can be high enough to cause problems, and it would be better to use a fairly stout hub and cross-lace both sides. Few riders ever feel "inspired" to ride this way on a regular basis, though.

The number of crossings depends primarily on the number of spokes. As a general rule, the maximum number is ~ #holes/9... in other words if you have a 28h or 32h hub the max is 3, and on a 20h or 24h hub the max is 2. If you try to use 3x on a 24h hub the angle is too great and the spokes will probably run into the head of one next to them.

The closer the spokes are to being tangential at the hub, the smaller the tension/ detension cycle will be due to torque, so generally a hub will be laced with as many crossings as possible. In reality it doesn't make a big difference though... you can lace a 28h or 32h hub 2x if you like. The difference between a fully tangential spoking and one that is half way between that and radial (45 degrees) is only 30%. A benefit of fewer crosses is that the spokes are a little shorter which makes the effective bracing angle a little higher.

Bracing angle is important because this effects the tension balance and the lateral stability of the wheel. This presents a conundrum on the rear wheel though, since the position of the DS flange is dictated by the wide cassette, and providing clearance for the derailleur. Because of this the spacing from the center of the wheel (rim) is "stuck" being only 16-19mm from the DS flange with a 130mm dropout width. Campy hubs are in the 16-17mm range due to their wider cassettes, and Shimano/SRAM specific hubs are in the 18-19mm range. Of course you would always like to get the DS spacing as great as possible, with the practical limit being a minimal clearance between the spokes and derailleur.

The spacing on the NDS can be whatever the hub manufacturer wants. If it the same as the DS, then both sides will have the same tension. If it is twice as large... say 36mm... the NDS tension will be *half* as great as the DS. The problem here is that a high bracing angle is good because the lateral strength and stability goes up *exponentially* with the bracing angle... but low tension on the NDS could cause these spokes to go slack under high radial loads. Since the lateral stiffness of the wheel increases faster than the NDS tension drops as you increase the NDS spacing, the NDS spokes are more likely to go slack due to *lateral* loads if the NDS spacing is small. When spokes go slack the stiffness of the wheel goes way down and the chance of the dreaded "taco" is possible.

So as you can see, the trick here is to find the best compromise, and the hub manufacturers have different ideas about which is best. The builder can often influence the tension balance and bracing angles by selecting different lacing patterns. Older AC and Ritchey hubs have <30mm NDS spacing. They like to tout that this is better than the rest... but IMO, this is the worst side of things... ie lateral stability has been compromised too much in the interests of more even tension. DT hubs are on the narrow side, and the 240 Shimano/SRAM versions also being penalized on DS spacing due to having a swapable (Campy or S) freehub body. Powertap hubs also have this issue... but with their large flanges they can be laced 1x heads in on the DS to improve the DS bracing and tension balance. White Industries hubs are 18mm/36mm in S and I normally lace them radial heads-in or cross laced on the NDS, with normal cross lacing on the DS. The Alchemy hub in Shimano/SRAM is closest to perfection with 19.6/37 spacing and these will work well laced any way you like on the NDS. 

I currently only lace the PT S hubs heads-in on the DS. I know that other builders have laced other hubs this way to improve the DS bracing angle... but I consider this a mixed bag and haven't tried it yet. The PT hub is ideal since the flange is so large (70mm vs 40-45mm for the DS flange on other hubs). This proportionally improves the torque transfer, so shifting most of this duty to the NDS is fine. On other hubs there is a greater chance of torque loads causing the NDS spokes to go slack. Another issue is whether or not the DS flange can take high tension with the spokes 1x or radial.

What about radial lacing? Radial lacing doesn't transfer torque well at all, but other than that the only issue is the hub. Since radial lacing pulls straight out on the hub flange, and any cracks that might develop will grow into each other, radial lacing "challenges" the flange more than cross patterns, increasing the chance that it will fail. Some manufacturers have restrictions on radial lacing and I respect this unless the customer instructs me otherwise. It is fine on front hubs though, with lower spoke counts at least.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

dcgriz said:


> No doubt Alchemy will built to a very stiff wheel however I did refer to the weight to stiffness ratio.


Since the Alchemy Orc is pretty light (222g), the hub itself isn't going to weigh you down. I rode >10k miles on a 1185g set with Stan's 340 rims and Alchemy hubs. The lightest set Tour tested was 1447g... 262g heavier. And I'm also not seeing that the handbuilt wheels are very different than the factory wheels in stiffness vs weight. none of them used an Alchemy hub. 

It's interesting to look at the chart for stiffness in that Tour edition of their general wheels vs the carbon aero ones... the general wheels were appreciably stiffer on average. And some of the general wheels were more aero than the deep carbon ones.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

T K said:


> rruff, is this you?


Yes. More like 5 years old I think. 

Here is some good info from the Fair Wheel hub reviews in 2010 and 2012: 

fairwheelbikes.com • View topic - Road hub review, 28 hubs

2012 Hub Review: Information overload? - Fair Wheel Bikes

You might be interested in the discussion at the bottom also, between me and Dave Walker.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

Thanks Ron. That "Lacing Patterns" write up made me understand more than anything I have read yet.
Those links are some great stuff. I'm going to print it so I can geek out on it later.


----------



## heedongyee (Nov 29, 2010)

rruff said:


> You have to add the two. Stiffness will be the same in both directions with the spokes on both sides contributing.


This is a little counterintuitive. Can you explain, for example, how the DS spokes contribute to lateral stiffness when a load is applied to the rim toward the DS?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

heedongyee said:


> This is a little counterintuitive. Can you explain, for example, how the DS spokes contribute to lateral stiffness when a load is applied to the rim toward the DS?


Hopefully this will explain it. Take two rubber bands and attach them to a washer (or any other item) and fix the ends so that they are pulling on the washer from opposite directions. The washer is in equilibrium... so both rubber bands are pulling on it the same amount. When you push or pull the washer towards one of the fixed ends, the rubber band you are pulling away from will increase its pull on the washer, while the other will decrease its pull. The sum of the two *changes* in tension (compared to the original tension) will match the force you are applying to the washer. If the rubber bands are the same and have a consistent spring constant over the range you are moving them, then they will both contribute the same amount to the stiffness (force/displacement). 

If you remove one of the bands and stretch the other the original amount, you will find that the stiffness (change in force divided by displacement) will be half as high as when you had two.

The same thing happens with spokes that contribute to torsional stiffness. Half of them "pull" while the other half pushes. 

And if you understand this, you are dangerously close to understanding why the spokes on the *bottom* of the wheel are the ones that are resisting the great majority of the vertical force, rather than the ones on the top. If the rim was infinitely stiff, top and bottom spokes would contribute the same amount... but since this not close to being true, the bottom of the rim distorts upward from the load, and the lower spokes are the ones that carry most of it.


----------



## heedongyee (Nov 29, 2010)

Two rubber bands with spring constant k are stretched lengths L to suspend a washer. The force on the washer is

kL-kL=0

Now move the washer a small distance l. This requires a force

k(L+l) - k(L-l) = 2kl

and stiffness is 2kl/l=2k. With only one rubber band stretched a distance L the force is kL. Stretch a little more and the force is k(L+l) and stiffness is kl/l=k, indeed half as the above. Thank you very much for the kind and illuminating explanation.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

You said it better!


----------



## Andreas_Illesch (Jul 9, 2002)

heedongyee said:


> Two rubber bands with spring constant k are stretched lengths L to suspend a washer. The force on the washer is
> 
> kL-kL=0
> 
> ...


For the visual minds among us:
View attachment 273239


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

is the change to rim width by most manufactuers in 2013 a way to stiffen their wheels laterally?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

cmg said:


> is the change to rim width by most manufactuers in 2013 a way to stiffen their wheels laterally?


It will slightly... but that isn't why it's being done.


----------



## biker jk (Dec 5, 2012)

rruff said:


> It will slightly... but that isn't why it's being done.


My understanding is that a wheels lateral stiffness increases with some power of the rim width (squared, cubed?). If a stiffer wheel isn't the reason for the move to wider rims then I presume it's better cornering and a better ride (at lower pressures)?


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

biker jk said:


> My understanding is that a wheels lateral stiffness increases with some power of the rim width (squared, cubed?). If a stiffer wheel isn't the reason for the move to wider rims then I presume it's better cornering and a better ride (at lower pressures)?


All of those things are benefits of a wider rim, but the main push is aerodynamics, since the wider rim creates a more consistent profile with common 23mm width tires.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

biker jk said:


> My understanding is that a wheels lateral stiffness increases with some power of the rim width (squared, cubed?). If a stiffer wheel isn't the reason for the move to wider rims then I presume it's better cornering and a better ride (at lower pressures)?


The *rim's* lateral stiffness will increase with the cube of the width... so going from 20mm to 23mm would be a 50% improvement... for the rim. But the wheel is a complex structure in which the spokes usually contribute more... and the radial stiffness of the rim also contributes a lot.

The wide rim mostly improves aerodynamics if the rim is deep enough, and offers a slight cornering benefit. It doesn't make the ride smoother, though.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

rruff said:


> It doesn't make the ride smoother, though.


Wait, what?! 
I keep being told that IS the reason for the wide rim.


----------



## DS1239622 (Mar 21, 2007)

T K said:


> Wait, what?!
> I keep being told that IS the reason for the wide rim.


A wider rim increases the volume of air in the tire which allows you to run lower tire pressure without the risk of pinch flatting which makes for a smoother ride. A wider rim with the same amount of tire pressure will not be smoother. But a wider rim may give you the ability, depending on your weight and tire size to run lower pressure and a smoother ride.


----------



## biker jk (Dec 5, 2012)

DS1239622 said:


> A wider rim increases the volume of air in the tire which allows you to run lower tire pressure without the risk of pinch flatting which makes for a smoother ride. A wider rim with the same amount of tire pressure will not be smoother. But a wider rim may give you the ability, depending on your weight and tire size to run lower pressure and a smoother ride.


Yes, that's correct. I have a wheel set which uses rims 19mm wide and 27mm deep. I built another with 23mm wide rims which are 28mm deep. I can run 10psi lower pressures on the wider rim and the ride is much smoother. I find it hard to believe that better aero is the main reason for a wider rim. Better cornering and a smoother ride over rough roads would appear the better selling points. These could yield speed gains exceeding the aero benefits.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

DS1239622 said:


> A wider rim increases the volume of air in the tire which allows you to run lower tire pressure without the risk of pinch flatting which makes for a smoother ride. A wider rim with the same amount of tire pressure will not be smoother. But a wider rim may give you the ability, depending on your weight and tire size to run lower pressure and a smoother ride.


I knew all that. Point was, whenever people are talking about the wider rims it is always about how much better their bike rides with them. Not how much more aero they are.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Frankly I don't think there enough of a difference to worry about. But the wider rim makes the tire sidewalls more vertical, which should make the ride rougher not smoother... with the same psi. If you lower the pressure, then you can get in beneficial territory, but the rolling resistance goes up then too.


----------

