# Alloy vs. Brass Nipples



## voodooguy (Aug 18, 2007)

Heavier rider here. Any advantage of one type of nipple over the other? (Aside from weight)


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

voodooguy said:


> Heavier rider here. Any advantage of one type of nipple over the other? (Aside from weight)


How heavy? I've ridden aluminum nipples on road, mtb and track bikes for more than a decade without any issues. I've been 180-200lbs in that time. But the weight is not important and you won't notice a difference. I've got alum nipples on all my wheels (maybe 6-7 sets) and I'll be the first to say that their best asset is their colors. Most of mine are red.


----------



## voodooguy (Aug 18, 2007)

Mike T. said:


> How heavy? I've ridden aluminum nipples on road, mtb and track bikes for more than a decade without any issues. I've been 180-200lbs in that time. But the weight is not important and you won't notice a difference. I've got alum nipples on all my wheels (maybe 6-7 sets) and I'll be the first to say that their best asset is their colors. Most of mine are red.




250# been up to 260, but am on the way down. Seems alloy should do me fine. But, I'm not sweating the extra grams w/ the brass... hell I'm carrying a ton of brass in my gut! I guess the question is, "Will the alloy nipple be prone to failure due to the weight I carry?"


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

My experience tops out at 200lbs so above that I can't help ya. But also, at that weight (or mine), a handful of grams means nothing.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

voodooguy said:


> "Will the alloy nipple be prone to failure due to the weight I carry?"


Brass is more durable and more resistant to corrosion... and a little more idiot-proof if truing is needed. If you aren't concerned about the weight and you don't want the fancy colors, then there is no reason to use aluminum.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

IME. 
i had alloy nipples which rusted and snapped off after 2 years, 18,000km on my rear wheel. This led to chain reaction which cracked my rim by the time I got to the nearest bike shop some 15km away. This cost me a new wheel. I weigh 69kg. So I now use brass nipples. I did not notice any performance difference due to extra weight and I have 32 spokes on my rear wheel i.e. a lot of those nipples. If you want longevity and durability choose with brass nipples. If you are a weight weenie or must have colour options choose alloy and be prepared to replace/rebuild your wheels more regularly than in warranted.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

Alu nips do crack. I had one blow off in the Summer on my 36H OP rim. It was replaced with a brass one, now it's 1 brass, 35 Alu... I can tell the difference in weight... seriously!

Aluminum shouldn't "corrode" that often and I blame the nips failing at manufacturer error/quality control. I mean your rims don't corrode... why should your nips? Just my thought though.


----------



## jmlapoint (Sep 4, 2008)

I think Brass Nipples are the best way to go for easy build, easier re-true, and less corrosion/cracking and better durability.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

CleavesF said:


> Aluminum shouldn't "corrode" that often and I blame the nips failing at manufacturer error/quality control.


Aluminum will galvanically corrode to stainless steel if the environment is wet and salty. Good lubrication (that stays on the threads) will minimize this though.

http://www.ssina.com/corrosion/galvanic.html


----------



## JaeP (Mar 12, 2002)

jmlapoint said:


> I think Brass Nipples are the best way to go for easy build, easier re-true, and less corrosion/cracking and better durability.


Word.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Alloy nips tens to freeze up after a year or two. They also tend to strip under high tension. I would never use alloy nip on a rear wheel (even on my race wheels). Front wheels aren't so bad (only for race wheels)


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Alloy nips tens to freeze up after a year or two. They also tend to strip under high tension. I would never use alloy nip on a rear wheel (even on my race wheels). Front wheels aren't so bad (only for race wheels)


I've never experienced your claims. After five years of muddy mountain bike enduros, ten years of training rides, many races, the (anti-seized) nipples are as free as the day they were installed. Never a stripped one - on high tension wheels under my 200lb weight.

And that's just on one bike. Four years on a steep indoor velodrome (large g-forces) - no nipple problems. Etcetera.


----------



## cfoster (Dec 20, 2007)

I agree with the bulk of the aforementioned characteristics of alloy nipples, save a few. I would like to add to this post, however, that it's my personal belief that a lot of wheels that are built with aluminum nipples make use of some kind of "spoke prep"/loctite/spoke glue. Glueing an alloy nipple to a spoke will typically render that nipple unworkable in the future. If spoke tension is incorrect, a glued alloy nipple may crack or cause other types of failure. 

It seems that some high end wheels pitch the concept of spoke prep/glue/spoke freeze, as well as some wheel builders whom rely on the concept of an "unmovable" spoke as a means of touting wheel strength. I used to build wheels using spoke prep if a particular customer was insistent, but a few years ago I began refusing all such requests. Now I only will use a decent oil lubricant, no exceptions. The bulk of spoke preps that I am aware of work only in anaerobic conditions, (when the spoke is threaded into a nipple). Most start solidifying as soon as 10 minutes after a spoke is loosely threaded into a nipple, but this referenced time is sometimes critiacally based on temperature and humidity, (no joke), depending on the grade/type of spoke prep.

I'm pretty fast at wheel building/trueing, but I can't lace and finish a wheel in ten minutes, even 20 minutes is a push, and when you work with spokes that are litterally freezing to a nipple, it takes longer. The longer it takes, the more you're penalized, since each adjustment becomes less precise, as the glue impedes free movement between the spoke and nipple.

Back to where all this started, alloy nipples and brass nipples are both designed to withstand the same amount of straight pull force. A well built, properly tensioned wheel will yield no significant advantage between using alloy v brass nipples, only that alloy nipples weigh less. I think the reality is that there are a lot of less than stellar wheels out there with alloy nipples, which have created a working history of frustrated cyclists, especially since alloy nipples are difficult to work with after a year, (for the aforementioned reasons), and poorly built wheels typically are repaired by the same caliber of individuals who built them in the first place. Alloy nipples aren't as forgiving over time as compared to brass, but on a well built 32 3x wheel, how much adjustment is really necessary after the first few rides when everything has been seated by the equipment's new owner? Maybe only slight adjustments are necessary, but after that?


----------



## Hoffman (Jul 29, 2008)

*What about...*

Anyone have much experience using the DT Swiss Pro Lock nipples? They got the spoke prep built right in, wondering if their formulation has worked well for anyone who can offer anecdotal evidence of any kind...

From http://www.dtswiss.com/Products/Components2009/Nipples/DT-pro-lock-standard.aspx
"Countless internal tests show that the reliability and durability of a wheel built with DT Swiss pro lock nipples is increased up to twenty times compared with the use of standard nipples..."

I've built about 20 sets of wheels, so I think I have a good idea of what's going on when I build but I don't count myself an expert (yet). I've used several different spoke prepping techniques (tri-flow, rock n roll nipple lube, the blue and yellow wheelsmith (I think?) stuff) and I can't honestly say that I've felt a huge difference in the building/truing process. Time will tell as to how long they last and how they take to minor truing later. I'll probably see some of those wheels this summer as customers bring bikes in for tunes. I expect I won't be able to tell any difference, but I'll be checkin em out.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Chris, I've read much back & forth debate on aluminum versus brass nipples over the years. I would think that a company such as yours which builds many wheelsets for "average" riders (meaning, you're not into the low-spoke and ultra-light and exotic stuff) would not use aluminum nipples if they would jeopardize your reputaion in any way. You've been in business for a while so I would think that if your wheels were failing because of the nipples then you would make a very swift change away from them.

It's ok if *I* build my own and risk failure as I can swap nipples in a couple of hours but a business such as yours would have a big problem on its hands.

I've suffered just one nipple failure in living memory (on a wheel I built) and that was where a spoke was not as deeply inserted up into the nipple head as it should have been. The head popped off.
I took another set of wheels apart (due to rim cracks) that had been on mountain bike duty for about five years. Those nipples, on the chopped out spokes, were as free as when I screwed them on. I use anti-seize to lube my nipples (that didn't sound good did it?)

So all my home-built wheels have aluminum nipples - bikes for track, road, cx, road fixie, townie bike etc. I've no reason to change. It seems like you don't either.


----------



## voodooguy (Aug 18, 2007)

cfoster said:


> ...but after that?


Thank you for your response, Chris. BWW will be getting my order at the end of the month.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

cfoster said:


> I would like to add to this post, however, that it's my personal belief that a lot of wheels that are built with aluminum nipples make use of some kind of "spoke prep"/loctite/spoke glue. Glueing an alloy nipple to a spoke will typically render that nipple unworkable in the future. If spoke tension is incorrect, a glued alloy nipple may crack or cause other types of failure.
> 
> It seems that some high end wheels pitch the concept of spoke prep/glue/spoke freeze, as well as some wheel builders whom rely on the concept of an "unmovable" spoke as a means of touting wheel strength. I used to build wheels using spoke prep if a particular customer was insistent, but a few years ago I began refusing all such requests. Now I only will use a decent oil lubricant, no exceptions. The bulk of spoke preps that I am aware of work only in anaerobic conditions, (when the spoke is threaded into a nipple). Most start solidifying as soon as 10 minutes after a spoke is loosely threaded into a nipple, but this referenced time is sometimes critiacally based on temperature and humidity, (no joke), depending on the grade/type of spoke prep.
> 
> I'm pretty fast at wheel building/trueing, but I can't lace and finish a wheel in ten minutes, even 20 minutes is a push, and when you work with spokes that are litterally freezing to a nipple, it takes longer. The longer it takes, the more you're penalized, since each adjustment becomes less precise, as the glue impedes free movement between the spoke and nipple.


What spoke prep(s) are you referring to here? 

Real SpokePrep is not "glue". You don't use it like glue and it doesn't work like glue. It is not intended to make spokes "unmovable". You do not have to complete the build before it dries. It does not impede free movement of the nipple.

It should be applied sparingly (Zinn) and _allowed to dry completely before wheel assembly_ (Wheelsmith - printed on the container).


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Better yet, when I crunched an old Mavic Cosmos wheel, I decided to rebuild it as a "race wheel", with a tubular Sun M19 rim (same ERD). I noticed that the Mavic nips were brass, but had a nylon insert in the threads. I've used these wheels for years now, and rarely go out of true. The nips have a slightly different wrench flat dimension than DT nips have ( you need the green Park, spoke wrench, not the black one)


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

This thread has cursed me. My 32H Alloy Front wheels just popped an alloy nip today. Upon replacement (with a brass one) I found two other starting to fail (hairline cracks).

Note to self: Don't order wheels from QBP.


----------



## voodooguy (Aug 18, 2007)

CleavesF said:


> Note to self: Don't order wheels from QBP.


crap, what a bummer. Who's QBP? 

Ok, got it... BIG company!


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

CleavesF said:


> Note to self: Don't order wheels from QBP.


QBP caused your alloy nipples to crack? :skep:


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Go Brass.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

quite timely! 

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/artic...-specialized-s-works-roubaix-sl2-custom-21190

"•Rims Ambrosio tubular 32h 
•Front hub DT Swiss 240s 32h 
•Rear hub DT Swiss 240s 32h 
•Spokes Sapim 14/15g w/ brass nipples 3x front and rear "

this should settle it for most riders, I would think. Check out Boonen rims, # of spokes = 32 and brass nipples for Paris-Roubaix. IF you want bomb-proof wheelset, that is.


----------



## voodooguy (Aug 18, 2007)

Very nice.


----------



## 123prs (Jun 19, 2007)

I am having a set of wheels built for me. Alloy nipples on the front wheel (24h). On the rear (28h), alloy on the non-drive side and brass on the drive side.


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

*guess I'll bring this thread back to life....*

I've posted this in other threads, but think it belongs here as well....

I'm no more than a novice "bike-fixer", doing my own general maintainance on my bike, and have been able to try my alloy-nippled wheels.

_BUT...._ My toxic sweat has done a pretty good job of corroding my rear alloy nipples:blush2: . I think at this point I'm around 5, and have had to replace some "iffy" ones with brass as well. So, FWIW, if you have a heavy case of the salty-sweats, brass may be the safer/more practical way to go.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

What did you use to lube the threads when you built them?


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

*not sure*



rruff said:


> What did you use to lube the threads when you built them?


I'm not sure what was used (I had them built for me). If I had to guess, it was whatever spoke-prep DT Swiss uses on their nipples. After the 1st one failed, IIRC some Phil Wood was used to lube/provide some kind of barrier.

(I have a couple pics of some failed nipples, I may post them in the appropriate threads.)


----------



## eloustau (Jul 1, 2010)

*Do you know about titanium nipples?*

They are expensive, but Titan Wheel Technologies makes nipples made out of titanium, which is way lighter than brass and way stronger than aluminum. It's also super resistant to corrosion. You can find more specs on their website: www.titanwheeltech.com


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

*hmmmm....*



eloustau said:


> They are expensive, but Titan Wheel Technologies makes nipples made out of titanium, which is way lighter than brass and way stronger than aluminum. It's also super resistant to corrosion. You can find more specs on their website: www.titanwheeltech.com



Do you have any experience using titanium nipples? Are they as easy to work with as brass? (i.e. not having to worry about rounding them out when putting a spoke wrench to them)


----------



## eloustau (Jul 1, 2010)

*Ti is tough!*

Ti is way tougher than brass and aluminum. It acts more like steel, in that it doesn't "mush" the way brass nipples sometimes do. It also doesn't crack/fail the way alloy nipples sometimes do. But all that aside, I think the most exciting thing is that Ti is basically impervious to corrosion. That's a really important quality when it comes to nipples.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

voodooguy said:


> Heavier rider here. Any advantage of one type of nipple over the other? (Aside from weight)


Nickle plated brass doesn't weld itself to stainless steel spokes and eyelets via galvanic corrosion or suffer from galling like alloy; although both issues can be avoided if you use anti-seize when building the wheel.

The brass is also stronger and less likely to distort into a trapezoid if you don't correctly seat your spoke wrench.


----------



## eloustau (Jul 1, 2010)

*Of course!*

It's true that brass doesn't have the same corrosion/galling problems that aluminum nipples have, but that's not the point. You pay a huge weight penalty! Roughly twice what aluminum nipples weigh, and it's rotational weight (which has a greater effect on performance). This is why I think Ti nipples represent an exciting alternative. You get to have your cake and eat it too. Their only downside is that they're expensive. However, I've heard that you can reuse them (unlike brass or alloy), so this may offset the cost.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*define huge?*



eloustau said:


> It's true that brass doesn't have the same corrosion/galling problems that aluminum nipples have, but that's not the point. You pay a huge weight penalty! Roughly twice what aluminum nipples weigh, and it's rotational weight (which has a greater effect on performance). This is why I think Ti nipples represent an exciting alternative. You get to have your cake and eat it too. Their only downside is that they're expensive. However, I've heard that you can reuse them (unlike brass or alloy), so this may offset the cost.


if this is not for racing/climbing....

weigh 32 brass nipples and 32 alloy nipples and see the diff. I assume 32-spokes.
Last night I did it was additional 30-40 grams per wheel. I dont call this a "huge" difference and one broken spoke or two followed by cracked rim is well worth the weight penalty.


----------



## eloustau (Jul 1, 2010)

You're still missing the point that I'm making. The point is not whether brass or aluminum is better! They both have advantages. Personally, I think the additional weight of brass is worth the increased strength and resilience. But the added weight IS a big deal (it's roughly twice the weigh of alloy nipples), especially for those who ARE climbing/racing, or for those who just want a fast bike. If you look up how much a $100 dollar stem weighs and how much $40 stem weighs, you'll see that people pay a lot of money in other areas of the bike to save a few grams here and there. They add up. Plus, nipples are rotational weight, which is much more noticeable when riding. The point I'm trying to make is that Ti might be an attractive alternative for people who want all the benefits of both brass AND aluminum nipples (strong+light). This is all I'm trying to say. I don't remember all the specifics, but you can look them up on titanwheeltech.com


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

the importance of 'rotational weight' (in relation to non rotational weight) in cycling is a scientifically proven myth

any arguments should be directed towards sir isaac newton


----------



## WheresWaldo (Nov 29, 2005)

eloustau said:


> You're still missing the point that I'm making. The point is not whether brass or aluminum is better! They both have advantages. Personally, I think the additional weight of brass is worth the increased strength and resilience. *But the added weight IS a big deal* (it's roughly twice the weigh of alloy nipples), ....


This is just not correct, quit spewing out pseudo-science as fact without doing the math yourself. Not trying to single you out personally but your statement above gets repeated so often that most people believe it is gospel truth.

Lets say you can shed 50 grams per wheel just swapping nipples from brass to aluminum or titanium and you are going to do the following test. Every thing else being equal. Of course 50 grams per wheel is exagerated since the difference is actually much smaller.

Our riders are doing a long, 5 km climb on an 8% slope. Our Standard Rider is on 32 spoke standard wheels. Out Test Rider is on the same wheels with alloy spokes. Both riders start at the same time with the same initial speed. They are identical in all other respects. Which one gets to the top first?
The alloy nippled rider would be ahead by 5.6 meters or 1.3 seconds at the top. Change the slope to a 13% slope and the alloy nippled rider would be ahead by 6.2 meters.


That is not a whole lot of distance between the two.


So maybe hill climbs are not your thing. Lets say you are going to do a 10K TT and you drop those same 100 grams, all other things are equal. How much faster would you be at 10000 meters? At 100 grams less you would finish the 10K TT 0.06 seconds faster! A 40K TT would be 0.23 seconds faster. These are with average rider specs capable of sustained effort of 250 watts. Now if you don't like my math go to analyticcycling.com and put in your own numbers to see what you get.


So my point is the savings from brass to alloy is a non-factor, it is *NOT a big deal* at all.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

WheresWaldo said:


> So my point is the savings from brass to alloy is a non-factor, it is *NOT a big deal* at all.


And your analysis applies to any 50g weight difference. But you know what people who are trying to shave the weight of their bikes down to a practical minimum would estimate the cost of 50g to be? Probably in the $2-3/g range at least... or $100-150. That makes brass nipples quite expensive. 

Plus aluminum nipples come in many pretty colors... and seem to last a very long time on most wheels if properly lubricated. 

For anybody who cares, the difference in weight runs ~.65g per nipple.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

alexb618 said:


> the importance of 'rotational weight' (in relation to non rotational weight) in cycling is a scientifically proven myth
> any arguments should be directed towards sir isaac newton


I'm not a scientist but wouldn't it take less work to accelerate a lighter mass? And you might say "yes a lighter bike will need less energy to accelerate it and the nipples are part of that weight" but then I would ask if a lighter rim (whose weight the lighter nipples contribute to) will accelerate with less effort than a heavier rim. The rim does accelerate faster than the bike as a whole. But maybe that last sentence will unleash the scientific propellerheads.


----------



## eloustau (Jul 1, 2010)

I get the feeling that the scientific propellerheads don't actually ride bikes.

http://www.ultracycling.com/equipment/wheels.html
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7559
http://www.analyticcycling.com/WheelsConcept_Page.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_wheel#Rotating_mass


----------



## WheresWaldo (Nov 29, 2005)

Mike T. said:


> I'm not a scientist but wouldn't it take less work to accelerate a lighter mass? And you might say "yes a lighter bike will need less energy to accelerate it and the nipples are part of that weight" but then I would ask if a lighter rim (whose weight the lighter nipples contribute to) will accelerate with less effort than a heavier rim. The rim does accelerate faster than the bike as a whole. But maybe that last sentence will unleash the scientific propellerheads.


It simply doesn't matter where the weight comes off. It could be rims, spokes, hubs, or you could have a good bowel movement before your ride, the results are exactly the same. Yes lighter wheels do accelerate faster, but once you reach a certain speed aerodynamics play a more more significant role than how light your nipples are. You may think you are constantly accelerating and decelerating on a bike and that those efforts are significant, but they are actually infinitesimal and insignificant.

Besides this no one here rides in a vacuum and even if you live in central Florida all your rides are not flat either. The rotating weight dictum, simply is not as important as we would like it to be, and certainly not near as important as weight weenies want it either, and I count myself in that group with two road bikes at 15.25 pounds each.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

And if you make it lighter *and* have a good bowel movement, you will be unbelievable!


----------



## WheresWaldo (Nov 29, 2005)

rruff said:


> And if you make it lighter *and* have a good bowel movement, you will be unbelievable!


:lol: I don't care what you say, that was damn funny.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Let's be clear*



WheresWaldo said:


> It simply doesn't matter where the weight comes off. It could be rims, spokes, hubs, or you could have a good bowel movement before your ride, the results are exactly the same. Yes lighter wheels do accelerate faster, but once you reach a certain speed aerodynamics play a more more significant role than how light your nipples are. You may think you are constantly accelerating and decelerating on a bike and that those efforts are significant, but they are actually infinitesimal and insignificant.


Just to clarify this a bit more: at constant speed, it makes no difference where the mass is on the bike. During acceleration, mass at the rim/tire location takes twice as much energy as mass anywhere else. This is becase you have to accerlate that mass up to the speed of the bike AND you have to spin the wheels up to the speed of the bike. But, the amount of energy is small - you can spin a bike wheel up to road speed quite easily by hand.

To further refine the "constantly accelerating/decelerating" point that some confused people try to make: a wheel serves as a flywheel on the bike. If you accelerate the wheel, you are storing kinetic energy, and if you slow down you get that energy back. This applies to the entire bike/rider system, of course. But if you think about the wheels in isolation, a given amount of power put into the "micro-acceleration" will store the same amount of energy, regardless of the weight of the rim/tire. For a heavier rim/tire, the bike will accelerate less. For a lighter rim/tire, the bike will acclerate more. But the amount of energy "stored" as increased kinetic energy (1/2*m*v^2 one half the mass times the velocity squared) will be the same.

There are always those who claim that physics somehow doesn't apply to bicycles. They often work in the marketing department, and use what I like to call "business physics" which has nothing to do with actual physics. It can, however, help to boost sales.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Understanding what you read*



eloustau said:


> I get the feeling that the scientific propellerheads don't actually ride bikes.
> 
> http://www.ultracycling.com/equipment/wheels.html
> http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7559
> ...


Not completely sure of YOUR intent with these links, but they uniformly say EXACTLY what the propellerheads in this thread have been saying: rotating weight is only meaningful during acceleration, the effect is small, and rotating weight means nothing for climbing.


----------

