RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Components


Archive Home >> Components(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 )


spoke gauge for 24 front unbraked wheel?(7 posts)

spoke gauge for 24 front unbraked wheel?joe friday
Oct 8, 2003 7:14 AM
i weigh about 160#-worst case scenario :-)
and am building a fixed gear track bike for
the road. the front wheel won't have a brake
so that wheel won't--i guess?-be enduring many
forces, so i would like to know how thin a gauge
i could REASONABLY use? i'm locked into using a 24
spoke count and would prefer to use a radial lace.
Thanks for any help!!
may depend on the rimoff roadie
Oct 8, 2003 8:03 AM
I weigh 185 lbs (more with a load of water) and have a 24 spoke Deep V rim laced with Wheelsmith AE 15 spokes. Those are "smooshed" versions of Wheelsmiths 1.8/1.55 15gDB spoke. That's a pretty slim gauge...

The wheel is durable as heck, could be used for cyclocross and has seen many curb drops and gravel roads. It lacks a bit in lateral rididity, but not so much as to hurt cornering or accelration.

I'd say go as light as you want, unless you really feel the need to increase percieved response / handling when acclerating.

Ultimatley the issue will be your rim. If your rim is really light, I'd actually suggest the lightest spokes possible, because the rime WILL flex, and thin spokes handle that BETTER. The tension of lacing stretches them more, which is necessary for good wheel stability. A light rim can only support moderate spoke tension, so thick spokes will result in an unstable wheel is used with a light rim.

If you wheel has more stiffness (like my deep V) than either sort of spoke will do. Traditionally track riders like heavier spokes, or so I'm lead to believe.

A durbale wheel can be made for a rider of your weight using 24 of the lightest spokes in existance, but the question is, is the RIM up to the task, and is that what you want?
re: spoke gauge for 24 front unbraked wheel?brider
Oct 8, 2003 10:55 AM
Also depends on the rim. A deeper section rim will tend to pread the load over more spokes, so you could get away with a slightly thinner gage.
re: spoke gauge for 24 front unbraked wheel?joe friday
Oct 8, 2003 3:15 PM
ok, i'm going to be using the reeeealy light Cadence rims,
24frnt and 28r, the back wheel is a concern because it's
going to experience the forces of fixed gearing i.e.,
braking by backpedaling. So.. 1.8db in front and 14g
straights in back?
fixed gear forcesoff roadie
Oct 8, 2003 7:55 PM
Aren't all that big, really. The gears are real tall, so its physically imposible to apply all that much torque. Also, trrack rears (and other dedicated 1 speed hubs) are generally dishless, which helps torque tolerance a LOT.

I'd suggest aero spokes like CX-ray or Wheelmisth AE15 in front, where you'll get the most benefit. Either is a good bit lighter than a typical 14g double butted spoke.

In the back, you don't really need much more, but if it makes you feel good, go with Wheelsmith DB14 spokes. They are 2.0mm/1.7mm, making them a bith lighter (and more suited to light rims) than other 14 gauge spokes. DT supercomps would be a similar option- they are tripple butted, 2.0/1.7/1.8, cost a bit more, may way a hair less.

Actually, the AE15 / D supercomp combo would be nice bacause you could use all 15g nips, which makes alloy nips a more viable choice (thinner spoke = more nipple metal). With those spokes and alloy nipples, you'd be shaving small-but-signifigant amounts of rotating mass, which would translate directly into faster acceleration.
Brakes or no brakes makes little differenceKerry Irons
Oct 9, 2003 5:29 PM
Braking forces are through the rim to the tire. Spoke count, etc. has little effect on this. Unless the rim deforms from the force of the brake pad, braking forces are not an issue in building a wheel.
Brakes or no brakes makes little differencejoe friday
Oct 11, 2003 1:59 PM
"Braking forces are through the rim to the tire."
while that makes sense for rim brakes, i'd think the
counterrotation energy of the hub on a fixed gear would translate through the spokes.

BTW, isn't there a better word for 'counterrotation energy'
:-)