• Cart$0.00
  • Log In
  • Cart
  • Checkout

Wheel Fanatyk

  • Blog
  • Store
  • Library
  • About
  • Contact

Blog

  • Join our Facebook Group
  • RSS

For Spoke Nerds Only

this entry has 7 Comments/ in How It Works, Reflections, Wheelbuilding Tips / by Ric Hjertberg
October 31, 2010

Please don’t read further if you are not a spoke engineering nerd.

One of the best examinations of wheel physics and spoke performance is a 1996 paper by Henri Gavin, Bicycle Wheel Spoke Patterns and Spoke Fatigue.

Its findings and predictions stimulate numerous revisits every year in forums and exchanges that explore the principles of bicycle wheels. On page 11 he refers to spoke testing conducted at Stanford in 1984 and 1985 by Wheelsmith. My brother Jon and I were developing a superior spoke at that time and the convenient and friendly presence of Stanford in our neighborhood led to some ground breaking research. Spokes were tested and some conclusions reached. Recently, Charles Ramsey speculated what would be the ideal spoke design, one in which breakage at the elbow was as likely as at the thread.

Spoke closeup

Spoke surface texture and microstructure.

With a 14 gauge (2.0mm diameter) spoke, breakage at the elbow is much more likely than at the thread. By contrast, with a 15 gauge (1.8mm diameter) spoke, the opposite is true: thread breakage is more likely. Much of this is owed to the ISO thread pitch used on both diameters (56 tip). Jobst Brandt has noted that, in a perfectly rational world, a finer thread pitch would be used on the thinner, 15 gauge spokes, to reduce the stress riser the thread presents. Here is part of Charles’ thinking:

8 of the Wheelsmith spokes tested broke at the threads 68 broke at the elbow. The spokes were also tested at different levels of stress. The HP Gavin paper gives the formula as Log S = -.3 Log N +4.12 the breaks followed a normal distribution with a standard score of .072 If you draw 2 normal distributions separated by 2.5004 standard scores the center where they overlap is 8/76 area on one and 68/76 area on the other. The center is half the possible breaks spokes didn’t break at the threads and the elbow at the same time. Feeding 2.5004 standard scores back into the equation gives Log S = -.3 Log N +4.12 + 2.5004*(.072) solving for any number of cycles gives a stress difference of 1.514 times so a plain gauge spoke is effectively 1.514 times as strong at the threads than at the elbow. If you make a spoke 2.46mm at the elbow and 2.0mm at the threads if will have an equal chance of breaking at the elbow as at the threads. This spoke can be made and I believe it will fit in Shimano hubs. The nipple could be made at 1.36 rather than 1.27 this will let you tighten the spokes an additional 7 percent. I believe a Weinmann 519 rim will take a .156 inch nipple drilled for 14 gauge spokes. I have never been able to crack one of these rims at the spoke hole though I have bent around 10 solid 10mm axles on the rear. With rolled threads the inside of the threads has a diameter of 1.8mm there is of course a stress riser so the center of the spoke could be made thinner perhaps 1.7mm such a spoke would no be stiff enough for me I get a lot of pannier steer so I would stick to a single butted spoke.

His calculations seem valid to me and speculation that a 2.46mm x 2.0mm single butted spoke would be more ideal is also logical.

Helps explain the high success reported with Alpine, DH and Strong spoke models. 2.3mm x 2.0mm may lack some elbow thickness (compared to Charles’ 2.46mm) but they virtually eliminate spoke breakage. Rather than transferring the failure to the thread, in practice they seem to transfer it to the hub (flange crack), rim (hole crack), or time (eventual mishap).

DH13

Single butted spoke.

Even so, there is another quirk to this application that deserves mention. Throughout our spoke making careers, the more we tested and watched empirical outcomes, the more we listened to metallurgists, the more it seemed that wire quality trumped all other factors. This is not a scientific observation since the number of variables is so high a reliable deduction process dwarfs my means. Still, we regularly saw outstanding outcomes when the wire was flaw-free. The worst hub, rim, tension, and load situations were easily handled with flaw-free wire. It is more than the absolute mechanical properties of the wire. It’s processing success, making spokes not imbedded with fatigue catalyzing flaws in their microstructure.

So, if there were a wire with 30% lower properties but from which a super consistent spoke could be made, you would have better results compared to wire with greater potential but harder to work. This, of course, is a strike against stainless with its work hardening propensity.

Therefore, my quest for an ideal spoke is driven more by the need for consistency than by geometry. Spoke breakage is a combination of high number of fatigue cycles with a pre-existing metal flaw – a crystal discontinuity, hardness anomaly, impurity, etc. The simple presence of high fatigue is not enough. The wire must offer up a flaw. Spokes that lasted 100,000 miles exist. Their properties are consistent with their ingredients. But flaws they did not present.

A good case in point were tandem wheels built for the budding West Coast scene in the ’80’s. Success came from using the best quality spokes in ANY gauge, not better dimensions in inconsistent wire. Maybe part of the lesson is that bicycle spokes, despite their gossamer appearance, are actually over-dimensioned for the task. If so, 2.0mm wire is more than enough as long as the wire is consistent.

Thanks, Charles, for your predictions, but I’ll continue thinking about superior wire. Of course, upping elbow diameter is an obvious freebie since hub makers have been drilling oversized holes for some time.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestmail
← Going New with the Old (previous entry)
(next entry) Fall Color in Ohio →
Comments

7 Responses to For Spoke Nerds Only

  1. Dave says:
    April 15, 2013 at 5:49 am

    Interesting info. I must be a geek. I wondered if you had an opinion on spoke failure with respect to brake type? Do disc brakes cause spokes to fail sooner than rim brakes? Why or why not? I have been playing around with a FBD of a wheel with both brakes trying to arrive at a conclusion but I fear I may have fallen to some kind of blunderous answer. Maybe a new post with diagrams and

    Reply
  2. Chris G. says:
    January 22, 2016 at 10:43 am

    I have some tiny stepper motors with 1.7mm major diameter threads, I wonder if you know where I can get an adapter of some description to connect them to a larger spindle. The thread length is about 12mm and the motors have bearings of some sort, they are slightly flexible. Is the nut/retainer for a spoke suitable?

    Reply
    • Ric says:
      January 24, 2016 at 11:19 am

      Chris, I doubt 1.7 is the true OD. M1.6 and M1.8 are closest. Both smaller than anything bicycle spoke. Think you’re stuck making the adapter using at least an M1.8 tap (www.mcmaster.com). I worry that even tiny asymmetry in the adapter connection will create bad vibration and harmonics as your motor is likely substantial RPM.

      Reply
  3. Tim Cupery says:
    March 21, 2018 at 8:36 pm

    Thanks for your posts, Ric. I enjoy and appreciate reading them.
    I’m curious how long hub manufacturers have been drilling oversized holes in flanges. I assume there’s not a single answer, but I wonder, for example, if a Shimano 600 hub from 1990 could handle 2.3mm-at-the-elbow spokes.

    Of course I can test this by inserting a 2.0mm spoke into hubs from different eras and see if there’s a difference in fit. But I’m curious if the trend had a narrow window to its start-date. Thanks.

    Reply
    • Ric Hjertberg says:
      March 22, 2018 at 9:17 pm

      Hub holes have been oversized since spokes are threaded through. The rolled thread on a 2.0mm wire is about 2.27mm. The hub hole must have at least this diameter. In practice, most mass produced hubs have thick flanges and holes near to 2.5mm. They only listen to their customers. Seems a good compromise between wriggling elbows through on outlier spoke shapes and a snug fit.

      Reply
  4. Jordan Walker says:
    February 1, 2019 at 3:37 am

    This fits my exact question I have a Shimano Deore M590 36h hub and I want to build it back up with 2.3 to 2.0 Sapim Strong Single Butted Spokes. I’m not sure if the hub will accommodate a single butted spoke that size and I don’t have any single butted spokes to try with I’d be ordering all the parts at once when I figure it out.

    Reply
    • Ric Hjertberg says:
      February 1, 2019 at 3:35 pm

      Shimano is quite consistent in using 2.5mm holes on MTB hubs. This makes them compatible with 13/14G spokes.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Categories

  • Do It Yourself
  • Events and Media
  • History
  • How It Works
  • Interesting Projects
  • Morizumi Spoke Machine
  • P&K Lie Truing Stand
  • Reflections
  • Tech
  • Uncategorized
  • Wheel Fanatyk Tools
  • Wheelbuilding Tips
  • Wood Rims
  • Workshops

Links We Like

  • Calvin's Corner
  • Classic Cycle
  • L'Eroica Rally
  • NAHBS
  • Spoke Service
  • The Horton Collection
  • USAC Mechanics Program
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Questions? Suggestions?

Get in touch with us on our contact page.

Interesting links

Besides are some interesting links for you! Enjoy your stay :)
© Copyright - Wheel Fanatyk
  • Send us Mail
  • Join our Facebook Group
  • Subscribe to our RSS Feed