Hand Built Wheels

[Richard A Thackeray]

I'd recommend Gary Proud, owner of Kendell Cycles, in Castleford
A damned fine builder, who also has been known to build m/cycle, & 'wire-wheels'. for sports cars

http://www.kendellcycles.co.uk/index.php/our-services

Gary built me CX wheels, both for 'HPs' & Tubs, MTB wheels (in early 90's) & road wheels

Not sure when this was compiled, but Ian Cammish, states he's using Gary-built wheels after 25 years
http://www.iancammish.co.uk/front-wheels

 

[EasyPeez]

I have just done a search for everything I've written with the words Hope hubs in it and found four mentions, nothing glowing.

Am I missing something or getting senile?

Far be it from me to suggest any deterioration of your faculties, but this seems fairly glowing, by your standards at least

If you choose hubs with cartridge bearings, why not something like Hope?

I like Hope hubs. I have several reasons for preferring them over other hubs:

1) Available in multiple colours. This was important to me because customers always wanted to match this with that. Further, the spare parts are not colour-specific and I only had to stock one of each, no matter how many colours on the market.
2) They are convertible from through axle to QR to 20mm TA to etc etc etc. All you do if you change your bike and find you have a different fork on there is buy a new end cap and pop that onto the axle.
3) You could buy them without skewers. Hope skewers are crap. I used to fit Shimano skewers if the customer allowed me to. Otherwise, colour-matched Hope skewers is what they got.
4) The bearings are large. It adds to durability but doesn't solve the inherent cartridge bearing problem.
5) The freewheel was nice and loud and this scared old ladies and little children right out of your path. Actually, I hated the sound but customers loved it.
6) The hubs have all the engineering properties that a wheelbuilder wants - chamfered spoke holes and curved flanges, for instance. Consumers don't see this but it makes for durable wheels because it is gentle on spokes.
7) The freehub is serviceable on the trail. Even if the springs fail, you can substitute the little steel leaf springs with small pieces of cable tie plastic. Also, the freehub must be made of steel, if a Shimano cassette will be used on the wheel. Titanium will also work but not aluminium.

I note your fourth point makes reference to the durability of the bearings in fact...

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Far be it from me to suggest any deterioration of your faculties, but this seems fairly glowing, by your standards at least





I note your fourth point makes reference to the durability of the bearings in fact...

Now why couldn't I find that bit? It scares me that you remember stuff I said better than myself. Anyway.

As for point 4, the problem remains. Hope simply delays it with a bearing bigger than other cartridge bearing hubs such as American Classic and other wheels aimed at the light end of the market and thus forced to use small bearings.

But, note the context. I said that if you have to choose CARTRIDGE BEARING HUBS, at least go for the best of the worst. The last few words now a bit embellished for emphasis.

The hubs on my road bike are Campag - cup and cone. These are particularly remarkable, having done in excess of 200 000 kms, I've never replaced balls or races or in fact opened them. Grease is injected via a grease port and cone adjustment is done with the wheels in the bike. Also, they come in several beautiful colours, silver, silver and silver.

I'm off to go and find my ginko beloba, can't remember where I keep it.

 

[Elybazza61]

Been really pleased with my hand-builts which are Archetypes with Novatec 711/712 hubs and Sapim non-bladed spokes built by The Bicycle Ambulance in Cambridge;got them in July 2014 and now getting on for over 6,000kms without any problems,should probably get them looked at in the spring though.

If it's any help I can say that I've run both Schwalbe S-Ones and Hutchinson Sectors tubeless on the Archetypes with no problems but if I was buying now I'd get the new Hydra rims which are wider.

Another option would be the Kinlin rims which are also tubeless ready.

This guy is well recommended and has a good list of disc specific builds;

http://thecycleclinic.co.uk/collections/road-disc-brake-wheelsets

 

[EasyPeez]

Now why couldn't I find that bit? It scares me that you remember stuff I said better than myself. Anyway.

As for point 4, the problem remains. Hope simply delays it with a bearing bigger than other cartridge bearing hubs such as American Classic and other wheels aimed at the light end of the market and thus forced to use small bearings.

But, note the context. I said that if you have to choose CARTRIDGE BEARING HUBS, at least go for the best of the worst. The last few words now a bit embellished for emphasis.

The hubs on my road bike are Campag - cup and cone. These are particularly remarkable, having done in excess of 200 000 kms, I've never replaced balls or races or in fact opened them. Grease is injected via a grease port and cone adjustment is done with the wheels in the bike. Also, they come in several beautiful colours, silver, silver and silver.

I'm off to go and find my ginko beloba, can't remember where I keep it.

Ok, understood.

Without wishing to labour the point, my reason for wanting cartridge bearings is that I could service them myself. I wouldn't have the skills to pre-load or adjust cup and cone I don't think.

So taking on board your assertion that Hope bearings would be somewhere in the region of 6x more expensive than Shimano to maintain in terms of parts, when you factor in that I would have to pay a mechanic every time I needed my Shimano hubs servicing (I don't know that this would cost but would guess at somewhere around the £30-50 mark?) aren't the Shimanos going to work out to be more expensive in the long-term?
I realise that even if they are the fact remains that they will spend less time out of service/provide longer periods of worry-free riding but you could counter that with the fact that cartridge bearings would mean no faffing with trips to the bike shop and allow the satisfaction of doing a job on the bike myself?

Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill around the issue of maintaining and setting up cup and cone bearings?

 

[EasyPeez]

Re: spokes, sorry to be slow, but I'm not sure I follow...

The centre shank of a Revolution spoke is 1.5mm. The centre shank of a D-Light spokes is 1.65mm. The centre shank of a Race spoke is 1.8mm. Given those figures, there's nothing else to say about what they weigh. They weigh what they weigh because dimensions are dimensions. There's no where to save weight or hide weight on solid wire.

To me these quotes read as if you are saying that there is no difference in the durability of a spoke based on it's dimensions. So the choice between Race/D-Light/Laser would be one purely based on weight to price ratio? So an audax rider choosing Race spokes over Lasers is doing so purely to save money and because he is not worried about the extra bit of weight, not because he wants thicker/more durable spokes?

Thus a wheel with 1.8mm spokes will not last longer than a wheel with 1.5mm spokes. The latter lasts the longest under the same conditions.

But then this last bit confuses me further as it seems to suggest that a thinner spoke is actually more durable.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

The latter. I would think it is easier to service a cup and cone bearing than a cartridge bearing hub. However, both skills are easy to learn with the right tuition. I suggest a video or two on Youtube and a look at the Sheldon Brown website for correct preload adjustment of cup and cone bearings.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Let's see if I can explain.

Re: spokes, sorry to be slow, but I'm not sure I follow...
To me these quotes read as if you are saying that there is no difference in the durability of a spoke based on it's dimensions. So the choice between Race/D-Light/Laser would be one purely based on weight to price ratio? So an audax rider choosing Race spokes over Lasers is doing so purely to save money and because he is not worried about the extra bit of weight, not because he wants thicker/more durable spokes?

Firstly, there's no statement in that paragraph that refers to durability. It was merely a paragraph to demystify the OP's paraphrase of someone else's (DR-Something wheels IIRC) BS-ing about weight. The biggest error in your analysis of what I said is that thicker spokes are more durable. They are NOT.

But then this last bit confuses me further as it seems to suggest that a thinner spoke is actually more durable.

Yes, it is confusing because it is counter-intuitive and fueled by stupid nomenclature by spoke companies. For instance, they call their extra-thick spokes Strong - they actually name them Strong. It is wrong.

Firstly you have to understand the difference between strong and durable. All spokes are strong enough for the job. There is no bicycle on earth where, when you mount, the spokes break. Therefore the wheels are strong enough. Durability on the other hand is all about longevity. Strength over time, if you wish. Durability in spokes is their ability to fight off metal fatigue, the primary failure mode of spokes. Metal fatigue is what happens when you sit and bend a piece of wire repeatedly until it breaks. It would be silly to say you are so strong you can break a piece of coat hanger wire, since it wasn't your strength that broke the wire but your repeated soft attack on it that caused it to weaken and break. That's exactly what happens with spokes. At the elbow end, the repeated tension and reduced-tension cycles caused by riding bends the elbow back and forth, once per revolution of the wheel. If the spokes can withstand that attack for hundreds of thousands of kilometers, we consider the wheel durable.

The same happens at the first valley (root) of the last thread at the spoke's threaded end. The last thread is the inside one closest to the elbow. That is the spoke's weakest point because it is the first thin point just adjacent to a thick part of the spoke. This part of the spoke is under huge stress because of the cyclical changes in tension and the fact that the neat V cut into the metal can be the source of cracks starting to happen. Imagine a packet of crisps - just the plastic packet. If you cut out a piece of the packet and keep the cut smooth, it is difficult to tear the piece However, if you cut (usually bite.) at notch in the smooth section, it is easy to tear it. That is called a stress crack and is exactly what happens to a spoke at the last thread.

Now for the counter-intuitive bit. To be durable, spokes must have a weak section somewhere other than in the two vulnerable ends. That's right. We must design a section of spoke that's weaker than the weakest bit and add it into the spoke. In other words, if the spoke is 2mm thick, the section where it is threaded will have valleys of only 1.9mm thickness. Therefore we have to make a part of the spoke even thinner - say 1.8mm. The crux is to keep it smooth though. Remember the crisp packet? So we design a thinner (but beautifully smooth) shank in the middle of the spoke. This means, that if you stretch the spoke, the thin part elongates more than the thicker parts and in a way protect the thicker parts from, let's call it, stretch-attack. The thin part is weaker, but still strong enough for the job. The weak section will not break when you get on the bike.

Now the spoke is durable. By concentrating the cyclical stretching and relaxing movement in the spoke in the long, thin smooth shank, we have created a durable spring in the middle that protects the vulnerable thread and head.

By making the shank even thinner - say 1.5mm as in SAPIM Laser, DT Swiss Revolution and Wheelsmith X-Lite spokes, you have paradoxically created an even more durable spoke than the one that is 1.8mm in the centre.

If you understand these principles, you will understand that the word Strong is wrong. A spoke that is 2mm or even 3mm throughout it's length is less durable than one that tapers to 1.5mm in the centre. The use of the name Strong in SAPIM's extra-thick spokes is thus comical. Of course they realise it but a long explanation like I've just given here doesn't condense easily into a sound bite. Besides, many mechanics just don't listen and refuse to understand. It would be commerciall suicide to not create a "Strong" spoke for them and take their money with a smile.

So, why aren't all wheels not built with Revolutions or Laser spokes? Cost. These spokes have extra manufacturing steps and that adds up. It much as doubles the manufacturing cost and that's reflected in retail prices. Secondly, it is very, very difficult to work with thin-shank spokes because they twist very easily and it takes special skill and tricks to not make them twist when tensioning the spokes. Just the difference in friction between brass and aluminium nipples makes it just about impossible to get them up to tension with high-friction aluminium nipples. Usually the builder is coerced into using aluminium nipples because the customer wrongly specifies 1.5mm spokes for weight reasons in the first place. Putting brass on there seems like sacrilege and pressure is put onto the builder to use aluminium. Big mistake! Building with 1.5mm spokes can double the build time. Time is money.

I hope this helps.

 

[smutchin]

So an audax rider choosing Race spokes over Lasers is doing so purely to save money and because he is not worried about the extra bit of weight, not because he wants thicker/more durable spokes?

The weight differences between different spokes are negligible. And for me, the weight differences between, say, 24 and 32 spokes are not enough to justify the lower spoke count for weight-saving reasons.

The main reason I use Race spokes is based on the advice in Roger Musson's book - ie that they're easier to build with because being slightly thicker they're less prone to twisting. If you're an experienced wheel builder or not building the wheel yourself, that's less of a concern, and there are other reasons to choose thinner spokes - Yellow Saddle has explained it all much better than I can.

For an individual home wheelbuilder, I don't think the cost difference between different spokes is all that significant - at most a few quid per wheel difference between say Revolution and Competition. I reckon it's only when you're building large quantities of stock wheels that the cost will become a significant factor. Or if you're using something really exotic.

 

[Soltydog]

Ok, understood.

Without wishing to labour the point, my reason for wanting cartridge bearings is that I could service them myself. I wouldn't have the skills to pre-load or adjust cup and cone I don't think.

So taking on board your assertion that Hope bearings would be somewhere in the region of 6x more expensive than Shimano to maintain in terms of parts, when you factor in that I would have to pay a mechanic every time I needed my Shimano hubs servicing (I don't know that this would cost but would guess at somewhere around the £30-50 mark?) aren't the Shimanos going to work out to be more expensive in the long-term?
I realise that even if they are the fact remains that they will spend less time out of service/provide longer periods of worry-free riding but you could counter that with the fact that cartridge bearings would mean no faffing with trips to the bike shop and allow the satisfaction of doing a job on the bike myself?

Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill around the issue of maintaining and setting up cup and cone bearings?

I've used Cotingham cycles a few times & found their rates to be very reasonable, just wish I lived a little nearer. I doubt a wheel service would be any where near £50??

I've had a couple of pairs of wheels built by @Spoked Wheels & they are top notch. My last pair are still running very well despite having a little shunt A club mate ran into the back of me & the rear wheel took the brunt of it. It was ever so slightly out of true, a half turn of one spoke nipple trued it back up. Just got a 'little' scratch on my rim

 

[EasyPeez]

Let's see if I can explain.



Firstly, there's no statement in that paragraph that refers to durability. It was merely a paragraph to demystify the OP's paraphrase of someone else's (DR-Something wheels IIRC) BS-ing about weight. The biggest error in your analysis of what I said is that thicker spokes are more durable. They are NOT.





Yes, it is confusing because it is counter-intuitive and fueled by stupid nomenclature by spoke companies. For instance, they call their extra-thick spokes Strong - they actually name them Strong. It is wrong.

Firstly you have to understand the difference between strong and durable. All spokes are strong enough for the job. There is no bicycle on earth where, when you mount, the spokes break. Therefore the wheels are strong enough. Durability on the other hand is all about longevity. Strength over time, if you wish. Durability in spokes is their ability to fight off metal fatigue, the primary failure mode of spokes. Metal fatigue is what happens when you sit and bend a piece of wire repeatedly until it breaks. It would be silly to say you are so strong you can break a piece of coat hanger wire, since it wasn't your strength that broke the wire but your repeated soft attack on it that caused it to weaken and break. That's exactly what happens with spokes. At the elbow end, the repeated tension and reduced-tension cycles caused by riding bends the elbow back and forth, once per revolution of the wheel. If the spokes can withstand that attack for hundreds of thousands of kilometers, we consider the wheel durable.

The same happens at the first valley (root) of the last thread at the spoke's threaded end. The last thread is the inside one closest to the elbow. That is the spoke's weakest point because it is the first thin point just adjacent to a thick part of the spoke. This part of the spoke is under huge stress because of the cyclical changes in tension and the fact that the neat V cut into the metal can be the source of cracks starting to happen. Imagine a packet of crisps - just the plastic packet. If you cut out a piece of the packet and keep the cut smooth, it is difficult to tear the piece However, if you cut (usually bite.) at notch in the smooth section, it is easy to tear it. That is called a stress crack and is exactly what happens to a spoke at the last thread.

Now for the counter-intuitive bit. To be durable, spokes must have a weak section somewhere other than in the two vulnerable ends. That's right. We must design a section of spoke that's weaker than the weakest bit and add it into the spoke. In other words, if the spoke is 2mm thick, the section where it is threaded will have valleys of only 1.9mm thickness. Therefore we have to make a part of the spoke even thinner - say 1.8mm. The crux is to keep it smooth though. Remember the crisp packet? So we design a thinner (but beautifully smooth) shank in the middle of the spoke. This means, that if you stretch the spoke, the thin part elongates more than the thicker parts and in a way protect the thicker parts from, let's call it, stretch-attack. The thin part is weaker, but still strong enough for the job. The weak section will not break when you get on the bike.

Now the spoke is durable. By concentrating the cyclical stretching and relaxing movement in the spoke in the long, thin smooth shank, we have created a durable spring in the middle that protects the vulnerable thread and head.

By making the shank even thinner - say 1.5mm as in SAPIM Laser, DT Swiss Revolution and Wheelsmith X-Lite spokes, you have paradoxically created an even more durable spoke than the one that is 1.8mm in the centre.

If you understand these principles, you will understand that the word Strong is wrong. A spoke that is 2mm or even 3mm throughout it's length is less durable than one that tapers to 1.5mm in the centre. The use of the name Strong in SAPIM's extra-thick spokes is thus comical. Of course they realise it but a long explanation like I've just given here doesn't condense easily into a sound bite. Besides, many mechanics just don't listen and refuse to understand. It would be commerciall suicide to not create a "Strong" spoke for them and take their money with a smile.

So, why aren't all wheels not built with Revolutions or Laser spokes? Cost. These spokes have extra manufacturing steps and that adds up. It much as doubles the manufacturing cost and that's reflected in retail prices. Secondly, it is very, very difficult to work with thin-shank spokes because they twist very easily and it takes special skill and tricks to not make them twist when tensioning the spokes. Just the difference in friction between brass and aluminium nipples makes it just about impossible to get them up to tension with high-friction aluminium nipples. Usually the builder is coerced into using aluminium nipples because the customer wrongly specifies 1.5mm spokes for weight reasons in the first place. Putting brass on there seems like sacrilege and pressure is put onto the builder to use aluminium. Big mistake! Building with 1.5mm spokes can double the build time. Time is money.

I hope this helps.

I already understood the difference between strength and durability. The rest was all new to me, and perfectly explained. Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me and any others reading the thread. I did think it odd that the lighter a spoke was the higher the 'strength on middle section' that Sapim claim for it. Now it all makes sense and I feel more confident in which spokes to choose. Thank you.

 

[Ajax Bay]

am I making a mountain out of a molehill around the issue of maintaining and setting up cup and cone bearings?

OP, thank you for originating and sustaining this thread which is full of useful information, re-expressed.
As far as servicing hubs is concerned, provided they are cup and cone (for example Shimano), they really are rather easy to service and few tools are needed: a pair of cone spanners, basically, plus some grease and maybe, optionally, a fresh set of balls (though note YS's road bike ones have never been changed in tens of thousands of miles). You just take them apart (avoiding dropping anything and keeping the 3 or four items you've screwed off in order), leaving the RHS cone and locknut in place, clean everything out, clean the ball bearings, pack the grease in, pop the same number of balls back in, reassemble and tighten (bit of trial and error to get tightness optimal). Avuncular Robert he is. Once you've done it once it will seem (even more) straightforward and give you satisfaction both on completion and when riding. This Park Tools article is easy to follow.

 

[Ian H]

I've built my own wheels for the past 30 years, with the exception of a couple of pairs of carbon racing wheels. None have fallen apart.

 

[Spoked Wheels]

@Yellow Saddle - just wondered if you had any suggestions of better cartridge-bearing alternatives to the Hope hubs? I thought you had been quite glowing about them in other threads but your post earlier in this thread seemed quite negative. Any idea of average bearing life in mileage from your experience?
@Spoked Wheels - what are your thoughts on Hope hubs? I'm a bit scared of the idea of trying to service non-cartridge bearings myself as have read that there's more of an art to it/it can be quite a faff to get the hang of...

Cheers.

I'm sorry @EasyPeez, I missed this alert.

I don't think you should be too scared about servicing and adjusting cup and cone hubs. There's plenty of information on the net. There's a procedure but a lot of it is trial and error. The important thing is to follow the correct procedure and you will be fine. If you think you can change cartridges then I'd say you could service a cup and cone hub

My only problem with Hope hubs is that are too noisy for me. It's a personal thing. Some people don't mind the noise.

I just read your OP and although 24 spoke is OK for your 10 St - I'm not sure is right to build a wheel with 24 spokes when you intend to carry a rear load. I would not use laser spokes on the right side of the rear wheel either.

Maybe a lighter rim like the Pacenti and 28 spokes..... just a thought

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I'm sorry @EasyPeez, I missed this alert.

I don't think you should be too scared about servicing and adjusting cup and cone hubs. There's plenty of information on the net. There's a procedure but a lot of it is trial and error. The important thing is to follow the correct procedure and you will be fine. If you think you can change cartridges then I'd say you could service a cup and cone hub

My only problem with Hope hubs is that are too noisy for me. It's a personal thing. Some people don't mind the noise.

I just read your OP and although 24 spoke is OK for your 10 St - I'm not sure is right to build a wheel with 24 spokes when you intend to carry a rear load. I would not use laser spokes on the right side of the rear wheel either.

Maybe a lighter rim like the Pacenti and 28 spokes..... just a thought

Why would you not use Laser spokes on the right side? Right side of which wheel?