Well, I've always used Brandt's book as a guide to lacing wheels, but some are not so impressed with him. I had a set of wheels built by Bob Lickton a few years ago, and remarked to him that one flange had the spoke heads on the opposite side of the flange to what Brandt recommeneded. Bob replied that Brandt should stick to computer programming and leave wheel building to those who have been doing it for a living for 30 years. Lickton builds superb wheels, and I must say the best wheel builders I've known relied on experience rather than theory.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Houston, TX
HM & SS Sachs <sachs@erols.com> wrote:
There are two published books with a fair amount on wheels. One is Jobst Brandt's which I have not read but have. The other is the Wilson (and Papadopoulos) Bicycling Science of 2003, from MIT Press. It highly recommends Brandt: "Perhaps the most authoritative writer on the real-world behavior of bicycles wheels is Jobst Brandt (1981)...its greates value is in the practical advice it offers for maximizing spoked-wheel durability. (Brandt also takes great pains to debunk popular myths about the working of tension spoking.)." In Wilson & Pap., see pages 385 - 395, there is separate discussion of radial, tangential, and lateral loads, with the (not so surprising) conclusion that lateral stiffness strongly depends on torsional stiffness of the rim.
In earlier unpublished (to the best of my knowledge) experimental tests, Papodopoulos concluded that the variation from radial all the way to 4-cross was within the difference of one stroke of the tire pump. This is relevant to the equivalent difference in flange height, in part because as you get toward radial spoking you affect spoke lenght. Given this subtlety, he and I have chatted about whether it would even be possible to do a statistically valid "double blind" test to see if riders could tell the difference on bikes (where differences are lessened because of all the other factors, such as stem/bar responses).
harvey sachs mcLean va
Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
> Well, maybe, but I'd want to see how the tests were conducted. Maybe
> different wheels react similarly to radial loading, but actual riding
> involves lateral loads, which might be an entirely different story.
> As an engineer myself, I'm always suspicious of
> "scientific testing". True, sometimes it can explode myths,
> but testing only gives you the answers to the questions you design the
> test to ask. It's all too common to see people design tests to prove
> what they believe, often with total sincerity, and the firm but
> mistaken belief that they are being "scientific". In my mind it
> takes more than a few hours of testing to conclusively
> disprove millions of manyears of collective practical experiene, even
> granting that experience is subjective and can be influenced by
> popoular myth.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Houston, TX
>
> HM & SS Sachs wrote:
>
> Ted Ernst has done an excellent job of capturing the conventional
> wisdom about performance differences between high flange and low
> flange hubs. My good friend Jim Papadopoulos actually did
> measurements on wheels, particularly on spoking patterns (radial
> to 4 cross). In the test stand, the differences were so small as
> to be unnoticeable. What continues to amaze me is how much the
> "engineering" of the bikes we love was driven by marketing, myth,
> and tradition. It's not unique in this (think about house
> construction). Here's an example: Schwinn (and others) did a lot
> of real engineering for their manufacturing processes, but not
> nearly as much for the product design itself -- unless you count
> waterpipe welding and grinding.
>
> Again, I'm not criticizing Ted, for whom I have great respect, but
> just pointing out where all of us were, and how it seems to differ
> from some other fi! elds that are better capitalized.
>
> harvey sachs
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> It's not a matter of better,but a matter of proper application of
> product.
> In general terms, high flange hubs were prettier?(to the commodity
> broker
> importer),and several $ more expensive. A lot of the older racing
> bikes were
> fairly flexible so a stiffer more responsive high flange balanced
> some of
> that out.
> High flanges were also nice for short course tight corner racing.
> Remember, there were few racers but
> a lot of new riders who wanted fast , light bikes and a racing
> bike is what
> they got. A good clincher wheel sport touring bike with lesser
> quality
> equipment
> was cheaper and obviously not as good. There were few good frame sport
> touring bikes on the market during the '60's. Custom, sure, but not
> production
> hand built as the " racing bikes" were.
> It was not a matter of the customer getting smarter as it was the
> shops and
> importers gettin! g to know bikes better and wising up. Maybe the
> europeans
> had a little sales con going on also to get rid of less popular
> items at
> home.
> The small flange hubs were better for rough roads and long
> distance riding.
> As the frame tubing metallurgy improved the stiffer frames allowed
> for more
> small flange hub use and it got to be standard as time went along.
> In my
> opinion
> a large flange hub is still nicer for short course snappy riding.
> But with
> today's
> technology. metallurgy, carbon, aero shaped rims, one can beat
> themselves to
> aches and pains. My feeling on this is only for vintage bike use.
> Today's
> equipment
> is much nicer, but the old stuff is much more fun. Modern riders and,
> equipment are
> blended with comfort, weight,and efficiency in mind. During the
> '60's-'70's
> I raced on
> 28h Arc en Ciel rims, high flange hubs in all the So. Cal. races
> and hardly
> ever
> had to touch up the true. Ted Ernst.