Cycling UK Forum

Why will a crossed spoke wheel absorb more shock than a radial? Because the spokes are longer? Not as much difference as 2psi. less in the tyre.

Try these guys...www.opencountry.org.uk.....they are into disability cycling, I'm sure they will help with recommendations. Sorry, I can't do a magic link thingy.

Shimano specifically say they will not warranty radially spoked hubs because of excess force on the flange. Crossed spokes cancel out some moments of each others force.

Another vote for Koolstop pink! Quickest, cheapest upgrade.

I tried to search this, no luck for my specific inquiry, but apologies if its "old ground". I am looking for a supplier for 21531SW bearings, 21.5x 31x 14. For a modern ISO spline BB unit. So far I have found them only in "cycle specific" sites, where the supply chain is so long that I suspect I will be either paying too much or getting inferior product.
Thanks!

Torsinal loads only apply to front wheels with hub brakes, where the torsinal loads will (again) be adequately supported however you do it. Its all in BRANDT.

If the bottom of the front derailler cage fouls the chainstay you can cut it down and re-close the cage by silver soldering a bit of steel across the now open end. Stainless looks nice if you're fussy.

Good girl, you're doing the right thing with your Dad's bike. And promise your Dad you will keep on going out there and doing it on your own bike. Means a lot to us Dads.
Keep turning those pedals!....Colin

Brandt is pretty scientific. Rotating loads (weight) cause stress changes spread over few spokes, so the tension change is enough to flex the spoke at the elbow and fatigue it. Torsinal loads are carried by many spokes so individual spokes are not loaded enough to change their tension measurably, so torsinal loads do not contribute to fatigue. It is therefore pointless to try to arrange spokes to better support torsinal loads; they are already adequately supported.
Simple really. No myths. No smoke. No mirrors. Brandt shows the measurements and calculations to support all this.

If the cranks are scrap cut them off with a regular hacksaw. You need to make a cut that follows one flat of the square taper. Its not hard, and much kinder than bludgeoning them off. If the old BB is stuck there's all sorts of old tricks to get it out.

Gilly
Cyclists are an irreverent, unfeeling lot, by and large. We don't mean anything by it, its just how it is, and probably your Dad wouldn't have it any other way. Your post doesn't say if your Dad is unwell or old and not riding, or has joined the great CTC section in the sky. Either way, its sad to watch your parents grow old, and our thoughts are with you.
As to the bike, find somebody who will enjoy it. That's what its all about, this cycling lark, its not about money or heirlooms or collecting old bikes which don't ever get their wheels muddy, its about enjoying getting out there.
With kind regards from a sentimental old sod...........Colin

Brandt calls spokes inserted from outside the hub "inbound" and those from inside "outbound". Inbound spokes should be inserted first, it makes it easier. Outbound spokes have a more acute elbow bend than inbound, see my post of Wed.6th. about adjusting the bend. Brandt says that as loads that try to rotate the hub within the wheel (torsinal loads, I think he calls them, I've lent my copy) are shared by many spokes (eg.18) these loads do not contribute to spoke fatigue. He therefore concludes that from the point of view of fatigue it doesn't matter if the pulling spokes are inbound or outbound. He goes on to say that in a deraillier wheel the pulling spokes should be inbound in order to pull the spokes away from the jockey cage-this is the only thing in the book I question- I think this cannot matter if the spokes are tight. Some builders say the outbound spokes should be pulling because they are "better supported by the flange" whatever that means. Personally I go with Brandt, if torsinal loads don't contribute to fatigue then it doesn't matter if inbound or outbount spokes are pulling. Sorry, I don't think in terms of leading and trailing spokes, but I'm sure you can translate.

Hi Colin
I think 501 was one grade down from 531. I think 501 was un-butted, "recently" 531 was always butted , but if you go back far enough you could get plain gauge 531.

regards, Colin

PW wrote:Ouch!
Back to the wheel, for long life I'm firmly of the opinion it's down to spoking, build quality and the amount of wheeldish. Overdished wheels have effectively half as many spokes as they're supposed to have, so I like the rear axle as long as sensibly possible. The lightweight uses 135mm OLN, the tourer has the rear set to 145mm. It has two wheels, a 40H one using an XT Tandem hub and a 36h made from an XT mtb hub with a tandem axle and spacers. The 36h is basically to reduce wear on the touring wheel because 36h rims are easier to source than the 40s. The tourer is almost dishless, so it can use the same spokes both sides with no problems. The lightweight has CJ's method of Sapim Strong on the drive side and a light double butted on the left. My wheels normally have the same spokes for 3 or more pairs of rims.

I think its time the rear OLN went up to 150mm. then dishless wheels are easy. The fact that your spokes last 3 rims means you didn't need to go to 40 spokes when dishless, but wheel must be bombproof. Most of my bikes are dishless/reduced dish with offset rear triangle, but this really spooks people!

I would firse replace the cantilevers with the "frog leg" type that work better with drop levers. Tektro do some at good value.