Why are machine built wheels inferior?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
pete75
Posts: 13054
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby pete75 » 2 Jul 2013, 10:29am

philg wrote:Wheel Building Machine
Today, the computer controlled, number crunching machines have come a long way, and Van Doornik says they now set the quality standard for high-end wheel building too.

He told BikeRadar that the trend in high-end carbon wheels is leaning inexorably to automation. The precision and processing power of robots and the mechanical and software engineers that create them outstrip what can be achieved at the hands of even a master hand builder.



From the above link
"If the production limit is only ten wheels a day, hand building – which can take around 45mins to an hour for a high-end wheel – is probably still more economical, but anything upwards of that – especially when a premium for quality is factored in – means a robot starts to become an attractive proposition, claims Van Doornik."

“I agree that before we made the change,” said Van Doornik, “The machine-built wheels were always less good than hand-built, but after we made the change to automated outside truing we could get exceptional accuracy.”

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12973
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby 531colin » 2 Jul 2013, 10:36am

pete75 wrote:
Merckx road Campag throughout his career. I suspect he may even have ridden even harder than you and possibly for more miles - over 15,000 km a year racing never mind training which was probably double that


Spread over how many pairs of wheels?
I would think Mercx rode more new wheels in a year than a British club cyclist had in 10 years

pete75
Posts: 13054
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby pete75 » 2 Jul 2013, 10:51am

531colin wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Merckx road Campag throughout his career. I suspect he may even have ridden even harder than you and possibly for more miles - over 15,000 km a year racing never mind training which was probably double that


Spread over how many pairs of wheels?
I would think Mercx rode more new wheels in a year than a British club cyclist had in 10 years


And what strain did Merckx put on a bike in one Paris Roubaix that a British club cyclist could match even in 10 years

reohn2
Posts: 39427
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby reohn2 » 2 Jul 2013, 11:12am

No axe to grind here but I'd think if Mercx broke axles regularly he'd simply had made sure he had a stronger one fitted to all his wheels.
We've no way of knowing if he did or not so the axle(rather ironic considering his son's name) argument IMHO is a moot point.

As you were gents.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12973
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby 531colin » 2 Jul 2013, 11:57am

pete75 wrote:
531colin wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Merckx road Campag throughout his career. I suspect he may even have ridden even harder than you and possibly for more miles - over 15,000 km a year racing never mind training which was probably double that


Spread over how many pairs of wheels?
I would think Mercx rode more new wheels in a year than a British club cyclist had in 10 years


And what strain did Merckx put on a bike in one Paris Roubaix that a British club cyclist could match even in 10 years


I used to ride with a bloke who weighed under 10 stone race fit, he reckoned to have broken a few Campag. axles over the years. I believe the failures are due to fatigue, rather than peak load.
What all this has to do with machine wheels, I can't imagine :roll:

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12973
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby 531colin » 2 Jul 2013, 12:03pm

Heres that machine that stress-relieves......http://hollandmechanics.com/2007/ht-movie.html
That link was posted on here by "niggle" ages ago, I think the machine publicity stuff goes all the way back to 2004.
Still, why read whats already been written when instead you can have a pop at somebody?

mig
Posts: 2228
Joined: 19 Oct 2011, 9:39pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby mig » 2 Jul 2013, 12:45pm

531colin wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Merckx road Campag throughout his career. I suspect he may even have ridden even harder than you and possibly for more miles - over 15,000 km a year racing never mind training which was probably double that


Spread over how many pairs of wheels?
I would think Mercx rode more new wheels in a year than a British club cyclist had in 10 years


exactly! before paris-roubaix every year articles always hit the cycling press about wheels for the race & how carbon rims are now strong enough to be used. i think they mean that they are now strong enough to be used once and then they are deemed to have done the job. i don't think merckx would have repeatedly used the same wheels race after race until destruction!

pete75
Posts: 13054
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby pete75 » 2 Jul 2013, 1:21pm

531colin wrote:
What all this has to do with machine wheels, I can't imagine :roll:


Me neither - but ask Brucie - he's the guy that claimed all Campag axles broke.
I think the problem is that some people choose to use a certain brand of kit and therefore all other brands must be inferior. It happens with cars, motorbikes,beer, Macs and PC etc etc not just bike stuff. Probably caused by insecurity

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 49228
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby Mick F » 2 Jul 2013, 2:11pm

I've never broken a Campag axle, despite using mine almost daily from 1986 to 1996. 34miles a day, though not every single day. Perhaps 6,000miles a year - I never kept accurate records back then. Maybe did the thick end of 75,000miles on my Campag Record hubs.

They were laced onto Mavic MA40 36h 3x that lasted just as well and just as long.
Mick F. Cornwall

ukdodger
Posts: 2992
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 5:32pm
Location: Sunny Surrey

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby ukdodger » 2 Jul 2013, 4:13pm

531colin wrote:
ukdodger wrote:
531colin wrote:If I ruled the world, it would be the law that all rear dropouts were 5mm to the right of where they are now.
Bombproof wheels and a better chainline.
And before all the "experts" start telling me wheels are strong enough already.......I'll believe that, just as soon as you introduce me to a wheelbuilder who gets to repair as many front wheels as back.


Please expand. If my dropouts were 5mm to the right my frame would be out of line?



the "frame" doesn't need to be "in line".
look here..http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=59332&hilit=+string scroll down to find me showing how to use a bit of string to check the frame is "in track"....
The front wheel needs to line up precisely with a straight line through the headset.
The front wheel needs to line up with the downtube
The rear TYRE needs to line up with the front wheel and the downtube.
It makes no difference to the tyre alignment if the dropouts are to the right, provided you build the wheel accordingly
....the wheel is stronger because its less dished. The frame is just as strong if you build it asymmetrical as if you build it symmetrical....the wheel is much stronger with less dish, and just as easy to build, with a dishing stick and a spacer......a 10mm spacer, if you offset both dropouts by 5mm.

3 of my 4 bikes have offset rear end, all steer perfectly no-hands.


I see what you're saying. But for me I'd rather the centre line of the frame included the rear triangle.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12973
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby 531colin » 2 Jul 2013, 4:27pm

Why is that more important than having a stronger rear wheel at no additional weight or cost?
If you are using a frame jig, its just a matter of setting it up.....they can do it right first time from a drawing in the Far East.
My Bob Jackson was built for me traditionally something like 20 years ago, all they asked was for me to supply my rear wheel. It was fractionally out when I got it, as they hadn't realised the rim would be off-centre in the chain- and seat-stays....all I did was file the dropouts, jobs a good 'un.

ukdodger
Posts: 2992
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 5:32pm
Location: Sunny Surrey

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby ukdodger » 2 Jul 2013, 4:36pm

531colin wrote:Why is that more important than having a stronger rear wheel at no additional weight or cost?
If you are using a frame jig, its just a matter of setting it up.....they can do it right first time from a drawing in the Far East.
My Bob Jackson was built for me traditionally something like 20 years ago, all they asked was for me to supply my rear wheel. It was fractionally out when I got it, as they hadn't realised the rim would be off-centre in the chain- and seat-stays....all I did was file the dropouts, jobs a good 'un.


Well you might for instance decide on another wheel or one with a hubgear. Anyway I just dont like the idea of crabbwising the front and rear of the bike.

Filed the dropouts :shock: :shock: :shock: Sacrilege.

pete75
Posts: 13054
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby pete75 » 2 Jul 2013, 5:01pm

ukdodger wrote:
ukdodger wrote:
531colin wrote:If I ruled the world, it would be the law that all rear dropouts were 5mm to the right of where they are now.
Bombproof wheels and a better chainline.
And before all the "experts" start telling me wheels are strong enough already.......I'll believe that, just as soon as you introduce me to a wheelbuilder who gets to repair as many front wheels as back.


Please expand. If my dropouts were 5mm to the right my frame would be out of line?



the "frame" doesn't need to be "in line".
look here..http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=59332&hilit=+string scroll down to find me showing how to use a bit of string to check the frame is "in track"....
The front wheel needs to line up precisely with a straight line through the headset.
The front wheel needs to line up with the downtube
The rear TYRE needs to line up with the front wheel and the downtube.
It makes no difference to the tyre alignment if the dropouts are to the right, provided you build the wheel accordingly
....the wheel is stronger because its less dished. The frame is just as strong if you build it asymmetrical as if you build it symmetrical....the wheel is much stronger with less dish, and just as easy to build, with a dishing stick and a spacer......a 10mm spacer, if you offset both dropouts by 5mm.

3 of my 4 bikes have offset rear end, all steer perfectly no-hands.

I see what you're saying. But for me I'd rather the centre line of the frame included the rear triangle.


5 mil is such a small amount you'd probably not notice the wheels were not quite in line without measuring.
This idea makes perfect sense and would increase the cost of a frame by 0 pence. Didn't Orbit build with off set rear ends?
BTW part of the reason why back wheels need fixing more than front is that they bear more weight. I wonder if they needed more repair in the days when 32 front spokes and 40 rear were the norm. As Sheldon Brown said with the same number of spokes in each wheel you've either too many in the front or not enough in the back

RRSODL
Posts: 168
Joined: 17 Apr 2012, 7:22am

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby RRSODL » 2 Jul 2013, 5:01pm

531colin wrote:If I ruled the world, it would be the law that all rear dropouts were 5mm to the right of where they are now.
Bombproof wheels and a better chainline.
And before all the "experts" start telling me wheels are strong enough already.......I'll believe that, just as soon as you introduce me to a wheelbuilder who gets to repair as many front wheels as back.


Well, if I could ever ruled the world, I'm sure dropouts would not be in my thoughts :D

I get what you want to achieve with the 5mm to the right, however, wouldn't be easier to have a wider dropouts. I'm just thinking the space on the right side of the hub is taken by the cassette plus enough clearance space so that the derailleur doesn't touch the spokes. Only a few mm are needed to increase the bracing angle on the DS to increase wheel stability and lateral strength.

ukdodger
Posts: 2992
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 5:32pm
Location: Sunny Surrey

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby ukdodger » 2 Jul 2013, 5:39pm

When you build a frame you measure to the fraction of a mm. I think you would notice when riding. It might even prove dangerous with a centred wheel.