Why are machine built wheels inferior?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13018
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby 531colin » 2 Jul 2013, 5:47pm

AGAIN.......the tyres are in line.
Orbit offset the back end by 4mm.
An offset Orbit steers no-hands with a "normal" (ie wrong) rear wheel.....you just have to put the saddle under one cheek a bit, so some of us would notice a 4mm error.
Tandems use wide hubs to reduce dish, I think 145mm is the commonest.....but then if you are not careful you are getting to a length of "unsupported axle" on the left side similar to what used to bend on the right side before the days of freehubs.
No problem offsetting hub gears either,,,,most of them have a slight degree of dish, and it would amuse me hugely to have a wheel with the left spokes under greater tension....

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

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby ukdodger » 2 Jul 2013, 6:00pm

531colin wrote:AGAIN.......the tyres are in line.
Orbit offset the back end by 4mm.
An offset Orbit steers no-hands with a "normal" (ie wrong) rear wheel.....you just have to put the saddle under one cheek a bit, so some of us would notice a 4mm error.
Tandems use wide hubs to reduce dish, I think 145mm is the commonest.....but then if you are not careful you are getting to a length of "unsupported axle" on the left side similar to what used to bend on the right side before the days of freehubs.
No problem offsetting hub gears either,,,,most of them have a slight degree of dish, and it would amuse me hugely to have a wheel with the left spokes under greater tension....


I never said they werent. But if you're happy changing the frame geometry to suit a wheel so be it.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13018
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby 531colin » 2 Jul 2013, 7:01pm

Not changing the frame geometry at all, just moving 2 fixing points.
Makes as much difference to the frame as the difference between mounting the pump on the seat tube vs. the top tube.

Brucey
Posts: 39908
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby Brucey » 2 Jul 2013, 9:47pm

pete75 wrote: 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


I agree that some people buy into 'brand values' in a faintly disturbing way. It is in many cases just another symptom of our image-obsessed world.

BTW I did not say that all campag axles broke; I said that old style campag axles (for screw-on freewheels) were prone to breaking (just like those from many other manufacturers; my breakages were entirely non-discriminatory.... :wink: ), and that early campag cassette hub designs did not have an axle that was really very much stronger than that. I also said that more recent campag cassette hub axle designs were somewhat improved. But I expect that many people reading what I wrote were seeing a red mist by then.... :roll:

I used to buy quite a lot of campag equipment because it worked as well as anything I could get, it worked reliably, and perhaps most importantly back in those skint days despite high purchase cost, ownership costs were still relatively low because the equipment was both durable and could be repaired. I could at one time get every spare part imaginable from stockists such as JD Whisker.

I don't think that any of these issues form the basis of a compelling argument to buy campag stuff these days, sadly.

Not that it ever has been much cop for heavily laden touring or owt like that, anyway....

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby ukdodger » 2 Jul 2013, 11:29pm

531colin wrote:Not changing the frame geometry at all, just moving 2 fixing points.
Makes as much difference to the frame as the difference between mounting the pump on the seat tube vs. the top tube.


Of course it's moving the frame geometry. The rear triangle is 5mm out of line. If you put a Rohloff in it for instance the wheels will then be crabwise. They'll be crabwise with any hubgear to a greater or lesser extent. How is that the same as mounting the pump on the seat tube vs. the top tube?

"The spoke flanges of the Rohloff are built symmetrically.This allows the spokes to be at the same
angle on both sides of the finished wheel, this in turn leads to a much stronger wheel due to the evenly distributed
spoke tension."

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby meic » 2 Jul 2013, 11:34pm

Can you actually get a frame with dropouts that will take both of a derailleur wheel and Rohloff wheel?
Yma o Hyd

Brucey
Posts: 39908
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby Brucey » 3 Jul 2013, 7:25am

well kind of; Rohloff do various reaction arms, tensioners etc that allow you to fit one to a wide variety of frames. Obviously the installation is neater (but less versatile) with Rohloff-specific dropouts but there are plenty of folk riding happily without them.

Some frames are available with bolt-on dropouts, too; these can be adapted to a variety of purposes.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13018
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby 531colin » 3 Jul 2013, 7:31am

ukdodger wrote:
531colin wrote:Not changing the frame geometry at all, just moving 2 fixing points.
Makes as much difference to the frame as the difference between mounting the pump on the seat tube vs. the top tube.


Of course it's moving the frame geometry. The rear triangle is 5mm out of line. If you put a Rohloff in it for instance the wheels will then be crabwise. They'll be crabwise with any hubgear to a greater or lesser extent. How is that the same as mounting the pump on the seat tube vs. the top tube?

"The spoke flanges of the Rohloff are built symmetrically.This allows the spokes to be at the same
angle on both sides of the finished wheel, this in turn leads to a much stronger wheel due to the evenly distributed
spoke tension."


The hub flanges on a Rohloff are built symmetrically......for what dropout spacing?.....for what chainline?
If its symmetrical for 135mm, it won't be for 126, or 145 for tandems. If its symmetrical for 135mm dropouts and 45mm chainline, it won't be for a different chainline.
You simply build a hub geared wheel accounting for the 5mm offset......the rim is central, the hub offset.
A few mm offset isn't a problem for wheelbuilding or wheel durability, the problem is the near-vertical spokes of 8,9,10,11 speed Campag. spaced road 130mm wheels.
Put a tension gauge on a few hub geared wheels, and let us know if the tension is identical both sides.....my £5 says it isn't.

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

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby ukdodger » 3 Jul 2013, 10:27am

531colin wrote:
ukdodger wrote:
531colin wrote:Not changing the frame geometry at all, just moving 2 fixing points.
Makes as much difference to the frame as the difference between mounting the pump on the seat tube vs. the top tube.


Of course it's moving the frame geometry. The rear triangle is 5mm out of line. If you put a Rohloff in it for instance the wheels will then be crabwise. They'll be crabwise with any hubgear to a greater or lesser extent. How is that the same as mounting the pump on the seat tube vs. the top tube?

"The spoke flanges of the Rohloff are built symmetrically.This allows the spokes to be at the same
angle on both sides of the finished wheel, this in turn leads to a much stronger wheel due to the evenly distributed
spoke tension."


The hub flanges on a Rohloff are built symmetrically......for what dropout spacing?.....for what chainline?
If its symmetrical for 135mm, it won't be for 126, or 145 for tandems. If its symmetrical for 135mm dropouts and 45mm chainline, it won't be for a different chainline.
You simply build a hub geared wheel accounting for the 5mm offset......the rim is central, the hub offset.
A few mm offset isn't a problem for wheelbuilding or wheel durability, the problem is the near-vertical spokes of 8,9,10,11 speed Campag. spaced road 130mm wheels.
Put a tension gauge on a few hub geared wheels, and let us know if the tension is identical both sides.....my £5 says it isn't.


135. But what does that matter? If I had a 126 spacing I wouldnt be looking to fit a Rohloff. If it was 145 I might consider washers. The chainline is the chainline. If you're not concerned with how much the chainline varies with dérailleurs what does a few mm matter with a hubgear. If you offset the frame by 5mm and compensate by dishing the hubgear what's the point if your original intension was to compensate for the dishing when using a dérailleur? You've built in with the hubgear exactly what you wished to avoid with the dérailleur. And why do you choose 5mm to compensate for dérailleur dishing when the difference between flanges on a 8/9 speed dérailleur is closer to 15mm? At that offset the frame must look a bit odd. You've built the frame the suit one rear wheel. That makes no sense to me.

'Put a tension gauge on a few hub geared wheels, and let us know if the tension is identical both sides.....my £5 says it isn't.'

It wont be the same unless the flanges are the same but the difference is minimal when compared to a dérailleur. I've just spoked up a Rohloff which has equal flanges and yes the average tension on both sides is the same. Give the word and I'll pm my address for the fiver.

Gearoidmuar
Posts: 2223
Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 7:35pm
Location: Cork, Ireland. Corcaigh, Éire má tá Gaeilge agat.

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby Gearoidmuar » 3 Jul 2013, 10:40am

ukdodger wrote:
'Put a tension gauge on a few hub geared wheels, and let us know if the tension is identical both sides.....my £5 says it isn't.'

It wont be the same unless the flanges are the same but the difference is minimal when compared to a dérailleur. I've just spoked up a Rohloff which has equal flanges and yes the average tension on both sides is the same. Give the word and I'll pm my address for the fiver.


Game set and match to Ukdodger. Quiet please..

pete75
Posts: 13083
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby pete75 » 3 Jul 2013, 2:07pm

Brucey wrote:
BTW I did not say that all campag axles broke; I said that old style campag axles (for screw-on freewheels) were prone to breaking (just like those from many other manufacturers; my breakages were entirely non-discriminatory.... :wink: ), and that early campag cassette hub designs did not have an axle that was really very much stronger than that. I also said that more recent campag cassette hub axle designs were somewhat improved. But I expect that many people reading what I wrote were seeing a red mist by then.... :roll:



Not that it ever has been much cop for heavily laden touring or owt like that, anyway....

cheers


"back when I ran campag hubs and I broke lots of axles, so did everyone else who rode as many miles as hard as that." Near as dammit to saying all broke....

BTW have you noticed the amount of tourings cyclist who choose Campag Ergos to work their preferred "heavy touring" combination of Shimano front and rear derailleurs.

Gearoidmuar
Posts: 2223
Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 7:35pm
Location: Cork, Ireland. Corcaigh, Éire má tá Gaeilge agat.

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby Gearoidmuar » 3 Jul 2013, 3:29pm

In my experience in the screw on era they all broke if you rode enough. First they bent, then they broke and if you didn't spot it, it wasn't long before your rear dropout would crack..

reohn2
Posts: 39712
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby reohn2 » 3 Jul 2013, 5:21pm

FWIW,an offset rear triangle will favour a stronger rear derailleur wheel,it will also favour a stronger IHG wheel too,even if the IHG wheel is dished to the none drive side.
Chainline with an offset rear end can be established before the wheel is built,by adding/subtracting washers as needs be to the hub or if the rear sprocket is wildly to the right,which it shouldn't be,a longer BB axle would sort it out.
But it's splitting hairs IMHO as mostly you'd have an offset r/end built into a frame only if you were using a derailleur and even then only for heavy touring or in rugged terrain.
145mm OLN rear d/outs would have the same effect.Wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Brucey
Posts: 39908
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby Brucey » 3 Jul 2013, 6:23pm

pete75 wrote: "back when I ran campag hubs and I broke lots of axles, so did everyone else who rode as many miles as hard as that." Near as dammit to saying all broke....

BTW have you noticed the amount of tourings cyclist who choose Campag Ergos to work their preferred "heavy touring" combination of Shimano front and rear derailleurs.


well most axles of similar pattern broke and broke often. Disappointingly (considering the cost) Campag ones were not noticably stronger, it seems.

Campag ergos are (were?) one of the good bits; tourists liked them because no washing lines means you can fit a bar bag, and good spare parts availablity meant they were a viable choice in the long term. But they are not the only washing line-free game in town now, the spare parts are not so easily obtained (if at all) and they keep mucking about with LH shifting.

Given that they didn't do low ratio gears (and still don't, in fact it is worse now because you can't fit a smaller inside chainring to the current triples IIRC) and the rear wheels were heavily dished with a seemingly weaker hub design, maybe it is no surprise that tourists generally don't run full campag.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13018
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Why are machine built wheels inferior?

Postby 531colin » 3 Jul 2013, 7:15pm

ukdodger wrote:..........It wont be the same unless the flanges are the same but the difference is minimal when compared to a dérailleur. .........


Sense at last....this is what I have been saying. A small difference in left/right tension is not a problem. The huge difference with eg. 10 speed Campag. is a problem. A small back end offset fixes that problem at no detriment to anything else.