32 hole V 36 hole?

[kilroya]

Disc Trucker with stock 36 hole Alex Adventurer disc rims.
Going to go Dynamo. Thinking of buying http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content=8;n ... duct=30292 Mavic XM719 32 hole rim.

Don't do a front rack, this is for touring and 300k+ Audax (night time lighting and charging stuff on tours)
Should I be overly worried about dropping from 36 to 32 on front wheel? Wouldn't think so. Just asking for opinions.
Thanks alot.

[reohn2]

No you shouldn't be worried especially if the bike isn't being loaded up.

[kilroya]

Well I do load up the back with a pair of Ortliebs but thats about it.

[meic]

32 hole makes perfect sense on the front from engineering terms. It will still be the 36 spoke on the rear that gives more trouble than your front wheel.

However you then may lose spoke interchangeability with ordinary wheels but with a dynamohub you may get the interchangeability back! I would never carry spare spokes just for a front wheel.

Rim interchangeability will be lost though, a minor point but then again so is carrying 4 "extra" spokes in your front wheel.

All that aside you will almost certainly not notice any effect either way from your choice between 32 or 36 in a front wheel. It really will make no noticeable difference to anything in the future unless something very unusual happens.

[kilroya]

Cheers. Deep

[reohn2]

Of course there is a reason not to have differing spoke counts front and back whilst touring in that,should you trash a rear wheel rim when in a far off place,the front rim can then be relaced into the back and any cheap wheel will see out the rest of the tour.
The front hub and spokes can be carried and don't weigh much or posted home to be reused with a new rim.

[Moodyman1]

36 for me. I like overbuilt stuff like myself.

[foxyrider]

Been touring on all surfaces loaded and unloaded on 32 for years without issue.

I'd hazzard that you could reasonably expect a lower spoke count wheelset to do the job you want too - at least in daylight!

[Colin Jenkins]

Hello Planet X.

32 spokes would be my choice. 32 in the front and 40 in the back was the normal British practice until an accountant at Hercules, just before the War, went to 36 for both to save on inventory costs. Their rear wheels rarely collapsed, and all the Continental riders were 36/36 too. The rest is history, but my personal preference is still 32 at the front. This pattern will be ok with a fully-loaded bike, which includes front panniers.

Best regards,

Colin Jenkins.

[kilroya]

Thanks Colin. So no real probs with mismatched spoked wheels really, within reason.

[yostumpy]

i have 36 rear Spa chrina, and 32 spa chrina with schmidt up front, bin like that 5+years, and I'm no lightweight, had a couple of spokes go , non drive side rear, but up front straight and true. Little weight up front and the spokes are shorter due to the flanges of the dyno hub. IIRC

[Mick F]

I went for 32h front and 36h rear.

Great stuff for me. No probs.

[Brucey]

without a front load 32h will be fine.

Do bear in mind that many years ago the same lot of clever chaps who dreamt up BB threads, pedal threads etc also settled on a standard of 32h front wheels and 40h rear wheels.

I think that most bikes would be more reliable like this than with a 36/36h setup myself.

cheers

[reohn2]

without a front load 32h will be fine.

Do bear in mind that many years ago the same lot of clever chaps who dreamt up BB threads, pedal threads etc also settled on a standard of 32h front wheels and 40h rear wheels.

I think that most bikes would be more reliable like this than with a 36/36h setup myself.

cheers

Why?
the reason I ask is that we have a tandem with 40hole wheels and we've had previous tandems with 40's too(we've also had one and still have another with 48's but unless the kitchen sink is being carried they're overkill IMO)
You may well say, what's good enough for tandems are good enough for touring solos,but hang on I know of tandems being ridden with 36's f&r without issue.
So same spoke count f&r(32 or 36) is better IMO with 36,36 strong enough for even "kitchen sink" touring(or should that be termed as expedition touring?)if built well using decent rims,hubs and spokes.
The added bonus being that if the rear wheel is trashed the front rim can be used on the rear and any cheap wheel(within reason) used on the front to finish the tour.
Not to mention that 32 and 36hole touring rims are easily bought at most decent cycle shops,not so 40's.
It's not so much a strength thing more a practical issue IMO.
It seems to me the 32/40 is a hang over from a time when wheels and materials weren't as reliable as they are today,Shimano hubs,Sapim or DT Swiss spokes and Sputnik or DRC ST19 rims make extremely strong 36 hole 700c touring wheels .

[Brucey]

tht you can't buy 40h rims easily has nothing to do with how reliable they are, just how commonly they are likely to be a) fitted and then b) go wrong.

Colin has reported several times that he has repaired and replaced rear wheels many times more often than fronts, and I have observed something similar.

There applications where having a front wheel as strong as the rear is a good idea or even necessary (tandems and some MTBs are a case in point), but they are the expection. Most bikes would benefit from stronger rear wheels, and wouldn't be seriously disadvantaged by lighter front wheels.

If 40h rims were still used where they would be of benefit, you would never need to think of swapping you front rim out for the rear; you'd be able to buy a 40h one quite easily.

I think it is very likely that the practice of using 36h wheels front and rear was started by accountants, not engineers.

cheers