1/13/15 12:41 PM

All the wheels that I have built over the years I used straight 14 gauge spokes. I did this for sturdiness and durability. My everyday wheels are developing rim cracks around the spoke holes, so it is time for a rebuild. I have no complaints after 16 years. I am thinking of using double butted 14/15 gauge. Are there any drawbacks?

1/13/15 2:00 PM

I would say there are more draw backs using straight ga.

That said, danscomp.com sells Sapim 14/15 for .40 ea. with brass nip included. I do not know of any other price than comes close. Those are called Race FYI.


If you use DansComp, look at the home page and browse for coupons. Out of may 5 orders I always got free shipping, discounted, or free upgrade to send day.

1/13/15 2:14 PM

Agree with Sparky. You are less likely to have cracking of the rim around spoke holes with swaged spokes, as the thinner middle section of the spoke will elongate more for a given stress than will a plain gauge spoke. And I've never had any problems with spoke failures, even with very skinny Sapim cx-ray spokes used on a tandem.

1/13/15 7:38 PM

I also vote for butted spokes.

1/14/15 6:46 AM

The only advantage to straight gauge spokes is that they're cheaper. Butted spokes make a lighter, more durable wheel.

1/14/15 11:38 AM

Thank you for the input. As I expected double butted is the way to go.

The pricing at Dan's sounds great (.40 w/nipples). I was going to use DTs and they are running $1.10 w/o nipples. I also now have the free shipping code. Dan's only takes spoke orders over the phone so I will be calling later today. Dan's specialty is BMX. I hope they also have a good stock of longer lengths. Thanks Sparky.

1/14/15 12:47 PM

I've used Sapim for years and they are great. Never had a problem.

1/14/15 2:12 PM

Dans cuts longer stock when needed, ask about it. I have had very long butt lengths on the threaded end. It did not bother me enough to spend 150% more. ;)

I have bought 300+ spokes in the last year from them. At the price they sell for, I don't even look else where anymore, my go to spoke source.

1/15/15 3:31 AM

"The only advantage to straight gauge spokes is that they're cheaper. Butted spokes make a lighter, more durable wheel."

Straight spokes, because they are stiffer in elongation, are better able to control rim flexing, especially the sort of excess out-of-plane flexing that can result in a bent rim or wheel collapse.
Spoke stiffness as exemplified by today's straight-pull spokes is one of the contributing factors to reliability with lower spoke counts.

Straight guage spokes also suffer from less windup issues during tensioning, even 15g spokes seem to have less windup than 14/15ga, presumably since the friction at the threads acts at a smaller radius and thus exerts less torque for a given spoke tension. 15g spokes are also easier to thread through the hub flanges and are lighter than 14/15g spokes.

It's always a guessing game as to where a particular wheel will eventually show some sort of failure, so experience with the particular rim in particular may inform as to a best choice of spoke for the particular wheel.

1/15/15 6:52 AM

...windup is not an issue, especially with 14/15 gauge spokes. I don't have windup issues with Sapim Lasers or DT Revolutions, either.

Lower spoke count wheels require higher spoke tension to support the higher loads per spoke, but they don't require spokes with less elongation. The higher tension allows the use of straight gauge spokes with less risk of fatigue failures, but that still doesn't make them the best option.

I have to chuckle when I hear people talking about feeling the difference in wheel stiffness, as I'm sure that most of it is complete nonsense or purely psychological. Compared to the flex in a tire, wheel flex is almost non-existent. I've only seen one study where different wheels were compared using the same tires and pressures and the result was that the testers couldn't tell the difference between them. I wish I had a link to it so I could post it here.

Yes, there are differences in lateral stiffness between various wheels, but lateral loads are minimal during normal riding, including cornering. In reality, it makes little or no difference to most of us. It's more of an issue for MTB and 'cross wheels, where where wheel sliding/drifting is common. However, I haven't seen any issues with MTB or 'cross wheels built with butted spokes.

1/15/15 8:22 PM

quote:

---

I've only seen one study where different wheels were compared using the same tires and pressures and the result was that the testers couldn't tell the difference between them.

---

1/15/15 8:47 PM

I think the study would have been infinitely more interesting to observe if the participants were in a blind study as in literally riding blind. Ok, sadistic tendencies aside, I, too recommend double butted spokes for all of the reasons statd earlier. 16 years for one pair of wheels is darn good, btw.

1/15/15 9:18 PM

Last three posts are silly, as I didn't say anything about "feeling the difference" in wheels built with different types of spokes.

It sounds like the same hypothetical argument such as "no reason not to use 1/8" ball bearing in the hubs, since Mavic did a test and no one that rode on them could feel the difference".

Different types and gauges of spokes have different stiffnesses, and these differences are very important to making decisions as to a wheel's components for any given application.
Many riders have have had replacement wheels built with heavier spokes when the original, lighter spokes resulted in too-easily-bent rims.
And if spoke stiffness doesn't matter, why are different gauges of spokes offered?

1/16/15 6:27 AM

...with each component matched to the others and the intended use. The end user's size, strength, riding style and personal preferences must be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, you can't do that with production wheels, so they're typically either over-built or they have weight limits.

Straight-gauge spokes are inexpensive and keep production costs down. Beyond that, there is no reason to use them as they are heavy and often result in less durable wheels. Different gauges of spokes are offered because there is more than one way to build a good wheel and riders vary pretty dramatically in size.

It's a common misconception that heavier riders and heavier loads require heavier spokes. Considering that rim deflection is higher with heavier loads, more elasticity is needed in the spokes than with lighter loads, in order to absorb the rim deflection without going slack. What's really needed is either a stiffer rim with the same number of spokes or more spokes with the same rim.

Back in my racing days, I rode 36 spoke wheels and 32 spokes was considered "cutting edge". These days, I ride 20 front and 24 rear, with lighter spokes and my wheels hold up just fine (actually better). The difference is that the rims are considerably stronger, somewhat stiffer and use higher spoke tension. Either way works.

1/16/15 4:49 PM

I have to disagree that a more-elastic spoke is anything but a detriment to the bending loads that a given rim can endure, assuming of course that it is an otherwise-identical build with equivalent static tension.

I've built a few rear wheels for my CX bike using Open Pro rims over the last 18 years, and it's a pretty good rim imo. I did adjust my build to use one increment thicker spokes after bending a couple of rims with very thin spokes.
The events that caused bending were slides where the tire catches traction after sliding out (700c rims can be fragile in this regard).

In some cases, spoke fatique may surface before a rim gets damaged, cracks or wears thin at the sides, and this is where yes, a DB14 spoke has a better endurance limit than an almost same-weight straight 15g spoke, and perhaps a bit better than a straight 14g spoke.
And thiner spokes would seem to be better WRT preventing cracks at the spoke holes imo.
And not that it proves anything, but I did start having frequent spoke fatigue breakage on my FRONT wheel that was built with 28 DB15 spokes that I sourced used almost 20 years ago.
The rear wheel got NEW thicker DB spokes around mid-life, and has had no spoke breakages since. The rear rim @ 8 years now is a bit lumpy in every way possible, though still gets me through races, hopping barriers with no track-side straightening efforts needed.

I notice that my long-lived Helium wheels use a 26/28 count of DB14 straight-pull spokes with what appears to be (Maxtal alloy) Open Pro rims.
The straight-pull spokes are surely stiffer in tension so likely are an important part of these wheel's successful system engineering approach.

Straying off-topic, I'm surprised that a flagship line of wheels such as today's various Ksyrium models hasn't kept up with rider's preference for wider rims. Seems like a revised, slightly wider and more aerodynamic rim profile is overdue. And why aren't the better boutique wheel makers touting comparative aero efficiency advantages of their lower-profile rim wheels compared to similar-depth "climbing" rim wheels offered by their competitors? (recalling some aero data published about 8 years ago showing some of Shimano's basic wheels performing better than some others iir).

1/17/15 8:55 AM

...are a sign that either they weren't properly stress-relieved when the wheel was built or that the tension was too low and they were going slack under load. A properly built wheel should never suffer spoke fatigue failures. Rims may fatigue and crack over time, but spokes never should.

If a wheel is properly stress-relieved and still suffers spoke fatigue failures, it's because the rim is flexing more than the ability of the spokes to absorb it. You need to switch to a thinner, more elastic spoke that will handle the degree of flex better. Again, it's a common misconception that thicker spokes are the remedy for fatigue failures. If you install thicker spokes and the wheel ends up being more durable, it's due to better construction technique (stress relieving, tensioning), not the thicker spokes. Of course, I'm assuming that we're dealing with high quality spokes in all cases.