I read some guys on here rate edge wheels, so the review rates them a 4 (surprise) if this is the case what is a 5 jersey wheel?
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Edge wheels
- Thread starter karlboss
- Start date
karlboss said:
Maybe James will answer but perhaps the big $, for only about 400 gram savings when compared to an 'everyday' wheel plus the braking found on all carbon rimmed wheels, which ain't great plus the huge $ to replace a rim plus the.....big money....
James can confirm, but I got the impression from the review that the major criticism was that the straight sidewalls resulted in difficult handling in crosswinds and that this was the reason for 4 jerseys rather than 4.5 or 5 jerseys.
Hi all,
Yes, those Edge wheels were very nice but still not perfect. I didn't find them to be as stiff laterally as I had hoped and yes, the straight sidewalls were a bit of a handful in swirling wind. Braking performance relative to some other carbon rims was definitely better than most, however, with a consistent feel with SwissStop Yellow King pads and absolutely no pulsing whatsoever.
And this is a rather minor point but one that was worth bringing up anyway: while I understand the rationale behind running internal nipples on carbon rims (the smaller molded-in hole yields a higher pull-through strength) they're a major pain on tubular wheels if/when they have to be trued.
Yes, those Edge wheels were very nice but still not perfect. I didn't find them to be as stiff laterally as I had hoped and yes, the straight sidewalls were a bit of a handful in swirling wind. Braking performance relative to some other carbon rims was definitely better than most, however, with a consistent feel with SwissStop Yellow King pads and absolutely no pulsing whatsoever.
And this is a rather minor point but one that was worth bringing up anyway: while I understand the rationale behind running internal nipples on carbon rims (the smaller molded-in hole yields a higher pull-through strength) they're a major pain on tubular wheels if/when they have to be trued.
As for the stiffness, I would blame it on the DT hubs. Every measured wheeltest I have seen, gives wheels build with the DT240 rear hub bad notes for stiffness. The geometry/flange spacing is simply not very good on those hubs, their other qualities aside.
Who's RdV?
Anyway, ask any reputable wheelbuilder about the flange placing on the DT's. It really isn't optimal. I think it's a shame, as I really like the ratchet mechanism in the hubs and the fact that conversion from Shimano to Campy is very easy.
All the wheels with DT240 hubs I have seen tested in the various german magazines "Tour", "RoadBike" ect, has consistently shown quite flexy rear wheels. It is my own experience as well. I had a set of Reynolds build with DT240 hubs, which I had changed for some Extralite SR hubs, which gave a more stiff rear wheel.
Anyway, ask any reputable wheelbuilder about the flange placing on the DT's. It really isn't optimal. I think it's a shame, as I really like the ratchet mechanism in the hubs and the fact that conversion from Shimano to Campy is very easy.
All the wheels with DT240 hubs I have seen tested in the various german magazines "Tour", "RoadBike" ect, has consistently shown quite flexy rear wheels. It is my own experience as well. I had a set of Reynolds build with DT240 hubs, which I had changed for some Extralite SR hubs, which gave a more stiff rear wheel.
LugHugger said:Hmm, methinks RdV will have some thoughts on this
Yeah, there are people out there that still think the world is flat.
Speedneedle said:
Hi, RDV here.
Any 'reputable' wheel builder would've said that flange spacing means little in terms of stiffness from hub to hub, it's the flange diameter. In fact stiffness has very little to do with the hub, the primary factors that determine the stiffness of a wheel are rim depth, spoke length, spoke count, and build quality of course. Too bad you got rid of those sweet 240's, one of your 'reputable' wheel builders could have saved you a lot of trouble and just tied and soldered your drive side spokes to make a stiffer rear wheel.
Truing is a little tough, high price, not laterally stiff (as some), deep rims catch side winds. Seems a fair 4 jersey to me. My other question was what is a 5 jersey wheel? Are there any?
karlboss said:
If memory serves correctly, I believe that the HED Ardennes was awarded 5 stars. I may be wrong though...nope, awarded 5 stars about 18 months ago. No idea how you objectively quantify these reports though!
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
What he said. The flange dimensions and center to flange are almost identical to most hubs out there. Hubs don't make stiff or soft wheels, rims, spokes, number, gauge, build, do.
BUT $2400 for a 1250 gram or so wheelset, tubular, with hidden nipples...geee, lets see-Record or 7900 or DT hubs, Velocity Aeroheads or Escapes, DT or Sapim spokes...about 200 grams 'heavier'....and 1/3 the price...hmmmmmmm
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
There are so many wrong statements in that post I am not sure where to start.
Dt 240 hubs do have less then ideal flange spacing. They make a hub that is spaced for Campy and then make a Shimano freehub that has a spacer built into so that they can use the same axle on either one. Ideally you want around 50 to 55% tension difference between the 2 sides of the flanges and Dt 240 hubs will have 43 to 45%.
Flange width does make a noticeable difference in lateral stiffness of a wheel. It works out to be for every 5mm you go wider it has the stiffness equivalence of adding 4 spokes. Flange diameter does make a small difference in stiffness but not nearly as much as flange width.
Tying a soldering does not make the wheel any stiffer. That is one of the biggest internet myths that I wish would go away. I don't say that because I don't know how to do it, I just wish it would go away because it doesn't make a difference. The theory is that tying them somehow makes the spokes share the load. The problem with that theory is that the spokes can still flex and stretch the same amount between the tied spot as they did before they were tied. Tying a soldering was started as way to keep spokes from flailing around when they broke, not a way to make the wheel stiffer.
I know someone will come back at me saying that their tied wheel "feels" stiffer. The reason it feels stiffer is because the tied together spokes now vibrate a different frequency. That makes the wheel "feel" stiffer but it is still flexing the same amount as it always did. There have been quite a few test done that have proved that tying and soldering does not make any difference. Some of those tests are online but for some reason the diehards do not believe them.
Ligero said:
Are you J.Brandt? Nice book for 1981..
., not the undisputed truth though. Most of your arguments sound like their lifted right out of the book. The only thing I would have to add to the tied and soldered debate is that I've made them for big sprinter types for road and track and they wouldn't have it any other way. Don't do it for myself because I prefer not to feel like I just got off a jackhammer after 60 miles. I built a tied and soldered rear wheel for myself years ago, ...never again, because they are too stiff. If you feel more stiffness with 5mm wider flanges, you've got a real sensitive rear end. Please note your source on this topic. If it's J. Brandt again I'm gonna puke, because he said it too. If he's right about that, then why don't hub mfg's make super wide spacing for track hubs, or make sprinter specific hubs? Why are front race wheels that are laced radially always done with elbows in instead of out? Wouldn't elbows out make for a laterally stiffer wheel since the bracing angle of the spoke is made wider by doing so? Why are DT's some most sought after hubs to build custom for pro's and am's? Because of their less than optimal spacing?
Funny thing is that I don't even regularly build with DT's
, though I am just finishing up a set with the old Bontrager MTB disk hubs that DT made. I think Bustedknuckle should take it from here, he's more of a DT pimp.RDV4ROUBAIX said:Are you J.Brandt? Nice book for 1981..
If you feel more stiffness with 5mm wider flanges, you've got a real sensitive rear end. Please note your source on this topic. If it's J. Brandt again I'm gonna puke, because he said it too. If he's right about that, then why don't hub mfg's make super wide spacing for track hubs, or make sprinter specific hubs? Why are front race wheels that are laced radially always done with elbows in instead of out? Wouldn't elbows out make for a laterally stiffer wheel since the bracing angle of the spoke is made wider by doing so? Why are DT's some most sought after hubs to build custom for pro's and am's? Because of their less than optimal spacing?
Funny thing is that I don't even regularly build with DT's
not to mention that basic physics dictates that the bending shear needs to be higher on a short lever than on a long lever to achieve the same deflection. shortening the 'lever' or spoke by tie & solder necessarily stiffens the wheel ceteris paribus. there is a reason traditional stiff track wheels are built with large diameter flange hubs.
RDV4ROUBAIX said:Are you J.Brandt? Nice book for 1981..
I was not referring to the J. Brandt book and no I am not him. Sheldon Brown, Damon Rinard, Jeremy Parfit and me have all tested tied and soldered wheels and found that the tying made no difference in stiffness. You are backing up what I was said in my original post. The wheels you built where not actually any stiffer, they just "felt" stiffer. The tying changes the rate at which the spokes transfer vibrations making the wheel "feel" stiffer.
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
So I must have a sensitive rear if I can feel the difference from 5mm of flange spacing but you feel the wheel supposedly flexing less from tying? I think that would make you the ultra sensitive one?
Dt hubs are sought because they are semi-lightweight but still durable. I will stand behind the statement that their flange spacing is less then ideal in fact you are the first person I have ever come across that disputs it. In fact if we go by your traits of what makes a wheel stiff the Dt hubs would still not be very stiff. You say that large flange diameter makes for a stiff wheel, Dt hubs have a 45mm flange diameter. That is no bigger then Shimano or campy hubs. Their radial specific front hub is 6mm wider then the non radial hub, Why do you think they did that?
Front wheels that are radial laced are stiffer if they are laced with the elbow on the outside of the flange. The reason most people do not do it is because it is very hard on the flange and the forces are basically trying to pry the hub shell open. Most widely spaced front hubs are spaced so that even with the spokes laced elbows in the overall width is still wider then conventional hub.
I have personally tested 2 of the same model hub, 2 of the same model rim, same spokes, same tensions and the only difference being one was 28h laced elbows in and the other was 24h elbows out. They tested to be almost exactly the same lateral stiffness, the 24h was ever so slightly stiffer. When the 28h was taken apart and re-laced elbows out all of sudden it was much stiffer then the 24h.
Jeremy of Alchemy Wheelworks, Tristan Thomas of Wheelworks New Zealand, Steve Sauter (can't remember where he is at) and many others have done the similar tests and it always works out to be about 4 spokes equivalent for every 5mm's of flange width.
RDV4ROUBAIX said:Funny thing is that I don't even regularly build with DT's
I never said that Dt hubs were bad, in fact they are good hubs. I said they have less then ideal flange spacing, which they do. I even gave you tension percentages to back up why I made the statement.
You keep asking me for sources to back up what I am saying, know it is your turn. Please provide me with any sources that backs up your claims with actual testing and not "I built some wheels for some guys and they said they were stiff", that doesn't count. Another question for you, Why is a front wheel stiffer laterally stiffer then a rear wheel? Assuming flange width has nothing to do with it like you say, please explain to me why front wheels are stiffer laterally then rear?
LugHugger said:
That assumes that spokes are rigid members and also that somehow the tying is make the crossing point into a rigid structure. Spokes are tensioned wires with very little structural strength. I have heard the argument that tying the spokes at the crosses simulates a larger flange. The only way that could happen is if the spokes somehow became rigid below the crossing point. If the spokes are tied they will still stretch the same overall amount above and below the tied point as they did when they were just touching.
The reason track wheels are built with large diameter flanges is for torque transfer. They are trying to bring the spokes closer to tangent. When you have tangent pulling spokes you get 100% torque transfer from hub to rim.
I give up, my debating skills have seriously diminished now that work has picked up, it's all I can think about. And you're probably right, I cannot assume to know everything about this matter, even with more than a decade under my belt. Wait for Bustedknuckle on the subject of DT, I'm sure he'll have something to say about this. I'll be watching intently to see where it goes because we are always learning. IMHO +5mm flange spacing means very little to the majority of people out there, nor can most feel those slight differences in a mm here or a mm there.
I liked your front wheel quiz, that was good, and how you're alluding to with the front hub flanges being wider than rears make front wheels laterally stiffer. Sure, front flanges are usually 20mm wider than rears, not just 5mm, and they're also non-dished which makes more of a difference for a laterally stiffer wheel than flange spacing. Still, for rears I think +5mm means almost nothing, surely not like adding spokes. Come to think of it, I've got to build myself a 36 hole set for this Spring I put on more winter weight than ever before, just stepped on the scale and I'm pushing 195. More spokes are in order, not wider flanges
I liked your front wheel quiz,
that was good, and how you're alluding to with the front hub flanges being wider than rears make front wheels laterally stiffer. Sure, front flanges are usually 20mm wider than rears, not just 5mm, and they're also non-dished which makes more of a difference for a laterally stiffer wheel than flange spacing. Still, for rears I think +5mm means almost nothing, surely not like adding spokes. Come to think of it, I've got to build myself a 36 hole set for this Spring I put on more winter weight than ever before, just stepped on the scale and I'm pushing 195. More spokes are in order, not wider flanges RDV4ROUBAIX said:Are you J.Brandt? Nice book for 1981..
How many times has a person FELT something and turned out to be totally wrong? 50% of the time maybe. Perhaps it would just be as well to flip a coin to decide if a wheel is as stiff as another. Feeling isn't a substitute for actual testing. T&S'ing of wheels has been tested several times that I know of by guys other than Brandt, and everytime the result is the same. No substantial difference in lateral deflection. The human body is a bad receptor by which to scientifically measure something.
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
I would suggest that 5mm is probably a perceptible difference depending on the other factors. A 5mm change in flange spacing is only slightly less than the difference between radial lacing heads in and out.
We know, from scientific testing, that the difference between lacing identical front wheels radially heads out and then again heads in and testing them, that heads in(elbows out) produces a wheel which is 13-15% stiffer. This testing has been done by several experts in the field and results confirm others findings. The change in bracing angle by going from heads out to heads in, on a standard box section rim, is 3.5 degrees created by a difference of 6mm of effective change in flange placement. A roughly 14% stiffer wheel is created by a change of 6mm which would mean that a 5mm change in flange placement in a rear wheel could certainly be detected by an average rider.
However, in almost every case it's not possible to move a right hand rear flange by 5mm which is where all the deflection problems stem from. You could move the left more to compensate, but then suffer the problem of tension differences being too great. So while 5mm of flange placement may be significant, it's not really practical except in a very few given circumstances. So until road frame manufacturers accept a 135mm rear end as a standard we'll have to live with stiffer rims, thicker gauge spokes, and higher spoke counts to gain stiffness.
Here's a good rule of thumb about deciding if a hub has ideal flange placment. If a hub can be changed from Shimano to Campagnolo and back without having to redish the wheel, you know it's not ideal flange placement(at least not with a Shimano/Sram body on it.)
LugHugger said:
When I first read this I thought you were kidding. But after reading it again I realize I was wrong. Do you have any idea of how a wheel deflects? If your spokes are bending in any significant manner at any point other than the flange, it's because they have gone slack, and it's a completely different issue. Don't confusion deflection of a lever(spoke) with deflection of a rim. Nor should one think that tieing a spoke "shortens" it.
LugHugger said:
ceteris paribus? Seriously, that's what you chose to say? Do you go through your daily life using phrases like this in the hopes that it makes you seem smarter, or your arguments more valid? Honestly there is no reason for choosing these words other than to obscure and hope to confuse. A reasonably smart man once said, "He who is profound strives for clarity. He who wishes to appear profound strives for obscurity." Of course this is paraphrased slightly to make it clearer.
Yes there is, and it's not lateral deflection. It is to resist windup of the hub and transfer loads more efficiently. Track wheels can be built without dish which means deflection won't be a problem. As was already said, it's all about tangent.LugHugger said:
Don't feel bad about it RDV, we all continue to learn all the time, and nobody knows it all, not you, not Ligero and certainly not myself or Brandt.RDV4ROUBAIX said:
The time put into something doesn't necessarily reflect it's outcome. Example, my wife has been cooking for 20 years and she still sucks at it.
wow, busted! guess that's what comes from (mis)applying 1st year college Mechanics. a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing as they say. I've learned a little more about wheels from this discussion though. thanks.
oh, and yes, actually i do use 'ceteris paribus' often. professionally. save the cod psychology though. perhaps using 'all other things being equal' would have been clearer but it genuinely didn't occur to me to type more letters rather than less!
oh, and yes, actually i do use 'ceteris paribus' often. professionally. save the cod psychology though. perhaps using 'all other things being equal' would have been clearer but it genuinely didn't occur to me to type more letters rather than less!
Lughugger,
I just re-read my post and not only noticed a typo, but also realized that It sounded very aggressive. I hope you didn't take it as a personal attack, I guess It's just my natural tendency to be an a-hole.
ceteris paribus may have saved you some time in typing, but cost me some time in googling. It's one of those phrases that outside of an academic setting one just generally doesn't get exposed to regularly. My memory is bad enough with the words I use daily, but to put something in that I haven't heard in 10 years just confuses me. Sorry if my post seemed to be an inappropriate response to anyone. It was not meant as such. It's just that the internet is so good at keeping falsehoods alive it can be a bit frustrating.
I just re-read my post and not only noticed a typo, but also realized that It sounded very aggressive. I hope you didn't take it as a personal attack, I guess It's just my natural tendency to be an a-hole.
ceteris paribus may have saved you some time in typing, but cost me some time in googling. It's one of those phrases that outside of an academic setting one just generally doesn't get exposed to regularly. My memory is bad enough with the words I use daily, but to put something in that I haven't heard in 10 years just confuses me. Sorry if my post seemed to be an inappropriate response to anyone. It was not meant as such. It's just that the internet is so good at keeping falsehoods alive it can be a bit frustrating.
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
Really.
FYI, Ligero happens to be one of the pre-eminent wheelbuilders in the US, if not #1.
Ligero said:
Not really why you tye and solder, IMO.
When rims become deformed(bent) generally the tension there goes down. The spoke there often breaks, often on the non drive side. T&S reduces the spoke movement at the flange when the rim gets deformed(tension is low there) and reduces the chances of a broken spoke. On track wheels it prevents a spoke from flailing around. On MTB disc wheels it helps to distribute the torque at the hub from the disc.
As for hub spacing, I think the bottom line is a well built wheel is a well built wheel. Whether the hub be Campagnolo, shimano, DT, CK, Hope, White...etc..they all make fine wheels. I don't have the measurements of various hubs in front of me but they are all very close to one another, except for American Classic, which has the LH one way to close to the center, in spite of being high flange.
And all are better than the crappola of 'wheelsouttaboxes' that are overhyped these days..Like $6000 Liteweights. yes, save a pound on your wheels, for the cost of a really nice entire bicycle or two..
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 983
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram