
RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
2X on T11 = Sad Spokes.
Just finished up a build with T11 hubs and Pacenti rims. It's a 28 hole rear with 2X on both sides using CX Rays. My Non drive side spokes are sad. I bet they only have about 53 kgf on them at best. I ended up with 125 on the drive side. Is this about the norm? Is this going to be o.k. for 150 lb rider?
I did a build earlier this week on the same rim and hub with 3X on the drive using Race Spokes, and 2X NDS Lasers. I don't remember the NDS being that slack.
Last edited by Enoch562; 04252013 at 07:30 PM.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
2012 Cervelo S5 Team
2012 Felt Z6 (sold)

Online Wheel Builder
Reputation:
Sounds like your right on the money. Just make sure to stress relieve properly and retrue, and you should be good to go.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
That's just spooky. I had to make a bunch of trips around the wheel to negotiate that out of it. I was eeking every bit of tension I could find out of the NDS spokes. This 11 speed offset just isn't very promising.
After looking at dcgriz charts on another thread, it doesn't look like there is much more tension to be had regaurdless of the pattern.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
Sounds like producers of spokeprep and OCrims should now start increasing their production.

2X on T11 = Sad Spokes.
2x/2x on a 28h Pacenti with T11 will give you a calculated Tnds of 53.8 kgf when Tds is at 125 kgf so your 53 kgf is spot on.
However, I would not dismiss your feeling that the spoke feel too loose. The accuracy of your measured 53 kgf value depends on the accuracy of your tension meter. Meters like the Park Tools are best used to measure relative tension between spokes rather than absolute. Furthermore, if we are to reliably measure up to that accuracy level then the meter should be calibrated for the specific spoke at hand.
Some time ago I read Musson's impressions on meters and how dispersed the readings are even within the same gauge spokes of different manufacture because of manufacturing tolerances. So the chart that Park shows for every possible spoke in existence may be a far cry if accuracy of absolute values is in question.
If your DS spokes feel nice and tight, leave it alone. The NDS is what it is and at least theoretically you've reached nirvana. When down to these values, I have started using spokeprep for added insurance but no goo can replace proper balance and stress relief. If you think your DS needs a bit more tightening, I would not be afraid to do so although my Park showed 125 kgf.
You are absolutely correct on the 11 speed. This thing "fixed" a problem that did not exist and created a whole bunch of new ones, but that's the bike industry, isn't it? I think 135 mm OLD road hubs are getting closer and closer.
With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important.

2X on T11 = Sad Spokes.
Originally Posted by Orfitinho
Sounds like producers of spokeprep and OCrims should now start increasing their production.
.....or the other way to look at that is to optimize the balance between the hub geometry stiffness and stability. The T11, at a BAR range between 2.3 and 2.4, shows pretty good stiffness but its doing so at the expense of Tnds.
A person like myself would prefer the preference on stiffness, but a person that does not need it would do better choosing a hub that puts more emphasis on compromising the lateral stiffness in favor of higher tension at the NDS.
With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important.

I use radial heads out for that combination. You get a few more kgf on the NDS. Not a lot, but every bit goes towards durability.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
2X on T11 = Sad Spokes.
Originally Posted by ergott
I use radial heads out for that combination. You get a few more kgf on the NDS. Not a lot, but every bit goes towards durability.
Which would results in:
Tds Tnds BAR
125 66.9 1.87
Do you use a stiffer spoke on the ds?
Last edited by jmorgan; 04262013 at 10:57 AM.
2012 Cervelo S5 Team
2012 Felt Z6 (sold)


Originally Posted by jmorgan
Which would results in:
Tds Tnds BAR
125 66.9 1.87
I'm getting totally different numbers than yours for the 28h Pacenti SL23, T11, 2x DS and radial NDS.
Radial NDS bracing angle is 7.9 deg, 2x DS bracing angle is 3.5 deg, that makes the BAR 2.3. The Tnds comes out at 52.3 kgf with Tds=125 kgf.
2x DS / 3x NDS shows me the highest Tnds at 55.4 kgf with Tds=125kgf
3x DS / 2x NDS shows me the lowest Tnds at 51.7 kgf.
Last edited by dcgriz; 04262013 at 01:52 PM.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
I got a chance to check the set I built earlier this week . THe 3X Race spokes on the drive side seems to help a little. I was getting closer to 56 kgf on the 2X NDS Lasers.
I think Ergot is correct in using heavy spokes/ radial lacing in order to get every once of tension on these hubs. It's like you have to use every trick in the book to squeeze the max out of these new offsets.

Originally Posted by dcgriz
I'm getting totally different numbers than yours for the 28h Pacenti SL23, T11, 2x DS and radial NDS.
Radial NDS bracing angle is 7.9 deg, 2x DS bracing angle is 3.5 deg, that makes the BAR 2.3. The Tnds comes out at 52.3 kgf with Tds=125 kgf.
2x DS / 3x NDS shows me the highest Tnds at 55.4 kgf with Tds=125kgf
3x DS / 2x NDS shows me the lowest Tnds at 51.7 kgf.
Not in front of calc.
Are you checking radial heads in or out? Heads out is a smaller bracing angle which makes tension closer to DS than 2X will.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Enoch562
I got a chance to check the set I built earlier this week . THe 3X Race spokes on the drive side seems to help a little. I was getting closer to 56 kgf on the 2X NDS Lasers.
I think Ergot is correct in using heavy spokes/ radial lacing in order to get every once of tension on these hubs. It's like you have to use every trick in the book to squeeze the max out of these new offsets.
Every time I hear about those T11 hubs, it brings back bad memories:
Wheel relacing: need help!
Radial lacing plus a liberal amount of spoke adhesive might work for you.
But I can't shake the thought the the hub is poorly designed WRT to flange spacing and dimensions and that the T11 will never build a strong and durable wheel. Others seem to be happy with it though so it may just have been my bad luck of getting a poorly built wheel to start with.
I now own Fulcrum Racing Zero and have done zero maintenance in 4 months of owning them. These wheels have zero flex and I paid less for them than I paid for my T11/C2 wheels.

2X on T11 = Sad Spokes.
Originally Posted by ergott
Not in front of calc.
Are you checking radial heads in or out? Heads out is a smaller bracing angle which makes tension closer to DS than 2X will.
When I measure the hubs myself, I measure the centerflange to the inside of the flange however I have found that this is not always the case with the published hub specs.
The T11 published data shows 38 mm as the CL offset. I don't know where on the flange this is taken from and unfortunately I did not confirm the measurement when I had a chance. So I experimented running the numbers from 38 down to 36mm in steps of 0.5mm to allow for the heads out; when at 37mm I saw a very small increase to the Tnds (0.7 kgf to be exact, Tnds=53) and a reduction to BAR by 0.1 (2.2). At 36mm, Tnds=55 and BAR=2.2. When 2x/2x at 38mm CL, I calculate the Tnds=53.8kgf. So the difference appears to be very small at best and only if we accept that heads out imposes an effective offset reduction by 2mm.
I think the radial spoking is more effective in reducing the effective flange diameter to a theoretical 0 and in doing so reduces spoke stretch which in turn adds a degree of safety on maintaining the Tnds as the wheel turns.
Edit to add: at 36mm the bracing angle is 7.5 deg from 7.9 deg at 38mm
Last edited by dcgriz; 04262013 at 06:01 PM.
With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
Originally Posted by dcgriz
I'm getting totally different numbers than yours for the 28h Pacenti SL23, T11, 2x DS and radial NDS.
Radial NDS bracing angle is 7.9 deg, 2x DS bracing angle is 3.5 deg, that makes the BAR 2.3. The Tnds comes out at 52.3 kgf with Tds=125 kgf.
2x DS / 3x NDS shows me the highest Tnds at 55.4 kgf with Tds=125kgf
3x DS / 2x NDS shows me the lowest Tnds at 51.7 kgf.
Using Spoke calc, radial nds angle heads out is 6.2deg and 2x ds is 3.3deg
I am using specs posted by Fairwheel's website.
This results in the numbers I posted. 1x nds is 7.9deg like you posted. You might check your formulas and make sure they are referencing the correct cells.
2012 Cervelo S5 Team
2012 Felt Z6 (sold)

2X on T11 = Sad Spokes.
Originally Posted by jmorgan
Using Spoke calc, radial nds angle heads out is 6.2deg and 2x ds is 3.3deg
I am using specs posted by Fairwheel's website.
This results in the numbers I posted. 1x nds is 7.9deg like you posted. You might check your formulas and make sure they are referencing the correct cells.
I see where you got the 6.2 number from. I'm trying to understand what the 3.5/2,1 portion of his formula stands for. Flange thickness?
Now look at the spreadsheet cell c31. If you input 0 (for radial) then the bracing angle it gives you is 7.9. Also notice that now he is also giving you the tension ratio (44%) which he did not before for either case of heads in or head out. If you calculate it using the 6.2 and 3.3 values, its value is 53% and that's a 23% increase in tension which I find humongous. If you were to use alternating head placement, the left hub offset would have to be reduced to 29.5 mm from 38 mm to give you the 6.2 bracing angle. That's a 8.5mm reduction and looking at the laced hub I can not comprehend how such reduction could be possible just by flipping the spokes.
So something else its going on and I believe it's on our interpretation of what Rinard is trying to tell us. I don't think it's accidental that he did not list the R/L tension on the spreadsheet using the radial heads in/out angles considering the outmost detail he included on everything else.
Now, lets approach this a different way; leave the bracing angle degrees alone and look at deriving to the Tnds by using the hub offset W and the spoke length L (which are the entities defining the bracing angle). The spoke length is the spoke length regardless of head placement. The offset will change somewhat when the heads are out. I create a sequence of iterations by progressively reducing W in steps of 0.5mm and determine the effect on Tnds until an offset reduction of 2 to 3mm is reached
My formula is Tnds=Tds (Wds/Wnds) (Lnds/Lds)
With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
Originally Posted by dcgriz
Also notice that now he is also giving you the tension ratio (44%) which he did not before for either case of heads in or head out....
My formula is Tnds=Tds (Wds/Wnds) (Lnds/Lds)
Who is "he"?
Last edited by rruff; 04272013 at 07:21 AM.

2X on T11 = Sad Spokes.
Originally Posted by rruff
Who is "he"?
Rinard. Jmorgan is picking the radial headsout bracing angle of 6.2 deg from spocalc
With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
3.5/2,1
"3.5/2" im guessing is the change in angle depending on heads in or out (+1.75deg), the ",1" is just denoting how many significant digits to round the result to. So he more or less is adding or subtracting 1.75deg.
Im guessing when you alternate the heads (2x) they are effectively canceling each other so you just take center to flange.
I wonder if his equation is a little messed up.
Playing around with a caliper and a wheel I have (which is laced radial heads out on the nds) the only way I come up with 1.75deg which is ~8mm difference is:
Spoke thickness + Flange thickness + Spoke thickness (2mm+3.5mm+2mm)=7.5mm difference between heads in and out
=ROUND(DEGREES(ASIN(7.5mm/spokeLength)),1) <1.6deg for 269.5mm spoke
So the difference in the inner most part of a heads out spoke vs the outer most part of a heads in spoke is ~7.58ish mm which equates to a total difference of 1.75deg heads in vs out. Which means you should add half of 1.75 for heads in and subtract half of 1.75 for heads out. He adds 1.75deg for heads in and subtracts 1.75deg for heads out, which is where I think he might be off.
He is more or less saying there is a 3.5 deg difference in in vs out, which seems like a bit much and would result in a ~16mm difference and I cant find a possible 16mm difference on the wheel I have.
I could be be wrong though.
So if im correct his formula should be
=CONCATENATE(ROUND(DEGREES(ASIN($D$32/E24))1.75/2,1)," heads out; ",ROUND(DEGREES(ASIN($D$32/E24))+1.75/2,1), " heads in")
Last edited by jmorgan; 04272013 at 10:43 AM.
2012 Cervelo S5 Team
2012 Felt Z6 (sold)

Originally Posted by jmorgan
3.5/2,1
So if im correct his formula should be
=CONCATENATE(ROUND(DEGREES(ASIN($D$32/E24))1.75/2,1)," heads out; ",ROUND(DEGREES(ASIN($D$32/E24))+1.75/2,1), " heads in")
I dont think there is anything wrong with Rinard's formula. What I believe may be wrong is the spreadsheet user applying the bracing angle from the spocalc spreadsheet cells G24 and H24 in determing the Tnds. Not because the trigonometry is wrong but because, IMO, the relationsip between bracing angle ratio and tension ratio is not as linear when there is no crossing of the alternating spokes.
It seems to me that when alternating spokes cross, the push against each other and finally rest at a point between their original undisturbed paths. This crossing point appears to have an effect to the tension ratio analogous to the flange height and, I believe, that is one of the reasons why we get different stiffness and tension values with the different crossings. When radially lacing headsin or headsout there is no spoke crossing and the spoke path is unnafected from stress/strain imposed by the following spoke. This is why I believe one should not use the same equatio to relate bracing angles to tension as when the spokes cross. this is the reason, i believe, Rinard did not included the tension ratio on his spreadsheet for this particular case.
This is my theory anyway and I feel comfortable in empirically calculating the stiffness and tension of radially all headin or all headout lacings by decreasing or increasing the hub offset by no more than 2 or 3 mm at best to derive the effective offset. Then I use the normal formulas to calculate tension and stiffness. The results are as expected; slightly better Tnds at the expense of a small decrease in stiffness for this particular example. But no miracles; the range of Tnds stays in the mid 50s no matter what.
Edit: correction

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
Going back to the original intent of this post, here is my conclusions after building/ riding said wheel.
I might have been able to obtain a little stronger wheel laterally with a different pattern and different spokes but, it is plenty strong for my massive 6'0, 163 lb girth. The White Industry hubs build as good as anybody else's in that price range. They are a High end American made hub with a middle of the road price. Probably the best $$$$$ value out there. Alchemy seems to have a little better dimensions but they a bit pricey. I think the fact that I used 28 spokes and solid/wide Pacenti rim, stiffened this build up to a acceptable level. I made sure I got every ounce of tension out of both side of the spokes. I didn't get 'em close, I measured every spoke and took it as far as I could. I see no reason why this wheel should every give any problem.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
His equations
Radial
=DEGREES(ASIN(width nds/spoke length))3.5/2)) <heads out
3x,2x,1x
=DEGREES(ASIN(width nds/spoke length))
He is subtracting 1.75deg (based on where it is in the equation) to radial lacing. This equals ~8mm.
I just cant see where he is more or less adding and subtracting 8mm on heads in and 8 mm on heads out. There is no way there's a 16mm change from heads in and out. 16mm difference is huge.
2012 Cervelo S5 Team
2012 Felt Z6 (sold)

Originally Posted by Enoch562
Going back to the original intent of this post, here is my conclusions after building/ riding said wheel.
I might have been able to obtain a little stronger wheel laterally with a different pattern and different spokes but, it is plenty strong for my massive 6'0, 163 lb girth. The White Industry hubs build as good as anybody else's in that price range. They are a High end American made hub with a middle of the road price. Probably the best $$$$$ value out there. Alchemy seems to have a little better dimensions but they a bit pricey. I think the fact that I used 28 spokes and solid/wide Pacenti rim, stiffened this build up to a acceptable level. I made sure I got every ounce of tension out of both side of the spokes. I didn't get 'em close, I measured every spoke and took it as far as I could. I see no reason why this wheel should every give any problem.
Apologies; the derailing was not intentional.
The discussion has never been against the T11 or any hub in general because there is not one hub out there that is optimum for any circumstance. We all make the compromises we must to get the best hub for our individual use. Personally, I favor the extra stiffness of the T11 for my use.
As I suggested yesterday on post#6, if the DS tension fels good, leave the wheel alone and go ride it.

RoadBikeReview Member
Reputation:
Originally Posted by dcgriz
I dont think there is anything wrong with Rinard's formula.
Heads in vs heads out might be 56mm. Not 8mm. Of course this will vary depending on the spokes and hub, but 8mm seems excessive.
Damon Rinard made that spreadsheet many years ago and I'm pretty sure he hasn't revisited it in very long time... he is a top guy at Cervelo now.
It seems to me that when alternating spokes cross, the push against each other and finally rest at a point between their original undisturbed paths. This crossing point appears to have an effect to the tension ratio analogous to the flange height and, I believe, that is one of the reasons why we get different stiffness and tension values with the different crossings.
The crossing just serves to split the difference between both sides of the flange... which is why it is assumed that the spokes originate from the center of the flange. It isn't like having a high flange. And the stiffness and tension ratios are what you'd expect based on that.
The equation you use to calculate the tension ratio is very close to reality.
Similar Threads

By PoorCyclist in forum Wheels and Tires
Replies: 2
Last Post: 06172011, 03:49 PM

By Gee3 in forum Wheels and Tires
Replies: 4
Last Post: 04132011, 06:48 PM

By dualpivot in forum Wheels and Tires
Replies: 7
Last Post: 05102010, 05:01 PM

By uncle in forum Wheels and Tires
Replies: 2
Last Post: 05252008, 05:17 AM

By Kung Fu Felice in forum Wheels and Tires
Replies: 3
Last Post: 05312007, 08:47 AM
Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads
 You may not post replies
 You may not post attachments
 You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules

