Number of Spokes

Does anyone know the proper number of spokes in a uni wheel? I ordered and
received a Torker from Unicycle Source and I like the looks of it so far. But
I noticed that their catalog says 28 spokes in the 24" wheel, I counted 36
when I got it.

Is there such a thing as a 28 spoke wheel? If so is it better or worse than 36
spokes? I know nothing about spoke counts or patterns. I’ve heard of 3 cross??
and 4 cross??, not sure just what the term was. I have no idea what I have in
regards to the patterns.

Does anyone know about these things?

     Lowell yoda@socket.net

Re: Number of Spokes

–part1_aa.e89b9b1.276d190b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=“US-ASCII” Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

STOP SENDING ME UNICYLING STUFF PLEASE!!!

–part1_aa.e89b9b1.276d190b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=“US-ASCII”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>STOP
SENDING ME UNICYLING STUFF PLEASE!!! <BR> <BR></FONT></HTML>

–part1_aa.e89b9b1.276d190b_boundary–

Re: Number of Spokes

36 is better than 28 (except for the bit of added weight) because 36 can hold
more weight. 36 is also better because it’s easy to get bike rims in 36 hole. I
don’t know why the unicycle world went with 28 instead of the ever so common 32
of the bike world.

Most wheels are 3 cross, meaning that if you only count the spokes coming from
one hub flange, each spoke crosses three others before it gets to the rim. Four
cross is common in 48 spoke wheels, radially laced (zero cross) is somewhat
common for the front wheels of high end bikes, and some drive wheels even have
something like a three cross on the drive side and radial on the non drive
side. There’s a lot you can do with spoke patterns, but the majority are a
simple 3 cross.

Enjoy your new Torker…

Chris

yoda wrote:
>
> Does anyone know the proper number of spokes in a uni wheel? I ordered and
> received a Torker from Unicycle Source and I like the looks of it so far. But
> I noticed that their catalog says 28 spokes in the 24" wheel, I counted 36
> when I got it.
>
> Is there such a thing as a 28 spoke wheel? If so is it better or worse than 36
> spokes? I know nothing about spoke counts or patterns. I’ve heard of 3 cross??
> and 4 cross??, not sure just what the term was. I have no idea what I have in
> regards to the patterns.
>
> Does anyone know about these things?
>
> Lowell yoda@socket.net

Re: Number of Spokes

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 JWSNEAKERS@aol.com wrote:

> STOP SENDING ME UNICYLING STUFF PLEASE!!!

I’M NOT SENDING YOU ANYTHING.

You may care to unsubscribe from whichever list is sending you unicycling stuff.
However, it’s not me nor any list I manage or maintain, and as such I cannot do
it for you.

You may also care to fix your caps-lock key.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
Caspar joins Amos on the web - http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/caspar.html

RE: Number of Spokes

Thanks for replying Chris, I knew there were people out there that know about
these things. I have noticed for a long time that the spokes generally come from
the hub at a tangent, that is they don’t go directly to the rim but lay over
almost 90 deg. from that line. I never did know why, or how they came up with a
certain number of spokes to do the job. And I agree that more can hold more
weight, that makes sense.

     Lowell yoda@socket.net

> 36 is better than 28 (except for the bit of added weight) because 36 can hold
> more weight. 36 is also better because it’s easy to get bike rims in 36 hole.
> I don’t know why the unicycle world went with 28 instead of the ever so common
> 32 of the bike world.
>
>
> Most wheels are 3 cross, meaning that if you only count the spokes coming from
> one hub flange, each spoke crosses three others before it gets to the rim.
> Four cross is common in 48 spoke wheels, radially laced (zero cross) is
> somewhat common for the front wheels of high end bikes, and some drive wheels
> even have something like a three cross on the drive side and radial on the non
> drive side. There’s a lot you can do with spoke patterns, but the majority are
> a simple 3 cross.
>
> Enjoy your new Torker…
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> yoda wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know the proper number of spokes in a uni wheel? I ordered and
> > received a Torker from Unicycle Source and I like the looks of it so far.
> > But I noticed that their catalog says 28 spokes in the 24" wheel, I counted
> > 36 when I got it.
> >
> > Is there such a thing as a 28 spoke wheel? If so is it better or worse than
> > 36 spokes? I know nothing about spoke counts or patterns. I’ve heard of 3
> > cross?? and 4 cross??, not sure just what the term was. I have no idea what
> > I have in regards to the patterns.
> >
> > Does anyone know about these things?
> >
> > Lowell yoda@socket.net

Re: Number of Spokes

On 15 Dec 2000 22:15:50 -0800, yoda <yoda@socket.net> wrote:

> Thanks for replying Chris, I knew there were people out there that know about
> these things. I have noticed for a long time that the spokes generally come
> from the hub at a tangent, that is they don’t go directly to the rim but lay
> over almost 90 deg. from that line. I never did know why, or how they came up
> with a certain number of spokes to do the job. And I agree that more can hold
> more weight, that makes sense.

Tangential gives two benefits - it conducts torque more efficiently and it makes
the spoke less likely to pull out of the hub. The second of these is intuitive
if you just look at it.

To visualise the first - imagine holding the rim and trying to rotate the hub.
With tangemtial lacing half the spokes would have to stretch (lengthen) for any
movement to occur. Now imagine if the spokes were radial - there would be a bit
of movement while the spokes just leans slightly. In fact, there would be no
significant resistance until the spokes were somewhat inclined and could provide
a circumferential (tangential) component of their tension.

If you want to conduct torque (and on a unicycle wheel you do), you want
tangential spokes.

More spokes is better, btw, in all but weight and wind resistance. Road racers
try fewer spokes, but bmx’ers put loads and loads of spokes in (and their wheels
are smaller).

The variable you didn’t mention was plain gauge / butted / double butted spokes.
Butted is where the middle length of the spoke is thinner than the ends. Since
the ‘strength’ of a bicycle wheel is rarely limited by the strength of an
individual spoke, making the spokes thinner in the middle (and therefore
somewhat more flexible) makes the wheel stronger, even though a spoke is
intuitively weaker.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
Caspar joins Amos on the web - http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/caspar.html

Re: Number of Spokes

In article <000001c06725$60767240$d52f6ad8@k4cybertech.mocty.com>, yoda
<yoda@socket.net> wrote: )Thanks for replying Chris, I knew there were people
out there )that know about these things. I have noticed for a long time )that
the spokes generally come from the hub at a tangent, that )is they don’t go
directly to the rim but lay over almost 90 deg. )from that line. I never did
know why, or how they came up with )a certain number of spokes to do the job.
And I agree that more )can hold more weight, that makes sense.

Bicycle/unicycle wheels get their strength from tension; all the spokes pulling
on the hub keep it in the middle. When you hit a bump, the wheel is compressed,
reducing tension at on the spokes at the bottom (and the top, to an extent). As
long as there’s enough tension left, that’s not a problem, although when the
wheel is significantly loaded (a big drop, for example), a relatively small
sideways force can potato-chip the rim.

Crossed spoke patterns spread the tension out over more of the wheel and thus
are stronger. Fully tangential (90 degrees at the hub) crossed spoke patterns
are marginally better than partially tangential crossed spoke patterns at this;
both are significantly better than radial spoke patterns (0 degrees at the hub).
Radial spoke patterns on drive wheels also suffer from wind-up; because all the
forces on the hub are pulling directly away from the axle, there’s nothing to
stop the hub from rotating more than the rim when you put a rotating force on
the axle. Really, radial spoking is just silly; it’s done, when it’s done, for
aerodynamics, but the aerodynamic profile of a radially spoked wheel is almost
identical to a crossed spoke wheel. It looks cool, admittedly. It’s also useful
on wheelchair wheels so fingers don’t get caught in the crosses.

I’ve found that it’s hard to get the spokes to lie flat at the elbows on a
fully-tangential spoking pattern; if they don’t lie flat, the everyday loading
and unloading of the spoke as the wheel turns puts strain on the elbow and
eventually pops the spoke. So, I usually use two-cross lacing on 32-spoke rims.

More spokes do not always make a stronger wheel! The rim has a maximal aggregate
tension that it can support; the more spokes you have, the lower the tension on
each spoke will be. The tradeoff is that the load each spoke has to carry is
also lower, so more spokes can make for an overall stronger wheel, but you can
reach a point of diminishing returns.

Far more information than you want about the physics of wheels can be found in
Jobst Brandt’s book, “The Bicycle Wheel”. -Tom

Re: Number of Spokes

I’ve read “Thy Bicycle Wheel”, and I still don’t buy the idea that butted spokes
are better. He said that butted made it so that the wheel could flex more before
there was zero tension on the bottom spokes. But it seems to me that what’s
really important is how much load it takes to get to that point of zero tension.
I don’t think he ever addressed that issue.

Actually, when you hit a bump the three or four spokes at the bottom
decrease in tension, but the rest of the spokes (including those at the top)
increase slightly in tension. I think Jobst shows this in one of his
editions, and I had to try it out myself so I hooked of “The Bicycle
Wheel”'ve read articles describing this and I’ve attached a strain gage to a
spoke and checked it myself.

Chris

>
> Bicycle/unicycle wheels get their strength from tension; all the spokes
> pulling on the hub keep it in the middle. When you hit a bump, the wheel is
> compressed, reducing tension at on the spokes at the bottom (and the top, to
> an extent). As long as there’s enough tension left, that’s not a problem,
> although when the wheel is significantly loaded (a big drop, for example), a
> relatively small sideways force can potato-chip the rim.
>
> Crossed spoke patterns spread the tension out over more of the wheel and thus
> are stronger. Fully tangential (90 degrees at the hub) crossed spoke patterns
> are marginally better than partially tangential crossed spoke patterns at
> this; both are significantly better than radial spoke patterns (0 degrees at
> the hub). Radial spoke patterns on drive wheels also suffer from wind-up;
> because all the forces on the hub are pulling directly away from the axle,
> there’s nothing to stop the hub from rotating more than the rim when you put a
> rotating force on the axle. Really, radial spoking is just silly; it’s done,
> when it’s done, for aerodynamics, but the aerodynamic profile of a radially
> spoked wheel is almost identical to a crossed spoke wheel. It looks cool,
> admittedly. It’s also useful on wheelchair wheels so fingers don’t get caught
> in the crosses.
>
> I’ve found that it’s hard to get the spokes to lie flat at the elbows on a
> fully-tangential spoking pattern; if they don’t lie flat, the everyday
> loading and unloading of the spoke as the wheel turns puts strain on the
> elbow and eventually pops the spoke. So, I usually use two-cross lacing on
> 32-spoke rims.
>
> More spokes do not always make a stronger wheel! The rim has a maximal
> aggregate tension that it can support; the more spokes you have, the lower the
> tension on each spoke will be. The tradeoff is that the load each spoke has to
> carry is also lower, so more spokes can make for an overall stronger wheel,
> but you can reach a point of diminishing returns.
>
> Far more information than you want about the physics of wheels can be found in
> Jobst Brandt’s book, “The Bicycle Wheel”. -Tom

RE: Number of Spokes

Tom,

Thanks for that rather complete explaination of hubs, wheels, and spokes. As I
read every paragraph I could picture in my mind exactly what you were talking
about. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a radially spoked wheel now that you mention
it. It certainly wouldn’t work well when torque is applied to the hub such as
when peddling or applying power with a motor cycle. The spokes on opposite sides
of a regularly spoked wheel that go to one side of the rim act as a triangle,
the one in tension pulling, the one pushing goes a little slack. Radially
spoked, the hub would rock back and forth with every power pulse.

Thanks for making it clear.

     Lowell yoda@socket.net

> In article <000001c06725$60767240$d52f6ad8@k4cybertech.mocty.com>, yoda
> <yoda@socket.net> wrote: )Thanks for replying Chris, I knew there were people
> out there )that know about these things. I have noticed for a long time )that
> the spokes generally come from the hub at a tangent, that )is they don’t go
> directly to the rim but lay over almost 90 deg. )from that line. I never did
> know why, or how they came up with )a certain number of spokes to do the job.
> And I agree that more )can hold more weight, that makes sense.
>
> Bicycle/unicycle wheels get their strength from tension; all the spokes
> pulling on the hub keep it in the middle. When you hit a bump, the wheel is
> compressed, reducing tension at on the spokes at the bottom (and the top, to
> an extent). As long as there’s enough tension left, that’s not a problem,
> although when the wheel is significantly loaded (a big drop, for example), a
> relatively small sideways force can potato-chip the rim.
>
> Crossed spoke patterns spread the tension out over more of the wheel and thus
> are stronger. Fully tangential (90 degrees at the hub) crossed spoke patterns
> are marginally better than partially tangential crossed spoke patterns at
> this; both are significantly better than radial spoke patterns (0 degrees at
> the hub). Radial spoke patterns on drive wheels also suffer from wind-up;
> because all the forces on the hub are pulling directly away from the axle,
> there’s nothing to stop the hub from rotating more than the rim when you put a
> rotating force on the axle. Really, radial spoking is just silly; it’s done,
> when it’s done, for aerodynamics, but the aerodynamic profile of a radially
> spoked wheel is almost identical to a crossed spoke wheel. It looks cool,
> admittedly. It’s also useful on wheelchair wheels so fingers don’t get caught
> in the crosses.
>
> I’ve found that it’s hard to get the spokes to lie flat at the elbows on a
> fully-tangential spoking pattern; if they don’t lie flat, the everyday
> loading and unloading of the spoke as the wheel turns puts strain on the
> elbow and eventually pops the spoke. So, I usually use two-cross lacing on
> 32-spoke rims.
>
> More spokes do not always make a stronger wheel! The rim has a maximal
> aggregate tension that it can support; the more spokes you have, the lower the
> tension on each spoke will be. The tradeoff is that the load each spoke has to
> carry is also lower, so more spokes can make for an overall stronger wheel,
> but you can reach a point of diminishing returns.
>
> Far more information than you want about the physics of wheels can be found in
> Jobst Brandt’s book, “The Bicycle Wheel”. -Tom

Re: Number of Spokes

> Actually, when you hit a bump the three or four spokes at the bottom
> decrease in tension, but the rest of the spokes (including those at the top)
> increase slightly in tension. I think Jobst shows this in one of his
> editions, and I had to try it out myself so I hooked of "The Bicycle
> Wheel"'ve read articles describing this and I’ve attached a strain gage to a
> spoke and checked it myself.

Oops. I should really proof these before I click “send”. What I meant to say in
that last sentence is that I hooked a strain gage up to a spoke once to measure
which positions on the wheel get more or less tension when a load is applied. It
would also be fun to do a wheel buckling experiment, but that could get
expensive…

Chris

Re: Number of Spokes

On 16 Dec 2000 13:06:31 -0800, Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:

> I’ve read “Thy Bicycle Wheel”, and I still don’t buy the idea that butted
> spokes are better. He said that butted made it so that the wheel could flex
> more before there was zero tension on the bottom spokes. But it seems to me
> that what’s really important is how much load it takes to get to that point of
> zero tension. I don’t think he ever addressed that issue.

‘Should flex more’ -> ‘should take greater load’ directly, I think:

If it is given that: 1 The butted spokes are more flexible in tension.

2 The total tension in the wheel is governed by the rim, not spoke yield or
snap.

3 The wheel failure mode is a failure of rim (generally by distortion rather
than by disintegration). This occurs when a spoke reaches zero tension.

My justification would go: A wheel built with butted has the same total tension
as the wheel built with plain gauge (from 2). However, the butted wheel has more
strain in the spokes - they have stretched further (from
1). When the wheel sees dramatic load, the butted spoke wheel can accept more
displacemnt of the rim towards the hub before the bottom-most spoke reaches
zero tension. In deforming further, a higher number of spokes are in the
reducing tension case. At the critical moment, there will therefore be a
greater total reduction in spoke tension, and hence a greater resisting force
(assuming that there are always enough spokes increasing in tension to balance
it - but I think there are). This is really just an elaboration of ‘should
flex more’.

Further, I think a butted spoke wheel is more duracble because in a lesser
loading case, where no spoke gets anywhere near zero tension, the butted
case will distribute the force over a greeater length of rim, reducing
stresses in the rim.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
Caspar joins Amos on the web - http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/caspar.html