32 hole deep rim lacing - bad idea?

[thegunner]

hey folks - considering taking my pair of dt350/powertap 32h wheels and lacing them up to a pair of 80 mm carbon clinchers for time trialing purposes. is there anything that would make this a bad idea? maybe the angle coming from hubs is too extreme? my main concern is the 32h factor, but maybe that's a non-issue...

wanted to vet this by you fine group before doing something incredibly stupid. as some of you know, this happens a lot.

[FlashUNC]

One question: would the carbon clinchers also be 32 hole?

[thegunner]

yeah, gonna get custom drill'ems from farsports

[Grant McLean]

is there anything that would make this a bad idea?


Well, high spoke count is counter-productive if you're trying to make a set
of wheels aero. The drag from the spokes is a significant factor, perhaps
more than the profile of the rim. This is why Shimano uses 16 spokes in
their front wheels, and why their wheels with a 24mm rim is virtually as aero
as the 50mm.

-g

[ergott]

Wouldn't do it. At best you could do a triplet rear with a 24 hole rim and get another front hub. Maybe you can find someone to swap the rear PT hub with. Some people get low spoke count PT hubs and would rather have a higher spoke count.

[carpediemracing]

Although PTs are supposed to have even spoke counts left/right I've heard of people doing 8 spokes left, 16 spoke right, to a 24 hole rim.

On non-PT hubs I used to do this all the time when Zipp 340s and 440s first came out. 24H hubs were not easy to come by so I'd just use old 32H hubs for the rear.

[ultraman6970]

Clinchers and TT are just two concepts that can't go together.

[nooneline]

Although PTs are supposed to have even spoke counts left/right I've heard of people doing 8 spokes left, 16 spoke right, to a 24 hole rim.

On non-PT hubs I used to do this all the time when Zipp 340s and 440s first came out. 24H hubs were not easy to come by so I'd just use old 32H hubs for the rear.

i have a friend who laced a bunch of rear wheels that way. he called it "the poor man's G3 lacing." worked out well for him.

[thegunner]

Clinchers and TT are just two concepts that can't go together.

tell tony martin that.

[false_Aest]

Well, high spoke count is counter-productive if you're trying to make a set
of wheels aero. The drag from the spokes is a significant factor, perhaps
more than the profile of the rim. This is why Shimano uses 16 spokes in
their front wheels, and why their wheels with a 24mm rim is virtually as aero
as the 50mm.

-g

Grant,

I thought data said that spoke count doesn't really matter if you have aero spokes (i.e. they're so close together the turbulence is ~ the same).

[thegunner]

Wouldn't do it. At best you could do a triplet rear with a 24 hole rim and get another front hub. Maybe you can find someone to swap the rear PT hub with. Some people get low spoke count PT hubs and would rather have a higher spoke count.

so that might be an option, but is there a safety concern with going 32 front rear?

[oldpotatoe]

so that might be an option, but is there a safety concern with going 32 front rear?

Safety? No

[nooneline]

tell tony martin that.

you'd have plenty of time to tell him that during another wheel change...

[spaced_ghost]

Grant,

I thought data said that spoke count doesn't really matter if you have aero spokes (i.e. they're so close together the turbulence is ~ the same).

i've always heard that the benefit from aero spokes is lost at higher spoke counts.

[thegunner]

you'd have plenty of time to tell him that during another wheel change...

i blame the tires! if he had some quality vittoria's... :)

okay, so we've determined nothing about this is actually dangerous (when it comes to overly stressing the hubs/nipples) - although going 20 up front with a triplet 24 rear might work better. correct?

[false_Aest]

i've always heard that the benefit from aero spokes is lost at higher spoke counts.

From a Zipp pdf.

Nothing is crystal clear.

"Conclusion
In conclusion it seems that the basic conceptual design of the wheel, and it’s spokes, is more important than small detail changes in spoke count. Individually, these changes are moderate, but taken as a whole, the results are quite large. One could theorize that changing from 32 round to 32 oval spokes would provide a differential in wattage to spin, by as much as 10 watts, but to move from 32 round spokes to 18 or 20 ovalized ones can yield more than 20 watts of improvement. However, once these major improvements have been made, small changes in spoke shape or count are marginal at best. In the 404 test, we see that adding 12 additional spokes leaves us a possible increase in wattage of only 1-5 watts, and the move from 18 to 16 spokes seems to have essentially no benefit whatsoever, so the key is to be aware of what other factors may be sacrificed for these minute or nonexistent advantages."

[ultraman6970]

Actually the times i know he ran with F.. clinchers he got punctures to start with.

tell tony martin that.

[thegunner]

Actually the times i know he ran with F.. clinchers he got punctures to start with.

http://roadcyclinguk.com/news/gear-news/tony-martin-rides-clincher-tyres-to-uci-road-world-championships-time-trial-victory.html

you're right. now can we stop detracting from the actual question?

[ultraman6970]

Ok, but the world cup... happy now? :D

http://roadcyclinguk.com/news/gear-news/tony-martin-rides-clincher-tyres-to-uci-road-world-championships-time-trial-victory.html

you're right. now can we stop detracting from the actual question?