Better spokes than Sapim CX-Ray?

[cyan]

Pillar Wing 20 spokes, according to Boyd cycling: https://boydcycling.com/a-well-spoken-change/

Truth?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by cyan

Pillar Wing 20 spokes, according to Boyd cycling: https://boydcycling.com/a-well-spoken-change/

Truth?

Well, first ya gotta believe CXRAY are ‘better’ than just double butted spokes and I’m not convinced of that. Sure as ****e more expensive but certainly not 3 times better.

[FriarQuade]

The answer to this question is extremely application specific.

[Mark McM]

Sadly, there is a bunch of BS in this article.

From the dimensions on the Boyd web page, the Pillar Wing spokes have the same cross-sectional area as CX-Ray spokes. The difference is that the CX-Ray spokes are thinner and wider, and the Wing spokes are thicker and less wide. Therefore, the Pillar spokes cannot be stiffer. Because spokes are loaded only in tension, the stiffness of the spoke depends only on the material, length, and cross-sectional area. Relatvie width and thickness make no difference in pure tension.

Because the Pillar Wing spokes are thicker, they are likely to be less aerodynamic than CX-Ray spokes.

As far as being more durable, that's also a bit questionable. In a well designed and built wheel, the spoke elbows should be firmly set into the spoke flange and stress-relieved, minimizing the stress concentration at the elbow. In a well built wheel, the weak spot of the spokes will often be the threads, not the elbow. The Pillar spokes have the same diameter at the thread as the CX-Ray spokes, and increasing the spoke thickness at the elbow may not improve spoke durability.

The Pillar Wing spokes may well be fine spokes. But I see nothing to indicate that they will in some way be better than CX-Rays.

[Blue Jays]

Originally Posted by FriarQuade

"...The answer to this question is extremely application specific..."

Precisely correct. Absolutely concur with you 100% on that statement.
It is all in the rim, hub, and nipples to which the spokes will be joined...matched to the application.

[donevwil]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

...But I see nothing to indicate that they will in some way be better than CX-Rays.

Not "better", but certainly < $.

[madsciencenow]

I’m the last person that should opine on this but when I read the article I kept thinking this sounds like marketing nonsense to justify a change to a cheaper spoke that’s probably no better or worse than the current offering.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[false_Aest]

I dunno about what Boyd wrote.

I do know about Pillar. They make an exceptional product and, for the project that's currently on my desk, they're the only choice (I could've chosen Sapim or DT or anyone else).
FWIW, by 2021 we'll be purchasing north of 600k spokes from them. Even at OE prices that's nothing to sneeze at.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by false_Aest

I dunno about what Boyd wrote.

I do know about Pillar. They make an exceptional product and, for the project that's currently on my desk, they're the only choice (I could've chosen Sapim or DT or anyone else).
FWIW, by 2021 we'll be purchasing north of 600k spokes from them. Even at OE prices that's nothing to sneeze at.

The wheels you are building are going to be strong!

[PaMtbRider]

The spoke is not the wheel.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Sadly, there is a bunch of BS in this article.

From the dimensions on the Boyd web page, the Pillar Wing spokes have the same cross-sectional area as CX-Ray spokes. The difference is that the CX-Ray spokes are thinner and wider, and the Wing spokes are thicker and less wide. Therefore, the Pillar spokes cannot be stiffer. Because spokes are loaded only in tension, the stiffness of the spoke depends only on the material, length, and cross-sectional area. Relatvie width and thickness make no difference in pure tension.

Because the Pillar Wing spokes are thicker, they are likely to be less aerodynamic than CX-Ray spokes.

As far as being more durable, that's also a bit questionable. In a well designed and built wheel, the spoke elbows should be firmly set into the spoke flange and stress-relieved, minimizing the stress concentration at the elbow. In a well built wheel, the weak spot of the spokes will often be the threads, not the elbow. The Pillar spokes have the same diameter at the thread as the CX-Ray spokes, and increasing the spoke thickness at the elbow may not improve spoke durability.

The Pillar Wing spokes may well be fine spokes. But I see nothing to indicate that they will in some way be better than CX-Rays.

PLUS seem like more similar to CXSprints too..they are cheaper for sure but
spokes normally break because of an issue with the rim, not the spokes..as in deformed rim, not optimum or even tension=broken spokes. Not spoke design..

AND altho a lot of 'pros' wheels are CXRay, most are CXSprint drive side rear..CXRay else where..

[martl]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Well, first ya gotta believe CXRAY are ‘better’ than just double butted spokes and I’m not convinced of that. Sure as ****e more expensive but certainly not 3 times better.

Bad spokes i know how to spot.
I never understood how to tell a good spoke from an even better one, though (or vice versa). I can build a wheel that will last a lifetime and stay true with ordinary DT Suisse 2.0/1.8 spokes.

[cmbicycles]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

The wheels you are building are going to be strong!

May as well just get front and rear disc wheels if you are going to try to squeeze that many spokes into your wheels... never seen rims/hubs with that spoke count either so it must be newer more better tech coming out.

[Gummee]

For the marginal gains that CXRays give, I've never really understood using them over CXSprints or even just regular DB spokes.

Yeah, you can say 'I've got CXRay spokes!' and some will ooh and aah over em, but ultimately, they're thin, flexy spokes that like to wind up when you're building with em.

M

[arik]

Are these spokes lighter or as light as cx-ray and dt aerolite?