Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
Damon Rinard's
Data table: data.htm This test continues as wheels are loaned. I would like to measure Rolfs, Spinergy Spox, LEWs and any Mavic pre-built wheel like Heliums, Classics, Elites or Cosmics. Please let me know if you would consider shipping your wheels to me for testing: drinard@yahoo.com
Lateral stiffness is how well a wheel resists flexing laterally (sideways) when a given load is applied in that direction. Stiffness is the ability to resist flex. A stiff wheel flexes very little. Mathematically stiffness is the inverse of flexibility. It must be emphasized that wheel stiffness is not wheel strength, and in fact may be unrelated to it. I am measuring stiffness, not strength.
X is the forward direction of travel when the rider rides the bike. Y is to the side; this is the direction of the load I applied and the deflections I measured. Z is elevation.
You can see in this photo that the rider's weight on the left pedal causes a reaction force at the ground contact point with a component in the lateral or Y axis direction. This is the deflection I am measuring.
How important is wheel stiffness? There are plenty of parameters besides wheel stiffness that have a much larger bearing on bicycle performance, such as aerodynamics and training. However, recently there has been debate about the lateral stiffness of bicycle wheels. The
1 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
increasing popularity of Rolf wheels and the recent introduction of Shimano wheels has made people wonder whether low spoke count wheels can be stiff enough laterally. Howard Sutherland is quoted as saying "One measurement is worth 50 expert opinions", and so I decided to measure the lateral stiffness of as many wheels as I could get my hands on. While I was at it, I decided it might also be easy to answer some more academic questions about wheel stiffness in general. Measuring the lateral stiffness of all these wheels has two purposes, as I see it: 1. To rank the wheels according to their lateral stiffness. 2. To answer some general theoretical questions about how wheels flex.
In order to measure the lateral stiffness of a bicycle wheel, I had to 1. Hold the wheel rigidly, 2. Apply a known load, 3. Measure the deflection. A milling machine's table makes a very rigid base, so I machined aluminum blocks to hold the hub axle in the vice and quill of the mill (see Figure 1). I turned the blocks from an aluminum bar and bent a hook from a three-foot length of 5/16 inch diameter steel rod. I used the lathe and mill at San Diego State University's student projects lab.
Machined aluminum blocks with through hole to receive axle. Using these blocks I mounted the wheel between the bed and quill of a milling machine.
Method of holding wheel and measuring deflection at the rim. Hooked end of weight will be hung next to the dial indicator.
1. Assign a wheel number, weigh, photograph and record description of wheel. 2. Measure deflection several times in several places and record data. If bearing play is present, gently push rim to take up the slack before measuring deflection. 3. Ship wheel back to the owner.
2 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
The load is 25.78 pounds (11.7 kilograms or 115 Newtons). There is no magic significance to the 25.78 pound load, but it has some advantages over larger or smaller loads: It is large enough to avoid some of the difficulty of measuring smaller deflections at lower loads. It is small enough not to damage any wheels. I have a convenient 25 pound weight that hangs nicely from a 0.78 pound rod ;-). The load is applied at the center of the rim's brake track, normal to the plane of the wheel. Deflection is measured at a spot within 3/8 of an inch (10 mm) of the point of load application, which I consider to be essentially at the point of load application. This 25.78 pound load did no damage to any wheel. Every wheel was perfectly rideable after testing. A 25.78 pound lateral load is almost certainly more than road bike wheels see in normal use. I chose 25.78 pounds because the deflection at a lower, more realistic load may be small enough that my measurement error of +/-0.002" (0.05mm) might become an inconveniently large fraction of the measured deflection.
I hope to measure enough wheels of different configurations to answer the following theoretical questions:
3 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
2. Are front wheels stiffer than similar rear wheels, and if so by how much?
Most front wheels are stiffer than similar rear wheels. Structurally this is because front hub flanges are typically wider than rear hub flanges. Rear hub flange spacing is constrained by industry standard dimensions, such as cassette width, drop out spacing and symmetrical frames. Most rear wheels I tested are between 40 and 60% more flexible than similar front wheels. Although it may be the case that stiffer front wheels have been developed intentionally for more stable handling, it is possible that many front wheels are simply overbuilt or many rear wheels are underbuilt. Track wheels are an exception: rear hub flanges are often much wider than fronts, and therefore such wheels are slightly stiffer laterally than similar front wheels. Compare track wheels number 83 and 84 (below) for an example. Besides flange spacing, the other parameters that could affect stiffness are often held constant between front and rear wheel pairs: number and gauge of spokes, and rim cross section. However, it is becoming more common to see wheel pairs sold with a different number of spokes in the front and rear wheels. On the other hand it is still the rare wheel pair that is sold with different rims front and rear. Some pairs whose front and rear wheels are closer to the same stiffness are: Specialized Composite wheels. Since these wheels are the same except for hub guts, they do not differ significantly between front and rear wheels. In fact the front can be used as a rear by changing the axle. Velomax Javelin. The rear wheel is slightly stiffer than the front wheel (8%). Structurally this may be because of two design features: the narrow front hub flange spacing decreases the bracing angle on this wheel compared to more typical front hubs with wider spacing, and the higher spoke count in the rear wheel compared to the front (24 spokes in the rear versus 18 in the front) adds stiffness to the rear wheel to more nearly match the front. Spinergy Rev-X. The RevXs I measured showed a large range of deflections from the four spots around the wheel: +/- 0.010" to 0.016" out of about 0.150", (0.25mm to 0.41mm out of about 3.81mm) or 11%. For this pair of Spinergies (wheels 56 and 57), the front is about 12% to 16% more flexible than the rear. There is no dimensional explanation for this (flange spacing and other dimensions are the same), so I attribute
4 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
the difference to variation in manufacturing from wheel to wheel. The next pair might have the front/rear relationship reversed. Aerospoke. Like the Specialized, these wheels are the same except for hub guts. Consequently, they do not differ significantly between front and rear wheels.
In the chart above, the length of the vertical lines represent the range of deflections obtained from loading the wheel and measuring deflection at four or more random locations around the wheel. There are two vertical lines for each wheel: 1. Range of deflections due to loads applied from the left hand side (indicated by the LH after the wheel name) and 2. Range of deflections due to loads applied from the right hand side (indicated by the RH
5 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
after the wheel name). The average of all four (or more) measurements is near the middle of each vertical range line. The slanted line between each range connects the average deflection of the left and right sides. The fact that this line is slanted upward toward the right in every case shows that, on average, rear wheels may flex more in response to loads from the right side than to loads from the left. However, the range of measurements (length of vertical lines) shows that the difference between left and right is often smaller than the measurement error or the range of response of one side of the wheel.
4. How does the shape of the wheel change in response to a lateral load?
This question comes up because some people worry about the rim rubbing the brakes while climbing. There is no doubt rims rub sometimes on MTBs, because occasionally you can hear the brake shoes rub. But the wheel is not the only thing flexing: frames and forks flex, too. In describing how the rim flexes at points far away from the point of load application, Jobst Brandt describes a saddle or taco shape [1]. I measured and found this to be accurate. Let the the point of load application be called 0 degrees. Then the two other locations I measured would be called 90 degrees away and 180 degrees away, i.e., one quarter and one half way around the wheel away from the point of load application. To form a saddle shape, when a load is applied at 0 degrees in the positive direction, the deflection at +/-90 degrees should be in the negative direction, and the deflection at 180 degrees should begin to return in a relatively more positive direction again. This is exactly what happened. The chart below shows the (exaggerated) shape of several rims when loaded as described above. The zero-deflection base line is horizontal, and the various colored plots of the different wheels show the lateral deflections measured at 0, 90 and 180 degrees.
The load is applied at 0 degrees, at the left end of the horizontal axis. The deflections measured at 0, 90 and 180 degrees show the wheels assume the expected arching or saddle shape. At 180 degrees, even though the rim is headed in the positive direction, it does not often cross back over to the positive side of the zero-deflection base line. Between 90 and 180 degrees is where most bikes have their rim brakes. The deflection here is
6 of 13 10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
fairly consistent among all the wheels, and did not vary significantly between the stiffer and more flexible wheels. For this 25 pound load all wheels flexed about 0.020 inches or half a millimeter in this region. This flex is in the direction opposite the load. This is the same direction the frame is likely to flex under a lateral load at the tire contact patch, such as occurs when climbing out of the saddle or sprinting. That means the brake and wheel will move in the same direction, thus reducing the relative motion between the rim and brake that may cause the brake to rub.
Wheel Rolf Vector 20 spoke front Rolf Vector 24 spoke rear Rigida 12 spoke front Shimano WH7700 front Shimano WH7700 rear
The results are mixed, but generally paired spoking for any given wire spoked wheel does not lead to a significant increase in flexibility between the spoke pairs compared to flexibility at the spoke pairs. Such wheels are about the same stiffness at spoke pairs as they are between spoke pairs. In fact the Shimano wheels are actually slightly stiffer between spokes than they are at spokes, but again this difference is insignificant. In contrast, the muti-spoke composite wheels showed a marked difference in stiffness between spokes compared to the stiffness when loaded at the spokes, with a few exceptions. Increase in flexibility between spokes 135%
Wheel
Comments
Zipp 3000
7 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
Specialized front 700c clincher Specialized rear 700c clincher Specialized rear 650c clincher Specialized rear 700c clincher Spinergy RevX, new style Corima 4 spoke
57%
59%
56%
57%
49%
Four spoke pairs shorten the length of unsupported rim. Four wide spokes shorten the length of unsupported rim even more. These wheels are the most flexible wheels I've ever tested. There is no difference at or between spokes primarily because they are so flexible everywhere. Yes, these wheels are actually stiffer between spokes. But this is only because the spokes are so loose that the bottom side spoke becomes slack at a very low load. When loaded between spokes, the rim is stiff enough to recruit two pairs of spokes and make the underside spokes go slack on both pairs. The wheel is stiffer in this case because slackening comes at a higher load.
23%
Aerospoke 5 0% spoke
-17%
For example, the Specialized wheel is over 50% more flexible when the load is between spokes than when the load is at a spoke. In spite of this large difference, many people ride Specialized Composite wheels with great success, although there have been reports of disconcerting handling when they are used in track sprinting or all-round riding on steeper tracks.
In a word, no. The Shimano WH7700 (Dura-Ace) wheels have a number of fairly unusual features, one of which is a spoking arrangement in which the spokes originating at
8 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
one side of the hub attach to the rim on the other side. Shimano claims "...the wheel's lateral rigidity is significantly increased...", and maybe it is compared to a similarly light 16 spoke wheel without the lateral crossover. But it's still a pretty flexible wheel. The most similar wheels in this test are the Mavic Cosmics. Even though the Cosmics are heavier, they serve as a fairly good comparison since, like the Shimanos, the Cosmics have a fairly deep rim and 16 spokes. The significant differences between the Cosmics and the Shimanos are wider hub flanges and a slightly larger rim cross section on the Cosmic, both of which add stiffness as well as weight.
more details
739 g
18.8 x 29.6 mm
2.11mm
more details
963 g
18.8 x 29.6 mm
Mavic Cosmic 16 spoke tubular front. 2.8 x 1.4 mm elliptical spokes. Thanks to Darryl big picture
Mataya.
917 g
18.3 x 37.7 mm
1.70mm
Mavic Cosmic 16 spoke tubular rear. 2.8 x 1.4 mm elliptical spokes. Thanks to Darryl big picture
Mataya.
1097 g
18.3 x 37.7 mm
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
factors also contribute, so only part of the increase in raw spoke stiffness shows up in measured wheel stiffness. The thicker spoke by itself is nearly twice as stiff axially as the thinner spoke!
In the table of results, the two wheels I compared are #94 with elbows in, and #95 with
10 of 13 10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
elbows out.
13. Are newer Spinergy RevXs stiffer than the old ones?
Yes, the newer Spinergy I measured (Serial 315036) was stiffer: it showed only a third as much deflection under the test load as the older model (Serials 107760 and 107875). The two older RevXs I measured were among the most flexible wheels (0.119" to 0.160" deflection(3.02mm to 4.06mm)), but the newer RevX of the same size is the stiffest wheel I've ever measured (only about 0.050" (1.27mm) of deflection). Why? Because the older Spinergies' bottom side spokes became slack under the test load. In contrast, the newer Spinergy's spokes did not go slack. Slack spokes cannot contribute to wheel stiffness; thus the older model deflected more. While spoke tension normally does not have a significant effect on wheel stiffness (See question number 1 above), this is only the case as long as no spokes become slack. That is one reason high initial spoke tension is important. In comparing old versus new Spinergies, the initial tension was low enough in the older Spinergies that spokes did become slack, making the older wheels more flexible as a result.
14. Is the Spinergy RevX SuperStiff stiffer than a regular Spinergy RevX ?
Yes, the SuperStiff I measured deflected only 3/4 as much as the regular model (0.046" (1.17mm) for the Super Stiff compared to 0.059" (1.50mm) for the regular model). The Super Stiff is about 25% stiffer than a regular RevX. Both of these are quite new (Serial 301526 for the regular RevX and 357185 for the SuperStiff).
11 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
difference is insignificant (0.059" or 1.50mm of deflection with the X-Beams compared to 0.057" or 1.45mm without).
Is deflection linear with load? How does lateral tire flex compare? Does tying and soldering affect stiffness? Relative contribution of the following to stiffness:
number of spokes spoke gauge rim weight hub flange spacing rim height
Data table: data.htm. Compare these results with Franois Grignon's research. Does wheel stiffness even matter?
This test measures lateral stiffness alone. It does not include the radial load all wheels see in use. It does not measure radial stiffness, nor strength of any kind.
1. Brandt, Jobst, The Bicycle Wheel, Avocet Press, Palo Alto, California, 1995.
12 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
2. Brandt, Jobst, "Tied and Soldered Wheels", rec.bicycles.* newsgroup FAQ. 4. Grignon, Franois, Aero Wheels Under Scrutiny, Club Cycliste Beaconsfield Cycling Club, 1998. 3. Smith, Jeff, Re: Spoke tension and stiffness?, rec.bicycles.tech newsgroup message, November 07, 1999.
Rob Bernhard, Jobst Brandt, Vic Copeland, Franois Grignon, Todd Holland, Eric Hollenbeck, Brad Hunter, Jon Isaacs, Todd Kuzma, Darryl Mataya, Barney Milner, Hank Montrose, Chuck Davis, Dan Rock, Charles O'Toole, Jane Rinard, Ken Robb, Russell Seaton and Shaun Wallace. Home back to Damon Rinard's Bicycle Tech Page Copyright 1999-2001 Damon Rinard
Articles by Sheldon Brown and others Harris Home Beginners Brakes Frames Tandems Commuting CycleDo-ItLights Computers Yourself Gears & Drivetrain Touring Bicycle Humor What's New Essays
13 of 13
10/11/2009 1:16