A customer brought in a HUNT carbon spoke wheel for me to work on.
This is a separate case from the wheel I recently repaired by replacing carbon spokes.
I inspected it back in mid-June this year,
but I hadn't written an article about it. I only took photos of the front wheel.
↑This is the front wheel from the recent one, but actually the rim heights are different.
This is the nipple-integrated part section of the spokes on the wheel I inspected in June,
and you can see the grip area sticking out nicely from the rim.
The amount of grip protrusion is determined by the dimensions of the hub and rim,
and as a minor factor, by how much tension is applied.
The one with the higher rim height from the other day
had the nipple face protruding only about half as much,
which made the work quite difficult.
Moreover, between this spoke and the nut serving as the built-in nipple,
a fairly strong thread-locking compound was applied for the thread diameter,
so when trying to get initial rotation, it makes a "crack!" sound as it releases,
and before reaching that point, there's enough force that either the carbon spoke twists
or the square part of the nipple-type piece starts to round off.
So I worked on it quite nervously.
The hub shell has a laser etch indicating that it uses Japanese EZO bearings.
EZO refers to bearings from Kitanihon Seiki (北日本精機), a company in Ezo, which is in Hokkaido.
For the work, I need to remove the rim tape,
but aside from that, this HUNT-branded rim tape
lacks the flexibility to conform to the rim shape properly.
At the angle shown in the image above, it happens to be applied cleanly,
but the width doesn't match the rim, and in the image you can see that the tape
doesn't reach all the way to the left edge.
Plus, there are many areas where it's stiff and wrinkled,
and the end of the tape looks like this, peeling back.
There were cardboard fibers from shipping caught in the gap.
↑This is the front wheel from the one inspected in June,
and regardless of rim height, both rear wheels are built the same count on both sides: 12×2 = 24H.
But the front wheel is built 2:1, with 12+6 = 18H,
which is quite an aggressive spec.
With this carbon spoke (though not all carbon spokes),
I think it achieves enough rigidity that most people wouldn't complain.
With steel spokes, even at 100% spoke weight ratio,
18H would probably be impossible.
And yet Roval's Rapide CLX pulls it off at 65% spoke weight ratio—what a stupid wheel that is.
↑I'm not criticizing something I've never seen. The image above shows the Rapide CLX and Alpinist,
brought in for inspection—I only photographed the front wheel.
The Alpinist is a separate case where I took reference images in April this year,
and since those have more value for an article, I'll post that separately.
If I had the funding and equipment to run wind tunnel tests,
I'd love to experiment with wheels of the same rim height (especially front wheels)
and see how air resistance changes with different spoke counts.
But it seems that having access to such tools actually clouds one's judgment
about the overall factors affecting wheel performance—people lose sight of how risky
18H front wheels with 12+6 steel spokes really are.
Don't take it lightly that one side has only 6 spokes.
Whether the 6-spoke side is built left-right asymmetric or symmetric doesn't matter,
but if you're using Aero-comp instead of Aero-lite on the 6-spoke side,
(which in my assessment still wouldn't be enough),
it would at least be a somewhat better wheel.
I've previously rebuilt a CLX64 wheel by changing the spoke weight ratio
(→here),
and contrary to my expectations, it was the front wheel, not the rear wheel, that the customer had issues with.
Even that CLX64 front wheel was 3×7 = 21H.
To then remove three more spokes (one pair) from that without changing the spoke weight ratio
doesn't seem like someone's thinking seriously about wheels.
What's commonly called spoke tension, I call "Second Spoke Tension" (2ST).
In contrast, the simple numerical value that appears on a spoke tension meter
(without units) I call "First Spoke Tension" (1ST).
Since you can't determine general spoke tension without measuring 1ST first,
I gave the longer name to 2ST.
Since 1ST varies depending on which tension meter you use, I call it
D1ST for DT meters, H1ST for Hozan, P1ST for Park Tool.
If these standards were perfectly uniform,
the 2ST calculated from each 1ST would naturally be the same.
With Park Tool tension meters, the individual variation between supposedly identical meters
is somewhat large, but it's precise enough for home use.
Even with the simplest wheel—rim brake compatible,
equal spoke count on both sides, radial lacing, same spoke count front wheel with no eccentric offset—
limited to steel spokes alone, wheels with the same 2ST won't have the same rigidity.
At the same 2ST, the higher the spoke weight ratio,
the less the spoke deformation. So it might be that 1ST actually expresses
spoke resistance to deformation more accurately than 2ST.
When measuring a spoke in the front-back direction with a Hozan meter,
at a certain same 2ST (just over 130 kgf), the H1ST is:
140 for #14 plain (100%) like Campagnolo,
130 for #14 base Comp (just over 85%),
190 for CX (nearly 100%), and about 130 for CX-RAY (just under 65%).
Getting H1ST to 140 with Comp is nearly impossible.
It's not absolutely impossible, but you'd need to cherry-pick rims and nipples.
And even with Comp, some wobble would start to appear.
If you loosely build a Campagnolo wheel to H1ST of 130 to match Comp's upper limit,
the spokes would have nearly the same deformation feel,
but you'd just end up with a heavier wheel unnecessarily in the spoke section.
Looking only at this H1ST, #85% Comp and #65% CX-RAY both hit 130!
CX-RAY seems superior, transcending spoke weight ratio!
But that's only because we're measuring from the front-back direction of the spoke—
with flat spokes, it shows an advantage.
CX-RAY passes through round holes so you can measure it from the side with a Hozan meter too,
but standard spokes like CX don't pass through round holes,
so they don't fit in the concave part at the tip of the Hozan measuring head.
By this method, the numerically strongest steel spoke
is Mavic's current razor-sharp thin and wide aero spoke,
measuring around 205 on the H1ST scale.
2ST numbers alone can't even roughly express wheel rigidity,
and rather, 1ST better expresses the resistance to deformation of individual spokes
including spoke weight ratio. When spoke count changes, wheel rigidity changes too,
and this can be tracked reasonably well by "spoke quantity" (spoke weight ratio × spoke count),
so I have a "Third Spoke Tension" (3ST) standard in my head
based on spoke quantity and 1ST for evaluating wheel rigidity.
This roughly aligns with general opinion about individual wheels, making it very useful,
but it's proprietary knowledge so I won't detail it here.
This wasn't conceived to boost Nomo Lab wheel self-assessment—
the strongest wheels by 3ST are Racing Zero and Shamal Ultra.
Even if Racing Zero ranks supreme in 3ST, that's only a gauge saying it's excellent
in spoke tension relationships (deformation resistance),
and doesn't mean Racing Zero is strongest in, say, aerodynamics-heavy scenarios
(like fixed-gear or time trial).
Also, this applies only to spoked wheels—
lenticular and disc wheels vastly exceed spoked wheels in deformation resistance.
When I rebuild what people call shitty wheels like ZIPP, ENVE, Reynolds, or Roval,
and they say it's stiffer or feels snappier than before,
you could also describe that as achieving a higher 3ST rating
(and in fact, that's what's happening).
I've written that narrow-flange rear hubs can only be built into wheels with poor lateral rigidity,
and that rear wheels with equal spoke count on both sides and anti-freewheel-side radial lacing
are universally shit. But these things apply only to steel spokes.
When spoke material changes, the steel spoke logic and what we've learned through experience
about wheels stop applying. With aluminum or carbon spokes,
you might get lateral rigidity that most people wouldn't complain about
even on a narrow-flange rear hub, and maybe even absurd 12+6 = 18H front wheels
wouldn't be a problem.
The H1ST of an off-the-rack Racing Zero
is about 235 for the front wheel and freewheel side of the rear wheel.
This is an impossible number for steel spokes—
(you might maybe get there with #13 plain or old Rolf's 120% spokes if the rim stretches to death),
but Racing Zero's aluminum spokes have about 70% spoke weight ratio.
So with aluminum, you get spoke deformation resistance that exceeds CX
with a spoke weight ratio only slightly heavier than CX-RAY. Some unnamed brand person
who skipped town without explaining warranty on wheels they sold
once said "aluminum spokes have no physical meaning," which is just the nonsense
of someone who doesn't even understand the spoke weight ratio concept.
There's no way a 70% spoke weight ratio steel spoke 16H front wheel
and a Racing Zero front wheel (also 16H) would have identical rigidity.
So yes, aluminum spokes do have physical meaning.
Racing Zero spokes that put out H1ST 235—what about their 2ST?
I have data on the Campagnolo Shamal Ultra built with the same spokes:
front wheel upper limit 130 kgf, rear freewheel-side upper limit 150 kgf—
not dramatically high numbers. Again, judging wheel rigidity by 2ST alone doesn't work.
Both Racing Zero and Shamal Ultra technically become "16H front wheels with 130 kgf spoke tension" by 2ST,
and even I would glance at that wording and think "that'll wobble on descents, what a shit wheel."
I don't think Campagnolo/Fulcrum aluminum spoke 2ST data is available to the public,
but there's much to say about it, so I'll cover that in a separate article.
↑This is an inspection sheet for a Crank Brothers Iodine,
an MTB wheel. What's written is 2ST, and the image is shiny because
it's a laminated card. With 2ST written and lamination, it seems
this might be intended more to inform users than to be a builder's inspection sheet.
↑This is a Roval wheel inspection sheet. Numbers are written on the spokes with values around 0.4,
which are DT tension meter 1ST values—in other words, D1ST.
Builders don't need to know spoke gauge or 2ST.
You can build consistent wheels managing just by 1ST, and eliminate
the hassle of converting to 2ST and potential errors from that.
For this time's HUNT UD carbon spokes,
from my rough judgment based on 1ST, they seem equivalent to
about 85% spoke weight ratio aero spokes in steel spokes.
As the sample size for measurements grows, this could change, but that's my sense now.
Roughly speaking, that would mean if you replaced them with steel spokes
slightly thicker than CX Sprint or Comp flattened out,
you wouldn't be able to tell the difference by touch alone
(this being a fuzzy 1ST-based evaluation method),
compared to the original carbon spokes.
So the 12+6 = 18H front wheel from the beginning
effectively amounts to full Comp flattened out,
and while I still think the spoke count is low,
it's far better than Roval's Rapide CLX built entirely with Aero-lite (65% spoke weight ratio).
HUNT's UD carbon spoke documentation only mentions 2ST,
with an upper limit of 120 kgf and such.
So unless it's just spoke replacement or minor work,
for rim changes you'd need to know the off-the-rack wheel's 1ST.
If this carbon spoke's spoke weight ratio were known,
you could evaluate it as "same rigidity feel as 85% spoke weight ratio aero spokes
but this carbon spoke is lighter at XX% spoke weight ratio, so it's superior."
If the spokes far exceeded steel's limits, you could approach it as:
"If the same lateral rigidity is acceptable, you could use a narrow-flange hub or
anti-freewheel radial lacing, gaining aerodynamic advantage"—
though you wouldn't need result lacing if rigidity is assured.
↑Though Lightweight does this with tension-type carbon spokes.
Regarding HUNT's UD carbon spokes,
from a spoke weight ratio perspective, from my wheel theory standpoint,
they're excellent wheel material. But to be clear,
this comment is about HUNT's UD carbon spokes specifically—
HUNT's rims aren't particularly light in height-to-weight ratio,
so this isn't an assessment of HUNT's carbon spoke wheels in general.
Since I don't know how other brands' carbon spokes compare,
I haven't reached a broad conclusion like
"carbon spokes are a complete upgrade over steel spokes!"
I dug up June inspection photos to write this article
because determining spoke weight ratio adds article value.
The customer left me with 10 packaged anti-freewheel spokes
and 4 loose freewheel spokes, and with 10 identical spokes
and a 0.1g-resolution scale,
I can determine spoke weight ratio.
The aluminum sections glued to both ends of carbon spokes
are inseparable, so they count as part of the spoke.
As for that spoke weight ratio... there's no way I'm just handing that out.
That's all for today.
↑Wow, this guy's got bad vibes.
I've kept you waiting!
Regarding HUNT's UD carbon spoke spoke weight ratio—
I previously posted two nearly simultaneous articles with nearly identical titles:
Mr. Yamori's "Moonlight gecko" (→here) and
Mr. Kaeru's "Geco Geco" (→
Hmm... give up your futile resistance!
What?! It reversed?!
...Please look at this image!
30.2g per 10 spokes at 278mm nominal,
with weight per mm of 0.01086330909...g,
the spoke weight ratio is 42.2%!
↑No way!!
This is a separate case from the wheel I recently repaired by replacing carbon spokes.
I inspected it back in mid-June this year,
but I hadn't written an article about it. I only took photos of the front wheel.
↑This is the front wheel from the recent one, but actually the rim heights are different.
This is the nipple-integrated part section of the spokes on the wheel I inspected in June,
and you can see the grip area sticking out nicely from the rim.
The amount of grip protrusion is determined by the dimensions of the hub and rim,
and as a minor factor, by how much tension is applied.
The one with the higher rim height from the other day
had the nipple face protruding only about half as much,
which made the work quite difficult.
Moreover, between this spoke and the nut serving as the built-in nipple,
a fairly strong thread-locking compound was applied for the thread diameter,
so when trying to get initial rotation, it makes a "crack!" sound as it releases,
and before reaching that point, there's enough force that either the carbon spoke twists
or the square part of the nipple-type piece starts to round off.
So I worked on it quite nervously.
The hub shell has a laser etch indicating that it uses Japanese EZO bearings.
EZO refers to bearings from Kitanihon Seiki (北日本精機), a company in Ezo, which is in Hokkaido.
For the work, I need to remove the rim tape,
but aside from that, this HUNT-branded rim tape
lacks the flexibility to conform to the rim shape properly.
At the angle shown in the image above, it happens to be applied cleanly,
but the width doesn't match the rim, and in the image you can see that the tape
doesn't reach all the way to the left edge.
Plus, there are many areas where it's stiff and wrinkled,
and the end of the tape looks like this, peeling back.
There were cardboard fibers from shipping caught in the gap.
↑This is the front wheel from the one inspected in June,
and regardless of rim height, both rear wheels are built the same count on both sides: 12×2 = 24H.
But the front wheel is built 2:1, with 12+6 = 18H,
which is quite an aggressive spec.
With this carbon spoke (though not all carbon spokes),
I think it achieves enough rigidity that most people wouldn't complain.
With steel spokes, even at 100% spoke weight ratio,
18H would probably be impossible.
And yet Roval's Rapide CLX pulls it off at 65% spoke weight ratio—what a stupid wheel that is.
↑I'm not criticizing something I've never seen. The image above shows the Rapide CLX and Alpinist,
brought in for inspection—I only photographed the front wheel.
The Alpinist is a separate case where I took reference images in April this year,
and since those have more value for an article, I'll post that separately.
If I had the funding and equipment to run wind tunnel tests,
I'd love to experiment with wheels of the same rim height (especially front wheels)
and see how air resistance changes with different spoke counts.
But it seems that having access to such tools actually clouds one's judgment
about the overall factors affecting wheel performance—people lose sight of how risky
18H front wheels with 12+6 steel spokes really are.
Don't take it lightly that one side has only 6 spokes.
Whether the 6-spoke side is built left-right asymmetric or symmetric doesn't matter,
but if you're using Aero-comp instead of Aero-lite on the 6-spoke side,
(which in my assessment still wouldn't be enough),
it would at least be a somewhat better wheel.
I've previously rebuilt a CLX64 wheel by changing the spoke weight ratio
(→here),
and contrary to my expectations, it was the front wheel, not the rear wheel, that the customer had issues with.
Even that CLX64 front wheel was 3×7 = 21H.
To then remove three more spokes (one pair) from that without changing the spoke weight ratio
doesn't seem like someone's thinking seriously about wheels.
What's commonly called spoke tension, I call "Second Spoke Tension" (2ST).
In contrast, the simple numerical value that appears on a spoke tension meter
(without units) I call "First Spoke Tension" (1ST).
Since you can't determine general spoke tension without measuring 1ST first,
I gave the longer name to 2ST.
Since 1ST varies depending on which tension meter you use, I call it
D1ST for DT meters, H1ST for Hozan, P1ST for Park Tool.
If these standards were perfectly uniform,
the 2ST calculated from each 1ST would naturally be the same.
With Park Tool tension meters, the individual variation between supposedly identical meters
is somewhat large, but it's precise enough for home use.
Even with the simplest wheel—rim brake compatible,
equal spoke count on both sides, radial lacing, same spoke count front wheel with no eccentric offset—
limited to steel spokes alone, wheels with the same 2ST won't have the same rigidity.
At the same 2ST, the higher the spoke weight ratio,
the less the spoke deformation. So it might be that 1ST actually expresses
spoke resistance to deformation more accurately than 2ST.
When measuring a spoke in the front-back direction with a Hozan meter,
at a certain same 2ST (just over 130 kgf), the H1ST is:
140 for #14 plain (100%) like Campagnolo,
130 for #14 base Comp (just over 85%),
190 for CX (nearly 100%), and about 130 for CX-RAY (just under 65%).
Getting H1ST to 140 with Comp is nearly impossible.
It's not absolutely impossible, but you'd need to cherry-pick rims and nipples.
And even with Comp, some wobble would start to appear.
If you loosely build a Campagnolo wheel to H1ST of 130 to match Comp's upper limit,
the spokes would have nearly the same deformation feel,
but you'd just end up with a heavier wheel unnecessarily in the spoke section.
Looking only at this H1ST, #85% Comp and #65% CX-RAY both hit 130!
CX-RAY seems superior, transcending spoke weight ratio!
But that's only because we're measuring from the front-back direction of the spoke—
with flat spokes, it shows an advantage.
CX-RAY passes through round holes so you can measure it from the side with a Hozan meter too,
but standard spokes like CX don't pass through round holes,
so they don't fit in the concave part at the tip of the Hozan measuring head.
By this method, the numerically strongest steel spoke
is Mavic's current razor-sharp thin and wide aero spoke,
measuring around 205 on the H1ST scale.
2ST numbers alone can't even roughly express wheel rigidity,
and rather, 1ST better expresses the resistance to deformation of individual spokes
including spoke weight ratio. When spoke count changes, wheel rigidity changes too,
and this can be tracked reasonably well by "spoke quantity" (spoke weight ratio × spoke count),
so I have a "Third Spoke Tension" (3ST) standard in my head
based on spoke quantity and 1ST for evaluating wheel rigidity.
This roughly aligns with general opinion about individual wheels, making it very useful,
but it's proprietary knowledge so I won't detail it here.
This wasn't conceived to boost Nomo Lab wheel self-assessment—
the strongest wheels by 3ST are Racing Zero and Shamal Ultra.
Even if Racing Zero ranks supreme in 3ST, that's only a gauge saying it's excellent
in spoke tension relationships (deformation resistance),
and doesn't mean Racing Zero is strongest in, say, aerodynamics-heavy scenarios
(like fixed-gear or time trial).
Also, this applies only to spoked wheels—
lenticular and disc wheels vastly exceed spoked wheels in deformation resistance.
When I rebuild what people call shitty wheels like ZIPP, ENVE, Reynolds, or Roval,
and they say it's stiffer or feels snappier than before,
you could also describe that as achieving a higher 3ST rating
(and in fact, that's what's happening).
I've written that narrow-flange rear hubs can only be built into wheels with poor lateral rigidity,
and that rear wheels with equal spoke count on both sides and anti-freewheel-side radial lacing
are universally shit. But these things apply only to steel spokes.
When spoke material changes, the steel spoke logic and what we've learned through experience
about wheels stop applying. With aluminum or carbon spokes,
you might get lateral rigidity that most people wouldn't complain about
even on a narrow-flange rear hub, and maybe even absurd 12+6 = 18H front wheels
wouldn't be a problem.
The H1ST of an off-the-rack Racing Zero
is about 235 for the front wheel and freewheel side of the rear wheel.
This is an impossible number for steel spokes—
(you might maybe get there with #13 plain or old Rolf's 120% spokes if the rim stretches to death),
but Racing Zero's aluminum spokes have about 70% spoke weight ratio.
So with aluminum, you get spoke deformation resistance that exceeds CX
with a spoke weight ratio only slightly heavier than CX-RAY. Some unnamed brand person
who skipped town without explaining warranty on wheels they sold
once said "aluminum spokes have no physical meaning," which is just the nonsense
of someone who doesn't even understand the spoke weight ratio concept.
There's no way a 70% spoke weight ratio steel spoke 16H front wheel
and a Racing Zero front wheel (also 16H) would have identical rigidity.
So yes, aluminum spokes do have physical meaning.
Racing Zero spokes that put out H1ST 235—what about their 2ST?
I have data on the Campagnolo Shamal Ultra built with the same spokes:
front wheel upper limit 130 kgf, rear freewheel-side upper limit 150 kgf—
not dramatically high numbers. Again, judging wheel rigidity by 2ST alone doesn't work.
Both Racing Zero and Shamal Ultra technically become "16H front wheels with 130 kgf spoke tension" by 2ST,
and even I would glance at that wording and think "that'll wobble on descents, what a shit wheel."
I don't think Campagnolo/Fulcrum aluminum spoke 2ST data is available to the public,
but there's much to say about it, so I'll cover that in a separate article.
↑This is an inspection sheet for a Crank Brothers Iodine,
an MTB wheel. What's written is 2ST, and the image is shiny because
it's a laminated card. With 2ST written and lamination, it seems
this might be intended more to inform users than to be a builder's inspection sheet.
↑This is a Roval wheel inspection sheet. Numbers are written on the spokes with values around 0.4,
which are DT tension meter 1ST values—in other words, D1ST.
Builders don't need to know spoke gauge or 2ST.
You can build consistent wheels managing just by 1ST, and eliminate
the hassle of converting to 2ST and potential errors from that.
For this time's HUNT UD carbon spokes,
from my rough judgment based on 1ST, they seem equivalent to
about 85% spoke weight ratio aero spokes in steel spokes.
As the sample size for measurements grows, this could change, but that's my sense now.
Roughly speaking, that would mean if you replaced them with steel spokes
slightly thicker than CX Sprint or Comp flattened out,
you wouldn't be able to tell the difference by touch alone
(this being a fuzzy 1ST-based evaluation method),
compared to the original carbon spokes.
So the 12+6 = 18H front wheel from the beginning
effectively amounts to full Comp flattened out,
and while I still think the spoke count is low,
it's far better than Roval's Rapide CLX built entirely with Aero-lite (65% spoke weight ratio).
HUNT's UD carbon spoke documentation only mentions 2ST,
with an upper limit of 120 kgf and such.
So unless it's just spoke replacement or minor work,
for rim changes you'd need to know the off-the-rack wheel's 1ST.
If this carbon spoke's spoke weight ratio were known,
you could evaluate it as "same rigidity feel as 85% spoke weight ratio aero spokes
but this carbon spoke is lighter at XX% spoke weight ratio, so it's superior."
If the spokes far exceeded steel's limits, you could approach it as:
"If the same lateral rigidity is acceptable, you could use a narrow-flange hub or
anti-freewheel radial lacing, gaining aerodynamic advantage"—
though you wouldn't need result lacing if rigidity is assured.
↑Though Lightweight does this with tension-type carbon spokes.
Regarding HUNT's UD carbon spokes,
from a spoke weight ratio perspective, from my wheel theory standpoint,
they're excellent wheel material. But to be clear,
this comment is about HUNT's UD carbon spokes specifically—
HUNT's rims aren't particularly light in height-to-weight ratio,
so this isn't an assessment of HUNT's carbon spoke wheels in general.
Since I don't know how other brands' carbon spokes compare,
I haven't reached a broad conclusion like
"carbon spokes are a complete upgrade over steel spokes!"
I dug up June inspection photos to write this article
because determining spoke weight ratio adds article value.
The customer left me with 10 packaged anti-freewheel spokes
and 4 loose freewheel spokes, and with 10 identical spokes
and a 0.1g-resolution scale,
I can determine spoke weight ratio.
The aluminum sections glued to both ends of carbon spokes
are inseparable, so they count as part of the spoke.
As for that spoke weight ratio... there's no way I'm just handing that out.
That's all for today.
↑Wow, this guy's got bad vibes.
I've kept you waiting!
Regarding HUNT's UD carbon spoke spoke weight ratio—
I previously posted two nearly simultaneous articles with nearly identical titles:
Mr. Yamori's "Moonlight gecko" (→here) and
Mr. Kaeru's "Geco Geco" (→
Hmm... give up your futile resistance!
What?! It reversed?!
...Please look at this image!
30.2g per 10 spokes at 278mm nominal,
with weight per mm of 0.01086330909...g,
the spoke weight ratio is 42.2%!
↑No way!!