Another day with wheels (et cetera).
A customer brought in a DT C1800 Spline rear wheel.
It was feeling a bit loose, so they asked me to rebuild it.
DT straight-gauge spoke hub, 24H
DT key-slotted flat spokes in a left-right 2-cross lacing pattern.
Even though it's a straight-gauge spoke hub,
the flange holes aren't round holes but have slits.
By my assessment, this wheel's structural integrity
is somewhat better than a Rovel CLX50.
Though that's not to say this wheel is particularly excellent—
it's just that the ridiculous 2:1 lacing is inferior
even to your standard 24H left-right equal-diameter 4:4 lacing.
Just today, separately,
a customer from Aichi Prefecture told me
their current Dura-Ace C50 rear wheel feels sluggish
and pulls worse than a Nomu Lab wheel no. 5,
and a customer from Osaka Prefecture said
their GIANT SLR1 (included with a Propel complete bike)
doesn't roll as well as a Nomu Lab wheel no. 5.
My palate has become rather refined—my apologies for the presumption.
This wheel's spokes are in a left-right equal-diameter lacing,
Correction: Originally left-right unequal-diameter.
Based on the spoke's flatness degree,
the spoke weight ratio appears fairly high, so
the decision was made to replace the non-drive side with spokes having a smaller weight ratio,
lace it in a left-right unequal-diameter pattern,
and then tie off the non-drive side.
Anyway, in the image above, the fact that there are two spoke joints
is separate from this wheel—I did that for another customer
to show the difference between a wrapped joint and a tied joint.
A tied joint doesn't move even without soldering
even when gripping the final crossing strongly, but
with just wrapping,
the final crossing moves.
That's pointless.
No matter how many wraps you add on this joint,
the result doesn't change.
But even so, soldering does technically fix the final crossing.
However, that's only held in place by the solder itself,
which is different from the stability you get
when soldering is just a safety measure for an already-tied joint.
The spokes appeared to have a faint layer of rust on them,
but when I wiped it with my finger, it came right off.
Right, DT and Sapim black spokes wouldn't rust in an ugly way
like the spokes on wheels from manufacturers that don't make their own black spokes—
like Shimano and Mavic wheels.
Weight of 12 spokes on the non-drive side.
The spoke length was 294mm on the drive side
and 298mm on the non-drive side.
So the spoke weight ratio is
74.0÷12÷298÷0.0257 =
0.805195003..., which works out to
about 80.5%. Or roughly 80%, I'd say.
Hmm... smaller than I expected!
I'm replacing this with either a CX Sprint (about 78%) or a CX-RAY (about 65%),
but with CX Sprint, while it wouldn't be a left-right reversed unequal-diameter lacing,
it would be nearly equal-diameter,
so I'll rebuild it with CX-RAY instead.
Having a spoke weight ratio similar to CX Sprint means
the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the spoke's length direction
is essentially the same between this spoke and CX Sprint.
If this wheel's DT spokes had
a weight ratio around 90%,
I would have planned to use CX Sprint on the non-drive side.
If you're doing left-right unequal-diameter lacing,
you absolutely need to know the spoke weight ratio.
↑The length of the plain section at the rim end of the non-drive side 298mm spoke
is about this long,
(The stainless tray holding the disassembled nipples is the background,
so no matter how many times I shoot this,
even without using flash or anything,
I end up with images like this)
but the drive side 294mm spokes
have a pretty short plain section.
I suspect that DT doesn't bother creating spokes with the same
plain section length at the rim for every 1mm increment,
so they share the pre-cut spoke within a certain range.
With these spokes, it seems like
the 294-300mm sizes are all cut from the same 300mm spoke.
My guess on the 300mm upper limit is purely speculative, though.
Which means the shorter 294mm spokes
have a larger proportion of butted section relative to total spoke length,
giving them a smaller weight ratio than the 298mm.
Still, I'd say around 80% is reasonable.
It's built.
The drive side uses the original spokes,
and the non-drive side has black CX-RAY straight-gauge spokes.
I'll do the spoke joint later,
but even without the joint,
it's looking pretty good for a non-offset rim—hehehehe.
The drive side threads advance even more than before,
so I was worried, but I managed to finish the wheel build
in a pretty tight spot.
The original non-drive side 298mm spokes
could be used as spare spokes if cut down to 294mm on the drive side.
Correction: Can't be used because the spoke weight ratio is different
Even so, the appearance should be nearly identical.
The nipples were Squorx nipples, so I reused them.
This wheel uses the PHR washer specified for DT RR and XR series rims
in a "no-washer" configuration—
just Squorx nipples in direct contact with the rim,
which I call "bare Squorx"—
and I was initially concerned because the contact area
between Squorx nipples and the rim differs from standard nipples,
being hemispherical at the base touching in just a point.
The first time I saw bare Squorx was on a Prime complete wheel,
but that's not an official DT complete wheel.
However, I've confirmed bare Squorx on DT complete wheels before this one,
so nowadays I think "if DT says it's fine, then I guess it's fine."
A customer brought in a DT C1800 Spline rear wheel.
It was feeling a bit loose, so they asked me to rebuild it.
DT straight-gauge spoke hub, 24H
DT key-slotted flat spokes in a left-right 2-cross lacing pattern.
Even though it's a straight-gauge spoke hub,
the flange holes aren't round holes but have slits.
By my assessment, this wheel's structural integrity
is somewhat better than a Rovel CLX50.
Though that's not to say this wheel is particularly excellent—
it's just that the ridiculous 2:1 lacing is inferior
even to your standard 24H left-right equal-diameter 4:4 lacing.
Just today, separately,
a customer from Aichi Prefecture told me
their current Dura-Ace C50 rear wheel feels sluggish
and pulls worse than a Nomu Lab wheel no. 5,
and a customer from Osaka Prefecture said
their GIANT SLR1 (included with a Propel complete bike)
doesn't roll as well as a Nomu Lab wheel no. 5.
My palate has become rather refined—my apologies for the presumption.
This wheel's spokes are in a left-right equal-diameter lacing,
Correction: Originally left-right unequal-diameter.
Based on the spoke's flatness degree,
the spoke weight ratio appears fairly high, so
the decision was made to replace the non-drive side with spokes having a smaller weight ratio,
lace it in a left-right unequal-diameter pattern,
and then tie off the non-drive side.
Anyway, in the image above, the fact that there are two spoke joints
is separate from this wheel—I did that for another customer
to show the difference between a wrapped joint and a tied joint.
A tied joint doesn't move even without soldering
even when gripping the final crossing strongly, but
with just wrapping,
the final crossing moves.
That's pointless.
No matter how many wraps you add on this joint,
the result doesn't change.
But even so, soldering does technically fix the final crossing.
However, that's only held in place by the solder itself,
which is different from the stability you get
when soldering is just a safety measure for an already-tied joint.
The spokes appeared to have a faint layer of rust on them,
but when I wiped it with my finger, it came right off.
Right, DT and Sapim black spokes wouldn't rust in an ugly way
like the spokes on wheels from manufacturers that don't make their own black spokes—
like Shimano and Mavic wheels.
Weight of 12 spokes on the non-drive side.
The spoke length was 294mm on the drive side
and 298mm on the non-drive side.
So the spoke weight ratio is
74.0÷12÷298÷0.0257 =
0.805195003..., which works out to
about 80.5%. Or roughly 80%, I'd say.
Hmm... smaller than I expected!
I'm replacing this with either a CX Sprint (about 78%) or a CX-RAY (about 65%),
but with CX Sprint, while it wouldn't be a left-right reversed unequal-diameter lacing,
it would be nearly equal-diameter,
so I'll rebuild it with CX-RAY instead.
Having a spoke weight ratio similar to CX Sprint means
the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the spoke's length direction
is essentially the same between this spoke and CX Sprint.
If this wheel's DT spokes had
a weight ratio around 90%,
I would have planned to use CX Sprint on the non-drive side.
If you're doing left-right unequal-diameter lacing,
you absolutely need to know the spoke weight ratio.
↑The length of the plain section at the rim end of the non-drive side 298mm spoke
is about this long,
(The stainless tray holding the disassembled nipples is the background,
so no matter how many times I shoot this,
even without using flash or anything,
I end up with images like this)
but the drive side 294mm spokes
have a pretty short plain section.
I suspect that DT doesn't bother creating spokes with the same
plain section length at the rim for every 1mm increment,
so they share the pre-cut spoke within a certain range.
With these spokes, it seems like
the 294-300mm sizes are all cut from the same 300mm spoke.
My guess on the 300mm upper limit is purely speculative, though.
Which means the shorter 294mm spokes
have a larger proportion of butted section relative to total spoke length,
giving them a smaller weight ratio than the 298mm.
Still, I'd say around 80% is reasonable.
It's built.
The drive side uses the original spokes,
and the non-drive side has black CX-RAY straight-gauge spokes.
I'll do the spoke joint later,
but even without the joint,
it's looking pretty good for a non-offset rim—hehehehe.
The drive side threads advance even more than before,
so I was worried, but I managed to finish the wheel build
in a pretty tight spot.
The original non-drive side 298mm spokes
could be used as spare spokes if cut down to 294mm on the drive side.
Correction: Can't be used because the spoke weight ratio is different
Even so, the appearance should be nearly identical.
The nipples were Squorx nipples, so I reused them.
This wheel uses the PHR washer specified for DT RR and XR series rims
in a "no-washer" configuration—
just Squorx nipples in direct contact with the rim,
which I call "bare Squorx"—
and I was initially concerned because the contact area
between Squorx nipples and the rim differs from standard nipples,
being hemispherical at the base touching in just a point.
The first time I saw bare Squorx was on a Prime complete wheel,
but that's not an official DT complete wheel.
However, I've confirmed bare Squorx on DT complete wheels before this one,
so nowadays I think "if DT says it's fine, then I guess it's fine."