32 or 36 Spokes?

[Bonefish Blues]

I'm guessing the 40 is at the back because of the extra weight?

That was the prevailing best practice. In addition I specified a Maxicar Hi-Lo rear hub, claimed to improve spoke line and therefore strength. They were absolutely bullet proof

 

[Andy in Germany]

That was the prevailing best practice. In addition I specified a Maxicar Hi-Lo rear hub, claimed to improve spoke line and therefore strength. They were absolutely bullet proof

That reminds me, rear hubs will be the next challenge...

 

[rogerzilla]

I would say 32 unless you plan to carry front panniers, but that's from my "redundancy is anathema to the cyclist" viewpoint. 36 barely weighs any more, so go for that if in doubt.

My choice is usually dictated by what hubs I manage to find. I have 36/36 on my 1969 track bike because most Campag Record Pista hubs of the era were 36/36. Most road racers still used 36/36 into the 1980s because spokes were less reliable and you can keep riding with 35 out of 36 spokes; the wheel stays fairly true and still fits through the brake. With 27 out of 28 spokes, it's probably going to catch.

 

[confusedcyclist]

Bit late to the party, but here's sheldon on the subject;
https://sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

The Great Spoke Scam: In the early '80s a clever marketeer hit upon the idea of using only 32 spokes in wheels for production bikes. Because of the association of 32-spoke wheels with exotic, high-performance bikes, the manufacturers were able to cut corners and save money while presenting it as an "upgrade!" The resulting wheels were noticeably weaker than comparable 36-spoke wheels, but held up well enough for most customers.

Since then, this practice has been carried to an extreme, with 28-, 24-, even 16-spoke wheels being offered, and presented as it they were somehow an "upgrade."

Actually, such wheels normally are not an upgrade in practice. When the spokes are farther apart on the rim, it is necessary to use a heavier rim to compensate, so there isn't usually even a weight benefit from these newer wheels!

This type of wheel requires unusually high spoke tension, since the load is carried by fewer spokes. If a spoke does break, the wheel generally becomes instantly unridable. The hub may break too; see John Allen's article.

If you want highest performance, it is generally best to have more spokes in the rear wheel than the front. For instance, 28/36 is better than 32/32. People very rarely have trouble with front wheels:

• Front wheels are symmetrically dished (except with disc brakes).
• Front wheels carry less weight.
• Front wheels don't have to deal with torsional loads (unless there's a hub brake).

If you have the same number of spokes front and rear, either the front wheel is heavier than it needs to be, or the rear wheel is weaker than it should be.

 

[the snail]

* A wheel of course does not collapse into a pretzel shape.

I think the hyperbolic paraboloid snack you're thinking of is a pringle

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I think the hyperbolic paraboloid snack you're thinking of is a pringle
View attachment 504062

Perfect example. Now to get the world's collapsed wheel owners to say the wheel pringled instead of pretzelled.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Perfect example. Now to get the world's collapsed wheel owners to say the wheel pringled instead of pretzelled.

Once a wheel pops it can't stop...

 

[andrew_s]

Perfect example. Now to get the world's collapsed wheel owners to say the wheel pringled instead of pretzelled.

To call a wheel pringled is quite common usage, in the UK at least.

Americans often say Taco'd, or Tacoed, but to my mind a taco isn't a much better metaphor than a pretzel