Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
transmitter~receiver
Joined
·
9,333 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I have now meticulously measured 6 Stan's Crest 29er rims. The tolerance on all dimensions is very tight, suggesting good QC/QA checks post-manufacture.
Similarly to all other Stan's rims I have measured, the ERD is 1.5mm larger than stated. I repeatedly get 606.5mm from bottom-of-nipple-slot to bottom-of-nipple-slot. I interpret ERD the same way Roger Musson does.
In my own spoke length calcs, I round to end up with spoke ends between the bottom of the slot and the end of the nipple. It works perfectly every time.
Different people interpret ERD differently, but the bottom line is that the role of ERD in the spoke length calculation is the diameter of the circle that the ends of the spokes make. Under no interpretation that I have seen is it as stated on the Stan's rim sticker (605 mm for the Crest 29er). By Sheldon's definition it is even larger that what I have stated.

Also, and perhaps more interesting: the design of the Stan's 2nd gen "bead socket technology" (BST, not to be confused with BSD) came up recently, and I suggested that a possibility was that the overall diameter of the bead did not change, but that the "shelf" (aka the bead seat diameter (BSD) as defined in ISO standards) had moved out. This observation was made based on the schematic profiles of the rims on Stan's website and a general knowledge of how Stan's system works, particularly that of conversion of non-Stan's rims. It was pointed out that if the rims adhered to the 622mm standard, that the "shelf" is the BSD, where the measurement is taken, and thus could not have moved out. While true, and something I overlooked in speculating about the Stan's design, measurements tell a different story.
What I found is that the outermost extent of the rim diameter of both the 355 and Crest is 632mm, which suggested based on the schematic profiles that the "shelf" of the Crest is indeed greater than 622mm, since the bead lip of the Crest is clearly shorter than that of the 355. I confirmed that by measurement.
The diameter of the Crest 29er at the "shelf," or what is the bead seat diameter (BSD) by ISO standard, is 626mm, not the ISO-standard 622mm size printed on the rim sticker.
It does not at this point seem to be a coincidence or manufacturing variation, though it could be.
Do with this information what you will. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
697 Posts
I already figured that a large part of the great Stan's bead hook was actually the shelf, how else can they get away with that sliver of aluminium that is the current iteration of that bead hook.
But hey... it works! It also gives an extra perspective of Ghetto tubeless implementations, and how they might be improved ;)
 

·
transmitter~receiver
Joined
·
9,333 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The "build up" of the rim being key to success with rim strips and tape-only set-ups is what gave me the idea that increasing the BSD might be what they were up to. I wasn't going to pull the tires and tape off of a 355 wheelset to check, and this isn't apparent from the schematic profiles (below), but the Crest's "shelf" also seems to be more sloped toward the center channel than that of the 355 (which I don't think is sloped at all), meaning the tire/rim fit at the bead gets tighter as the tire seats.
I don't know how this bodes for ISO standard compliance, or if there is anyone who actually cares. The rims are designed to work with ISO 622x? tires, so that may be enough.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
meltingfeather said:
The "build up" of the rim being key to success with rim strips and tape-only set-ups is what gave me the idea that increasing the BSD might be what they were up to. I wasn't going to pull the tires and tape off of a 355 wheelset to check, and this isn't apparent from the schematic profiles (below), but the Crest's "shelf" also seems to be more sloped toward the center channel than that of the 355 (which I don't think is sloped at all), meaning the tire/rim fit at the bead gets tighter as the tire seats.
I don't know how this bodes for ISO standard compliance, or if there is anyone who actually cares. The rims are designed to work with ISO 622x? tires, so that may be enough.
They do not follow ISO spec at all. I have concerns about the extra stress being applied to the tire bead in a manner it is not designed for.
 

·
transmitter~receiver
Joined
·
9,333 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
shiggy said:
They do not follow ISO spec at all.
How so? I'm not that familiar with the spec itself, but I don't see anything that conflicts in the ISO 5775 wiki, according to which, "[r]ims are designated by their nominal rim diameter and their nominal width, separated by a cross (×)."
Interestingly, the wiki also describes ERD as "nipple-seat to nipple-seat," so we now have three different definitions: Roger's, Sheldon's, and this wiki's. Of the three, Roger's is the only one that ties ERD to the ends of the spokes, which is, like I said, exactly what the ERD is in the spoke length calculation. Anything else is either a simplifying approximation or just plain wrong.
*edit* I deleted the ERD section from the wiki, since it clearly has nothing to do with ISO 5775.
shiggy said:
I have concerns about the extra stress being applied to the tire bead in a manner it is not designed for.
Fair enough, and I agree, but if it works reliably (which needs to be defined, I guess), that's the true test, IMO.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
meltingfeather said:
How so? I'm not that familiar with the spec itself, but I don't see anything that conflicts in the ISO 5775 wiki, according to which, "[r]ims are designated by their nominal rim diameter and their nominal width, separated by a cross (×)."
Interestingly, the wiki also describes ERD as "nipple-seat to nipple-seat," so we now have three different definitions: Roger's, Sheldon's, and this wiki's. Of the three, Roger's is the only one that ties ERD to the ends of the spokes, which is, like I said, exactly what the ERD is in the spoke length calculation. Anything else is either a simplifying approximation or just plain wrong.
*edit* I deleted the ERD section from the wiki, since it clearly has nothing to do with ISO 5775.

Fair enough, and I agree, but if it works reliably (which needs to be defined, I guess), that's the true test, IMO.
The full ISO design spec includes actual BSD, rim sidewall height, hook dimensions and shape.

The ISO designation is simply that. Only gives you the basic size info, not anything about the design spec.

Nipple seat to nipple seat is what I consider ERD and have always used with the DT Spoke Calc.
 

·
transmitter~receiver
Joined
·
9,333 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
shiggy said:
The full ISO design spec includes actual BSD, rim sidewall height, hook dimensions and shape.

The ISO designation is simply that. Only gives you the basic size info, not anything about the design spec.
Gotcha... makes sense, thanks for the info.
shiggy said:
Nipple seat to nipple seat is what I consider ERD and have always used with the DT Spoke Calc.
You're not alone, though I don't understand this way of doing it.
DT instructs measurement according to Sheldon's definition on the "Help" page linkable in the calculator.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
meltingfeather said:
You're not alone, though I don't understand this way of doing it.
DT instructs measurement according to Sheldon's definition on the "Help" page linkable in the calculator.
I see this:
DT MyCalculations Help said:
Instructions references

* The rim diameter is measured at the nipple seat and corresponds to the rim diameter of the DT Swiss spoke length calculation table.
No reference to adding the nipple head thickness.

I also see people say they need to make adjustments to the DT results. I make none.
 

·
transmitter~receiver
Joined
·
9,333 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
shiggy said:
I see this:

No reference to adding the nipple head thickness.
Second set of bullets, second bullet:

If you don't have a DT spoke length calculation table, you may as well carry out the calculation of the rim diameter: all you need are 2 long spokes (if possible > 300 mm), 2 spoke nipples, Loctite, 1 nipper pliers and 1 meter beam. To start with screw the spoke nipple by use of Loctite onto the spoke until the nipple and the spoke thread end precisely. Afterwards you cut off the bend (both spokes should have the same length). These 2 spokes can be used as measurement spokes. The spokes are inserted opposite one another in the rim. The excess end of the spokes has to be deducted of the total length of both spokes as to obtain the inner diameter of the rim.

The only interpretation I make is that the "nipple and spoke thread end precisely" means flush. I see no other possibility.
They also link Rinard's spokecalc (though they have the old, non-working link), now hosted on Sheldon's page, on which ERD is clearly defined, with diagram, in accordance with the above instructions (to the end of the nipple). The only thing I can think of is that the bullet you cited is in reference to using the table, which may account for this discrepancy.
In any case, the spokes should engage as many threads as possible, and ERD in the spoke length calculation is what it is (described above in previous post), whatever your interpretation for measurement.
One thing that's interesting is that Mavic's "Spoke Support Diameter," at least by literal interpretation, seems to agree more with your definition of ERD, and Mavic SSD needs to be corrected by 4-5mm to work in the DT Swiss Calculator (per Help page and personal experience building with Mavic rims).
shiggy said:
I also see people say they need to make adjustments to the DT results. I make none.
I've heard that too. It's just bad info they're putting in. The math is simple and DT's calculator does nothing tricky. I have duplicated its results repeatedly with my own calculator.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
meltingfeather said:
Second set of bullets, second bullet:

If you don't have a DT spoke length calculation table, you may as well carry out the calculation of the rim diameter: all you need are 2 long spokes (if possible > 300 mm), 2 spoke nipples, Loctite, 1 nipper pliers and 1 meter beam. To start with screw the spoke nipple by use of Loctite onto the spoke until the nipple and the spoke thread end precisely. Afterwards you cut off the bend (both spokes should have the same length). These 2 spokes can be used as measurement spokes. The spokes are inserted opposite one another in the rim. The excess end of the spokes has to be deducted of the total length of both spokes as to obtain the inner diameter of the rim.

The only interpretation I make is that the "nipple and spoke thread end precisely" means flush. I see no other possibility.
They also link Rinard's spokecalc (though they have the old, non-working link), now hosted on Sheldon's page, on which ERD is clearly defined, with diagram, in accordance with the above instructions (to the end of the nipple). The only thing I can think of is that the bullet you cited is in reference to using the table, which may account for this discrepancy.
In any case, the spokes should engage as many threads as possible, and ERD in the spoke length calculation is what it is (described above in previous post), whatever your interpretation for measurement.
One thing that's interesting is that Mavic's "Spoke Support Diameter," at least by literal interpretation, seems to agree more with your definition of ERD, and Mavic SSD needs to be corrected by 4-5mm to work in the DT Swiss Calculator (per Help page and personal experience building with Mavic rims).

I've heard that too. It's just bad info they're putting in. The math is simple and DT's calculator does nothing tricky. I have duplicated its results repeatedly with my own calculator.
Those instructions are pretty sketchy with no reference to using the "1 meter beam" to measure the spokes or how to measure the spokes other than accounting for overlap or gap between the two.

Since DT defines ERD as nipple seat to nipple seat it makes no sense to measure to the end of the nipples.

The above is how I measure ERD and I use the working length of the "gauge" spokes as from the cut end to the base of the nipple head--the nipple seat. If I used your method I would bottom out the nipples before I reached adequate tension.
 

·
transmitter~receiver
Joined
·
9,333 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
shiggy said:
Those instructions are pretty sketchy with no reference to using the "1 meter beam" to measure the spokes or how to measure the spokes other than accounting for overlap or gap between the two.
I think it's pretty clear, as is Rinard's diagram, which they link.
shiggy said:
Since DT defines ERD as nipple seat to nipple seat it makes no sense to measure to the end of the nipples.
Specifically for use with the table, which you don't do. For use with the calculator the measuring instructions apply, and while the translation isn't great, I don't think it's unclear.
What doesn't make sense to me is measuring to an arbitrary point that has nothing to do with the geometry in the calculation.
shiggy said:
The above is how I measure ERD and I use the working length of the "gauge" spokes as from the cut end to the base of the nipple head--the nipple seat. If I used your method I would bottom out the nipples before I reached adequate tension.
If it works for you, great, but something is amiss if you're using a dimension likely at least 4mm shorter than what I use and still end up with spoke ends between the bottom of the slots and the ends of the nipples. I'm assuming that your spokes always end up there, is that right? I'd say the calculator accounts for the discrepancy, but my calculator (an excel spreadsheet into which I entered every formula) duplicates DT's precise length to the 1/100th of a millimeter, so I know we're doing the same math.
I ain't telling you to change what you're doing, or even that it's wrong, but something doesn't make sense to me.
It doesn't always have to, though. Thanks for the info re: ISO spec. :thumbsup:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
meltingfeather said:
I think it's pretty clear, as is Rinard's diagram, which they link.

Specifically for use with the table, which you don't do. For use with the calculator the measuring instructions apply, and while the translation isn't great, I don't think it's unclear.
What doesn't make sense to me is measuring to an arbitrary point that has nothing to do with the geometry in the calculation.

If it works for you, great, but something is amiss if you're using a dimension likely at least 4mm shorter than what I use and still end up with spoke ends between the bottom of the slots and the ends of the nipples. I'm assuming that your spokes always end up there, is that right? I'd say the calculator accounts for the discrepancy, but my calculator (an excel spreadsheet into which I entered every formula) duplicates DT's precise length to the 1/100th of a millimeter, so I know we're doing the same math.
I ain't telling you to change what you're doing, or even that it's wrong, but something doesn't make sense to me.
It doesn't always have to, though. Thanks for the info re: ISO spec. :thumbsup:
I still do not think it is totally clear. And the link is dead. I had to do a search to find the info archived on SB's site.

Yes, my spokes end up above the nipple slot. This is why I refuse to tell people what their spoke lengths should be. I have found the spoke calculator and measuring methods that work for my builds.

I have even received rims and spokes from very good builders and had the spokes be 2-3mm too long. Bottomed out the threads before I reached my desired tensions. Would not stay true and I could not retrue the wheels. Did my own calc and rebuilt with shorter spokes. Perfect since then.
 

·
transmitter~receiver
Joined
·
9,333 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
shiggy said:
I still do not think it is totally clear. And the link is dead. I had to do a search to find the info archived on SB's site.
Fair enough. I linked it. In any case, it's the same exact page that used to be hosted on Rinard's site.
shiggy said:
Yes, my spokes end up above the nipple slot. This is why I refuse to tell people what their spoke lengths should be. I have found the spoke calculator and measuring methods that work for my builds.
Then who knows what's going on? :crazy: Your policy is probably a good one, but I've had good results sharing information and don't just sling it around. I may be a little more careful moving forward.
shiggy said:
I have even received rims and spokes from very good builders and had the spokes be 2-3mm too long. Bottomed out the threads before I reached my desired tensions. Would not stay true and I could not retrue the wheels. Did my own calc and rebuilt with shorter spokes. Perfect since then.
I bet that sucked. I've had somewhat the opposite experience, though only once (that was enough). A customer bought hubs, spokes, nipples, and rims (Mavic) on his own from a large, online retailer with a good reputation, storefront, and who according to the manager, "builds over 300 wheelsets a year." He had them figure the length and supply the spokes for the build. 2-3 threads showing all around. :madman:
I now supply the spokes based on my own measurements and my own spoke calculator.
:thumbsup:
I do have one question for you: how do your measurements compare to Mavic SSD specs? Since you measure rims, I assume you don't use Mavic's specs and the DT-recommended correction.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
meltingfeather said:
Fair enough. I linked it. In any case, it's the same exact page that used to be hosted on Rinard's site.

Then who knows what's going on? :crazy: Your policy is probably a good one, but I've had good results sharing information and don't just sling it around. I may be a little more careful moving forward.

I bet that sucked. I've had somewhat the opposite experience, though only once (that was enough). A customer bought hubs, spokes, nipples, and rims (Mavic) on his own from a large, online retailer with a good reputation, storefront, and who according to the manager, "builds over 300 wheelsets a year." He had them figure the length and supply the spokes for the build. 2-3 threads showing all around. :madman:
I now supply the spokes based on my own measurements and my own spoke calculator.
:thumbsup:
I do have one question for you: how do your measurements compare to Mavic SSD specs? Since you measure rims, I assume you don't use Mavic's specs and the DT-recommended correction.
Bottom line is, whoever is building the wheel should be the one that specifies (and takes responsibility for) the spoke lengths.

I have not built a Mavic rim in at least 8 years and I measured the ERD then. No idea what it was or what Mavic said it should be. It was just another rim.
 

·
Missouri sucks...
Joined
·
2,305 Posts
Ok wheel gurus, do Arch and Crest rims use the same spoke lengths? I'm wanting to swap an Arch into a Crest's spot but don't want to buy all new spokes. Thanks in advance;)
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top