Hello all,
Yesterday, I built a wheel for my first time, and unfortunately, it
appears I have to order shorter spokes and do it again. :-(
The hub is Shimano DH-C3000-3N-NT (OLN 100 mm, PCD 74 mm, flange
distance 60 mm, offset 1 mm), and the rim is a 19-622 DT Swiss 535 (ERD
603 mm). I am lacing 36 spokes in |u3.
All calculators gave me a spoke length of 285.1 mm (or 285 and 285.2
mm taking into account the small hub asymmetry). I therefore used spokes
of 286 mm.
Somehow, that was wrong. After lacing, when I started tightening the
spokes, they were protruding from the nipples by .8 mm. This is too
much, not only because spokes protruding from the nipples is already abnormal, but because I already checked that nipples will block at 1 mm
and I am already almost there.
I will now order spokes of 284 mm and rebuild the wheel, but I wonder
what would have been wrong in my calculations. Could Shimano or DT Swiss
be lying about their products' dimensions?
I am a bit worried because after the front wheel, I will have a to build
a rear wheel, and having to try and reorder spokes is not a good
definition of fun. ;-)
Yesterday, I built a wheel for my first time, and unfortunately, it
appears I have to order shorter spokes and do it again. :-(
The hub is Shimano DH-C3000-3N-NT (OLN 100 mm, PCD 74 mm, flange
distance 60 mm, offset 1 mm), and the rim is a 19-622 DT Swiss 535 (ERD
603 mm). I am lacing 36 spokes in |u3.
All calculators gave me a spoke length of 285.1 mm (or 285 and 285.2
mm taking into account the small hub asymmetry). I therefore used spokes
of 286 mm.
Somehow, that was wrong. After lacing, when I started tightening the
spokes, they were protruding from the nipples by .8 mm. This is too
much, not only because spokes protruding from the nipples is already abnormal, but because I already checked that nipples will block at 1 mm
and I am already almost there.
I will now order spokes of 284 mm and rebuild the wheel, but I wonder
what would have been wrong in my calculations. Could Shimano or DT Swiss
be lying about their products' dimensions?
I am a bit worried because after the front wheel, I will have a to build
a rear wheel, and having to try and reorder spokes is not a good
definition of fun. ;-)
Tanguy Ortolo <tanguy@ortolo.eu> wrote:
Yesterday, I built a wheel for my first time, and unfortunately, it
appears I have to order shorter spokes and do it again. :-(
The hub is Shimano DH-C3000-3N-NT (OLN 100 mm, PCD 74 mm, flange
distance 60 mm, offset 1 mm), and the rim is a 19-622 DT Swiss 535 (ERD
603 mm). I am lacing 36 spokes in |u3.
All calculators gave me a spoke length of 285.1 mm (or 285 and 285.2
mm taking into account the small hub asymmetry). I therefore used spokes
of 286 mm.
Somehow, that was wrong. After lacing, when I started tightening the
spokes, they were protruding from the nipples by .8 mm. This is too
much, not only because spokes protruding from the nipples is already
abnormal, but because I already checked that nipples will block at 1 mm
and I am already almost there.
I will now order spokes of 284 mm and rebuild the wheel, but I wonder
what would have been wrong in my calculations. Could Shimano or DT Swiss
be lying about their products' dimensions?
I am a bit worried because after the front wheel, I will have a to build
a rear wheel, and having to try and reorder spokes is not a good
definition of fun. ;-)
It sounds like you want to stick with cross-3, but I wonder if going
from cross 3 to cross 4 might take up the slack for you. Granted you'll
still have to re-lace, but at least you might use the spokes you have.
hth,
bob prohaska
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD values and
this may well be a case of that. Or not. Measure the rim first.
AMuzi, 2026-02-09 22:52+0100:
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
Yes, not a solution to my issue. :-)
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD values and
this may well be a case of that. Or not. Measure the rim first.
Will do. ERD depends on spoke nipples too after all. BTW, I am using
Sapim Polyax nipples, maybe their round head goes a bit deeper in the
rim eyelets than what DT Swiss expects.
While I am at it, what do you think of the suggestion in <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q29syv9ws> to purposedly let spokes protrude by one or two millimeters, by forcefully driving them into the nipples and therefore flattening the first nipple threads which are
softer than spoke threads? That sound like abusing nipplesrCa
On 2/10/2026 4:47 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
AMuzi, 2026-02-09 22:52+0100:
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
Yes, not a solution to my issue. :-)
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD values and
this may well be a case of that. Or not. Measure the rim first.
Will do. ERD depends on spoke nipples too after all. BTW, I am using
Sapim Polyax nipples, maybe their round head goes a bit deeper in the
rim eyelets than what DT Swiss expects.
While I am at it, what do you think of the suggestion in
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q29syv9ws> to purposedly let spokes
protrude by one or two millimeters, by forcefully driving them into the
nipples and therefore flattening the first nipple threads which are
softer than spoke threads? That sound like abusing nipplesrCa
I wouldn't and I agree it sounds more abuse than improvement.
p.s. nipple thread depth is roughly the same for all brass
nipples and completely adequate without any extreme adventures:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/NIPPLES.JPG
Some hold that spokes ought to fully engage through to the
last (outside) nipple thread because, in extremis, a nipple
could fail by popping the head off the threaded portion
under high spoke tension. That's seen rarely and in steel
rims which have scored the nipple under the head at high
tension. I don't consider it a probable risk.
On 2026-02-10, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:47 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
AMuzi, 2026-02-09 22:52+0100:
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
Yes, not a solution to my issue. :-)
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD values and
this may well be a case of that. Or not. Measure the rim first.
Will do. ERD depends on spoke nipples too after all. BTW, I am using
Sapim Polyax nipples, maybe their round head goes a bit deeper in the
rim eyelets than what DT Swiss expects.
While I am at it, what do you think of the suggestion in
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q29syv9ws> to purposedly let spokes
protrude by one or two millimeters, by forcefully driving them into the
nipples and therefore flattening the first nipple threads which are
softer than spoke threads? That sound like abusing nipplesrCa
I wouldn't and I agree it sounds more abuse than improvement.
p.s. nipple thread depth is roughly the same for all brass
nipples and completely adequate without any extreme adventures:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/NIPPLES.JPG
Some hold that spokes ought to fully engage through to the
last (outside) nipple thread because, in extremis, a nipple
could fail by popping the head off the threaded portion
under high spoke tension. That's seen rarely and in steel
rims which have scored the nipple under the head at high
tension. I don't consider it a probable risk.
If it's just a millimeter couldn't one simply file it down or even
cautiously apply an angle grinder to it?
Bring on the lashings if it's an idiotic suggestion...
pH in Aptos
On 2/10/2026 11:26 AM, pH wrote:
On 2026-02-10, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:47 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
AMuzi, 2026-02-09 22:52+0100:
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
Yes, not a solution to my issue. :-)
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and
easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD
values and
this may well be a case of that.-a Or not. Measure the
rim first.
Will do. ERD depends on spoke nipples too after all.
BTW, I am using
Sapim Polyax nipples, maybe their round head goes a bit
deeper in the
rim eyelets than what DT Swiss expects.
While I am at it, what do you think of the suggestion in
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q29syv9ws> to
purposedly let spokes
protrude by one or two millimeters, by forcefully
driving them into the
nipples and therefore flattening the first nipple
threads which are
softer than spoke threads? That sound like abusing nipplesrCa
I wouldn't and I agree it sounds more abuse than
improvement.
p.s. nipple thread depth is roughly the same for all brass
nipples and completely adequate without any extreme
adventures:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/NIPPLES.JPG
Some hold that spokes ought to fully engage through to the
last (outside) nipple thread because, in extremis, a nipple
could fail by popping the head off the threaded portion
under high spoke tension. That's seen rarely and in steel
rims which have scored the nipple under the head-a at high
tension. I don't consider it a probable risk.
If it's just a millimeter couldn't one simply file it down
or even
cautiously apply an angle grinder to it?
Bring on the lashings if it's an idiotic suggestion...
pH in Aptos
That's generally considered a trigonometry error!
On modern hollow section rims, a millimeter or two won't
matter. For single-section rims it of course does and the
problem is common enough that there's a well designed tool,
the VAR #17, to get you out of trouble:
https://forum.tontonvelo.com/download/file.php? id=9448&t=1&sid=9dd65eab15fc784ab834aa4e0aaeac9e
On 2/9/2026 3:32 PM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD values and
this may well be a case of that. Or not. Measure the rim first.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/9/2026 3:32 PM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:It dawned on me that cross-4 might be a bit too much, I didn't expect
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
_that_ much too much.
An aside, what's the disadvantage of cross-4 vs cross-3? Added spoke
length and weight come to mind but seems minor. are there other problems?
Thanks for writing,
bob prohaska
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD values and
this may well be a case of that. Or not. Measure the rim first.
On 2026-02-10, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:47 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
AMuzi, 2026-02-09 22:52+0100:
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
Yes, not a solution to my issue. :-)
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD values and
this may well be a case of that. Or not. Measure the rim first.
Will do. ERD depends on spoke nipples too after all. BTW, I am using
Sapim Polyax nipples, maybe their round head goes a bit deeper in the
rim eyelets than what DT Swiss expects.
While I am at it, what do you think of the suggestion in
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q29syv9ws> to purposedly let spokes
protrude by one or two millimeters, by forcefully driving them into the
nipples and therefore flattening the first nipple threads which are
softer than spoke threads? That sound like abusing nipplesrCa
I wouldn't and I agree it sounds more abuse than improvement.
p.s. nipple thread depth is roughly the same for all brass
nipples and completely adequate without any extreme adventures:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/NIPPLES.JPG
Some hold that spokes ought to fully engage through to the
last (outside) nipple thread because, in extremis, a nipple
could fail by popping the head off the threaded portion
under high spoke tension. That's seen rarely and in steel
rims which have scored the nipple under the head at high
tension. I don't consider it a probable risk.
If it's just a millimeter couldn't one simply file it down or even
cautiously apply an angle grinder to it?
Bring on the lashings if it's an idiotic suggestion...
pH in Aptos
AMuzi, 2026-02-09 22:52+0100:
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
Yes, not a solution to my issue. :-)
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD values and
this may well be a case of that. Or not. Measure the rim first.
Will do. ERD depends on spoke nipples too after all. BTW, I am using
Sapim Polyax nipples, maybe their round head goes a bit deeper in the
rim eyelets than what DT Swiss expects.
While I am at it, what do you think of the suggestion in <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q29syv9ws> to purposedly let spokes protrude by one or two millimeters, by forcefully driving them into the nipples and therefore flattening the first nipple threads which are
softer than spoke threads? That sound like abusing nipplesrCa
Most probably the DT "adjusted ERD" of 603mm is not the
actual ERD. I would measure the rim first.
AMuzi, 2026-02-09 14:53+0100:
Most probably the DT "adjusted ERD" of 603mm is not the
actual ERD. I would measure the rim first.
I just took the measurements.
With my Sapim Polyax nipples and spokes right to the bottom of the screwdriver slot, the 19-622 DT Swiss 535 rim has an ERD of 601.6 mm.
The Shimano DH-C3000-3N(-NT) hub has a PCD of 74 mm as announced
(-# .2 mm). Its holes have a diameter of 2.6 mm, slightly larger than
what the 2.4 mm I expected.
According to my initial calculations, I should have used 285 mm spokes,
which are unavailable, and I was therefore using spokes already 1 mm too long. The rim ERD is 1.4 mm shorter than expected, which would affect
spoke lenght by about .7 mm. And the rim hole larger than expected also affects spoke lenght by .1 mm.
Summing up all that, my spokes should be 1.8 mm too long, which is
pretty close to the reality. Everything seems in order now, I still need shorter spokes but at least I know why. And I have to redo calculations
for my future rear wheel, to see if I have to order more appropriate
spokes for it.
On 2/10/2026 11:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2026 11:26 AM, pH wrote:
On 2026-02-10, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:47 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
AMuzi, 2026-02-09 22:52+0100:
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
Yes, not a solution to my issue. :-)
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and
easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD
values and
this may well be a case of that.-a Or not. Measure the
rim first.
Will do. ERD depends on spoke nipples too after all.
BTW, I am using
Sapim Polyax nipples, maybe their round head goes a bit
deeper in the
rim eyelets than what DT Swiss expects.
While I am at it, what do you think of the suggestion in
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q29syv9ws> to
purposedly let spokes
protrude by one or two millimeters, by forcefully
driving them into the
nipples and therefore flattening the first nipple
threads which are
softer than spoke threads? That sound like abusing nipplesrCa
I wouldn't and I agree it sounds more abuse than
improvement.
p.s. nipple thread depth is roughly the same for all brass
nipples and completely adequate without any extreme
adventures:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/NIPPLES.JPG
Some hold that spokes ought to fully engage through to the
last (outside) nipple thread because, in extremis, a nipple
could fail by popping the head off the threaded portion
under high spoke tension. That's seen rarely and in steel
rims which have scored the nipple under the head-a at high
tension. I don't consider it a probable risk.
If it's just a millimeter couldn't one simply file it down
or even
cautiously apply an angle grinder to it?
Bring on the lashings if it's an idiotic suggestion...
pH in Aptos
That's generally considered a trigonometry error!
On modern hollow section rims, a millimeter or two won't
matter. For single-section rims it of course does and the
problem is common enough that there's a well designed tool,
the VAR #17, to get you out of trouble:
https://forum.tontonvelo.com/download/file.php?
id=9448&t=1&sid=9dd65eab15fc784ab834aa4e0aaeac9e
A better image here:
https://tobeconline.fr/assets/outillage_var_1970_009.jpg
On 2026-02-10, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/10/2026 11:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2026 11:26 AM, pH wrote:
On 2026-02-10, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/10/2026 4:47 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
AMuzi, 2026-02-09 22:52+0100:
Four cross is 297 = new spokes anyway and you get other
disadvantages.
Yes, not a solution to my issue. :-)
IMHO this is most probably a measurement problem and
easily
cleared up once the actual ERD is known.
DT Swiss is (in)famous for hypercorrection on ERD
values and
this may well be a case of that.-a Or not. Measure the
rim first.
Will do. ERD depends on spoke nipples too after all.
BTW, I am using
Sapim Polyax nipples, maybe their round head goes a bit
deeper in the
rim eyelets than what DT Swiss expects.
While I am at it, what do you think of the suggestion in
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q29syv9ws> to
purposedly let spokes
protrude by one or two millimeters, by forcefully
driving them into the
nipples and therefore flattening the first nipple
threads which are
softer than spoke threads? That sound like abusing nipplesrCa
I wouldn't and I agree it sounds more abuse than
improvement.
p.s. nipple thread depth is roughly the same for all brass
nipples and completely adequate without any extreme
adventures:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/NIPPLES.JPG
Some hold that spokes ought to fully engage through to the
last (outside) nipple thread because, in extremis, a nipple
could fail by popping the head off the threaded portion
under high spoke tension. That's seen rarely and in steel
rims which have scored the nipple under the head-a at high
tension. I don't consider it a probable risk.
If it's just a millimeter couldn't one simply file it down
or even
cautiously apply an angle grinder to it?
Bring on the lashings if it's an idiotic suggestion...
pH in Aptos
That's generally considered a trigonometry error!
On modern hollow section rims, a millimeter or two won't
matter. For single-section rims it of course does and the
problem is common enough that there's a well designed tool,
the VAR #17, to get you out of trouble:
https://forum.tontonvelo.com/download/file.php?
id=9448&t=1&sid=9dd65eab15fc784ab834aa4e0aaeac9e
A better image here:
https://tobeconline.fr/assets/outillage_var_1970_009.jpg
Ah, a cool tool for what must be a common problem.
When I had super long spokes, a pile of them from a 27" wheel slated for my 26" mountain bike wheel, my bike shop friend just used his park spoke maker tool to cut them to length for me.
I could not find his Park spoke lengthening tool anywhere.....
pH in Aptos
It dawned on me that cross-4 might be a bit too much, I didn't expect
_that_ much too much.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 22:54:24 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
12 files (21,036K bytes) |
| Messages: | 195,759 |
