Wheel lacing order question.

PS Is this a good idea for a rea wheel (non racing)? Eric

"Eric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

PS Is this a good idea for a rea wheel (non racing)? Eric

I would not under any circumstances radial-lace (even partially) a 36-spoke wheel, unless you have a
large-flange hub with *very* beefy flanges (Phil Wood-ish). There's not enough material between
spoke holes to prevent fatigue failure on the flange- which can cause explosive failure of the
wheel. I had a wheel do exactly that- fortunately while I was truing it. I was still peppered with
aluminum shrapnel.

Jeff

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:24:30 GMT, "Eric" <[email hidden]>

may have said:

I want to lace up a 36 hole crow's foot 3X wheel. My question is, What order should I lace the
spokes? I thought to do: 1 radial spokes 2 heads out spokes 3 heads in spokes Thanks, Eric

Good basic advice is to be found here:

sheldonbrown.comwheelbuild.htmlOpen ↗

I second the opinion of the other poster that radial lacing is a Bad Thing.

For authoritative explanations of the various matters relating to wheel building, get hold of a copy
of Jobst Brandt's book "The Bicycle Wheel". I may not agree 100% with everything Jobst Brandt says,
but I disagree with nothing that's in that book.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

It's fine for a front or rear wheel. Just don't ride the thing.

Why would you want to use a cosmetic style for spoking when the standard style is safer and
stronger? Of course you could overbuild it so it would be fine to ride, but why??

"Eric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

PS Is this a good idea for a rea wheel (non racing)? Eric

Werehatrack said:

For authoritative explanations of the various matters relating to wheel building, get hold of a
copy of Jobst Brandt's book "The Bicycle Wheel".

Jobst's book doesn't talk much about radial lacing though, particularly not half-radial rears. IMHO,
I think that's one case where there is some merit to it, and I'd like to have read Jobst's comments
in greater detail.

--
Smert' spamionam

Please let us know why you think it has merit, compared to typical symmetric patterns for
rear wheels.

Bruce

"Andy Dingley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack said:

For authoritative explanations of the various matters relating to wheel building, get hold of a
copy of Jobst Brandt's book "The Bicycle Wheel".

Jobst's book doesn't talk much about radial lacing though, particularly not half-radial rears.
IMHO, I think that's one case where there is some merit to it, and I'd like to have read Jobst's
comments in greater detail.

--
Smert' spamionam

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:15:41 GMT, "Bruce Frech" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Please let us know why you think it has merit, compared to typical symmetric patterns for
rear wheels.

What other reason is there ? To allow a more even spoke tension side-to-side on an asymmetrically
dished wheel.

I'm sorry, but it's a long time since I built my last wheels and I don't have the numbers to
hand - but run your own calculations (remeber to do both heads in and heads out), it's an
interesting exercise.

Why would the cross number affect the spoke tension (i.e.: why would zero crosses have different
tension?)? One benefit to crossing spokes is that when one spoke reduces tension, the spoke it
crosses with pushes it sideways which means it has to go further to become completely slack.
Thus crossed spokes can handle wider ranges of spoke tension during actual use. And it's the
spoke tension changes during use that are more important then the static tensions when the wheel
is at rest.

Now if you are claiming that running all the left side spokes from the inside increases their
tension (and hence makes the two sides closer in tension), then why not just use hubs where the
left flange is closer to the center? Perhaps you should tell the hub manufacturers that they
should do that.

Bruce

"Andy Dingley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bruce Frech said:

Please let us know why you think it has merit, compared to typical

symmetric

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

patterns for rear wheels.

What other reason is there ? To allow a more even spoke tension side-to-side on an asymmetrically
dished wheel.

I'm sorry, but it's a long time since I built my last wheels and I don't have the numbers to hand
- but run your own calculations (remeber to do both heads in and heads out), it's an interesting
exercise.

Eric said:

I want to lace up a 36 hole crow's foot 3X wheel. My question is, What order should I lace the
spokes? I thought to do: 1 radial spokes 2 heads out spokes 3 heads in spokes

This is a bad plan; but if you must, do the radial ones first. With the radial spokes in under
minimal tension, the hub will be held in position fairly well, making the rest easier.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:56:12 GMT, "Bruce Frech"

may have said:

One benefit to crossing spokes is that when one spoke reduces tension, the spoke it crosses with
pushes it sideways which means it has to go further to become completely slack.

If the spokes have been properly stress-relieved, this effect is minimized.

Quoted message said:

Thus crossed spokes can handle wider ranges of spoke tension during actual use. And it's the
spoke tension changes during use that are more important then the static tensions when the wheel
is at rest.

Perhaps more important: Consider the vector of the stress across the section of hub flange for non-
radial lacing, then consider the section that is stressed with radial. The radial pattern puts the
stress vector directly across the weakest part of the flange. This is a Bad Thing.

Quoted message said:

Now if you are claiming that running all the left side spokes from the inside increases their
tension (and hence makes the two sides closer in tension), then why not just use hubs where the
left flange is closer to the center? Perhaps you should tell the hub manufacturers that they
should do that.

Rear hubs with narrow flange spacing exist. Very few experienced wheel builders use them except in
circumstances where nothing else will be operable for some reason.

Jobst Brandt has pretty throughly debunked a lot of the wheelbuilding myths, both in his book
and in posts to this newsgroup that expand upon it. You might google for his posts on the topics
you mention.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Bruce Frech said:

Why would the cross number affect the spoke tension (i.e.: why would zero crosses have different
tension?)?

Fair question. I didn't understand it until I did the math. But the answer is that the braking angle
changes. All else equal, 3x has a smaller bracing angle than 2x. Of course, changing the bracing
angle on one side of a rear wheel changes the spoke tension.

Quoted message said:

One benefit to crossing spokes is that when one spoke reduces tension, the spoke it crosses with
pushes it sideways which means it has to go further to become completely slack. Thus crossed
spokes can handle wider ranges of spoke tension during actual use. And it's the spoke tension
changes during use that are more important then the static tensions when the wheel is at rest.

Now if you are claiming that running all the left side spokes from the inside increases their
tension (and hence makes the two sides closer in tension), then why not just use hubs where the
left flange is closer to the center? Perhaps you should tell the hub manufacturers that they
should do that.

Check out the Ultegra 8s and 9s hubs. The 9s has the left flange closer to center.