high flange and 3X?

On Sep 18, 1:19 am, dabac <dabac.2x3...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Hi guys,

It appears that a fairly accepted opinion is that 4X can give you
trouble with spoke overlap, so how about 3X on a high-flange hub?
Won't a wider flange influence spoke angles the same way as going to a
higher number of crosses?
Or is this effect countered by the bigger distances between spoke
holes?
Or am I missing something in the visualisation of the geometry?

--
dabac

the threads in question were with regard to 4x on 36h wheels
specifically.
it's not a question of opinion; 4x on 36h wheels gives overlap with
many common flange diameters and wheel sizes. it just does.
download the shareware program wheelcalc to see how it all plays out.

On Sep 18, 1:19 am, dabac <dabac.2x3...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Hi guys,

It appears that a fairly accepted opinion is that 4X can give you
trouble with spoke overlap, so how about 3X on a high-flange hub?
Won't a wider flange influence spoke angles the same way as going to a
higher number of crosses?
Or is this effect countered by the bigger distances between spoke
holes?
Or am I missing something in the visualisation of the geometry?

Wider flange doesn't change spoke angle nearly
as much as increasing the number of crosses.
Roughly, because the difference between low and
high flange hub radius is ~20 mm, while going to
4x moves the spoke end by 2 rim holes (about 105mm
on a 700c 36 hole rim).

Try playing with dimensions in a spoke calculator like
http://www.appliedthought.com/danny/Spoke/SpokeCalculator.html
For a typical 700c rim size, changing from low to
high flange 36 hole 3x changes spoke angle only from 64
to 68 degrees, while low flange 36 hole 4x is 84 deg.

Another angle on this problem is that about eight
bajillion bike boom bikes were built with 36 hole 3x
wheels on Normandy high flange hubs or the like,
and they didn't have any spoke crossing problems.
Some of these wheels are still in operation today
(I have a couple of them).

Ben

Nate Knutson said:

..it's not a question of opinion; 4x on 36h wheels gives overlap with many common flange diameters and wheel sizes. it just does.

I'm not questioning that, I just suspected that if I stated it as a fact I'd get a lot of replies about which combos that actually did work anyhow, which isn't of current interest to me.

Nate Knutson said:

..download the shareware program wheelcalc to see how it all plays out.

Firewall settings doesn't allow that, but I can see that the spoke pattern exlorer would have answered my question whether 3X would carry a risk of overlap on high flange hubs or not.

dabac said:

It appears that a fairly accepted opinion is that 4X can give you
trouble with spoke overlap, so how about 3X on a high-flange hub?

Cross-four lacing is inappropriate in all cases with less than 36
spokes. On a 32 spoke wheel, cross-four is beyond tangential,
actually cutting a chord across the hub flange.

36 spokes laced cross-four on a low flange overlap each other's
heads. On a high flange, 36 spokes laced cross-four are OK-- there's
no head overlap.

But cross-three works fine for all 32 and 36 spoked wheels, high
flanges or low. It's a safe bet.

Chalo

dabac said:

Hi guys,

It appears that a fairly accepted opinion is that 4X can give you
trouble with spoke overlap, so how about 3X on a high-flange hub?
Won't a wider flange influence spoke angles the same way as going to a
higher number of crosses?
Or is this effect countered by the bigger distances between spoke
holes?
Or am I missing something in the visualisation of the geometry?

I've had two hub rim combinations where 3X doesn't work in the past
month, one a high flange track hub on a DT R1.1 rims and the other a
Sturmey AW on a generic 550A rim.

Cheers

Joel

--
Human Powered Cycles | High quality servicing and repairs
[email hidden] | Affordable second hand bikes
(03) 9029 6504 | Bicycle reuse centre
www.humanpowered.com.au | Mechanical and on-road training and instruction

[email hidden said:

"]
Wider flange doesn't change spoke angle nearly
as much as increasing the number of crosses.
Roughly, because the difference between low and
high flange hub radius is ~20 mm, while going to
4x moves the spoke end by 2 rim holes (about 105mm
on a 700c 36 hole rim).

..For a typical 700c rim size, changing from low to
high flange 36 hole 3x changes spoke angle only from 64
to 68 degrees, while low flange 36 hole 4x is 84 deg.

Thanks, I was sure of the direction of change, but I had no grasp of the order of magnitude.

[email hidden said:

"]
Another angle on this problem is that about eight
bajillion bike boom bikes were built with 36 hole 3x
wheels on Normandy high flange hubs or the like,
and they didn't have any spoke crossing problems.

Which although undobtedly true is of little help to someone who who wouldn't recognize a Normandy hub in a wheel even if I fell over it...

On Sep 18, 2:19 am, dabac <dabac.2x3...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Hi guys,

It appears that a fairly accepted opinion is that 4X can give you
trouble with spoke overlap, so how about 3X on a high-flange hub?
Won't a wider flange influence spoke angles the same way as going to a
higher number of crosses?
Or is this effect countered by the bigger distances between spoke
holes?
Or am I missing something in the visualisation of the geometry?

--
dabac

Not really. Spokes don't overlap adjacent heads, closer than LF for
sure...just built a set of HF Campag onto Campag tubie rims..3 cross.

Chalo said:

dabac wrote:

But cross-three works fine for all 32 and 36 spoked wheels, high
flanges or low. It's a safe bet.

that's really not a safe generalization at all. don't you own a
rohloff?

dabac said:

Hi guys,

It appears that a fairly accepted opinion is that 4X can give you
trouble with spoke overlap, so how about 3X on a high-flange hub?
Won't a wider flange influence spoke angles the same way as going to a
higher number of crosses?
Or is this effect countered by the bigger distances between spoke
holes?
Or am I missing something in the visualisation of the geometry?

3x 32-hole high flange works just fine.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:31:08 -0700, "Qui si parla

Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

On Sep 18, 2:19 am, dabac <dabac.2x3...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Hi guys,

It appears that a fairly accepted opinion is that 4X can give you
trouble with spoke overlap, so how about 3X on a high-flange hub?
Won't a wider flange influence spoke angles the same way as going to a
higher number of crosses?
Or is this effect countered by the bigger distances between spoke
holes?
Or am I missing something in the visualisation of the geometry?

--
dabac

Not really. Spokes don't overlap adjacent heads, closer than LF for
sure...just built a set of HF Campag onto Campag tubie rims..3 cross.

To back up what Peter says (not that he needs it), I have two sets of
36 spoke HF wheels (a Normandy set, and a Nuovo Tipo set) I built
3-cross.

BTW, a couple of weeks ago while on our annual trip to the Colorado
Rockies I was wasting time in Jerry Siegel's shop in Idaho Springs
waiting for the barber shop next door to open. We were discussing
replacement rims for my touring bike, which is currently 36 spoke,
3-cross. Jerry recommended building 4-cross next time. While I
probably won't follow his advice, at least one professional
wheel-builder thinks 36 spoke, 4-cross is doable.

--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

John Everett said:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:31:08 -0700, "Qui si parla

Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

On Sep 18, 2:19 am, dabac <dabac.2x3...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Hi guys,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It appears that a fairly accepted opinion is that 4X can give you
trouble with spoke overlap, so how about 3X on a high-flange hub?
Won't a wider flange influence spoke angles the same way as going to a
higher number of crosses?
Or is this effect countered by the bigger distances between spoke
holes?
Or am I missing something in the visualisation of the geometry?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--
dabac

Quoted message said:

Not really. Spokes don't overlap adjacent heads, closer than LF for
sure...just built a set of HF Campag onto Campag tubie rims..3 cross.

To back up what Peter says (not that he needs it), I have two sets of
36 spoke HF wheels (a Normandy set, and a Nuovo Tipo set) I built
3-cross.

BTW, a couple of weeks ago while on our annual trip to the Colorado
Rockies I was wasting time in Jerry Siegel's shop in Idaho Springs
waiting for the barber shop next door to open. We were discussing
replacement rims for my touring bike, which is currently 36 spoke,
3-cross. Jerry recommended building 4-cross next time. While I
probably won't follow his advice, at least one professional
wheel-builder thinks 36 spoke, 4-cross is doable.

--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

Of course it's do-able but like 32 2 cross, it doesn't do anything to
make the wheel stronger plus there is that spoke over the adjacent
head thing. I don't go to 4 cross until 40h.

John Everett said:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:31:08 -0700, "Qui si parla

Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

On Sep 18, 2:19 am, dabac <dabac.2x3...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Hi guys,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It appears that a fairly accepted opinion is that 4X can give you
trouble with spoke overlap, so how about 3X on a high-flange hub?
Won't a wider flange influence spoke angles the same way as going to a
higher number of crosses?
Or is this effect countered by the bigger distances between spoke
holes?
Or am I missing something in the visualisation of the geometry?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--
dabac

Quoted message said:

Not really. Spokes don't overlap adjacent heads, closer than LF for
sure...just built a set of HF Campag onto Campag tubie rims..3 cross.

To back up what Peter says (not that he needs it), I have two sets of
36 spoke HF wheels (a Normandy set, and a Nuovo Tipo set) I built
3-cross.

BTW, a couple of weeks ago while on our annual trip to the Colorado
Rockies I was wasting time in Jerry Siegel's shop in Idaho Springs
waiting for the barber shop next door to open. We were discussing
replacement rims for my touring bike, which is currently 36 spoke,
3-cross. Jerry recommended building 4-cross next time. While I
probably won't follow his advice, at least one professional
wheel-builder thinks 36 spoke, 4-cross is doable.

Gawd, this was done all the time 20+ years ago (at least on low or
standard (Phil) flange hubs). I still have a bunch of 308/310mm (?)
spokes sitting around after building a pair of 4X/36 hole on Weinmann
Concave rims aka boat anchors. They also lacked hooked sides and were
soon retired. I built several sets of Mod 58 4X/36 hole on Phil hubs
in the late 70s. The big claim was that 4X was more plush and
comfortable than 3x, which was harsh and for racing bikes. As if
anyone but the pea-princess could tell. I was ostracized for actually
building touring wheels 3X. I regained some cred by tying and
soldering -- now viewed as voo-doo by the Book. Whether it worked or
not, I used silver bearing solder, which made for old school wheel
bling-bling. Beats paying a mint for weird carbon spokes. -- Jay
Beattie.