Wheelbuild: What about 1 extra cross on the drive side?

BaCardi <[email hidden]> wrote:
: So for building a rear wheel, how about a 2X non-drive side and 3X drive side? Is this the thing
: now? Noticed some places doing this as opposed to the traditional 32 spoked 3X rear wheel.

when i bought my track bike (used) it came like that (& when i rebuilt it clincher i built it back
up the same). so apparently it was also the thing back in 1996.

visi.comcroll.jpgOpen ↗

you may be able to make it out. the front wheel is also built 2x. i have this nagging feeling it was
built as a concession .. towards .. being .. part practical and cool.

works great, tho. 8 years of me & going strong. trued .. never.
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

BaCardi said:

So for building a rear wheel, how about a 2X non-drive side and 3X drive side? Is this the thing
now? Noticed some places doing this as opposed to the traditional 32 spoked 3X rear wheel.

It's *a* thing. So is building with PG spokes on one side and DB spokes on the other, or building
radial on the drive side and crossed on the other (evens out the spoke tensions, but requires the
hub shell to transmit most of the torque) or vice-versa (more efficient torque transmission, but
makes the non-drive side spokes really slack).

As no-one seems to be able to definitely prove that any one of the above is best, I'll
build them 3x!

So BaCardi <[email hidden]> says:

Quoted message said:

So for building a rear wheel, how about a 2X non-drive side and 3X drive side? Is this the thing
now? Noticed some places doing this as opposed to the traditional 32 spoked 3X rear wheel.

why bother? straight 3X works fine for 95% of wheels. people always gotta figger a better mouse trap
and "fix" what ain't broke.

jeffb

"Causa latet: vis est notissima." - Ovid

David Reuteler said:

BaCardi <[email hidden]> wrote:
: So for building a rear wheel, how about a 2X non-drive side and 3X drive side? Is this the thing
: now? Noticed some places doing this as opposed to the traditional 32 spoked 3X rear wheel.

when i bought my track bike (used) it came like that (& when i rebuilt it clincher i built it back
up the same). so apparently it was also the thing back in 1996.

visi.comcroll.jpgOpen ↗

you may be able to make it out. the front wheel is also built 2x. i have this nagging feeling it
was built as a concession .. towards .. being .. part practical and cool.

works great, tho. 8 years of me & going strong. trued .. never.

As you say, sometimes these things happen because the builder is misguidedly grasping for some
"cool" factor. However, the real motive underlying many gratuitously different lacing patterns can
often be attributed to someone trying to use up a supply of spokes in a length for which he has no
other use.
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalogue of track
equipment: eighth year online. businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗

John Dacey said:

However, the real motive underlying many gratuitously different lacing patterns can often be
attributed to someone trying to use up a supply of spokes in a length for which he has no
other use.

ooh..you cynic ;-)

So the rear wheel theory is to have more equal spokes on the drive and non-drive side. Right? So, by using longer spokes to cross the drive side more times you are getting more equal spoke lengths since the drive side is a shorter spoke distance from the hobe to rim. Sooooo, spoke lengths are more equal. But what about spoke tensions? Do they become more equal as well when the drive side spokes get longer???

BaCardi said:

So for building a rear wheel, how about a 2X non-drive side and 3X drive side? Is this the thing
now? Noticed some places doing this as opposed to the traditional 32 spoked 3X rear wheel.

--

Sure, why not? There won't be any weight or aerodynamic advantages worth talking about, but it's a
lot of fun to do this kind of thing.

The Sean Kelly bike (PDM) sitting in the LBS' shop window in town has radial front, radial non-
drive, 1x drive side. Kids, don't try this at home. He left it in Sweden after a competition.
Considering the extreme spoking, though, I can understand why.

I think that voiding the warranties on the hubs would have been the least of his worries.

Anyhow*

On Thursday I finished building a couple of wheels, both 32h Campag rec / OP / DTaerospeed. I built
2x on the front, then 3x drive / 1x non-drive.

On the back, the 1x spokes turn out to be quite low tension (though not at all slack), so there's no
risk for flange failure here. The 3x spokes are nice and tight. In total the wheel is strong
laterally (well, OK, considering that it's a [severely dished] back wheel , 130mm axle as usual ;-)

Took them for a ride and these puppies seem fine. I'll thrash then in a couple of weeks as soon as
the roads are less frosty, and report back to you all how many teeth I have left.

/Robert

BaCardi said:

So the rear wheel theory is to have more equal spokes on the drive and non-drive side. Right? So,
by using longer spokes to cross the drive side more times you are getting more equal spoke lengths
since the drive side is a shorter spoke distance from the hobe to rim. Sooooo, spoke lengths are
more equal. But what about spoke tensions? Do they become more equal as well when the drive side
spokes get longer???

--

On a 130mm rear, the difference in spoke length is approx. 2-3 mm (e.g. Mavic OP and Campag gives
approx. 293mm cassette side, 295mm non-drive side, depending on taste) when doing 3x both sides. To
lace the NDS (same hub and rim as before) with 2x requires approx. 288mm spoke, 1x requires 284mm,
and 0x requires 282mm. IOW much bigger differences in spoke length than that would be needed to
compensate for wheel dishing. I used 294mm DS and 284mm NDS on the wheels I built Thursday.

I think you will find that NDS spokes will always be slacker than the DS ones, regardless of
lacing pattern.

So this is not the reason why I've chosen to go 1x on the NDS. Here are my reasons, in priority
order (first = most important)

1. Fun to try, never built it before.

2. Looks slightly weird, so it will give a few topics of conversation (e.g. do I void my warranty if
my rear hub flange breaks due to the radial forces? The wheel is not radially spoked; he spokes
in fact cross, albeit only once).

3. When accelerating, there may be a slight amount of wind-up. With 1x or 0x spokes NDS, the
slackening on the non-pulling spokes may be less, since the exit from the hub is not tangential.
But then there will be those who will argue that using a normal 3x lacing on *both* DS and NDS
minimises the wind-up to the extent that no non-pulling spokes will slacken. I see the validity
in both views and remind the reader that points 1) and 2) above were the deciders for me.
Technical superiority of solution was not an important criterion for me, as long as the wheel
holds together. I am a light rider and I do not accelerate so hard ;-)

BTW I have not read Jobst yet, so that of course limits me from bringing the discussion to a
higher level.

<donning my Nomex balaclava and fireproof suit, nonetheless>

/Robert

anonymous said:

So for building a rear wheel, how about a 2X non-drive side and 3X drive side? Is this the thing
now? Noticed some places doing this as opposed to the traditional 32 spoked 3X rear wheel.

When "the Bicycle Wheel" was first published it was roundly panned and vilified by many wheel
builders, Wheelsmith leading the pack with a negative review in Bicycling Magazine. The fear was
that the secrets were out and the mystique of wheel building had been taken away from the gurus
because the book explains what makes durable wheels and how to build them.

As you see, the fears were unfounded and today the hocus-pocus is as big as ever. It took a while
for the wheel people to regain confidence and rediscover that people love to differentiate
themselves by the equipment they use and the clothes they wear. Symbolism is a great quest.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

BaCardi said:

So the rear wheel theory is to have more equal spokes on the drive and non-drive side. Right? So,
by using longer spokes to cross the drive side more times you are getting more equal spoke lengths
since the drive side is a shorter spoke distance from the hobe to rim. Sooooo, spoke lengths are
more equal. But what about spoke tensions? Do they become more equal as well when the drive side
spokes get longer???

Excellent question, and the answer is...

Depends on the resulting bracing angle.

The closer the bracing angles between left and right spokes, the more nearly equal the tensions
(on average).

The bracing angle for 3 cross is smaller than for 2 cross.

So choosing 2x on the drive side and 3x on the non-drive will bring the average tensions closer.

The effect is small, but it's a reason *not* to choose 3x DS and 2x NDS.

"Mala mens, malus animus." - Terence
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:24:07 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Dacey said:

However, the real motive underlying many gratuitously different lacing patterns can often be
attributed to someone trying to use up a supply of spokes in a length for which he has no
other use.

ooh..you cynic ;-)

Guilty as charged. Implicit in this (I should have said so directly) is that the pattern choice is
too often steered simply by the desire to minimize the spoke inventory needed to complete a set of
wheels. The length for a radial front will often suffice for a left rear done radially. In the
extreme case of the S Kelly wheelset described elsewhere in this thread, it's possible that both
wheels were laced using only a single box of spokes. The "art" there was in maximizing profit by
minimizing materials cost in concert with convincing the owner that the result would be "cool".
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalogue of track
equipment: eighth year online. businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗

BaCardi said:

So the rear wheel theory is to have more equal spokes on the drive and

Quoted message said:

non-drive side. Right? So, by using longer spokes to cross the drive

side

Quoted message said:

more times you are getting more equal spoke lengths since the drive

side is a

Quoted message said:

shorter spoke distance from the hobe to rim. Sooooo, spoke

lengths are more

Quoted message said:

equal. But what about spoke tensions? Do they become

more equal as well when

Quoted message said:

the drive side spokes get longer???

To keep the rim in the same place, the total spoke tension must be the same. Tension is dependent on
the bracing angle, which is evident if you visualize the triangle of which the spoke is the
hypotenuse.

Tension is not changed by the number of crossings, that is, the spoke length has no effect on
the tension.

If you have fewer spokes on one side, then the tension must be higher for each spoke.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

David Reuteler said:

you may be able to make it out. the front wheel is also built 2x. i have this nagging feeling it
was built as a concession .. towards .. being .. part practical and cool.

Sometimes I build that way because I don't have the proper length spokes in 3x. Two x works nicely
on 28 hole hubs too.

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

Quoted message said:

As you see, the fears were unfounded and today the hocus-pocus is as big as ever. It took a while
for the wheel people to regain confidence and rediscover that people love to differentiate
themselves by the equipment they use and the clothes they wear. Symbolism is a great quest.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Hmmm... does that means the hippies should start spoking their wheels in a "Peace Sign" pattern? :-)

Jeff the Three-Crossed

dianne_1234 wrote: <snip>

Quoted message said:

Depends on the resulting bracing angle.

The closer the bracing angles between left and right spokes, the more nearly equal the tensions
(on average).

The bracing angle for 3 cross is smaller than for 2 cross.

So choosing 2x on the drive side and 3x on the non-drive will bring the average tensions closer.

The effect is small, but it's a reason *not* to choose 3x DS and 2x NDS.

don't think so. the cross pattern doesn't affect the angle relative to the center plane of the rim,
and that's what affects left/right tension differential. you're right that it affects angle relative
to the perpendicular, but that's really not relevant to anything other than torque transfer.

John Dacey said:

"Mala mens, malus animus." - Terence On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:24:07 +0000, Zog The Undeniable

Quoted message said:

John Dacey said:

However, the real motive underlying many gratuitously different lacing patterns can often be
attributed to someone trying to use up a supply of spokes in a length for which he has no
other use.

ooh..you cynic ;-)

Guilty as charged. Implicit in this (I should have said so directly) is that the pattern choice is
too often steered simply by the desire to minimize the spoke inventory needed to complete a set of
wheels. The length for a radial front will often suffice for a left rear done radially. In the
extreme case of the S Kelly wheelset described elsewhere in this thread, it's possible that both
wheels were laced using only a single box of spokes. The "art" there was in maximizing profit by
minimizing materials cost in concert with convincing the owner that the result would be "cool".

Not so. The person who gave this bike to the LBS owner was Sean Kelly's mechanic. Kelly was the user
of the bike ("owner" is too strong a word in this context, as we are talking about team-sponsored
equipment). There is no "S Kelly wheelset" as such.

Now just why such a powerful rider would even consider trying 1x/0x on a 28h back wheel defies all
logic in my world. I guess that's why the bike was given away. But I doubt that "coolness" was one
of the reasons for trying this pattern.

That said, I *do* agree with you John, that many shops will appreciate all opportunities to sell slow-
moving stock, including small quantities of odd-length spokes. I'm sure I did this LBS a favour by
asking to use up their 282's and 284's.

I'm equally sure that unsuspecting buyers in other places will have received wheelsets laced in
weird patterns, not because they're best for the intended purpose, but because a shop wanted to get
rid of spokes that could not be sold otherwise. Put that situation in combination with a 100 kg
rider and you get an unhappy customer on an unsafe bike.

/Robert

"Robert Brown" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de :
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now just why such a powerful rider would even consider trying 1x/0x on a

28h

Quoted message said:

back wheel defies all logic in my world. I guess that's why the bike was given away.

Robert, with all the flap in this newsgroup about having a dozen or so wheelsets per person, do you
really think a pro team discards a whole bike for a funny rear lacing pattern ? If so, maybe they
also get rid of them when the bar tape is dirty. Stand in line behind me...
--
Bonne route,

Sandy Paris FR

jim beam said:

dianne_1234 wrote: <snip>

Quoted message said:

Depends on the resulting bracing angle.

The closer the bracing angles between left and right spokes, the more nearly equal the tensions
(on average).

The bracing angle for 3 cross is smaller than for 2 cross.

So choosing 2x on the drive side and 3x on the non-drive will bring the average tensions closer.

The effect is small, but it's a reason *not* to choose 3x DS and 2x NDS.

don't think so. the cross pattern doesn't affect the angle relative to the center plane of the rim,
and that's what affects left/right tension differential. you're right that it affects angle
relative to the perpendicular, but that's really not relevant to anything other than torque
transfer.

I was surprised when I did the math. Maybe you can tell me where I've gone wrong?

1. Center to flange is constant. ERD is constant.
2. Spoke length changes: 2x are shorter, 3x longer.
3. Pythagorean theorem says the bracing angle is greater for 2x.

dianne_1234 said:

jim beam said:

dianne_1234 wrote: <snip>

Quoted message said:

Depends on the resulting bracing angle.

The closer the bracing angles between left and right spokes, the more nearly equal the tensions
(on average).

The bracing angle for 3 cross is smaller than for 2 cross.

So choosing 2x on the drive side and 3x on the non-drive will bring the average tensions closer.

The effect is small, but it's a reason *not* to choose 3x DS and 2x NDS.

don't think so. the cross pattern doesn't affect the angle relative to the center plane of the
rim, and that's what affects left/right tension differential. you're right that it affects angle
relative to the perpendicular, but that's really not relevant to anything other than torque
transfer.

I was surprised when I did the math. Maybe you can tell me where I've gone wrong?

1. Center to flange is constant. ERD is constant.
2. Spoke length changes: 2x are shorter, 3x longer.
3. Pythagorean theorem says the bracing angle is greater for 2x.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, so I threw together a web page:
geocities.com2x3x.htmOpen ↗

Let me know where the errors are and I'll be happy to update it.