Radial Wheel Building

[Larry47Trav]

This will be my first attempt at wheel building
I read the Bicycle Wheel and Sheldon Brown's web articles and I think I can do
it.

I have decided to build a 126 mm rear wheel with 3 cross drive and radial non
drive

I know the usual practice is to put 8 spokes on one side, then 8 on the other.

But in this case it seems like I could put all the Drive side spokes in first
then all the radial spokes ?


Any tips or comments welcome !


Thanks Larry

[Leo Lichtman]

"Larry47Trav wrote: (clip) I could put all the Drive side spokes in first
then all the radial spokes ?
Any tips or comments welcome !
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since the hub is rigid, don't BOTH sides drive?

[Jacobe Hazzard]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Larry47Trav wrote: (clip) I could put all the Drive side spokes in
> first then all the radial spokes ?
> Any tips or comments welcome !
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Since the hub is rigid, don't BOTH sides drive?

It's natural to talk about a drive SIDE and a non drive SIDE.

But both sides do drive.

You can even put radial spokes on the drive side and 3x on the other.

[Dave Reckoning]

Great question Leo, to a limited extent this is true, many hubs may to some
extent "drive" both flanges. If you want a little more you can take a peek
at The Book (The Bicycle Wheel) and see just how much torque each flange
will be transmitting given various configruations and conditions.

I think that Larry was refering to the left side of the hub. This is
generally the side of the hub that is being driven by the chain and is often
refered to as the "drive" side of the hub.

Hope this helps.

Dave Reckoning


"Leo Lichtman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry47Trav wrote: (clip) I could put all the Drive side spokes in
> first then all the radial spokes ?
> Any tips or comments welcome !
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Since the hub is rigid, don't BOTH sides drive?
>

[Sheldon Brown]

Larry47Trav wrote:
> This will be my first attempt at wheel building
> I read the Bicycle Wheel and Sheldon Brown's web articles and I think I can do
> it.
>
> I have decided to build a 126 mm rear wheel with 3 cross drive and radial non
> drive
>
> I know the usual practice is to put 8 spokes on one side, then 8 on the other.
>
> But in this case it seems like I could put all the Drive side spokes in first
> then all the radial spokes ?

That's awkward, because it will be hard to get the radial spokes around
the right side spokes.

When I do this sort of wheel, I first install the 8 or 9 right side
trailing spokes, then I drop all of the left side radial spokes into the
hub but don't conect them to the rim.

I then install the 8 or 9 leading spokes on the right side, while the
left spokes are dangling from the rim.

Sheldon "DS Is BS" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| This message has been sent to you using recycled electrons |
| exclusively. Please do not discard them after use, |
| send them along and help conserve these irreplaceable |
| sub-atomic resources for future generations. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

[Leo Lichtman]

"Dave Reckoning" wrote: I think that Larry was refering to the left side
of the hub. This is generally the side of the hub that is being driven by
the chain and is often refered to as the "drive" side of the hub.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I can understand that. However, I believe radial lacing is usually reserved
for front wheels, which do not transmit torque. Doesn't radial lacing on
one side of the rear wheel take away half of the torque transmission
rigidity?

[[email protected]]

Leo Lichtman writes:

>> I think that Larry was referring to the left side of the hub. This
>> is generally the side of the hub that is being driven by the chain
>> and is often referred to as the "drive" side of the hub.(clip)

> I can understand that. However, I believe radial lacing is usually
> reserved for front wheels, which do not transmit torque. Doesn't
> radial lacing on one side of the rear wheel take away half of the
> torque transmission rigidity?

The chain is on the right side of the hub and the ability of the left
side to drive the wheel depends on how rigid the hub is. In the days
when hubs were light and freewheels heavy, the noodle in the center of
the hub spool was not strong enough to transmit pedaling torque. The
torque transfer depends on the diameter of the hub shaft and is
calculated as shown in the Bicycle wheel.

Cassette hubs naturally need a larger hub shaft so that the freewheel
assembly can be screwed into the shaft to make a "free-hub" or
cassette hub. This has made possible the odd spoke arrangements we
see today with radial right side spokes. Each manufacturer makes
invalid or at least inconsequential claims for these patterns. The
prize, in this respect, goes to FSR with three flange hubs.

Jobst Brandt

[Chalo]

(Larry47Trav) wrote:
>
> I know the usual practice is to put 8 spokes on one side, then 8 on the other.
>
> But in this case it seems like I could put all the Drive side spokes in first
> then all the radial spokes ?

Yes. This is the same way I lace all wheels, actually: lace one side
completely, then the heads-out spokes on the opposite side, followed
by the heads-in spokes.

Chalo Colina

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

larry-<< This will be my first attempt at wheel building
I read the Bicycle Wheel and Sheldon Brown's web articles and I think I can do
it.

I have decided to build a 126 mm rear wheel with 3 cross drive and radial non
drive >><BR><BR>

<< Any tips or comments welcome ! >><BR><BR>


A comment, radial left 'kick stand side' does nothing for the wheel. It does
void the warranty on most hubs tho.

A tip. Lace 3 cross both sides, true/round/tension/dish and stress relieve
well. Build your first wheel in a traditional manner.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Jeff Wills]

(Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message >...
> larry-<< This will be my first attempt at wheel building
<snip>
>
> A comment, radial left 'kick stand side' does nothing for the wheel. It does
> void the warranty on most hubs tho.
>

An aside- I noticed that my Shimano 2004 catalog states "Radial Spoke
Lacing Compatible" on the 105, Ultegra, and Dura-Ace front hubs.

> A tip. Lace 3 cross both sides, true/round/tension/dish and stress relieve
> well. Build your first wheel in a traditional manner.
>
> Peter Chisholm

Agreed. Larry, you need to learn to build a wheel conventionally and
develop a feel for the process. Even with "the book" in hand, much of
the learning is done by *doing*, not *reading*. I had built a couple
dozen wheels by the time I attempted a half-radial rear- and that one
was still a bear to keep true and tensioned properly, probably due to
insufficient tension on the radial side. You're setting yourself up
for a lot of frustration by doing a half-radial first.

A further pedantic remark for the bike parts geeks (like me!). The
freestyle BMX market now has cassette and freewheel hubs set up for
chains on the *left* side of the bike, to facilitate "grinders" on the
right side. "Drive-side" is no longer synonymous with "right-side".

Jeff

[David L. Johnson]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:15:50 -0700, Jeff Wills wrote:

> I had built a couple dozen
> wheels by the time I attempted a half-radial rear- and that one was still
> a bear to keep true and tensioned properly, probably due to insufficient
> tension on the radial side. You're setting yourself up for a lot of
> frustration by doing a half-radial first.

Frankly, I think half-radial wheels are a poor design choice. I know,
there are lots of boutique wheels built this way, often with the right
side (that would be the side-with-the-chain side) radial, which is clealy
dumb. But, as has been remarked, a bicycle wheel is such a robust basic
design that you can, under certain circumstances, get away with a lot of
poor design elements and still have a reliable wheel, if you are careful.
But for your typical guy building a wheel, 3x is a much better idea. It
allows you to have a reliable wheel even if something else is not optimal,
but if you compound the innocent mistakes of a novice with intentionally
poor design, you will have trouble.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
_`\(,_ | -- Paul Erdos
(_)/ (_) |

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Jwills-<< An aside- I noticed that my Shimano 2004 catalog states "Radial Spoke
Lacing Compatible" on the 105, Ultegra, and Dura-Ace front hubs. >><BR><BR>

Good thing because I recently tried to find a 7700 hubset, front and rear and
the 7700 fronts are gone, replaced by the very expensive 7800 front. With
really dumb axle/cone assembly that costs $40 to replace...

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Weisse Luft]

Radial non-drive/cross drive lacing has been used for at least 80 years
although not exclusively on bicycles. Look at a classic Ford Model T
rear wheel. Its "dished" too.

Now on the oddball radial drive, crossed non-drive pattern. Yes,
torsional stiffness of the hub shaft shell is the key and this is why
all-radial wheels failed in the past. With the large diameter hub
shaft shells, the combined stiffness of the shell and crossed spokes is
matched to the windup stiffness of the radial spokes on the drive side.
This transmits much more torque to the non-drive spokes and lessens
fatigue-induced drive side failures. With large flange hubs, the
tension difference of the non-drive spokes is about 80% of the drive
side compared to 50% for conventional dished wheels.


--
Weisse Luft

[David L. Johnson]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:34:51 +1000, Weisse Luft wrote:

>
> Radial non-drive/cross drive lacing has been used for at least 80 years
> although not exclusively on bicycles. Look at a classic Ford Model T rear
> wheel. Its "dished" too.

Hmm. Which is the "drive" side? Most spoked automobile wheels are very
radically dished, and have very thick and rigid spokes. They also have
significant side loads to deal with. Really a much different problem.

>
> Now on the oddball radial drive, crossed non-drive pattern. Yes,
> torsional stiffness of the hub shaft shell is the key and this is why
> all-radial wheels failed in the past.

No. Radial front wheels fail due to flange failure, because the spoke
heads pull on a very thin piece of metal. This is worse with
low-flange hubs than with old high-flange hubs. Radial (completely
radial) rear wheels would have serious torsional problems.

> With the large diameter hub shaft
> shells, the combined stiffness of the shell and crossed spokes is
> matched to the windup stiffness of the radial spokes on the drive side.

What? What is "windup stiffness", and how do radially-spoked sides have
any?

> This transmits much more torque to the non-drive spokes and lessens
> fatigue-induced drive side failures.

Most fatigue failures are on the left side, not the right. In my
experience, most right-side failures start as damage from a thrown chain.

With large flange hubs, the
> tension difference of the non-drive spokes is about 80% of the drive
> side compared to 50% for conventional dished wheels.

How do you figure that? The difference in tension comes from the
difference in bracing angle. Large flange hubs have the same spoke angles
as small flange (which is what I presume you mean by "conventional",
though large flange seem to be the older design). Large flange hubs use a
slightly shorter spoke than small-flange (if you have, say, 3x 36-hole
hubs), but that is it.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember
_`\(,_ | that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ
(_)/ (_) |

[Tom Sherman]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> ...
> How do you figure that? The difference in tension comes from the
> difference in bracing angle. Large flange hubs have the same spoke angles
> as small flange (which is what I presume you mean by "conventional",
> though large flange seem to be the older design). Large flange hubs use a
> slightly shorter spoke than small-flange (if you have, say, 3x 36-hole
> hubs), but that is it....

Is there some reason that most (all?) rear hubs do not use a large
flange on the drive side and a small flange on the non-drive-side to
compensate for dish? It would require two spokes lengths, but what would
the other drawbacks (if any) be?

--
Tom Sherman

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:52:40 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:34:51 +1000, Weisse Luft wrote:
>
>>
>> Radial non-drive/cross drive lacing has been used for at least 80 years
>> although not exclusively on bicycles. Look at a classic Ford Model T rear
>> wheel. Its "dished" too.
>
>Hmm. Which is the "drive" side? Most spoked automobile wheels are very
>radically dished, and have very thick and rigid spokes. They also have
>significant side loads to deal with. Really a much different problem.
>

[snip]

Dear David,

Click on #13 in the FAQ for a diagram of Model T dishing for
wooden-spoke wheels:

http://www.calimerswheelshop.com/FrameFAQ.htm

Browse down inside #13 to see how dried-out wooden wheels
sometimes dish the wrong way.

And here are some pictures of new-fangled wire-spoke Model T
wheels, with radial spokes on the outside:

http://www.fordbarn.com/aforum/messages/23000.htm

Henry Ford

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:04:00 -0600,
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:52:40 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:34:51 +1000, Weisse Luft wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Radial non-drive/cross drive lacing has been used for at least 80 years
>>> although not exclusively on bicycles. Look at a classic Ford Model T rear
>>> wheel. Its "dished" too.
>>
>>Hmm. Which is the "drive" side? Most spoked automobile wheels are very
>>radically dished, and have very thick and rigid spokes. They also have
>>significant side loads to deal with. Really a much different problem.
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>Dear David,
>
>Click on #13 in the FAQ for a diagram of Model T dishing for
>wooden-spoke wheels:
>
>http://www.calimerswheelshop.com/FrameFAQ.htm
>
>Browse down inside #13 to see how dried-out wooden wheels
>sometimes dish the wrong way.
>
>And here are some pictures of new-fangled wire-spoke Model T
>wheels, with radial spokes on the outside:
>
>http://www.fordbarn.com/aforum/messages/23000.htm
>
>Henry Ford

Oops--the wire-spokes are Model A's, with the earlier one
being likened to a Model T.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Tom-<< Is there some reason that most (all?) rear hubs do not use a large
flange on the drive side and a small flange on the non-drive-side to
compensate for dish? It would require two spokes lengths, but what would
the other drawbacks (if any) be? >><BR><BR>

You need two different spoke lengths with flanges the same size. Hi flange
right wouldn't compensate for 'dish', still gotta oput the cogset somewhere.

I think hi-lo would be a great idea but more expensive I suspect.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Weisse Luft]

Borrow a guitar tuner and a rear Mavic Ksyrium SSL for this test. Pluck
a non-drive spoke and measure the frequency with the guitar tuner.
Record frequency. Measure spoke length.

Pluck a drive-side and record frequency and length.


Tension is the square of twice the length and frequency.

Or you could use some tensionmeters to find the tension bias of the
drive side spokes is much smaller than most.


--
Weisse Luft