Cross 3 or 4

On Jul 27, 1:34*am, Dieter Britz wrote:
Chalo wrote:
But cross-4 on 36 spoke wheels is the closest to purely tangential
lacing you can get with that spoke count. *On a low-flange hub, the
spokes can overlap adjacent spokes' heads, making repairs of broken
spokes a bit more complicated than necessary. *And if the hub flange
is large or the rim is small, spokes can enter the rim at a too-sharp
angle. *But there are no other drawbacks to it.

I think you've just convinced me to bite the bullet, get a set of shorter
spokes and thread them with 3x. This is because not only do I have spoke
heads, but these washers under the head, to prevent spokes breaking. They
must interfere with adjacent spokes more than the heads themselves.

Thanks everybody for your input. "Everything is illuminated".
--
Dieter Britz (dieterhansbritzatgmail.com)

Hi all
Interesting thread
I believed that spoke washers were used to help the situation when
using a larger hub spoke hole w/ a 2.0mm or smaller spoke w/ a hub
hole of 2.6mm. How ever the only time I tried it, it was a
disaster. I was using DT washers w/ Sapim 2.0mm / 1.8mm (whatever 15
gage is in mms) gage spoke in 2.6mm holes. Sapim's have a shorter
elbow or “J” (Whatever you want to call it) section than DT's. This
pulled the spoke radius so far into the hub hole, that no mater how
hard I tried to bend the spoke, it would not bend enough to reach the
nipples. If I had used DT spokes I suspect the spokes would have
reached the nipples do to their length in the elbow section. I
usually don't use DT spokes do to their length elbow section which
seems to me to build a weaker wheel & why use spoke washers to take up
this distance, when using normal length elbows such as Sapips work
just fine.
Comments?
Also I believed that it's not a good idea to physical cross the
centeter of a head of a spoke w/ the beginning of the shaft of another
spoke. It doesn't strike me as being in the best interest of the
longevity of the outer spoke. But, then I've never built a 40 or 48
hole wheel that would require 4 cross. I would prefer to build a 3X to
prevent this contact between the outer spoke over the adjacent spoke
head, if it couldn’t be avoided, even if it meant having a less that
opium tangent angle.
Again comments?
Finally I've never been totally convinced that Jobbst is correct about
the lack value of tieing & soldering. I can't refute his arguments
against, I'm just not convinced. I doubt that I'll ever do it, because
a well built wheel is strong enough & will last till the rims are worn
out.
So, 36, I very curious, what scientific evendence to you have to
refute the anti tie & solder technique?
Thanks, JD

On 7/26/2011 1:26 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
Dieter Britz wrote:

I am threading a new wheel, and have a set of good spokes I can
recycle from another rim. It turns out that if I use cross 4,
I can use the old spokes (which are quite expensive strong Swiss
ones). The hub is a spoke eater Torpedo hub.

So my question is, is there a difference in the strain on the
spokes between 3- and 4-cross? I do have small washers at the
spoke "elbows" which seems to work, but I'd like to know whether
there is difference anyway.

I you have spokes for cross-4 lacing, use them.

Cross-4 on 32 spoke wheels is past tangential, and makes no sense.
Cross-4 on 48 spoke wheels is the same as cross-3 on 36 spoke wheels:
a sensible and uncomplicated pattern that puts minimal stress on the
hub flange.

But cross-4 on 36 spoke wheels is the closest to purely tangential
lacing you can get with that spoke count. On a low-flange hub, the
spokes can overlap adjacent spokes' heads, making repairs of broken
spokes a bit more complicated than necessary. And if the hub flange
is large or the rim is small, spokes can enter the rim at a too-sharp
angle. But there are no other drawbacks to it.

Chalo

Usually anything beyond 2-cross results in an angle farther from 90°
than is desirable where the spoke enters the rim.

Here is an example of a 1-cross laced wheel that still shows some spokes
entering the rim at a considerable angle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157627181627683/.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Jul 28, 9:55*pm, jay wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:34*am, Dieter Britz wrote:



Chalo wrote:
But cross-4 on 36 spoke wheels is the closest to purely tangential
lacing you can get with that spoke count. *On a low-flange hub, the
spokes can overlap adjacent spokes' heads, making repairs of broken
spokes a bit more complicated than necessary. *And if the hub flange
is large or the rim is small, spokes can enter the rim at a too-sharp
angle. *But there are no other drawbacks to it.

I think you've just convinced me to bite the bullet, get a set of shorter
spokes and thread them with 3x. This is because not only do I have spoke
heads, but these washers under the head, to prevent spokes breaking. They
must interfere with adjacent spokes more than the heads themselves.

Thanks everybody for your input. "Everything is illuminated".
--
Dieter Britz (dieterhansbritzatgmail.com)

Hi all
Interesting thread
I believed that spoke washers were used to help the situation when
using a larger hub spoke hole w/ a 2.0mm or smaller spoke w/ a hub
hole of * 2.6mm. How ever the only time I tried it, it was a
disaster. I was using DT washers w/ Sapim 2.0mm / 1.8mm (whatever 15
gage is in mms) gage spoke in 2.6mm holes. Sapim's have a shorter
elbow or “J” (Whatever you want to call it) section than DT's. This
pulled the spoke radius so far into the hub hole, that no mater how
hard I tried to bend the spoke, it would not bend enough to reach the
nipples. If I had used DT spokes I suspect the spokes would have
reached the nipples do to their length in the elbow section. I
usually don't use DT spokes do to their length elbow section which
seems to me to build a weaker wheel & why use spoke washers to take up
this distance, when using normal length elbows such as Sapips work
just fine.
Comments?
Also I believed that it's not a good idea to physical cross the
centeter of a head of a spoke w/ the beginning of the shaft of another
spoke. It doesn't strike me as being in the best interest of the
longevity of the outer spoke. But, then I've never built a 40 or 48
hole wheel that would require 4 cross. I would prefer to build a 3X to
prevent this contact between the outer spoke over the adjacent spoke
head, if it couldn’t be avoided, even if it meant having a less that
opium tangent angle.
Again comments?

Use spokes without raised markings on their heads when building a
cross 4, 36 spoke wheel. There's no need for washers if the flange
and bend match up. Spoke heads should be punched into their seating
and so I can see your concern over the DT spokes.
Finally I've never been totally convinced that Jobbst is correct about
the lack value of tieing & soldering. I can't refute his arguments
against, I'm just not convinced. I doubt that I'll ever do it, because
a well built wheel is strong enough & will last till the rims are worn
out.
So, 36, I very curious, what scientific evendence to you have to
refute the anti tie & solder technique?

My personal assesment is that a front wheel will track with greater
accuracy following tying and soldering of the spokes. Thia appears to
be the major feature of such a wheel. Prior to the procedure on my
own front wheel there was a wander when cornering hard on cobbles,
which was both seen and felt. It is a most unnerving feeling, which
may typically be followed by a fall. The better tracking allowed me
higher cornering speeds with confidence. Also related to this is the
lower shock transmission to the rider. Part of the vertical
deflection at the rim at the road is converted to horizontal
deflection in the mid section of the wheel. Due to possible lower
spoke tensions, the capability of the tied and soldered wheel is
improved over the simple interlaced wheel with rock hard tension.
Also of note is the larger radius the rim (of low section) assumes at
the bottom of the wheel when the wheel is loaded. Again the lower
spoke tension which can be used in a tied and slobered wheel
facilitates in this respect.

On Jul 28, 10:30*pm, "T°m Sherm@n" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 7/26/2011 1:26 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:









Dieter Britz wrote:

I am threading a new wheel, and have a set of good spokes I can
recycle from another rim. It turns out that if I use cross 4,
I can use the old spokes (which are quite expensive strong Swiss
ones). The hub is a spoke eater Torpedo hub.

So my question is, is there a difference in the strain on the
spokes between 3- and 4-cross? I do have small washers at the
spoke "elbows" which seems to work, but I'd like to know whether
there is difference anyway.

I you have spokes for cross-4 lacing, use them.

Cross-4 on 32 spoke wheels is past tangential, and makes no sense.
Cross-4 on 48 spoke wheels is the same as cross-3 on 36 spoke wheels:
a sensible and uncomplicated pattern that puts minimal stress on the
hub flange.

But cross-4 on 36 spoke wheels is the closest to purely tangential
lacing you can get with that spoke count. *On a low-flange hub, the
spokes can overlap adjacent spokes' heads, making repairs of broken
spokes a bit more complicated than necessary. *And if the hub flange
is large or the rim is small, spokes can enter the rim at a too-sharp
angle. *But there are no other drawbacks to it.

Chalo

Usually anything beyond 2-cross results in an angle farther from 90°
than is desirable where the spoke enters the rim.

Here is an example of a 1-cross laced wheel that still shows some spokes
entering the rim at a considerable angle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157627181627683/.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Hello Tom
Which cat is the wheel builder?
JD

On 7/29/2011 10:12 AM, thirty-six wrote:
[...] Again the lower
spoke tension which can be used in a tied and slobered wheel
facilitates in this respect. ^^^^^^^^

Keep the dog away from the bike.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 7/29/2011 3:36 PM, jay wrote:
On Jul 28, 10:30 pm, "T°m Sherm@n"""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
[...]
Here is an example of a 1-cross laced wheel that still shows some spokes
entering the rim at a considerable angle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157627181627683/.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Please honor the signature separator (i.e. "-- ").

Hello Tom
Which cat is the wheel builder?
JD

It is a collaborative effort.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Originally Posted by landotter

On Jul 26, 1:26*am, Chalo wrote:
Dieter Britz wrote:

I am threading a new wheel, and have a set of good spokes I can
recycle from another rim. It turns out that if I use cross 4,
I can use the old spokes (which are quite expensive strong Swiss
ones). The hub is a spoke eater Torpedo hub.

So my question is, is there a difference in the strain on the
spokes between 3- and 4-cross? I do have small washers at the
spoke "elbows" which seems to work, but I'd like to know whether
there is difference anyway.

I you have spokes for cross-4 lacing, use them.

Cross-4 on 32 spoke wheels is past tangential, and makes no sense.
Cross-4 on 48 spoke wheels is the same as cross-3 on 36 spoke wheels:
a sensible and uncomplicated pattern that puts minimal stress on the
hub flange.

But cross-4 on 36 spoke wheels is the closest to purely tangential
lacing you can get with that spoke count. *On a low-flange hub, the
spokes can overlap adjacent spokes' heads, making repairs of broken
spokes a bit more complicated than necessary. *And if the hub flange
is large or the rim is small, spokes can enter the rim at a too-sharp
angle. *But there are no other drawbacks to it.

Chalo

Yup. I've done a x4 on a small flange with that very result. Hopefully
the guy I sold the bike to won't ever brake a spoke...

At least he will be able to superglue a beheaded spoke. :-)

Originally Posted by T°m Sherm@n

On 7/29/2011 10:12 AM, thirty-six wrote:
[...] Again the lower
spoke tension which can be used in a tied and slobered wheel
facilitates in this respect. ^^^^^^^^

Keep the dog away from the bike.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

At least one is paying attention.