joejack951

I recently completed a 2X wheel build with standard j-bend aero spokes, 24F/28R (my first using that pattern having previously only done radial and 3X). Given the proximity of the second cross to the hub flange and the resultant gap between the spokes I initially decided not to lace the spokes at that cross.

In an unrelated thread in the road forum someone mentioned 'touching' spokes on a 2X build. I questioned how/why this done. I quickly answered my own question about 'how' by squeezing the spokes together and realizing how easily they could have been laced.

But the question of 'why' remains somewhat unanswered other than my speculation about holding the j-bends against the hub flanges better and 'tradition.'

So for those with far more wheel building than I and the others in that thread, why lace the last cross?

Perhaps this topic has been debated ad mauseum before but I didn't find much on the topic in a Google search other than a Jobst Brandt stiffness test of tied and soldered spokes showing no benefit to that tradtional practice. And for the record, I have already rerouted my spokes in order to lace them 'properly' just in case there is a meaningful difference.

fietsbob

What are your thoughts?


with my R'off the hub company said dont lace, 1x on small rims

the wheel on my bike friday was laced 1X, asked will they stand behind their work,

they said yes, so I stopped worrying .

AnkleWork

A few answers here:
Link

joejack951

I'm not looking for someone else's guess and at best that's what I found in one other thread. I am hoping someone here has some real evidence one way or the other that lacing matters. It is strictly curiosity at this point but I really am interested in the topic.

For what it's worth, during the discussion on the road forum it was brought up that straight pull hubs very commonly do not have the spokes laced. Hence my speculation that the lacing helps keep the j-bends seated.

gearbasher

I once bought an Ambrosio wheelset. They weren't laced. I emailed Ambrosio and asked if this was an error on their part for not lacing the wheel. Their response was: being the wheels had black spokes, they did not lace them because black spokes tend to squeak when they rub against each other. They also said that lacing the spokes has no effect on the strength of the wheel.

Jeff Wills

When I was learning to build wheels, we called this "interlacing". Interlacing allows the load to be shared between the crossing spokes. It goes like this: as the wheel rolls along, the portion nearest the ground deflects a tiny bit inward, slackening the tension on that spoke a tiny bit. If it weren't interlaced, it would simply loosen then tighten as the wheel turned. With the spokes interlaced, the spoke that it contacts takes up this lower tension but since the second spoke is also under tension both spokes loosen a lesser amount than if they weren't interlaced. Thus, interlaced spokes experience less tension variation while rolling. It's these tension variations that cause spokes to fatigue and eventually fail.

I hope this makes sense.

Moe Zhoost

From Jobst Brandt:

Andrew R Stewart 

Until the interlacing it's self causes an issue I would suggest it. There's a reason why millions of wheels do it. It takes a tad more time during the lacing up and if it made no difference then no one would take this extra time. Sometimes the proof is in the history and standards that come before.


I will add that many low cost bikes made for the recreational markets (and I'm referring to coaster brake stuff) decades ago commonly didn't interlace their spokes. I have no documented data but I do feel that these wheels were not as laterally stiff as interlaced ones are. Andy

Snuts

That makes perfect sense !
Thank-you for taking the time to explain.



-Snuts-

joejack951

So here's the interesting thing I learned about the interaction of laced spokes. My wheels were tensioned to 110 kgf max (less on front disc side and rear non-drive side) without interlacing the spokes. I completely de-tensioned every other spoke one at a time, interlaced the spokes, and re-tensioned to the original tension before moving on to the next. I started off by not only de-tensioning the spoke I planned to completely loosen but also by removing a full turn of tension from the spoke with which it would be interlaced under the assumption that that spoke would gain significant tension with the act of interlacing.

I decided it was worth seeing what might happen if I didn't do this in order to speed up the process. As it turned out, the untouched spoke remained at virtually the same tension (undetectable in most cases and less than 5% where it did show on my TM-1) as it started at after interlacing and bringing the reinstalled spoke back to its original tension. What this says to me is that there is little interaction between spokes, or at least such a small amount that I wouldn't expect any great benefit along those lines for interlacing unless some spokes were nearly completely loosing tension. But I guess some wheels built with lots of dish and straight gauge spokes are at risk for that.

Derailleur clearance makes some sense. Stiffness is open to debate without a test to confirm it either way. The bracing angle of the spokes remains basically unchanged with heads-in spokes loosing some angle and heads-out gaining some. My bet is that there is no stiffness gain. I'd love to see a real test for this.

joejack951

There seems to be a lot of tradition in cycling and not all of it makes sense. Tying and soldering spokes was once quite commonplace as I've come to understand but apparently it was a useless modification: Tied and Soldered Wheels by Jobst Brandt

I'm not saying that interlaced spokes make no difference but short of a test proving it one way or the other I'll remain skeptical. I will still continue to interlace my spokes, though, just in case

FBinNY 

I have similar reasoning as in the JB book (though arrived at independently).

Weaving over/under at the last cross makes a more resilient wheel, thereby increasing the fatigue life. The crossed spokes work as a pair transferring tension back and forth between them making for smaller tension cycles. In the case of extreme loads with light spokes and rims, it might also save the wheel by preventing the loaded spoke from exceeding the yield limit or tearing out of the rim.

The only times I don't weave spokes is for low cross wheels where the last cross is too close to the hub, and for track wheels where I don't want increased resiliency and flex, especially for sprinters and/or high bank small tracks.

CliffordK

Shimano WH-RS10 rear wheels use straight pull non-interlaced spokes. I think their hub drilling separates the spokes too much to cross over.

They also use loctite blue on them. Perhaps unscrewing risk? But it also makes them a pain to work with.

_ForceD_

This is not my guess, but what I've read. I have only ever built a few wheels myself. And WRT to this forum I am by no means an expert. But before I did my first build I recall reading some of Sheldon's views about wheel building...to include lacing. One thing in particular was that lacing makes all the spokes, as a singular unit, stronger. Not necessarily radially, but laterally. Strength in numbers! When two, or three spokes are touching (tensioned together), in essence...they become one stronger unit. And thereby your wheel is stronger.

Dan

joejack951

My early 2000's Mavic Cosmos rear wheel built 32/3X on a straight pull hub also does not have interlaced spokes. Mavic did use special nipples with plastic inserts to prevent loosening but I feel like those were only necessary due to using straight gauge NDS spokes on a highly dished wheel (Mavic freehub accommodates modern 11 speed cassettes).

joejack951

Can you elaborate on this, particularly the latter statement?

SquidPuppet

There was another thread on this subject a long time ago. I found the comments that supported interlacing interesting. Then someone posted a picture of a Vintage Schwinn Paramount track bike IIRC. Evidently Schwinn didn't interlace the spokes on their high end race bike wheels.

I can't offer any useful information because I just don't know for sure one way or the other.

FBinNY 

I don't know what you're looking for, but resiliency is desirable in road wheels which have to survive the various insults of bad pavement.

However, it's not needed or desirable on the track, where the snappy feel of a stiffer wheel is preferable.

Trakhak

The earliest velocipede and bicycle wheels had wood or iron spokes (in a radial, noncrossed pattern) and worked in compression rather than tension. When tensioned steel spokes were introduced, the radial pattern was maintained for quite a while. From what I remember reading years ago, the technique of crossing and lacing of spokes was introduced purely as a practical means of keeping broken spokes from flopping around dangerously. That was a more common occurrence before the modern era of high-strength spokes and highly tensioned wheels.

If there is a coincidental structural advantage to crossing and lacing spokes, which I doubt (pace FBinNY et al.), it's trivial and well within the realm of the placebo effect (the same effect that has been the cause of many delightful debates on such topics as, e.g., frame material and "comfort").

You can enjoy going down the Google Patents rabbit hole in quest of information on the principle of lacing of crossed spokes if you like (e.g., https://patents.google.com/?q=wheel&...holar&sort=old; choose "order by oldest" at the top of the page).

Moe Zhoost

Excellent! I really admire the curiosity that led you to experiment like this. We need more of this sort of thing to evaluate some of the old "standards".

That said, I don't think you can evaluate the interaction between spokes on the bench (without sophisticated equipment). Interlacing has to be evaluated considering the dynamic loading and unloading of spokes on the road, where the wheel is subjected to a variety of forces.

Assuming a configuration where interlacing is easy, are there any disadvantages to interlacing spokes? The potential for noise and wear come to mind (though I have never had an issue with either).

Great discussion!

Jiggle

I did some experimentation on this with a 24h rear wheel. Non interlaced, the nds spokes on the outside of the flange had a lower tension than the ones coming from the inside of the flange. Interlacing them, the tensions evened out to the average of the high and low. Because the tension on the nds is low anyway, I chose to interlace to reduce the risk of the lower tensioned spokes coming loose.

Andrew R Stewart 

I believe that the primary reason to cross lace (tangential lacing pattern) is to be able to transmit torque between hub and rim without the "wind up" issues that radial patterns suffer from (just ask the early MtB riders who mounted front disk brakes but still used the radial pattern that their previously rim braked set up had used). A. R. Sharp figured this out in 1896 in his book Bicycles & Tricycles: A Classic Treatise on Their Design and Construction - See more at: Bicycles & Tricycles: A Classic Treatise on Their Design and Construction That a crossed spoke pattern can be tied and soldered is the coincidental benefit, not the driver.


Again I will maintain that hundreds of manufactures have chosen to interlace their wheels for many decades for real reasons. My real life observations when all is otherwise the same (as in hub, spoke, rim and cross pattern being the same) an interlaced pattern results in a laterally stiffer wheel and longer spoke life. The trouble with picking out examples of non interlaced wheels that have no interlaced partners is that they can't be a part of the data pool of real comparisons. Andy.

CliffordK

The tensions or force vectors on driving and braking wheels essentially require crossed spokes, even though the driving/braking power is only transmitted through half of the spokes. Lacing / Interlacing would be a different issue.

I did find one radial laced rear wheel, with 72 (or more) spokes. Perhaps with enough spokes, one can compensate for the tension differences, so 72 radial spokes might be equivalent to pulling with half of 36, or 18 spokes.

For wooden car wheels, the base of the spokes are wedged in at the hub, to give support for torque. As you mention, they are either in compression or neutral pressure. So, rather than pulling nipples out, the majority of the forces are sheering forces. Perhaps the wood is designed to give a little spring when torque is applied.

joejack951

Interesting. So your feeling/experience is that non-interlaced spokes yield a stiffer wheel while interlacing makes the wheel more resilient. Other seem to claim that interlacing stiffens the wheel. I'm planted firmly in the middle thinking it makes no difference at all.

Any feeling about the effects of interlacing on j-bend spoke life?

Andrew R Stewart 

Don't confuse resiliency for lack of stiffness. Andy