yellowjeep

Starting to think about my next wheel set. I have a set of NOS Ambrosio Formula 20s. Now thinking about hubs and spokes. Sort of leaning towards Super Light hubs from Bike Hub Store and using the newer wide front. Any reason not to do this?

I have only ever built 3x front and rear so thinking of doing something else this time maybe 1x front and 2x or 1x DS 3x NDS rear.

No idea on spokes at this point. I have never used anything very nice or exotic but for this build I am a little concerned with weight so I am starting to look at possibly using Revs or maybe something aero.

FWIW. I am currently at 165 and still moving down.

Any comments or suggestions?

FBinNY 

I'm not going to stifle your creative instincts, but you should know that 1x wheels are very problematic. If you lace inner over outer at the crosses as per usual when lacing crossed wheels, you'll find the cross to be too close to the hub, causing exdessive spoke deflection.

yellowjeep

I didn't think about that. 1x is out then. How about 2x then as I am not a fan of radial.

FBinNY 

You're asking the wrong guy. I don't do things randomly. First I decide what I'm trying to achieve, then I figure out what will do that for me. For example, If I wanted to slightly (and the difference is very small) increase the front wheel's lateral stiffness for sharper handling in hard corners, like maybe the Somerville race, I'd consider building it 2x vs. 3x.

Realistically, changing the cross on small flanges makes very little functional difference. The difference is greater with larger flanges, but even then it's small. I build 90% of my 32h wheels 3x in the rear for decent torsional stiffness, then usually follow suit with front wheels using lighter spokes since strength and stiffness isn't the issue and the slight extra flex might improve cornering traction.

So back to your wheels, think about what performance aspects are most important to you, and choose the combination of rim, spokes and pattern accordingly. OTOH, if cool factor or learning experience are the goals, then just have fun.

yellowjeep

I still have a lot to learn it seems. I like the idea of of sharper handling though. I may just do 3x all around again because its what I know and I know that it works. I have been reading a lot about rear mixed lacing any merit to that?

FBinNY 

From a structural standpoint radial right, and tangent (3x) left improves the bracing angle symmetry. However that means that drive torque has to traverse the shell and that's not good with many if not most hubs. So I usually stick with symmetrical patterns, but I use lighter spokes on the left in proportion to the difference in predicted tension between both sides. I've been doing this for almost 40 years with good success and is about as fancy as I get except for special purpose wheels.

If I could find ones to my liking, I'd build my wheels using Hi-Lo flanges to improve torque transfer ans widen the bracing angle on the right, especially for touring wheels, but these days it's hard to even find nice high flange hubs.

If you're a new builder, focus on execution, learning to quickly build tight, true evenly tensioned wheels, with a minimum of fuss. Think of wheelbuilding like baking bread, if you overwork the dough, you get lousy bread. Then when you're good, you can get fancy.

yellowjeep

All very good points. Thanks for all the input so far.

Gummee

I didn't have very good luck with older box-section rims on new drivetrains when I built a few pairs of GL330s into D/A 9sp hubs. The rims themselves were too soft and seemed to need constant tweaking. ...at least the rears did. The fronts seemed to hold up fine.

If I had to recommend something, I'd say do what the pros did and go box-section front and 'matching' 'aero' rear. The triangular shape in the rear *should* give you enough strength to run modern drivetrains. In my case it'd be Mistral box-section front and Mistral 'aero' rear. Same manufacturer, just different profiles.

AFA spoking: stick to the tried and true 32h 3x.

M

FBinNY 

there's a big difference between older rims especially relatively light older rims and modern rims. Since the advent of low spoke count wheels, rim weight and rigidity is up significantly. This is necessary because of the longer spans between spokes. The added rigidity makes it much easier to build true wheels and tolerates high spoke tension well (ironically, while rigid rims make it easier to build true wheels, they also make it easier to have very uneven tensions. With very light rims it's almost impossible to have a true wheel with uneven tension because).

Anyway, odds are that you had problems with the GL330s because you used too much spoke for the rim. These rims require lighter gauge spokes and somewhat lower tensions to build into durable wheels. These were made back when the use of 15g spokes was common, and 14/16g butted spokes were about as heavy as you'd use. If we go back a few more years, top end hubs were drilled too small for 14g spokes and 15g spokes were standard unless you wanted ream all the spoke holes out to 2.3mm.

dbg

Is it so terrible to just not do "inner over outer" on front 1X ? (sincere question)

byte_speed

Yes, I would like to hear that one too.

On my Easton EA90 SLX wheels which are 3x on the drive side, the spokes do not touch at the crosses, with inner spokes to the inside. I was wondering what the pros & cons of this might be.

FBinNY 

In a word---- Yes

You don't have to build a wheel to see the problem. You just need a hub or hub shell and 2 spokes 290mm or longer.

Thread the spokes through adjacent holes in the same flange from opposite sides. These are the 1x positions. Now cross one over the other and bring the ends apart about 4" or so, which is where they'd end up in a rim. You'll see the problem right away.

FBinNY 

My post was just to clarify that it's a problem to lace inner over outer on 1x builds, certainly one can build 1x if you don't interlace at the cross. As to the merit of lacing the cross, that's a different technical question.

It's been standard practice to lace the crossed spokes inner over outer for about a century.

The main benefit is that it builds a bit of resilience into the wheel by virtue of the slight bend the spokes make at the crosses. Under high stress the spokes can lengthen by straightening and transferring some of the load to their neighbor.

I don't know if it makes as much difference with today's heavier rims, but it does with the lighter rims. Non-laced (inner over outer) builds have very similar mechanical properties to radial builds. And like with radial builds sudden shock loads can cause stress cracked rims, and cracked hub flanges.

Doesn't mean that Easton is wrong, assuming they know the implications and engineered accordingly.

canam73

How many holes are in your rims? You should choose your crossing pattern to produce a tangent spoke, at least where you are transferring torque in the rear.

+1 to using lighter weight spokes on the NDS of bikehubstore hubs. They have an extreme offset that otherwise produces wheels with a very low NDS tension. I'd recommend a locking type spoke prep there, too.

I've used the Wide front hub and like it. It builds up to a very light and stiff wheel and the price is great.

byte_speed

The EA90SLX is radial NDS, so I suppose they have the requisite strength in the hubs & rims.

I was thinking that tieing & soldering has pretty much fallen into disfavor and it would seem to offer benefits similar to lacing. This led me to wonder if lacing really added much, especially after seeing the Eastons.

FBinNY 

Lacing adds quite a bit, but there's legitimate debate about how much more tie and solder adds. The only wheels I used to tire and solder were for use on short track or sprinting. In both cases, any incremental stiffness was desirable even if it was mostly in the rider's head. Like so much of what we do, tie and solder falls into the category of "can't hurt, might help".

yellowjeep

How about the Rotaz rear hub? It has of an offset and from everything I have read it is the same hub American Classic uses.

For quite a bump up in price I also like White Industries H2 or H3.

canam73

The 'issue' with hubs like the BHS (Bitex) and Rotaz as is that they use the same hub for both campy and shimano with a simple switch in freehub shells and the dual purpose set up doesn't leave much room for spoke spacing. The Rotaz will give you more even tension but at the expense of lateral stiffness as it doesn't have much offset to either side. But as you point out the American Classic has the same set up and DT hubs are similar and you don't hear a lot of complaints about either. The key is to take your time to get the tension high and even and the wheel should be good.

But using DT Revolutions on the NDS and Competitions on the DS will allow for a small increase in NDS tension and using something like boiled linseed oil or the Wheel Smith prep will ensure that the spokes don't loosen.

For what it is worth I have the White H2/H3 hubs on my high mileage training wheels and built a set of climbers with the bikehubstore Super Light rear and Wide front. I also built my wife a set with the Super Light rear and Ultra Light front.

I find the Dati hubs intriguing and will probably build a set using them with carbon rims, but I haven't seen much feed back on them yet so I haven't made up my mind.

FBinNY 

One thing to consider is that modern, rigid rims, especially when combined with more steel in the spokes - more or thicker spokes - is plenty strong enough that decent wheels should hold up until you crash or the brakes burn through the sides.

That means that any discussions of the relative merits of flange symmetry vs wider bracing is somewhat academic. It's not like either actually fails in practice anymore. Things get much more interesting with light rims and spokes which, even built as well as the materials allow, result in more flexible wheels where a high side load can take the rim beyond the point of no return.

If you ask builders from a few decades ago, you'll get stories of potato chipping (my preferred term because it's closer to the final shape than a taco) a wheel while stress relieving it, something that just doesn't happen anymore.

canam73

I agree on the rims, but many modern wheels utilize lower count light weight spoke set ups and it seems instead of rim damage we just see more broken spokes. Not that it's bad, i'd rather replace spokes than rebuild a whole wheel with a new rim. But I still think good designs are important in building durable lightweight wheels.

FBinNY 

If you're seeing broken spokes in a well built wheel, that's an indicator that there's not enough steel for the application. More steel means thicker spokes, especially in the critical elbow area, of more spokes. Many assume that tighter wheels are stiffer and less prone to spoke breakage, but this isn't the case. Once a wheel is tight enough, tighter isn't better. And stiffness is purely a function of the amount of metal used and not affected by tension (once it's tight enough).

canam73

I'm not seeing broken spokes, I'm mostly reading about it here. Using stronger spokes would obviously help, but in reality people want light weight wheels even if they don't make you significantly faster. And as long as people are going to build wheels with Sapim lasers and the like I think it makes matching your parts and lacing patterns as important as ever.

yellowjeep

Thanks for all the discussion so far. Basically what I'm seeing is that they will be some what more challenging to build but given correct component choices and proper techniques it should be fine. FWIW these are not intended to be everyday wheels. I've got open pros for that.

fietsbob

will see.. Bike Friday, Rohloff hub 1x is what you do,
I do think the lace over was unneeded..
but it was done..

I'm re doing a number of aspects of the build, lacking attention to detail it seems...