agnewton

Not sure if this is a C&V question or a bicycle mechanics problem, but...

I am building a wheel set (very, very slowly) with a pair of old, high-flange Normandy hubs that I got from a '75 Raleigh Gran Prix Mixte, and some 36H Araya rims that I had on hand. I didn't take note of the lacing pattern on the Raleigh when I stripped it down. I have taken all my measurements for the hubs, rims, etc. and after some trials, errors, and additional trials, I have made it to my next error. I have the wheels all laced up in a 3x pattern and am following the Roger Musson, Wheel Building method, but the spokes only appear to match the original pattern (indentations and push v. pull spokes) on one side (NDS) for both the front and rear wheel lacings (see photos below of front wheel).


Front Hub DS (Push and pull spokes don't match original indents)

Front Hub NDS, spokes appear to match indents.

Trying to figure out what my problem is, I looked at another wheel set I have with mid 80s, High-flange, Maillard hubs, and noticed that those high-flange, French hubs were originally laced in a 4x pattern (next photo below). If I try to match the original lacing (4x) in my wheel build, then the spoke calculator warns me that the lacing will overlap the spoke heads (and I'll have to buy longer spokes).


Mid 80s Maillard, DS, 4x

So my questions are:

• Besides aesthetics, what am I sacrificing by lacing a used hub in an unoriginal cross pattern? Can you quantify it as a percentage of whatever lost (structural integrity, life of the wheel, etc.) compared to the original pattern?"
• Which risk of engineering failure is greater: Overlapping the spoke heads to reproduce the original, 4x spoke lacing or Lacing a used hub in a "second" pattern?
• Will experience tell me not to worry about this kind of mismatch in the future?

Thanks you for helping me with my dilemna.

oneclick 

I have seen many wheels, presumably as supplied, laced as you describe. It may be that at that time wheel building was quicker if the wheel was not laced symetrically (see J. Brandt's book for why it should be).

When re-laced correctly, one side or the other will have the spokes lying opposite their original groove.

3x is fine, the flange is fine (won't break), and at that level of detail any aesthetic judgments are purely academic.

scarlson 

The difference in which way the spokes go from the flange comes down to the difference in "handedness" of the rim. If your rim has the spoke holes staggered right- and leftwards, depending on which side they go toward on either side of the valve hole, the rim can be termed right-handed or left-handed. That will determine whether the leading or trailing spokes are one hole to the right or left on the opposite side flange. Basically, you have a mirror image of the original wheel, only because the spoke holes in the rim are a mirror image of the original. So one side must be one hole offset from where it was in order to create the mirror-image wheel.

I hope that was clear. There are so many levels of symmetry in wheelbuilding. Talking about symmetry and handedness is easy to do for molecules (I am a biochemist) but hard to do for bike parts. The codified language for talking about handedness does not exist outside of chemistry to apply to general things, but maybe it should.

I once had a set of old Maxicars I had to lace differently than original because of this. I was unhappy at first, but I quickly forgot about it and they have been fine.

agnewton

oneclick and scarlson , thank you for your replies. I though that asymmetric lacing might be used for the rear wheel, but it didn't seem to make sense for the front wheel or explain why I only appear to have mis-aligned pull spokes on the drive sides. I spent some time examining additional wheels on hand to try to make more sense of it. W.R.T. the "handed"-ness of the rims (chirality), they were all type 1 (European, French, or F2) rims per the Musson definition (Fig. 10, Musson, p.12). But what was different between some of the legacy rims and my wheel build was whether the spoke head directions on the two spokes to the valve hole right were the same or different. In the Musson lacing method, both of those spokes enter the hub from the hub-flange inside (spoke heads out; one spoke to DS, the other to the NDS). In the legacy Maillard rim (and a pair of wheels from a late 70s Centurion), the two adjacent spokes enter from different sides of the hub-flange (one spoke head in, one spoke head out; opposite sides of the hub). I accept this correlation as an explanation for why I only have funny-looking spoke pulls on the drive side of my wheel set-- and the reversed spoke head direction masks the 4x v. 3x indents at the spoke holes on the NDS.

It sounds like there will be no serious issue with switching from 4x to 3x. It's reassuring to know. Now all I have to do is bring the laced wheels up to tension.

Thank you both for helping me sort this out.

N.B. The wheel set from the '79 Centurion was laced 4x on the rear and only 3x on the front (this nugget might help future bike hub forensic scientists).

ThermionicScott 

There is some concern that when you change the lacing on a used hub, you increase the risk of cracked flanges. It's hard to quantify, but people have attested to it...

John E

Anti-symmetric spoke lacing, particularly if automated, is faster to build than symmetric, even though I prefer the latter. I do watch both the original heads-and-tails leading-and-following spoke pattern on the hub flange, as well as any biases built into the rim's spoke holes.

gugie 

Spoke lacing always brings out the adherents to one approach vs another, the best way to build a wheel, etc.

I've been building wheels on and off for nearly 50 years now (man I'm getting old). I've concluded that there are many ways to build a wheel, some BKM's that one may or may not adhere to, but in the end there are many ways to build a perfectly good wheel. There are certain things that I believe make for a stronger wheel, but these are marginal gains. The flip side of that arguement is it's just as easy to make it a bit better. Spokes, hubs and rims have all improved significantly since I started building wheels BITD, so the starting materials are better.

Most people just get Jobst Brandt's book and follow it. Can't really go wrong that way.

52telecaster

I was going to chime in but I just broke a spoke on my rear wheel under the freewheel and since I built the wheel I will leave it to others to explain the way to build a really great wheel!. Fortunately I had a proper spoke and all is well.

ThermionicScott 

Today I learned that the term "best practice" had itself been improved upon: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/bkm

79pmooney

Don't sweat the 4X spoke/head interference. I rode 4X very high flange wheels for decades. Yes, there is the issue that every time someone who knows, sees it, you will be reminded the heads are going to pop off. It gets old. (If that minor interference cased problems, all spokes would have failed at the J bend long ago. No, the spoke just takes the slight bend it needs and goes on. You do have to squeeze and seat the spokes but we all do that anyway.)

Edit: On the spoking patterns - I always lace my wheels inside pulling except on double sided fg/ss hubs because inside pulling wheels tend to kick out chains and sticks whereas outside pulling tends to suck them into the wheel flange. At the rear wheel, a thrown chain may well be hundreds of dollars cheaper with inside pulling. Front wheel, quite possibly an endo prevented. If I have to pass on the old spoke indents on one side to do this, so be it. Maybe my hub will die sooner but that death is usually just a new wheel needed and a funky loose spoke ride home, (Now, those double sided fg/ss hubs - that inside pulling drive-side becomes outside pulling when you flip the wheel.)

52telecaster

I love 4 cross

agnewton

Thanks for sharing your experience everybody. I think that the discussion has helped me to see the problem more clearly and my options to move forward. I am a wheel building novice and make an effort to faithfully follow the procedure outlined by Musson whose method has me building 3x wheels with symmetric lacing. The discussion has helped me figure out where the original 70s lacing pattern deviated from the procedure that I have, so far, followed unquestioningly.

The problem was figuring out what the originally lace pattern was so that I could know which risks I was taking by changing the lacing pattern. To match the original hub lacing, I would need to buy new spokes for the 4x pattern and lace the rim "anti-symmetric". If I don't wanna buy new spokes, then I gotta pick which wheel building norms to violate. This does put me in "experiment" territory. If I do nothing, I'll have changed the n-cross and symmetry of the lacing. This would make any future failures due to either change in hub lacing or a conspiracy of both. If I switch my present lacing from symmetric to antisymmetric, then I can isolate the change in cross-pattern as the root of future failure. And, depending which flange I switch from head-in to head-out, I can hide or expose the previous indents on both flanges. I really don't want to buy another set of spokes (and the 3x spokes will be lighter!). Hopefully, I'll find time this holiday weekend to pick a solution.

There are best methods and best known methods, but beware the best unknown methods...