Hey Guys,

I have looking at all these new wheels out on the market. What I see is all kinds of lacing patterns for the rear wheel such as:

DS radial , 2x and 3x.
NDS radial, 1x and 2x.
Straight pull and J-bend spokes.

Hub flange differential sizes. Such as on the Rolf wheels, the NDS flange is bigger. I noticed Shimano has swiched from a radial laced drive and 1x NDS to a 2x drive and 2x NDS for the 7850's. Mavic Sl's were radial drive side but their new stuff is not.

Point being that I was thinking about rear wheel design and torsion loads applied. With all the different ways that companies are building wheels, how do you know what's right?
I have probably opened up a can of worms with this post as I know there are many variables involved when it comes to wheel building. However, I am inexperienced in building my own.
Any explanations?

What I see is all kinds of lacing patterns for the rear wheel . . . thinking about rear wheel design and torsion loads applied. With all the different ways that companies are building wheels, how do you know what's right?

Short answer: there is no evidence that any of the "fancy" spoke patterns have anything to offer over the standard 3X, even spaced spoke lacing. A larger flange (on either side) gives a better bracing angle for the spokes, but that effect is minor compared to something like an off-center drilled rim (like the Velocity Aerohead OC). The elaborate and unusual spoke patterns are largely marketing devices which offer little or no benefit, or perhaps reduce the strength of the wheel. Choose one of these wheels if you like the look, not because it offers any performance advantage. Also remember that you pay extra $$ for these designs, and they are often difficult to maintain due to proprietary spokes or spoke attachment methods.

Any explanations?

Sounds like a better title would be "rear wheel lacing patterns explained?"

The short answer is that there are a lot of decent ways to design a rear wheel. Since companies like to differentiate themselves from wheels that are already being made, you will see pretty much every possibility there is. Most of them are OK. A few are stupid. None of them are a real improvement over the "boring" wheels.

Sounds like a better title would be "rear wheel lacing patterns explained?"

The short answer is that there are a lot of decent ways to design a rear wheel. Since companies like to differentiate themselves from wheels that are already being made, you will see pretty much every possibility there is. Most of them are OK. A few are stupid. None of them are a real improvement over the "boring" wheels.

This can't be true. What about the stuff that Rolf and Keith Bontrager build? Jeez. Bontrager wouldn't put his name on the wheels if paired spokes weren't superior, would he?

Okay...I am starting to understand.
I was wondering what the beneift is to paired spoke lacing and Campagnolo's G3 lacing?

Okay...I am starting to understand.
I was wondering what the beneift is to paired spoke lacing and Campagnolo's G3 lacing?

Paired spoking? There is no benefit, other than the paired spoke look if you like that sort of thing.

G3 pattern? Well, Campy says it evens out tension better in the back, but I'd be willing to bet that the regular ol' 2x and 3x are just as good. On a front wheel, G3 doesn't do anything, except look like the rear wheel.

the application of paired spokes comes with the theory that since the same point on the rim is being braced by both sides, less spokes can be used, since there is less space between the spokes that the rim strength will have to absorb and maintain trueness in the rim. the disadvantages are that
a) if a spoke pops, that leaves a huge amount of the rim detensioned on one side, which pulls the rim extremely far over, and can offen leave the rim unrideable, and
b) at least in my experience, these wheels just don't have the rear wheel rigidity that i find acceptable in a wheel. my experiences stem from ~6 months on rolf vector pros. this is just simply due to a lack of spokes, where the same force from ur legs is now carried to the rim through less spokes.


as for campy's G3 lacing, this is a system designed to even out spoke tension on wheels. they do this by doubling the number of drive side spokes (the side that has less dish), thereby placing more stress on the non drive side spokes to maintain dish. assuming you don't know what i'm talking about dish, take a look at your rear wheel, and you'll see the rim is not centered between the hub flanges.

in my opinion, doubling the drive side spokes is a viable fix to an increasing problem with today's modern wheels, especially with today's tooling and materials, as long as they are built correctly (but i suppose this applies to everything).

The beauty of cross 3 spoking is that you can set up pulling spokes, usually from the inside of the flange, and pushing spokes, usually on the outside of the flange. The pulling spokes "stretch" when the wheel is under power. The pushing spokes "compress." That helps even out torsional loads on the rim and maintain the wheel's stiffness under load.

The loads on the rear wheel are the weight of the rider trying to make the wheel egg shaped as it rolls around, and the drivetrain which wants to pull the hub forward and twist it against the rim and tire. So picking up on what Kerry said, a standard cross 3, 32 or 36 spoked wheel remains unsurpassed in handling these loads.

The beauty of cross 3 spoking is that you can set up pulling spokes, usually from the inside of the flange, and pushing spokes, usually on the outside of the flange. The pulling spokes "stretch" when the wheel is under power. The pushing spokes "compress." That helps even out torsional loads on the rim and maintain the wheel's stiffness under load.

The loads on the rear wheel are the weight of the rider trying to make the wheel egg shaped as it rolls around, and the drivetrain which wants to pull the hub forward and twist it against the rim and tire. So picking up on what Kerry said, a standard cross 3, 32 or 36 spoked wheel remains unsurpassed in handling these loads.


Sounds like a good explanation. Won't it be the same for 2x spokes also?

it's similar. what you lose with 2x pattern is torsional rigidity.

if you picture the wheel and a spoke connected at a 3x angle, you'll see it is about a 75 ish degree angle to a radial spoke. this allows the pulling spokes to effectively "pull" the rim along, whereas with a radial spoke, it would be trying to pull the rim at a 0 degree angle, resulting in wheel torsion. 2x and 1x are simply in between 3x and radial. so as you cross the spokes less, torsional rigidity diminishes as lateral rigidity increases - due to a direct line and shorter spokes from hub to rim.

The beauty of cross 3 spoking is that you can set up pulling spokes, usually from the inside of the flange, and pushing spokes, usually on the outside of the flange. The pulling spokes "stretch" when the wheel is under power. The pushing spokes "compress." That helps even out torsional loads on the rim and maintain the wheel's stiffness under load.

Theoretically, this is all true. In practice, it is a tertiary effect at most. Doesn't really have any significant effect, but it's fun to argue about :)

Theoretically, this is all true. In practice, it is a tertiary effect at most. Doesn't really have any significant effect, but it's fun to argue about :)

I got the pulling and pushing spokes reversed. Upon inspection of wheels at the shop tonight, the pulling spokes are outside the flange and go rearward, and the pushing spokes are inside the hub and go forward.

Jobst Brandt ("The Bicycle Wheel") agrees with you, though. He says if the spokes are properly tensioned, they all share bearing the loads, what makes a wire spoked wheel, no matter what the spoking pattern, a wonder of physics.

spokes dont push they only pull, if you take a non tensioned spoke and compress it it will buckle very easily. the leading spokes will have slightly reduced tension and the trailing spokes increased tension under power, but they will never be in compression. in order to carry compression spokes would have to be like wooden wagon wheels

or perhaps big air catching mavic carbon tubes!

(my $0.02)

I don't believe that manufacturers are doing all these fancy spoke patterns for nothing. They put their engineering minds to work and churn something out. Some good, some bad.

I have adopted some general rules from my own observations:
*the less spokes on the wheel, the more it will be dependent on spoke tension, the more it will stress each spoke, the more it will need a stiff rim to compensate,
*the more spokes on a wheel, the more tortional stiffness it will have, the more compliant it will feel, the less likely one broken spoke will end my ride
*radial spokes on the drive side seems to make more sence since the radial spokes need the most tension to be effective, the drive side is where that exists,
*I am scared of aluminum spokes, or titanium for that matter
*I am scared of carbon fiber clincher rims
*If I were racing I wouldn't be scared of aluminum, titanium or carbon fiber because the performance gain is there,
*paired spoke technology: I've seen a lot of these and I think they would be better off dispersing the spokes equally on the rear wheel as the spoke tensions vary side to side, on the front there may be something to it, on minimal spoked wheels (less than 20) it seems effective,
*Campy laced: beautiful design for a rear wheel, not sure why they put it on the front too!?
*nothing feels better on a fast descent than a well laced up 32 hole (36 likely better) 2 or 3 cross wheel. On the climbs........, well I could live with something light weight. There are always compromises in life!

On a front wheel, G3 doesn't do anything, except look like the rear wheel.

Not so! It also makes the wheel heavier and weaker than it needs to be.

That is a good example of "stupid".

spokes dont push they only pull

You are technically correct, but it is helpful use the terms "push and pull" because the pushing spokes *do* transmit torque by decreasing in in tension. They transmit just as much torque as the pulling spokes. For instance, if your initial tension is 100kg you might see the pushing spokes at 80kg (pushing at 20kg) and the pulling spokes at 120kg (pulling at 20kg), compared to the baseline.

it's similar. what you lose with 2x pattern is torsional rigidity.

I'd just like to point out that this varies depending on primarily the number of holes/spokes. A 28h wheel will be close to this with 3x, but on a wheel with < 28 you need to go to 2x to prevent spoke head overlap, and on a 36h wheel you could use 4x. Generally if you want to maximize the torsional stiffness, then make the spokes as close to tangential at the hub (tangent to the hole circle) as possible. You can make the spokes attach half way between radial and tangential (45 degrees) and still get 70% of the tangential (max) torsional stiffness though. Torsional stiffness is also proportional to the flange diameter and the stiffness of the spokes.

But does it even matter? As long as you don't have excessive excursions in spoke tension... not really. Big guys who like to mash up steep hills in a low gear will put the most torsional stress on the wheel.