Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,595

    half radial spoking in the rear

    i have mavic rear wheel (like cosmos) which is radially laced non drive side. Is this a good/bad idea for a handbuilt wheel? Theoretically it has advantages.
    Last edited by steel515; 12-13-2006 at 08:49 AM.

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,622
    How is it half-radial on the ND side? That would require different spoke lengths and entirely too much work to get the wheel true and round. And no, it would not have any advantage over a completely radial ND side.

  3. #3
    p != b
    Reputation: bopApocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,303
    this page
    http://www.geocities.com/spokeanwheel/lacingsr.htm
    has a lot of info on handbuilding different lacing patterns (including half-radial).

    Don't know if it's good info or not, but it's info at least.

    PS. correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you need different spoke lengths for a rear wheel anyways?

    --just getting into wheelbuilding...

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,622
    Quote Originally Posted by bopApocalypse
    this page
    http://www.geocities.com/spokeanwheel/lacingsr.htm
    has a lot of info on handbuilding different lacing patterns (including half-radial).

    Don't know if it's good info or not, but it's info at least.

    PS. correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you need different spoke lengths for a rear wheel anyways?

    --just getting into wheelbuilding...
    You're wrong!
    You do need different lengths for a rear. It all depends on lacing pattern...drive side...non-drive side...etc. This is common knowledge. Go to www.dtswiss.com and play with the spoke calculator.

    Radial is nothing more than an exercise in aesthetics. It does nothing to make the wheel stronger. A 1X non-drive is way stronger than radial and so on.

    Edit- after reading the above link on radial lacing, it is clear that whoever wrote the articles is off base. Some wheels (Ksyriums) are radial drive. If you were to build a 28h rear with radial drive, the spokes would hold tension to (maybe) the end of the street and would break...often.
    His use of the term "half-radial" is confusing at best. I, and most GOOD wheelbuilders, simply say drive/non-drive. Example- 3x cross drive/radial non-drive.
    The strongest way to build a wheel is 3x/3x, period. Use haevier gause spokes on the drive and the lighter gauge on the non-drive.
    Last edited by backinthesaddle; 12-10-2006 at 01:51 PM.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    18,978

    Reading for comprehension

    You said:
    Quote Originally Posted by backinthesaddle
    You're wrong! You do need different lengths for a rear. It all depends on lacing pattern...drive side...non-drive side...etc. This is common knowledge.
    But careful reading shows that bopApocalypse said: "don't you need different spoke lengths for a rear wheel anyways?" So he was saying you DO need different lengths. All that said, in reality, you don't. A spoke calculator will tell you to go with 2 mm difference between sides, but if you split that difference, there is nothing wrong with having the DS spokes 1 mm "too long" and the NDS spokes 1 mm "too short." You can get by with bigger differences than that, no problems.

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by backinthesaddle
    If you were to build a 28h rear with radial drive, the spokes would hold tension to (maybe) the end of the street and would break...often.
    Actually radial drive side and crossed non drive works really well. If the DS is laced radial or 1x with the heads in reduces dish by a small amount. Whichever side has the spokes crossed will transfer the drive torque to the rim no matter which side of the hub it is.

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Ligero
    Actually radial drive side and crossed non drive works really well. If the DS is laced radial or 1x with the heads in reduces dish by a small amount. Whichever side has the spokes crossed will transfer the drive torque to the rim no matter which side of the hub it is.
    ... agree... provided that the hub shell is stiff/strong enough.

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,933
    Quote Originally Posted by backinthesaddle
    Radial is nothing more than an exercise in aesthetics. It does nothing to make the wheel stronger. A 1X non-drive is way stronger than radial and so on.
    Provided that the hub flange is strong enough to take radial lacing (and on the non-gear side of rear wheels tension is quite low anyway), how does radial lacing make a wheel weaker?

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    493

    what about...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ligero
    Actually radial drive side and crossed non drive works really well. If the DS is laced radial or 1x with the heads in reduces dish by a small amount. Whichever side has the spokes crossed will transfer the drive torque to the rim no matter which side of the hub it is.
    I'm an inexperienced wheel builder and not an engineer, so this was just a thought, but have you noticed increased spoke fatigue on the non-drive side? True, with this method, spoke tension is somewhat more balanced between sides, but the non-drive side is still siginificantly lower tensioned than the drive side and still undergoes a larger range of strain with each revolution. Stress cycling is what usually causes spokes to break, correct? So, wouldn't transmitting all of the pedal torque to this side exasperate an existing problem with modern hubs?

    As far as people being worrying about hub stiffness and force transfer to the opposite side, I agree with you that it makes little sense to fret over, at least intuitively. Come on, it's a single piece of aluminum!

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,933
    Quote Originally Posted by BenR
    but the non-drive side is still siginificantly lower tensioned than the drive side and still undergoes a larger range of strain with each revolution.
    It undergoes a larger *percentage* change, but it shouldn't be higher in magnitude... except for the torque component. As long as the spokes don't go slack in use, I don't see a problem. A hub with narrow spacing would probably be a good candidate.

    Or... you could try lacing a 32 hole rim and hub with radial on the drive side and tangential on the NDS, skipping every other hole (16 drive radial, 8 ND tangential). That should keep the spokes from going slack. You'd want a stiff aero rim for that, though.

    The hub issue is this: if the hub shell isn't designed to transfer the torque, then it might not be up to the task... ie the center section can yield. I've heard of this with old Campy, Shimano, and Bullseye hubs (which have a glue joint)... but most modern hubs have large diameter middles. Still... the light hubs have thin material in that area, and it could be a gamble. If you know the thickness of the shell though, it is an easy calculation... but we'd probably have to saw a hub in two to find that out. It sounds like Troy (Ligero) has already tried this more than once, so there must be some hubs that can take the torque...
    Last edited by rruff; 12-12-2006 at 10:14 PM.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by BenR
    I'm an inexperienced wheel builder and not an engineer, so this was just a thought, but have you noticed increased spoke fatigue on the non-drive side? True, with this method, spoke tension is somewhat more balanced between sides, but the non-drive side is still siginificantly lower tensioned than the drive side and still undergoes a larger range of strain with each revolution. Stress cycling is what usually causes spokes to break, correct? So, wouldn't transmitting all of the pedal torque to this side exasperate an existing problem with modern hubs?

    As far as people being worrying about hub stiffness and force transfer to the opposite side, I agree with you that it makes little sense to fret over, at least intuitively. Come on, it's a single piece of aluminum!
    You would think that it would cause a problem but it doesn't. It is one of things that shouldn't work as well as it does but it does and someone with more engineering knowhow could probably tell you why. Also like RRuff said most hubs can take the torque transfer the part that a hub has is the drive side flange can't take the added stress of the radial spoking.

    The best thing to do would be for hub companies to move the DS flange over 2mm closer to the cassette and then you would not have to do different patterns.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,595
    So radial lacing can be used for either drive side or non-drive side?
    Radial DS sounds bad (I know nothing about wheels) because there is supposed to be great stress/high tension on DS. Cross lacing would be stronger/better there, no?

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by backinthesaddle
    The strongest way to build a wheel is 3x/3x, period. Use haevier gause spokes on the drive and the lighter gauge on the non-drive.
    In my experience, 4x/4x is stronger. All the 'cross & touring wheels and some race wheels I've built in the past 25 years were 36 hole, 4x, using 14/15 butted spokes. They are very reliable, very strong, require little or no maintenance, are light enough, and ride soft (Minimal spoke tension and optimum hub flange/spoke tangent).

    Of course over the years I've built & ridden wheels with all the various combinations of patterns, spoke counts, and spoke types, but a wheelset as described above with 700x25 Conti's is a joy to ride.

  14. #14
    wheelbuilder
    Reputation: ergott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,752
    Quote Originally Posted by refund!?
    In my experience, 4x/4x is stronger. All the 'cross & touring wheels and some race wheels I've built in the past 25 years were 36 hole, 4x, using 14/15 butted spokes. They are very reliable, very strong, require little or no maintenance, are light enough, and ride soft (Minimal spoke tension and optimum hub flange/spoke tangent).

    Of course over the years I've built & ridden wheels with all the various combinations of patterns, spoke counts, and spoke types, but a wheelset as described above with 700x25 Conti's is a joy to ride.

    I think he means for 32 spoke wheels.

    -Eric

  15. #15
    wheelbuilder
    Reputation: ergott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,752
    Quote Originally Posted by steel515
    So radial lacing can be used for either drive side or non-drive side?
    Radial DS sounds bad (I know nothing about wheels) because there is supposed to be great stress/high tension on DS. Cross lacing would be stronger/better there, no?
    Most hubs cannot take the stress of drive side radial.

    -Eric

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by refund!?
    In my experience, 4x/4x is stronger. All the 'cross & touring wheels and some race wheels I've built in the past 25 years were 36 hole, 4x, using 14/15 butted spokes. They are very reliable, very strong, require little or no maintenance, are light enough, and ride soft (Minimal spoke tension and optimum hub flange/spoke tangent).

    Of course over the years I've built & ridden wheels with all the various combinations of patterns, spoke counts, and spoke types, but a wheelset as described above with 700x25 Conti's is a joy to ride.
    Well of course 36h 4x is going to be strongest. There are more spokes, more spokes the stronger the wheels. Although 32 spokes with better flange geometry will be stronger then 36 with bad and that is what radial drive spokes help in. You can nearly tangent spokes on 28h 3x wheels and 24h triplet laced wheels.

    Radial drive spokes are way to fix bad flange geometry when the real way to fix it is to design the hub with good geometry the first time.

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,595
    I am not sure how but it crosses, supports each other. Wheelsmith tests have proven radial < 1x < 2x < 3x.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,933
    Quote Originally Posted by steel515
    I am not sure how but it crosses, supports each other. Wheelsmith tests have proven radial < 1x < 2x < 3x.
    Love to see that test... do you have a link?

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Ligero
    You would think that it would cause a problem but it doesn't. It is one of things that shouldn't work as well as it does but it does and someone with more engineering knowhow could probably tell you why. Also like RRuff said most hubs can take the torque transfer the part that a hub has is the drive side flange can't take the added stress of the radial spoking.
    It is true that drive torques do increase the load cycling on the spokes, but the actual load increase is quite small. Radial loads (i.e. weight bearing loads) are concentrated on just a few spokes near the ground contact point (often referred to as the Load Affected Zone), whereas torque loads are distributed through all the crossed spokes. So even under the highest torque load, the extra loading per spoke is still a fraction of the load cycle the spokes endure from bearing the bicycle/rider weight for every revolution of the wheel. Torque loads are a near non-issue in regard to spoke load cycling.

    Older hubs, which had very narrow spools (shaft between the flanges) could not carry torques to the non-driveside flange as well, but most modern hubs have larger diameter spools and have no trouble transferring the torque.

    The best thing to do would be for hub companies to move the DS flange over 2mm closer to the cassette and then you would not have to do different patterns.
    Amen! But with so many sprockets in the rear, cassettes have become so wide that the derailleur would be even closer to the spokes, and the accasional bad shift or misadjusted derailleur would result in more broke derailleurs and spokes.

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    493

    makes sense, thanks nm

    random words here

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark McM
    It is true that drive torques do increase the load cycling on the spokes, but the actual load increase is quite small. Radial loads (i.e. weight bearing loads) are concentrated on just a few spokes near the ground contact point (often referred to as the Load Affected Zone), whereas torque loads are distributed through all the crossed spokes. So even under the highest torque load, the extra loading per spoke is still a fraction of the load cycle the spokes endure from bearing the bicycle/rider weight for every revolution of the wheel. Torque loads are a near non-issue in regard to spoke load cycling.

    Older hubs, which had very narrow spools (shaft between the flanges) could not carry torques to the non-driveside flange as well, but most modern hubs have larger diameter spools and have no trouble transferring the torque.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sea Otter Classic

Hot Deals

Contest


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook