Bombproof Wheels

[Old Plodder]

Above is mainly true of hand built wheels, however, when I build my wheels for 'touring' (rather than for 'racing') I don't put so much tension on the spokes, so I do recheck tensions after about 100 miles of use. (It can also make a slight difference depending on number of crossings.)
Having done that, they will not need touching again until the rims wear through.

 

[Spoked Wheels]

Above is mainly true of hand built wheels, however, when I build my wheels for 'touring' (rather than for 'racing') I don't put so much tension on the spokes, so I do recheck tensions after about 100 miles of use. (It can also make a slight difference depending on number of crossings.)
Having done that, they will not need touching again until the rims wear through.

Why would a touring wheel need less tension? I've never heard that before. If you're trying to get a softer / more comfortable ride then you can look at tyres.
If a wheel is built properly then you don't need to retouch / re true it after a 100 miles.

 

[Old Plodder]

I explain it as such because my racing/cycle shop owner friend always, to me, over tightened his spokes on the wheels he built for racers.

The way I build my wheels have much less tension than his, but are quite bomb proof, as was demonstrated by another friend, who, unfortunately, hit a car that pulled out in front of him on his way to work one morning. His frame was a right off, but 'my' wheel remained true.

For a 'softer' ride, using more spoke crossings would allow for slightly more flex in the wheel.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I explain it as such because my racing/cycle shop owner friend always, to me, over tightened his spokes on the wheels he built for racers.

The way I build my wheels have much less tension than his, but are quite bomb proof, as was demonstrated by another friend, who, unfortunately, hit a car that pulled out in front of him on his way to work one morning. His frame was a right off, but 'my' wheel remained true.

For a 'softer' ride, using more spoke crossings would allow for slightly more flex in the wheel.

It is a common myth that lower tension or longer spokes (via more crossings) allows for a softer ride. However, this is a myth without a hint of truth. Spokes are made of steel, a material that adheres to Hooke's law. This means that spoke strain (elongation or shortening) through loading or pedaling follows a perfectly linear line.

Further, if you have a longer spoke you could technically get more "stretch" out of it than a shorter spoke but again, for a given weight (static load) or bump (dynamic load) it will still only give as much as the weight of the load/bump wants it to give. Besides, spoke flex is in the order of 0.5mm, so feeling it over the flex in the tyres, frame and your butt is out of the question.

Your car analogy is purely anecdotal and had nothing to do with the tension in the wheel. It was purely a matter of what-forces-hit-where at the time.

Keep the tension high.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

They have a thing about building rear wheels double butted non drive side and plain guage drive side.

That's a sure sigh of not knowing what's what. There is no reason (other than cost and expedience) to use plain gauge spokes in any wheel intended for prolonged use.

 

[Old Plodder]

On a rear wheel, I might use 3x/4x to even the tensions of the spokes, but I wouldn't use plain gauge on anything other than a town bike.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

On a rear wheel, I might use 3x/4x to even the tensions of the spokes, but I wouldn't use plain gauge on anything other than a town bike.

The spoke tension won't change with number of crosses because the bracing angle remains the same, regardless.

 

[Old Plodder]

I'm beginning to wonder if Yellow Saddle has actually built & ridden his wheels - I certainly have, for over thirty years.
https://www.cyclechat.net/members/yellow-saddle.39857/

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I'm beginning to wonder if Yellow Saddle has actually built & ridden his wheels - I certainly have, for over thirty years.

You seem to disagree with me and my guess is that you disagree with my last post. Your only evidence is that you've ridden bicycles for thirty years. That proves nothing. That guy there on the corner building site pouring concrete into moulds with steel reinforcing has been doing so for thirty hears but he can't calculate stresses and strains in civil engineering structure. I've been drinking beer for 30 years and know nothing about yeast.
The emotive cocktail of painting me as a non-rider non-builder also does nothing for your argument. Let's stick to the science.
By suggesting that building a wheel 4X rather than 3X will even out the tension, you misunderstand fundamental physics.

Yes, there is a difference in tension in the left spokes and right spokes of a dished (typically rear) wheel. That is because the bracing angle differs. It is like a flagpole with two guy ropes. One rope is close to the pole, one is further. the further one requires less tension than the closer one to keep the pole straight.
I quickly calculated the bracing angles on a wheel for a typical mountain bike wheel (27" size rim if you care) with a typical (Hope PRO II) rear hub. The bracing angle on the left is 6.6 degrees and on the right 4.9 degrees. That translates to a tension on the left only 73% of what it is on the right. Note that the ultimate tension doesn't matter. In order for this wheel to be centered over the hub, the left tension has to be 73% over the right tension.

Now, you say that by crossing the spokes 4X instead of 3X you can reduce that difference. The point you miss is that making the spokes longer (which is what more crosses do, you can change the tensions and therefore the angle. You can't The bracing angles remain exactly the same.

Analogy: Flagpole erected on the edge of a large step is supported by two guy ropes. One guy rope is anchored down below and the other on the upper step. The rope anchored down below is longer, but its tension remains the same as should it have been on a level field and the two ropes are on the same level.

Would you like to comment?

 

[Spoked Wheels]

On a rear wheel, I might use 3x/4x to even the tensions of the spokes, but I wouldn't use plain gauge on anything other than a town bike.

The number of spokes dictates the pattern that I use. I have not made any research into the physics of why I should be doing this but it is what experienced wheel builders do. So a 24 and 28 spokes rear wheel get 2X, 32 and 36 get 3X - Some 36H touring wheels used to be laced 4X but I think wheel builders are moving away from that. 4X on a 32 spokes wheel, the angle would be so large that the crossing spoke would possibly fit over the head of the next inner spoke.

The only time that I have read about the spoke pattern being used to even the spokes tension between DS and NDS is when the NDS is laced radially. Some factory wheels are laced like that, I have even seen factory wheels laced radially on the DS and with spokes at a higher tension than I would normally use. Most wheels use the DS with a cross pattern for torque transfer so I wonder what is the thinking behind lacing the DS radially. Radially on the NDS and Crossed on the DS appears to close the tension difference but the results tend to suggests the wheels don't enjoy a long life. I'm trying to find the paper where I read this but no luck so far.

I have read that 4X used to be the choice for touring wheels because it makes the wheel radially more flexible, hence more comfortable to ride. No idea if this is true or not, just stating what I have read about the 4X pattern.

I stick to what works, radially or crossed pattern for front wheels and 2X or 3X for rear wheels, depending on number of spokes. If somebody asked me for a 48 spokes wheel then I should go with a 4X pattern I think

 

[Yellow Saddle]

The only time that I have read about the spoke pattern being used to even the spokes tension between DS and NDS is when the NDS is laced radially. Some factory wheels are laced like that, I have even seen factory wheels laced radially on the DS and with spokes at a higher tension than I would normally use. Most wheels use the DS with a cross pattern for torque transfer so I wonder what is the thinking behind lacing the DS radially. Radially on the NDS and Crossed on the DS appears to close the tension difference but the results tend to suggests the wheels don't enjoy a long life. I'm trying to find the paper where I read this but no luck so far.

You tacitly contradict what I'm saying without giving your own evidence or criticizing my evidence. This doesn't help the understanding of what's being debated here.

I reiterate: Spoke pattern cannot even spoke tension. Reading about it, someone writing about it or dreaming about it does not alter the fact.

Fancy lacing patterns are all about product differentiation. Engineering wise, the cross-spoked wheel is the perfect wheel. However, a perfect wheel is boring and boring doesn't sell. Hence all this DS/NDS Radial this Cross that nonsense.

Torque transfer is a red herring. Torque can only be transferred from hub to spoke if a) The spokes are tangentially laced i.e. crossed. b) The spokes are radially laced but you don't care about the problems brought about by windup. Windup effectively adds a tangential component to a wheel as soon as pedaling forces are applied.

Torque can also be transferred from the right to the left by way of the hub body, but then the hub body has to have a large diameter. Small diameter aluminium tubes don't transfer torque well enough to survive the experience.

 

[Spoked Wheels]

You tacitly contradict what I'm saying without giving your own evidence or criticizing my evidence. This doesn't help the understanding of what's being debated here.

I reiterate: Spoke pattern cannot even spoke tension. Reading about it, someone writing about it or dreaming about it does not alter the fact.

Fancy lacing patterns are all about product differentiation. Engineering wise, the cross-spoked wheel is the perfect wheel. However, a perfect wheel is boring and boring doesn't sell. Hence all this DS/NDS Radial this Cross that nonsense.

Torque transfer is a red herring. Torque can only be transferred from hub to spoke if a) The spokes are tangentially laced i.e. crossed. b) The spokes are radially laced but you don't care about the problems brought about by windup. Windup effectively adds a tangential component to a wheel as soon as pedaling forces are applied.

Torque can also be transferred from the right to the left by way of the hub body, but then the hub body has to have a large diameter. Small diameter aluminium tubes don't transfer torque well enough to survive the experience.

I don't know if you noticed it but I was replying to Old Plodder post. If I'm honest, I try to avoid reading your posts but I just read it now and I don't disagree with it. The reason I try to avoid reading your posts is the tone you usually use to put your points across. To me, maybe just me, sometimes you come across as somebody that thinks too much of himself, someone that thinks he knows better than everybody else. On the other hand, sometimes you offer very useful information and that is the only reason why you aren't in my "ignore list" - sorry if that sounds bad but it's honest truth

I was trying to make sense in my head as to why Old Plodder uses 4X on rear wheels because that is not something that I do so rather than sounding patronising I wrote my reply in a way that offer information that I have read and maybe, just maybe, Old Plodder could identify his decision to go 4X in some of the information I provided.

I was not trying to contradict your post at all, as I was not aware of its contents.

Thank you for the info towards the end of your post anyway