Triplet Wheel Lacing

[CycleMonkey]

Has anybody experimented with using different spokes with the triplet
lacing pattern (16 drive, 8 non-drive spokes)? This pattern appeals
to me in terms of maximizing the number of driving spokes on a low
spoke count rear wheel and increasing non-drive spoke tension. From
various posts that I have read, the main drawback seems to be
decreased lateral stiffness, due to the decreased number of non-drive
spokes.

I recently built a wheel with triplet lacing using an IRD Cadence Aero
rim (Niobium 30) and DT Aerolite spokes. The wheel does have much
more lateral movement than usual at the rim - wheel clamped in frame,
grab rim and move side to side. The customer is complaining about the
rim rubbing the pads during standing efforts with exagerated bike
movements. I test rode the bike as well and had the same experience.

Soooo, I'm curious whether a simple change in non-drive spokes will
cure this problem. Lateral stiffness should be directly related to
spoke elongation, right? And elongation depends on cross-sectional
area of the spoke. As far as I understand, the Aerolite (or Sapim CX-
Ray) is formed from a round 2.0/1.5 mm spoke that is cold forged again
into the elliptical shape. The area of the center section of the
round spoke is 2.36 mm^2, while the area of the elliptical one is
about 30% less at 1.63 mm^2. This should mean that a Revolution spoke
should be about 45% stiffer in elongation that the Aerolite and
improve the lateral stiffness of the wheel. And, using a 2.0/1.8 or a
thicker thicker elliptical spoke would show even more improvement.

Does this argument seem reasonable? Has anyone else tried it?

Thanks for the feedback.

Neil

[Mark]

CycleMonkey wrote:
> Has anybody experimented with using different spokes with the triplet
> lacing pattern (16 drive, 8 non-drive spokes)? This pattern appeals
> to me in terms of maximizing the number of driving spokes on a low
> spoke count rear wheel and increasing non-drive spoke tension. From
> various posts that I have read, the main drawback seems to be
> decreased lateral stiffness, due to the decreased number of non-drive
> spokes.
>
> I recently built a wheel with triplet lacing using an IRD Cadence Aero
> rim (Niobium 30) and DT Aerolite spokes.

Does this rim have eyelets that *aren't* each designed to connect to one
particular side of the hub? I.e. eyelets exactly centered on the rim
rather than alternating slightly side to side? ISTR that the first
Matrix ISO rims were "centered," but didn't know there had been others.
Could this be a problem for you?

Mark J.

The wheel does have much
> more lateral movement than usual at the rim - wheel clamped in frame,
> grab rim and move side to side. The customer is complaining about the
> rim rubbing the pads during standing efforts with exagerated bike
> movements. I test rode the bike as well and had the same experience.
>
> Soooo, I'm curious whether a simple change in non-drive spokes will
> cure this problem. Lateral stiffness should be directly related to
> spoke elongation, right? And elongation depends on cross-sectional
> area of the spoke. As far as I understand, the Aerolite (or Sapim CX-
> Ray) is formed from a round 2.0/1.5 mm spoke that is cold forged again
> into the elliptical shape. The area of the center section of the
> round spoke is 2.36 mm^2, while the area of the elliptical one is
> about 30% less at 1.63 mm^2. This should mean that a Revolution spoke
> should be about 45% stiffer in elongation that the Aerolite and
> improve the lateral stiffness of the wheel. And, using a 2.0/1.8 or a
> thicker thicker elliptical spoke would show even more improvement.
>
> Does this argument seem reasonable? Has anyone else tried it?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Neil
>

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

CycleMonkey wrote:
> Has anybody experimented with using different spokes with the triplet
> lacing pattern (16 drive, 8 non-drive spokes)? This pattern appeals
> to me in terms of maximizing the number of driving spokes on a low
> spoke count rear wheel and increasing non-drive spoke tension. From
> various posts that I have read, the main drawback seems to be
> decreased lateral stiffness, due to the decreased number of non-drive
> spokes.
>
> I recently built a wheel with triplet lacing using an IRD Cadence Aero
> rim (Niobium 30) and DT Aerolite spokes. The wheel does have much
> more lateral movement than usual at the rim - wheel clamped in frame,
> grab rim and move side to side. The customer is complaining about the
> rim rubbing the pads during standing efforts with exagerated bike
> movements. I test rode the bike as well and had the same experience.
>
> Soooo, I'm curious whether a simple change in non-drive spokes will
> cure this problem. Lateral stiffness should be directly related to
> spoke elongation, right? And elongation depends on cross-sectional
> area of the spoke. As far as I understand, the Aerolite (or Sapim CX-
> Ray) is formed from a round 2.0/1.5 mm spoke that is cold forged again
> into the elliptical shape. The area of the center section of the
> round spoke is 2.36 mm^2, while the area of the elliptical one is
> about 30% less at 1.63 mm^2. This should mean that a Revolution spoke
> should be about 45% stiffer in elongation that the Aerolite and
> improve the lateral stiffness of the wheel. And, using a 2.0/1.8 or a
> thicker thicker elliptical spoke would show even more improvement.
>
> Does this argument seem reasonable? Has anyone else tried it?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Neil

Guess I gotta ask, as the builder who has this customer, what does
this design do that 8 more spokes would not do, other than weigh about
50 grams more? And seem to be not very stiff(less reliable also?). Not
trying to argue but what was the customer looking for? Compare with a
say, Velocity Aerohead OC rim, 14/15 right side and Revs left
side..all 3 cross. I know boring and traditional but it works well.

[Ron Ruff]

CycleMonkey wrote:
> The area of the center section of the
> round spoke is 2.36 mm^2, while the area of the elliptical one is
> about 30% less at 1.63 mm^2. This should mean that a Revolution spoke
> should be about 45% stiffer in elongation that the Aerolite and
> improve the lateral stiffness of the wheel.

Hi Neal... No, these spokes will have ~the same stiffness, because (I
think) the cross-sectional area is the same. Check the weight... if
they weigh the same then the area should be the same. pi*1.5^2/4 =
1.77mm^2 (not 2.36mm^2)... and they may be a little smaller than
that.

Putting stiffer spokes on the NDS should certainly help, but it is the
bracing angle on the NDS that has the largest effect on the lateral
stiffness. You say that the hub was made for this lacing pattern... if
so, I'm surprised that it does not have a wide spacing on the NDS. Do
you know what the spacing is? Is it laced radial heads-in on the NDS?
This will give the best bracing angle.

I've built a few triplet wheels, including one with only 21 CX-Rays,
Nio30 rim, on a DA hub that I've ridden myself (165 lbs) for ~4k miles
with no issues. No one has complained about too much flex (yet). The
flex issue seems to be highly subjective. I suppose you can get any
bike part to flex if you really try, but this (exaggerated movements)
is not the most efficient way to get down the road. Also consider
opening the brakes a little and see if this solves it... if you can
lock up the rear wheel before the lever hits the bar then you are
good. May I also ask what tension you used?

BTW, *all* of the crossed spokes on the DS transfer torque in ~equal
measure... half by increasing tension and half by decreasing tension.
Having more DS spokes is one advantage of the triplet, IMO... with
ordinary lacing either half the spokes transfer no torque (radial NDS)
or the NDS spokes are subject to loosening from combined radial and
torque loads.

[Chris Nelson]

On Aug 19, 5:24 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> CycleMonkey wrote:
> > Has anybody experimented with using different spokes with the triplet
> > lacing pattern (16 drive, 8 non-drive spokes)? This pattern appeals
> > to me in terms of maximizing the number of driving spokes on a low
> > spoke count rear wheel and increasing non-drive spoke tension. From
> > various posts that I have read, the main drawback seems to be
> > decreased lateral stiffness, due to the decreased number of non-drive
> > spokes.
>
> > I recently built a wheel with triplet lacing using an IRD Cadence Aero
> > rim (Niobium 30) and DT Aerolite spokes. The wheel does have much
> > more lateral movement than usual at the rim - wheel clamped in frame,
> > grab rim and move side to side. The customer is complaining about the
> > rim rubbing the pads during standing efforts with exagerated bike
> > movements. I test rode the bike as well and had the same experience.
>
> > Soooo, I'm curious whether a simple change in non-drive spokes will
> > cure this problem. Lateral stiffness should be directly related to
> > spoke elongation, right? And elongation depends on cross-sectional
> > area of the spoke. As far as I understand, the Aerolite (or Sapim CX-
> > Ray) is formed from a round 2.0/1.5 mm spoke that is cold forged again
> > into the elliptical shape. The area of the center section of the
> > round spoke is 2.36 mm^2, while the area of the elliptical one is
> > about 30% less at 1.63 mm^2. This should mean that a Revolution spoke
> > should be about 45% stiffer in elongation that the Aerolite and
> > improve the lateral stiffness of the wheel. And, using a 2.0/1.8 or a
> > thicker thicker elliptical spoke would show even more improvement.
>
> > Does this argument seem reasonable? Has anyone else tried it?
>
> > Thanks for the feedback.
>
> > Neil
>
> Guess I gotta ask, as the builder who has this customer, what does
> this design do that 8 more spokes would not do, other than weigh about
> 50 grams more? And seem to be not very stiff(less reliable also?). Not
> trying to argue but what was the customer looking for? Compare with a
> say, Velocity Aerohead OC rim, 14/15 right side and Revs left
> side..all 3 cross. I know boring and traditional but it works well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I just ordered a Aerohead OC to replace a bent rear rim, but was gonna
lace it with 14/15/14 on both sides 3x. Would it be a better wheel if
I used DT Revs on the non-drive side?

Chris

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Aug 19, 6:41 pm, Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 5:24 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
>
>
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > CycleMonkey wrote:
> > > Has anybody experimented with using different spokes with the triplet
> > > lacing pattern (16 drive, 8 non-drive spokes)? This pattern appeals
> > > to me in terms of maximizing the number of driving spokes on a low
> > > spoke count rear wheel and increasing non-drive spoke tension. From
> > > various posts that I have read, the main drawback seems to be
> > > decreased lateral stiffness, due to the decreased number of non-drive
> > > spokes.
>
> > > I recently built a wheel with triplet lacing using an IRD Cadence Aero
> > > rim (Niobium 30) and DT Aerolite spokes. The wheel does have much
> > > more lateral movement than usual at the rim - wheel clamped in frame,
> > > grab rim and move side to side. The customer is complaining about the
> > > rim rubbing the pads during standing efforts with exagerated bike
> > > movements. I test rode the bike as well and had the same experience.
>
> > > Soooo, I'm curious whether a simple change in non-drive spokes will
> > > cure this problem. Lateral stiffness should be directly related to
> > > spoke elongation, right? And elongation depends on cross-sectional
> > > area of the spoke. As far as I understand, the Aerolite (or Sapim CX-
> > > Ray) is formed from a round 2.0/1.5 mm spoke that is cold forged again
> > > into the elliptical shape. The area of the center section of the
> > > round spoke is 2.36 mm^2, while the area of the elliptical one is
> > > about 30% less at 1.63 mm^2. This should mean that a Revolution spoke
> > > should be about 45% stiffer in elongation that the Aerolite and
> > > improve the lateral stiffness of the wheel. And, using a 2.0/1.8 or a
> > > thicker thicker elliptical spoke would show even more improvement.
>
> > > Does this argument seem reasonable? Has anyone else tried it?
>
> > > Thanks for the feedback.
>
> > > Neil
>
> > Guess I gotta ask, as the builder who has this customer, what does
> > this design do that 8 more spokes would not do, other than weigh about
> > 50 grams more? And seem to be not very stiff(less reliable also?). Not
> > trying to argue but what was the customer looking for? Compare with a
> > say, Velocity Aerohead OC rim, 14/15 right side and Revs left
> > side..all 3 cross. I know boring and traditional but it works well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I just ordered a Aerohead OC to replace a bent rear rim, but was gonna
> lace it with 14/15/14 on both sides 3x. Would it be a better wheel if
> I used DT Revs on the non-drive side?
>
> Chris

I only use revs on the left side(and only 3 cross) for light, light
riders...riders in the buck 15 to 140 pound range. If you are more
'normal' sized, 14/15 all around. I do it to save a wee bit of
weight..Revs do nothing for ther performance of the wheel...yes, yes,
a wee bit or marketing rears it's ugly head even with handbuilt
wheels.

[CycleMonkey]

Mark, this rim has the spoke holes drilled along the center of the
rim. Most of the Mavic Rims I use have this setup as well as Reynolds
carbon rims. This is not an issue.

Peter, the main motivation was that the hub is drilled for this
configuration so I'm stuck. I know that there are raging debates on
aerodynamic advanteges of spokes, rims, etc., but fewer spokes
disturbing the wind should be a little faster.....maybe. The 30mm
deep rims usually hold up well with fewer spokes than the shallow
rims. I typically recommend the Aeroheads, but some customers want
the deeper profile for a bit of extra aerodynamics. Running a 24
spoke rear wheel effectively gives you 6 driving spokes. The triplet
gives you 8. Not completely sold on the lacing, but I was willing to
give it a try.

Chris, running Revo's on the NDS will 1) save a bit of weight and 2)
be less likely to loosen over time. Not that this is a problem with a
properly built wheel, but since the thinner spokes stretch more, the
rim would have to deflect farther to get them to detension and the
nipples to back off.

Neil

[almost_fast@yahoo.com]

On Aug 19, 9:30 pm, CycleMonkey <i...@cyclemonkey.com> wrote:
> Running a 24
> spoke rear wheel effectively gives you 6 driving spokes.
> Neil

Remember pushing spokes transmit torque too, by decreasing tension. So
I count 12 driving spokes in a 24 spoke wheel, assuming one side is
radially laced. If both sides are crossed, then there are 24 driving
spokes.

[CycleMonkey]

On Aug 20, 8:17 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> CycleMonkey wrote:
> > The area of the center section of the
> > round spoke is 2.36 mm^2, while the area of the elliptical one is
> > about 30% less at 1.63 mm^2. This should mean that a Revolution spoke
> > should be about 45% stiffer in elongation that the Aerolite and
> > improve the lateral stiffness of the wheel.
>
> Hi Neal... No, these spokes will have ~the same stiffness, because (I
> think) the cross-sectional area is the same. Check the weight... if
> they weigh the same then the area should be the same. pi*1.5^2/4 =
> 1.77mm^2 (not 2.36mm^2)... and they may be a little smaller than
> that.
>
> Putting stiffer spokes on the NDS should certainly help, but it is the
> bracing angle on the NDS that has the largest effect on the lateral
> stiffness. You say that the hub was made for this lacing pattern... if
> so, I'm surprised that it does not have a wide spacing on the NDS. Do
> you know what the spacing is? Is it laced radial heads-in on the NDS?
> This will give the best bracing angle.
>
> I've built a few triplet wheels, including one with only 21 CX-Rays,
> Nio30 rim, on a DA hub that I've ridden myself (165 lbs) for ~4k miles
> with no issues. No one has complained about too much flex (yet). The
> flex issue seems to be highly subjective. I suppose you can get any
> bike part to flex if you really try, but this (exaggerated movements)
> is not the most efficient way to get down the road. Also consider
> opening the brakes a little and see if this solves it... if you can
> lock up the rear wheel before the lever hits the bar then you are
> good. May I also ask what tension you used?
>
> BTW, *all* of the crossed spokes on the DS transfer torque in ~equal
> measure... half by increasing tension and half by decreasing tension.
> Having more DS spokes is one advantage of the triplet, IMO... with
> ordinary lacing either half the spokes transfer no torque (radial NDS)
> or the NDS spokes are subject to loosening from combined radial and
> torque loads.

Ron,

You're right, I forgot to square the radius on my spreadsheet. That
makes much more sense. The 2.0/1.8 spokes are still going to be 50%
stiffer. Just trying to get a poll to see if it seems like it will be
worth the effort to swap the spokes.

I don't know what the flange spacing is, but it's not nearly as wide
as it could be and I don't have them in front of me. There is a wide
spacer on the left side that puts the flange in what I would call a
"normal" location. The hub uses straight pull spokes so no heads in/
out option. It's a rebuild of a Specialized Roval wheel following a
crash. Customer wanted a deeper rim on the rebuild. Stock rim was
24mm deep, no problems. I can't believe that the Cadence Aero would
be less sturdy.

DS spoke tension is about 1150N, which I thought was safe but could go
up a bit. The brake rub ocurs under moderate swaying of the bike
during standing climbing and aggressive cornering. Opening the brakes
definitely helps, but the customer likes the brakes set tighter. I
run mine so the levers barely touch the bar.

BTW where did you find a 21 hole rim?

Neil

[Ron Ruff]

On Aug 20, 10:15 am, CycleMonkey <i...@cyclemonkey.com> wrote:
> BTW where did you find a 21 hole rim?

Didn't... just skipped every 4th hole in a 28h rim. A small piece of
electrical tape covers the extra holes.

I'm a stumped too. If the original wheel was triplet laced and it had
no flex issues, I'm surprised that the Nio30 would have problems. Did
you weigh the original rim? If it was heavy, then that could be the
reason. Did it have the same or similar spokes? Which Roval wheel was
this?

[CycleMonkey]

On Aug 20, 7:41 pm, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 10:15 am, CycleMonkey <i...@cyclemonkey.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW where did you find a 21 hole rim?
>
> Didn't... just skipped every 4th hole in a 28h rim. A small piece of
> electrical tape covers the extra holes.
>

Oh, well I guess that would work as.


> I'm a stumped too. If the original wheel was triplet laced and it had
> no flex issues, I'm surprised that the Nio30 would have problems. Did
> you weigh the original rim? If it was heavy, then that could be the
> reason. Did it have the same or similar spokes? Which Roval wheel was
> this?



Roval Fusee. Same spokes, just trimmed them a bit to fit the new
rim. The E5 rim is wider 21 vs 19 mm, I'll have to see if I still
have it to weigh it. I did order the thicker spokes for the
experiment.