Do you know anything about spoke patterns?

[limeylew@gmail.com]

I would like to lace a 28 spoke, rear hub, into a 36 hole, 20 inch
(406mm) rim.

Although I have built hundreds of wheels, I have never tried any
'different' patterns and would appreciate a suggestion as to what
would be a good way to do this.

TIA.

Lewis.

*****

[Tom Sherman]

limeylew@gmail.com aka Lewis Campbell wrote:
> I would like to lace a 28 spoke, rear hub, into a 36 hole, 20 inch
> (406mm) rim.
>
> Although I have built hundreds of wheels, I have never tried any
> 'different' patterns and would appreciate a suggestion as to what
> would be a good way to do this.

Have you read this article: <http://sheldonbrown.com/mismatch/index.htm>?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Chalo]

limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I would like to lace a 28 spoke, rear hub, into a 36 hole, 20 inch
> (406mm) rim.

28 and 36 have a common factor of 4, so maybe you could try lacing it
as a 4 spoke wheel. What could be more aero? :^D

Chalo

[Nick Payne]

Pretty much impossible to build a reliable wheel, I would say, as you would
effectively have 8 missing spokes at the rim. You can do it the other way
around: eg I've laced 24-spoke rims on a 36h hub by leaving every third hole
on the hub empty.

Better to look for a cheap 36h hub on eBay.

Nick

<limeylew@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c97b2504-4adc-4f58-aff6-be05e2ebaf43@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I would like to lace a 28 spoke, rear hub, into a 36 hole, 20 inch
> (406mm) rim.
>
> Although I have built hundreds of wheels, I have never tried any
> 'different' patterns and would appreciate a suggestion as to what
> would be a good way to do this.
>
> TIA.
>
> Lewis.
>
> *****

[Luke Forward]

Agree w/ Nick's point. Unless Lewis' 20" rim is a truely rigid one,
building it leaving some empty spoke holes won't produce a rideable
wheel.

I've just tried few weeks ago, building a normal 32H hub/rim set into
only 16 spokes. My goal was to build a rideable and fancy wheel for my
commutor. Since I weigh only 60kg and for commuting purpose, I thought
16-spoke wheel may be a achiable one.

The wheelset I tried is a spare recreation leven front wheel, single
wall rim, plain 14G spoke, and a entry-end Formula hub. The rim and
hub are 32H, originally laced X3.

The first attemp I laced like this, http://blog.xuite.net/lukeforward/lukecycles/15030782,
which failed in the beginning. The rim is too soft, and the lacing
pattern put the spoke in a ELELRERE order (E for empty, L means spoke
from the left side). These two reason make the wheel totally
incontrollable, crazy taco.

Then the second attemp is, http://blog.xuite.net/lukeforward/lukecycles/15145368,
this time the lacing pattern got better, spoke lined on the rim in a
EELRLREE, the wheel is much lateral true since spokes are put in
consecutive LR order. However, the rim is way too soft so the section
that no spoke connected is farther to the hub, leaving a radial untrue
wheel.

On Jan 14, 7:48*pm, "Nick Payne" <some...@nowhere.au> wrote:
> Pretty much impossible to build a reliable wheel, I would say, as you would
> effectively have 8 missing spokes at the rim. You can do it the other way
> around: eg I've laced 24-spoke rims on a 36h hub by leaving every third hole
> on the hub empty.
>
> Better to look for a cheap 36h hub on eBay.
>
> Nick

[Tom Sherman]

Luke Forward wrote:
> Agree w/ Nick's point. Unless Lewis' 20" rim is a truely rigid one,
> building it leaving some empty spoke holes won't produce a rideable
> wheel.
>
> I've just tried few weeks ago, building a normal 32H hub/rim set into
> only 16 spokes. My goal was to build a rideable and fancy wheel for my
> commutor. Since I weigh only 60kg and for commuting purpose, I thought
> 16-spoke wheel may be a achiable one....

BikeE used to build their front wheels with 18 spokes, using 36-hole
hubs and rims. However, this was in the ISO 305-mm size on a bicycle
that only puts 20 to 30 percent of its weight on the front wheel.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Luke]

In article
<e235b14d-1fdb-45c9-8a1a-f14a67a523b2@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Luke Forward <lukefoward@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agree w/ Nick's point. Unless Lewis' 20" rim is a truely rigid one,
> building it leaving some empty spoke holes won't produce a rideable
> wheel.
>
> I've just tried few weeks ago, building a normal 32H hub/rim set into
> only 16 spokes. My goal was to build a rideable and fancy wheel for my
> commutor. Since I weigh only 60kg and for commuting purpose, I thought
> 16-spoke wheel may be a achiable one.
>
> The wheelset I tried is a spare recreation leven front wheel, single
> wall rim, plain 14G spoke, and a entry-end Formula hub. The rim and
> hub are 32H, originally laced X3.
>
> The first attemp I laced like this,
> http://blog.xuite.net/lukeforward/lukecycles/15030782,
> which failed in the beginning. The rim is too soft, and the lacing
> pattern put the spoke in a ELELRERE order (E for empty, L means spoke
> from the left side). These two reason make the wheel totally
> incontrollable, crazy taco.
>
> Then the second attemp is,
> http://blog.xuite.net/lukeforward/lukecycles/15145368,
> this time the lacing pattern got better, spoke lined on the rim in a
> EELRLREE, the wheel is much lateral true since spokes are put in
> consecutive LR order. However, the rim is way too soft so the section
> that no spoke connected is farther to the hub, leaving a radial untrue
> wheel.

Why not try the simplest 16 spoke lacing option possible with the 32
hole rim/hub combo: a pattern that utilizes every second hole?
Calculate the spoke length according to a 32 spoke 3X, or for the 16
spoke alternative, 4X pattern.

Though it'll probably still be inadequate, the symmetry of this lacing
pattern will provide the greatest strength of all the 16 spoke
alternatives available to you.

[Chalo]

Luke wrote:
>
> Why not try the simplest 16 spoke lacing option possible with the 32
> hole rim/hub combo: a pattern that utilizes every second hole?

Because then half your spokes thread into nipples that point towards
the opposite flange.

Chalo

[Luke]

In article
<f4df1c52-d411-436b-bfe1-4ff426f652ad@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:

> Luke wrote:
> >
> > Why not try the simplest 16 spoke lacing option possible with the 32
> > hole rim/hub combo: a pattern that utilizes every second hole?
>
> Because then half your spokes thread into nipples that point towards
> the opposite flange.
>
> Chalo

Ooops, you're right; closer inspection reveals the holes are drilled
offset. Well, the next best option would be a pattern that uses two
consecutive rim holes then skips two.

[dabac]

Chalo Wrote:
> Luke wrote:
> >
> > Why not try the simplest 16 spoke lacing option possible with the 32
> > hole rim/hub combo: a pattern that utilizes every second hole?
>
> Because then half your spokes thread into nipples that point towards
> the opposite flange.
>
> Chalo

Although I admit that my research base is limited to one wheel, I
believe that such a mismatch doesn't have to be critical. I've got a
mavic Ceramic that I built lateral cross on purpose, and it seems to be
doing just fine. But of course other rims might have a more aggressive
offset pattern.


--
dabac

[Chalo]

Luke wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Luke wrote:
> > >
> > > Why not try the simplest 16 spoke lacing option possible with the 32
> > > hole rim/hub combo: a pattern that utilizes every second hole?
> >
> > Because then half your spokes thread into nipples that point towards
> > the opposite flange.
>
> Ooops, you're right; closer inspection reveals the holes are drilled
> offset. Well, the next best option would be a pattern that uses two
> consecutive rim holes then skips two.

Ah, "paired spokes". Doesn't Rolf have a patent on that? ;^)

Chalo

[Luke Forward]

On Jan 15, 10:41*pm, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Ooops, you're right; closer inspection reveals the holes are drilled
> offset. Well, the next best option would be a pattern that uses two
> consecutive rim holes then skips two.

This pattern is what I thought that might work. I came up with this
idea after my first attempt failed. The tricky point, as you've
described "a pattern that uses 2 consecutive rim holes then skips
two", is that this pattern can't be realized using all X3 lenghth
spokes(due to pulling/pushing spoke going to the same hub hole), and
it must be modified into X3 (pulling/pushing) and X2 (pushing/
pulling). Try get a wrecked 32H wheel and re-spoke one side of it then
you will see.

[Luke]

In article
<cbbab670-1c39-4705-82b5-5d1f56e54314@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Luke Forward <lukefoward@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 15, 10:41*pm, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > Ooops, you're right; closer inspection reveals the holes are drilled
> > offset. Well, the next best option would be a pattern that uses two
> > consecutive rim holes then skips two.
>
> This pattern is what I thought that might work. I came up with this
> idea after my first attempt failed. The tricky point, as you've
> described "a pattern that uses 2 consecutive rim holes then skips
> two", is that this pattern can't be realized using all X3 lenghth
> spokes(due to pulling/pushing spoke going to the same hub hole), and
> it must be modified into X3 (pulling/pushing) and X2 (pushing/
> pulling). Try get a wrecked 32H wheel and re-spoke one side of it then
> you will see.


Get a 32 spoke wheel; remove 16 of the spokes so that each pair of
spokes at the rim is bordered by two unused holes and, voila!, you have
what I described -- regardless of the pushing, pulling spoke
orientation, and, of more concern, the strength and durability of the
wheel.

The sequence of unlaced and laced holes at the hub flanges will not
correlate with the alternating 2 laced, 2 unlaced pattern at the rim,
but one length of spoke, whether it's 0, 1, 2, or 3X, is all that's
required to achieve this result.

But if the symmetry of the pushing/pulling spoke orientation is an
issue, back to the drawing board....

[Luke Forward]

On 1$B7n(B16$BF|(B, $B>e8a(B10$B;~(B06$BJ,(B, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> wrote:
> In article
> <cbbab670-1c39-4705-82b5-5d1f56e54...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Get a 32 spoke wheel; remove 16 of the spokes so that each pair of
> spokes at the rim is bordered by two unused holes and, voila!, you have
> what I described -- regardless of the pushing, pulling spoke
> orientation, and, of more concern, the strength and durability of the
> wheel.

Perheps someone may try this method above and the exactlly same
lacing as what I have done the first time will be expected. like this
http://blog.xuite.net/lukeforward/lukecycles/15030782

> The sequence of unlaced and laced holes at the hub flanges will not
> correlate with the alternating 2 laced, 2 unlaced pattern at the rim,
> but one length of spoke, whether it's 0, 1, 2, or 3X, is all that's
> required to achieve this result.
>
> But if the symmetry of the pushing/pulling spoke orientation is an
> issue, back to the drawing board....

Then simply remove all the pushing spokes(or pulling whatever) will be
much easier - half spokes without orientation and rimhole offset
consideration, but I doubt if it is rideable, or, buildable.