4 cross lacing - over, over, under, over?

Bruce Lange said:

Yesterday I was browsing "Effective Cycling" by John Forester and
came across this passage in Chapter 20 "Building Wheels" under the
subsection "Wheels for Heavy Riders" (page 182 of the 6th edition):

Quoted message said:

"... Lace the spokes so that both outer crosses are woven. That is,
make each outside spoke go under the third cross and over the the
fourth cross..."

Quoted message said:

Questions:

Quoted message said:

Does anybody do this?

Of course. You can find people who do the weirdest things.

Quoted message said:

Will it result in both of the outside crosses touching each other?

Quoted message said:

Will it improve the durability of a wheel?

Quoted message said:

Would it require a slightly longer spoke?

Quoted message said:

I suggest restricting the discussion to 40-spoke wheels, to avoid
the age-old question of how many spoke crosses a 36-hole wheel
should have.

What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how. Just
because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We often see
advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no substantiating
evidence of validity. These are to be taken with a large grain of
salt, so to speak.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Bruce Lange said:

Yesterday I was browsing "Effective Cycling" by John Forester and came
across this passage in Chapter 20 "Building Wheels" under the subsection
"Wheels for Heavy Riders" (page 182 of the 6th edition):

". . . Lace the spokes so that both outer crosses are woven. That is, make
each outside spoke go under the third cross and over the the fourth cross. .
."

Questions:

Does anybody do this?

Will it result in both of the outside crosses touching each other?

Will it improve the durability of a wheel?

Would it require a slightly longer spoke?

I suggest restricting the discussion to 40-spoke wheels, to avoid the
age-old question of how many spoke crosses a 36-hole wheel should have. 🙂

Thanks in advance,

-Bruce-

Spoke deflection is less than 1 percent of the spoke length in most
cases. If you take the SIN of that tiny offset you will see that it
cannot increase the stregth of the wheel by much even under the
heaviest loading.

Jobst Brandt said:

What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how. Just
because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We often see
advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no substantiating
evidence of validity. These are to be taken with a large grain of
salt, so to speak.

Jobst,

I realize this, but I thought the idea might have some merit, particularly
if both spoke crossing touch. If they did, could this help to better
distribute the radial load on a spoke in the load-affected zone to other
spokes?

Bruce Lange said:

Yesterday I was browsing "Effective Cycling" by John Forester and came
across this passage in Chapter 20 "Building Wheels" under the subsection
"Wheels for Heavy Riders" (page 182 of the 6th edition):

". . . Lace the spokes so that both outer crosses are woven. That is, make
each outside spoke go under the third cross and over the the fourth cross.
. ."

Forester does have some odd ideas. Sure, someone does this. But beyond
the usual "because it was there" there is no reason do do it. No, it will
not make the wheel stronger. It will be a pain in the ass to do, to no
avail.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You
_`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it!
(_)/ (_) |

Bruce Lange said:

Quoted message said:

What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how. Just
because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We often
see advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no substantiating
evidence of validity. These are to be taken with a large grain of
salt, so to speak.

Quoted message said:

I realize this, but I thought the idea might have some merit,
particularly if both spoke crossing touch. If they did, could this
help to better distribute the radial load on a spoke in the
load-affected zone to other spokes?

If tying and soldering doesn't affect radial or lateral strength or
rigidity of the wheel, how is additional interleaving supposed to make
any difference? As I mentioned, "the Bicycle Wheel" goes through all
that in more than enough detail, in anticipation of such claims.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

"David L. Johnson" wrote: Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling
with a pig...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am an engineer, but in this case, I am not arguing. Didn't we recently
have a discussion about tying/soldering the spoke intersections? And the
authoritative info (Jobst?--I can't remember for sure) was that even that
does not make the wheel stronger. If that's true, then, certainly, anything
less would be of no value.

Quoted message said:

Bruce Lange said:

Quoted message said:

What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how. Just
because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We often
see advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no substantiating
evidence of validity. These are to be taken with a large grain of
salt, so to speak.

Quoted message said:

I realize this, but I thought the idea might have some merit,
particularly if both spoke crossing touch. If they did, could this
help to better distribute the radial load on a spoke in the
load-affected zone to other spokes?

If tying and soldering doesn't affect radial or lateral strength or
rigidity of the wheel, how is additional interleaving supposed to make
any difference? As I mentioned, "the Bicycle Wheel" goes through all
that in more than enough detail, in anticipation of such claims.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

but don't you say that interleaving is beneficial? how is that?

Old Crow said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how. Just
because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We often
see advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no substantiating
evidence of validity. These are to be taken with a large grain of
salt, so to speak.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I realize this, but I thought the idea might have some merit,
particularly if both spoke crossing touch. If they did, could this
help to better distribute the radial load on a spoke in the
load-affected zone to other spokes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If tying and soldering doesn't affect radial or lateral strength or
rigidity of the wheel, how is additional interleaving supposed to
make any difference? As I mentioned, "the Bicycle Wheel" goes
through all that in more than enough detail, in anticipation of
such claims.

Quoted message said:

But don't you Say that interleaving is beneficial? How is that?

I didn't see that in this thread. Where did you see that?

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Old Crow said:

Quoted message said:

> What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how. Just
> because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We often
> see advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no substantiating
> evidence of validity. These are to be taken with a large grain of
> salt, so to speak.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I realize this, but I thought the idea might have some merit,
> particularly if both spoke crossing touch. If they did, could this
> help to better distribute the radial load on a spoke in the
> load-affected zone to other spokes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If tying and soldering doesn't affect radial or lateral strength or
rigidity of the wheel, how is additional interleaving supposed to
make any difference? As I mentioned, "the Bicycle Wheel" goes
through all that in more than enough detail, in anticipation of
such claims.

Quoted message said:

But don't you Say that interleaving is beneficial? How is that?

I didn't see that in this thread. Where did you see that?

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Dear Jobst,

Possibly Jim has this in mind when he thought that you found
spoke interleaving beneficial?

Greg Groth writes:

"Don't want to start a war on the merits of tying and
soldering, I suppose I should have asked my question stated
as follows. Did the art of going over, over, under on a 3X
wheel replace the need for tying and soldering?"

Jobst replied:

"No. Tying and soldering doesn't work well with
non-interlaced spokes because they pass each other with
about a spoke thickness gap or so. Interleaving is done to
prevent spokes from going momentarily slack on wheel impact,
thereby preventing the nipple from unscrewing. Spokes still
slacken but not entirely."

"Tying and soldering was introduced by the Starley brothers,
at the time they introduced cross laced spoking for high
wheel bicycles. Cross lacing allowed tying spokes together
so that upon failure, on a high wheeler, the spoke did not
cause the otherwise inevitable header, as it tangled in the
fork. It was a safety measure. Bicycle mechanics being a
resourceful lot, attributed all sorts of benefits to the
practice, that should have died with the advent of the
safety (chain driven) bicycle that we alll ride today. But
losing this incredible income of tying spokes was not in the
interest of wheel builders, who in a move of self
preservation began to believe the added strength this method
gave a wheel. In fact it was with the safety bicycle that
wire and solder became popular, twine and shellac not being
a convincing medium."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=jobst+interleaving&hl=en&lr=&group=rec.bicycles.tech&scoring=d&selm=97v383%249d2%2414%40hplms2.hpl.hp.com&rnum=10

or http://tinyurl.com/5du2w

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Old Crow said:

Quoted message said:

>What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how. Just
>because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We often
>see advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no substantiating
>evidence of validity. These are to be taken with a large grain of
>salt, so to speak.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I realize this, but I thought the idea might have some merit,
>particularly if both spoke crossing touch. If they did, could this
>help to better distribute the radial load on a spoke in the
>load-affected zone to other spokes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If tying and soldering doesn't affect radial or lateral strength or
rigidity of the wheel, how is additional interleaving supposed to
make any difference? As I mentioned, "the Bicycle Wheel" goes
through all that in more than enough detail, in anticipation of
such claims.

Quoted message said:

But don't you Say that interleaving is beneficial? How is that?

I didn't see that in this thread. Where did you see that?

isn't it in your book?

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If tying and soldering doesn't affect radial or lateral strength or
rigidity of the wheel, how is additional interleaving supposed to
make any difference? As I mentioned, "the Bicycle Wheel" goes
through all that in more than enough detail, in anticipation of
such claims.

Quoted message said:

But don't you Say that interleaving is beneficial? How is that?

I didn't see that in this thread. Where did you see that?

Jobst,

In "The Bicycle Wheel" - Part I - Wheel Design - Spoke Patterns - Interlaced
Spokes you wrote:

"Interlaced spokes take up each other's slack during severe radial loading
and reduce the chance of spokes becoming loose."

If additional interleaving makes no difference, even if the spokes touch,
does this mean that interlacing once is only a very minor benefit? Would we
be almost just as well off to not cross spokes at all?

"The Bicycle Wheel" addresses tying & soldering, but since it suggests that
interlacing spokes is beneficial with respect to radial loads, I think it
only naturally raises the question, "Why not twice?"

-Bruce-

Leo Lichtman said:

"David L. Johnson" wrote: Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling
with a pig...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am an engineer, but in this case, I am not arguing. Didn't we recently
have a discussion about tying/soldering the spoke intersections?

Many, many times. I used to do this, but learned better.

As far as the quote goes, I exercise no control over which quote my
computer chooses. Sometimes it's more apt than others.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front
_`\(,_ | of enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of
(_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The
internet has proven this not to be the case.

Old Crow said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how.
>> Just because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We
>> often see advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no
>> substantiating evidence of validity. These are to be taken with
>> a large grain of salt, so to speak.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I realize this, but I thought the idea might have some merit,
>> particularly if both spoke crossing touch. If they did, could
>> this help to better distribute the radial load on a spoke in the
>> load-affected zone to other spokes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If tying and soldering doesn't affect radial or lateral strength
> or rigidity of the wheel, how is additional interleaving supposed
> to make any difference? As I mentioned, "the Bicycle Wheel" goes
> through all that in more than enough detail, in anticipation of
> such claims.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But don't you Say that interleaving is beneficial? How is that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't see that in this thread. Where did you see that?

Quoted message said:

Isn't it in your book?

Well, if you read the book then you don't need to ask the question
because it explains plenty about why one should interleave spokes and
how. Your little specious questions are too obvious to reply to in
any detail.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Bruce Lange said:

Yesterday I was browsing "Effective Cycling" by John Forester and
came across this passage in Chapter 20 "Building Wheels" under the
subsection "Wheels for Heavy Riders" (page 182 of the 6th edition):

Quoted message said:

"... Lace the spokes so that both outer crosses are woven. That is,
make each outside spoke go under the third cross and over the the
fourth cross..."

Quoted message said:

Questions:

Quoted message said:

Does anybody do this?

Of course. You can find people who do the weirdest things.

Quoted message said:

Will it result in both of the outside crosses touching each other?

Quoted message said:

Will it improve the durability of a wheel?

Quoted message said:

Would it require a slightly longer spoke?

Quoted message said:

I suggest restricting the discussion to 40-spoke wheels, to avoid
the age-old question of how many spoke crosses a 36-hole wheel
should have.

What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how. Just
because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We often see
advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no substantiating
evidence of validity. These are to be taken with a large grain of
salt, so to speak.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

http://img81.exs.cx/img81/6066/SadKitty.jpg

Quoted message said:

Old Crow writes:

ah, back to the abuse. political off-topics not zesty enough for you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how.
>>>Just because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We
>>>often see advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no
>>>substantiating evidence of validity. These are to be taken with
>>>a large grain of salt, so to speak.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>I realize this, but I thought the idea might have some merit,
>>>particularly if both spoke crossing touch. If they did, could
>>>this help to better distribute the radial load on a spoke in the
>>>load-affected zone to other spokes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>If tying and soldering doesn't affect radial or lateral strength
>>or rigidity of the wheel, how is additional interleaving supposed
>>to make any difference? As I mentioned, "the Bicycle Wheel" goes
>>through all that in more than enough detail, in anticipation of
>>such claims.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>But don't you Say that interleaving is beneficial? How is that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't see that in this thread. Where did you see that?

Quoted message said:

Isn't it in your book?

Well, if you read the book then you don't need to ask the question
because it explains plenty about why one should interleave spokes and
how. Your little specious questions are too obvious to reply to in
any detail.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

i guess what i'm getting at is your contradiction.

you say interleaving is beneficial i.e. "Interlaced spokes take up each
other's slack during severe radial loading and reduce the chance of
spokes becoming loose." [thanks for the quote bruce].

but you apparently don't care to extend the same benefits to t&s. why
not? wouldn't t&s reinforce this behavior and make it more reliable?
it's better than relying on mere friction. i don't understand how you
test for torque, the mode most likely to show no benefits from t&s, but
you don't test for lateral load, the mode in which spokes unload the
most. surely, data acquisition in both modes is essential to be able to
make both claims, particularly when it comes to being a fatigue analysis
expert, the mast to which you've nailed your flag?

Quoted message said:

Old Crow said:

Quoted message said:

>>> What does "Defective Cycling" say this accomplishes and how.
>>> Just because it's in print doesn't make it true or logical. We
>>> often see advice and old saws right on wreck.bike with no
>>> substantiating evidence of validity. These are to be taken with
>>> a large grain of salt, so to speak.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I realize this, but I thought the idea might have some merit,
>>> particularly if both spoke crossing touch. If they did, could
>>> this help to better distribute the radial load on a spoke in the
>>> load-affected zone to other spokes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> If tying and soldering doesn't affect radial or lateral strength
>> or rigidity of the wheel, how is additional interleaving supposed
>> to make any difference? As I mentioned, "the Bicycle Wheel" goes
>> through all that in more than enough detail, in anticipation of
>> such claims.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> But don't you Say that interleaving is beneficial? How is that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't see that in this thread. Where did you see that?

Quoted message said:

Isn't it in your book?

Well, if you read the book then you don't need to ask the question
because it explains plenty about why one should interleave spokes and
how. Your little specious questions are too obvious to reply to in
any detail.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Dear Louis XIV,

Mon Dieu! Lèse-majesté!

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't it in your book?

Well, if you read the book then you don't need to ask the question
because it explains plenty about why one should interleave spokes and
how. Your little specious questions are too obvious to reply to in
any detail.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

i guess what i'm getting at is your contradiction.

you say interleaving is beneficial i.e. "Interlaced spokes take up each
other's slack during severe radial loading and reduce the chance of
spokes becoming loose." [thanks for the quote bruce].

but you apparently don't care to extend the same benefits to t&s. why
not? wouldn't t&s reinforce this behavior and make it more reliable?
it's better than relying on mere friction. i don't understand how you
test for torque, the mode most likely to show no benefits from t&s, but
you don't test for lateral load, the mode in which spokes unload the
most. surely, data acquisition in both modes is essential to be able to
make both claims, particularly when it comes to being a fatigue analysis
expert, the mast to which you've nailed your flag?

Well on careful review of the Google archives for wreck.tech, Jobst did
indeed answer the question in more detail. Prior to this thread I hadn't
thought to search on the word "interleaving", but when I did I found several
threads where Jobst explained the purpose of crossing spokes. The key phrase
in The Bicycle Wheel quotation is "severe radial loading", as in when you go
off a tall curb or hit a big pothole. So it has to do with these
"catastrophic" events rather than day-to-day fatigue resistance. When a
spoke in the load-affected zone goes completely slack, the role of the
crossed spoke is to pull the slack spoke to the side, providing enough
tension to keep the nipple from loosening. However to get that from the book
(which is excellent by the way), you have to read between the lines.

Did anybody answer the guy?

It's over, over, over, under..

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> But don't you Say that interleaving is beneficial? How is that?

jobst:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I didn't see that in this thread. Where did you see that?

jim beam:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't it in your book?

jobst:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, if you read the book then you don't need to ask the question
because it explains plenty about why one should interleave spokes and
how. Your little specious questions are too obvious to reply to in
any detail.

jim beam:

Quoted message said:

i guess what i'm getting at is your contradiction.

you say interleaving is beneficial i.e. "Interlaced spokes take up each
other's slack during severe radial loading and reduce the chance of
spokes becoming loose." [thanks for the quote bruce].

but you apparently don't care to extend the same benefits to t&s. why
not? wouldn't t&s reinforce this behavior and make it more reliable?
it's better than relying on mere friction. i don't understand how you
test for torque, the mode most likely to show no benefits from t&s, but
you don't test for lateral load, the mode in which spokes unload the
most.

If you look through the archives, you'll see that Jobst is of the belief
that lateral loads on a bicycle (2 inline wheels) are not significant.
So if t&s makes a wheel laterally stronger, the benefit would not be
noticeable.

I've tacoed a wheel in an MTB crash, and I am quite sure that a bicycle
wheel sees significant side loads during sprinting. But most spoked
bicycle wheels are laterally strong enough to handle the side loads
encountered during normal operation, so I agree that lateral strength
improvement is probably not a critical issue.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu