Current (2005) Campagnolo 36 spoke hubs OK for 4x?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by [email protected]t, Nov 30, 2005.

  1. Howdy!

    Reading over several dozen relevant threads from the past 10 or so
    years, there seems to be mixed feelings about 4x spoking on 36 hole
    hubs. Some say no problem, some say there is a bit of interference but
    it's OK, and others say flat-out don't do it. Can anyone say for sure
    if current (as of 2005) Campagnolo 36 hole rear hubs work OK with a 4x
    spoke pattern or not? If not, then is a 3x rear wheel better in 32
    spokes or 36?

    Thanks for any comments,
    Tad
     
    Tags:


  2. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > Reading over several dozen relevant threads from the past 10 or so
    > years, there seems to be mixed feelings about 4x spoking on 36 hole
    > hubs. Some say no problem, some say there is a bit of interference but
    > it's OK, and others say flat-out don't do it. Can anyone say for sure
    > if current (as of 2005) Campagnolo 36 hole rear hubs work OK with a 4x
    > spoke pattern or not? If not, then is a 3x rear wheel better in 32
    > spokes or 36?


    In my observation and experience, cross-four lacing on 36 spoke wheels
    is best limited to wheels with high flange hubs. (To my knowledge,
    Campagnolo have not offered high flange hubs for the last many years.)
    If you use cross-four lacing on low flange 36 hole hubs, spokes will
    overlap the heads of adjacent spokes, complicating repairs should spoke
    replacement become necessary.

    Cross-three lacing is suitable for pretty much all 32 and 36 spoke
    wheels, and whether you use one spoke count or the other should be
    predicated upon strength requirements, parts availablity, etc., and not
    upon your chosen lacing pattern.

    Chalo Colina
     
  3. On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:29:22 -0800, tad wrote:

    > Howdy!
    >
    > Reading over several dozen relevant threads from the past 10 or so
    > years, there seems to be mixed feelings about 4x spoking on 36 hole
    > hubs. Some say no problem, some say there is a bit of interference but
    > it's OK, and others say flat-out don't do it. Can anyone say for sure
    > if current (as of 2005) Campagnolo 36 hole rear hubs work OK with a 4x
    > spoke pattern or not? If not, then is a 3x rear wheel better in 32
    > spokes or 36?


    For one thing, how could it make any difference what year or model of hub
    is being used? My experience is that 4x on 36-spoke wheels was OK, but
    that 3x worked just as well. More than 36 spokes then you would
    definitely want 4x, less than 36 you would want 3x or fewer. The issue is
    the angle that the spokes come in to the hub at. With 32 spoke hubs, a 4x
    pattern would be beyond tangential to the edge of the flange, so you would
    get interference, but 36 would be OK.

    One advantage is that with 4x 36 spoke hubs you can swap out a high-flange
    for a low flange and re-use the same spokes; the flange height doesn't
    change the spoke length. Granted, this is not something that comes up
    often, but it did for me once, and will again this winter.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | "It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster." --Greg LeMond
    _`\(,_ |
    (_)/ (_) |
     
  4. In article
    <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] wrote:

    > Howdy!
    >
    > Reading over several dozen relevant threads from the past 10 or so
    > years, there seems to be mixed feelings about 4x spoking on 36 hole
    > hubs. Some say no problem, some say there is a bit of interference but
    > it's OK, and others say flat-out don't do it. Can anyone say for sure
    > if current (as of 2005) Campagnolo 36 hole rear hubs work OK with a 4x
    > spoke pattern or not? If not, then is a 3x rear wheel better in 32
    > spokes or 36?


    There is no intrinsic advantage to 1 cross compared to 2
    cross compared to 3 cross compared to 4 cross. 0 cross
    (radial) spoking does have some wind up compared to
    1,2,3,4 cross, and is contra-indicated for hubs not
    designed to be radially spoked.

    Simply pick the cross pattern that has the spokes leaving
    the hub flange closest to tangential. Hub flange drillings
    are more likely to tear out radially, and almost
    impossible to tear out tangentially. There are web site
    computers to help you with this calculation.

    --
    Michael Press
     
  5. [email protected] wrote:
    > Howdy!
    >
    > Reading over several dozen relevant threads from the past 10 or so
    > years, there seems to be mixed feelings about 4x spoking on 36 hole
    > hubs. Some say no problem, some say there is a bit of interference but
    > it's OK, and others say flat-out don't do it. Can anyone say for sure
    > if current (as of 2005) Campagnolo 36 hole rear hubs work OK with a 4x
    > spoke pattern or not? If not, then is a 3x rear wheel better in 32
    > spokes or 36?
    >
    > Thanks for any comments,
    > Tad


    It won't hurt anything but the spokes at the hub flange will overlay a
    lot of the flange. Kinda like 28 and 3 cross. No real reason to do 4
    cross on 36, 32 3 cross along with 36, 40 4 cross is what I use.
     
  6. [email protected] wrote:
    > Howdy!
    >
    > Reading over several dozen relevant threads from the past 10 or so
    > years, there seems to be mixed feelings about 4x spoking on 36 hole
    > hubs. Some say no problem, some say there is a bit of interference but
    > it's OK, and others say flat-out don't do it. Can anyone say for sure
    > if current (as of 2005) Campagnolo 36 hole rear hubs work OK with a 4x
    > spoke pattern or not? If not, then is a 3x rear wheel better in 32
    > spokes or 36?
    >
    > Thanks for any comments,
    > Tad


    Well, I answered my own question last night. In lieu of sleeping, I sat
    up with my Campy/Open Pro 32 hole wheel with a pair of calipers and and
    my CAD program and drew the wheel as it would be with 36 spokes. With
    the 44mm pitch circle diameter of the Campy hub, 4x and 36 spokes
    causes each spoke to overlap the head of the adjacent spoke about half
    way. So, no 4x with 36 spokes with current Campy hubs.

    Tad
     
  7. PK

    PK Guest

    David L Johnson wrote
    > One advantage is that with 4x 36 spoke hubs you can swap out a high-flange
    > for a low flange and re-use the same spokes; the flange height doesn't
    > change the spoke length.


    ? what does it mean

    PK
     
  8. Someone wrote:
    >
    >>Reading over several dozen relevant threads from the past 10 or so
    >>years, there seems to be mixed feelings about 4x spoking on 36 hole
    >>hubs. Some say no problem, some say there is a bit of interference but
    >>it's OK, and others say flat-out don't do it. Can anyone say for sure
    >>if current (as of 2005) Campagnolo 36 hole rear hubs work OK with a 4x
    >>spoke pattern or not? If not, then is a 3x rear wheel better in 32
    >>spokes or 36?
    >>

    Peter Chisholm replied:
    >
    > It won't hurt anything but the spokes at the hub flange will overlay a
    > lot of the flange. Kinda like 28 and 3 cross. No real reason to do 4
    > cross on 36, 32 3 cross along with 36, 40 4 cross is what I use.


    I'm with Peter on this.

    It is just plain silly do do 4 cross on a 36 spoke wheel.

    It offers zero benefit vis-a-vis 36, and requires using oddball spoke
    lengths.

    Sheldon "What's The Point?" Brown
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Love seems the swiftest, but it is the slowest of all growths. |
    | No man or woman really knows what perfect love is until they |
    | have been married a quarter of a century. --Mark Twain |
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
    Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
    Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
    http://harriscyclery.com
    Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
    http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
     
  9. > With
    > 32 spoke hubs, a 4x pattern would be beyond tangential to the edge of
    > the flange, so you would get interference, but 36 would be OK.


    Isn't "beyond tangential" essentially useless?

    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training
     
  10. On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:45:40 -0500, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:

    >> With
    >> 32 spoke hubs, a 4x pattern would be beyond tangential to the edge of
    >> the flange, so you would get interference, but 36 would be OK.

    >
    > Isn't "beyond tangential" essentially useless?


    Yes.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
    _`\(,_ | mathematics.
    (_)/ (_) |
     
  11. In article <[email protected]>,
    "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > With
    > > 32 spoke hubs, a 4x pattern would be beyond tangential to the edge of
    > > the flange, so you would get interference, but 36 would be OK.

    >
    > Isn't "beyond tangential" essentially useless?


    Yes, practically speaking.
    Why lace spokes in a cross pattern at all?
    1) To eliminate spoke wind up under applied torque.
    2) To move the direction of the force the hub flange must
    sustain; so that the spoke elbow will not tear away the
    material out bound of the drilling.

    Aim 1) is accomplished with 2x lacing.
    Aim 2) is theoretically better met with a beyond
    tangential lacing, but practically the near tangential
    lacing is sufficient; hubs are built for tangential lacing
    but mostly not for radial lacing.

    --
    Michael Press
     
Loading...
Loading...