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

[[email protected]]

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

 

[Chalo]

[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

 

[David L. Johnson]

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
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

 

[Michael Press]

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

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

[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.

 

[[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?
>
> 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

 

[PK]

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

 

[Sheldon Brown]

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

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

> 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

 

[David L. Johnson]

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.
(_)/ (_) |

 

[Michael Press]

In article <NsDlf.16674$Mi5.13385@dukeread07>,
"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