Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

half radial, again

Started by JG · · Last activity · 5 posts · 496 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
7 September 2007
Last activity
8 September 2007
Original author
JG
Posts
5
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
496
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–5 of 5
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I built a R/3X rear wheel based on Sheldon's page, but I see it
    doesn't generate a lot of enthusiasm here, so I thought about it a
    bit.

    Am I right that torque puts much greater tension (~100x) on a radial
    spoke than a tangentially laced spoke? Doesn't this mean a R/3X wheel
    puts a uniform, but much greater tension on the non-drive spokes under
    torque?

    JG

  2. JG said:


    Am I right that torque puts much greater tension (~100x) on a radial
    spoke than a tangentially laced spoke?

    In the absence of tangential spokes, yes.

    Quoted message said:

    Doesn't this mean a R/3X wheel
    puts a uniform, but much greater tension on the non-drive spokes under
    torque?

    No, because the crossed spokes on the right side don't let the wheel
    wind up enough to affect the tension on the left by much.

    Chalo

  3. Like Chalo said... if you have nearly tangential spokes on the drive
    side, then the NDS radial spokes are essentially taken out of the
    torque picture.

    As Sheldon mentions, a stiff hub body combined with crossed spokes and
    low tension (necessary because of dish), will make it more likely that
    combined torque, radial, and lateral loads will cause the NDS spokes
    to go slack. Radial lacing the NDS removes one of these components...
    at the expense of making the drive side carry all the torque.

  4. Ron Ruff said:

    Like Chalo said... if you have nearly tangential spokes on the drive
    side, then the NDS radial spokes are essentially taken out of the
    torque picture.

    As Sheldon mentions, a stiff hub body combined with crossed spokes and
    low tension (necessary because of dish), will make it more likely that
    combined torque, radial, and lateral loads will cause the NDS spokes
    to go slack. Radial lacing the NDS removes one of these components...
    at the expense of making the drive side carry all the torque.

    My Shimano-built rear wheel has radial lacing on the drive side (and
    some cross pattern on the NDS). I was concerned that this was
    incorrect and would lead to failure...but 200# and 3 years of riding
    and the wheel is still true.

    According to: http://www.geocities.com/spokeanwheel/lacingsr.htm

    "A multi-speed rear wheel that is half radially laced, with the non
    drive side being the side with the radial lacing, can only have
    increased imbalance in the lateral strengths of the two sides of the
    wheel. The radial spokes on the non drive side will also need a lower
    build tension when compared to a standard wheel. Since radial lacing
    has the highest lateral strength, the spokes do not need to be as
    tight to counter the lateral forces from the drive side in order to
    achieve a true wheel. Also, with the non drive side spokes even looser
    than normal, the likelihood that the wheel will go out of true from
    road shock is increased. "

    and...

    "A properly built half radial rear wheel will be radially laced on the
    drive side. It would also be best to lace the drive side so the spoke
    heads are on the inside of the flange. "

    Sheldon's article talks about the "right" side in his discussion about
    half-radial lacing...which I infer to be the drive side. He also
    refers to "wrong-way half radial". So these two sites are in complete
    contradiction to one another. Any comments?

  5. David Bonnell said:

    So these two sites are in complete
    contradiction to one another. Any comments?

    The site you linked to has many strange ideas that aren't supported by
    physics. I have no idea what "imbalance in lateral strength" could
    mean in reality... stiffness is the same from either side, although
    spokes will go slack sooner with a force towards the looser spokes.
    The most important contributor to lateral stiffness is the bacing
    angle of the NDS spokes... but the tension of these spokes must also
    be considered... since the greater the bracing angle, the looser they
    will be... and the looser they are, then the more likely they will go
    slack from radial loads (which are generally the highest). So... we
    are trying to achieve "high enough" tension on the NDS, and "high
    enough" lateral stability... and these work against each other. On the
    DS we are basically stuck with a flange spacing of ~19mm from the
    centerline, because this is the most we can get with a 130mm dropout
    while leaving room for the 8,9,10 spd cassette. If we space the NDS
    38mm over then the ratio of NDS/DS tension will be 1/2 (assuming the
    pattern is the same on both sides). On some hubs the NDS spacing is
    only 30mm (AC comes to mind). This helps to balance the tension but
    compromises the lateral stiffness a lot. I think something in the
    35-38mm range is the best compromise. For shallow rims, which are
    generally lighter and cannot take high tension, an OC rear is a good
    idea. This gives a greater bracing angle to the DS, which allows a
    higher NDS tension, and provided that the flange spacing is fairly
    high, the lateral stiffness will still be good. Deeper and heavier
    rims can be safely built with higher tensions, so this is less of an
    issue for them.

    Heads in radial on the drive side allows for a *slightly* greater
    spacing there (maybe 20-21mm), which will balance the tension a little
    better. But don't try this with a normal J bend hub... they are not
    designed for this type of lacing (combined with high DS tension) and
    the flange will fail. That is the main thing that is wrong with the
    author's recommendation. The other is that having the loose NDS spokes
    take all the torque load means they will likely go slack when radial
    and torque loads are high... *if* the hub has a normal small flange on
    that side. Also since normal hubs aren't designed to transfer torque
    loads through hub body, the hub body can also twist and fail. Some
    hubs (like your Shimano) use straight pull spokes with radial lacing
    on the DS. There is nothing wrong with this provided that the NDS
    flange is large... which minimizes the tension change due to torque
    loads... and of course the hub body and flanges must be designed for
    the loads that they will see.

    Another variation on the theme is triplet lacing (Campy G3 is one
    example)... where there are twice as many spokes on the DS compared
    to the NDS. This effectively doubles the tension in the NDS spokes.
    I've built several wheels with this pattern and it works well, but to
    get the maximum benefit from it you need a hub with ~45mm NDS
    spacing... or in other words a hub specially made for this pattern.
    Normal hubs loose some lateral stiffness, but if the NDS spacing is
    high you can have very good lateral stiffness and still have high NDS
    tension. The down side is that if you break a NDS spoke, the wheel
    goes *way* out of true.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.