interleaving the spokes- what good does it actually do?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by dabac, Apr 23, 2008.

  1. dabac

    dabac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    139
    Hi guys,

    Read some loose claims on another site about how beneficial it was for a 3X wheel to have the heads-in spoke go under the heads-out spoke at the last crossing. It didn't sound altogether credible. but it got me thinking - what good does the (lateral?) spoke crossing actually do?

    I know from own experience that a wheel w/o this lateral cross may generate vibrating sounds if the spoke tension isn't quite as it should, but apart from that?

    One casual analysis would give that you're preloading two flexible elements against each other, which AFAIK rarely is seen as good engineering.

    Some further thought and you get the idea that maybe the lateral cross does something good by sort-of compensating between the differences in brace angle between outbound and inbound spoke. W/o the lateral cross the outbound spoke would be anchored a full hub flange thickness further out than the inbound. Assuming equal tension the lateral cross creates virtual anchor points that's only a half spoke diameter away from symmetry for both inbound and outbound spokes.

    Then there's the question of torsion transfer interaction. If you have a rear wheel laced with pulling spokes inbound then torque transfer would reduce tension on the "pushing" spoke, causing the beneficial offset created by the lateral cross to be reduced as well.

    A rear laced pulling outbound OTOH would instead increase tension in the "pushing" spoke during torque transfer conditions.

    Ignoring the added complexites of torque transfer for awhile and simply looking at a wheel that's merely rolling along when being subjected to a sideways load, what happens then at the cross?
    An inbound spoke passing through the load affected zone will lean against the outbound spoke at the outermost cross, but is the local sideways deflection of the rim sufficient for there to be any load transfer/tension increase to the outbound spoke that cross on the inside?
    Or is it cross number dependent, with 1X, 2X offering too little separation between loaded spoke and supporting spoke för there to be any effect while 3X, 4X actually can offer some extra bracing?

    Any thoughs?
     
    Tags:


  2. dabac

    dabac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    139
    "Pattern Mathematics and Archaeology" and then a fuzzy pic of a basket...

    If this is meant to be funny in any way it's way too obscure for me.
     
  3. On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:15:34 +1000, dabac
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >datakoll Wrote:
    >> http://www.jstor.org/pss/279210

    >"Pattern Mathematics and Archaeology" and then a fuzzy pic of a
    >basket...
    >
    >If this is meant to be funny in any way it's way too obscure for me.


    You haven't hung around here long enough then...
     
  4. datakoll

    datakoll Guest


    > You haven't hung around here long enough then...


    some people call it maize
     
  5. datakoll

    datakoll Guest

    Jobst Brandt tells us no advantage gained thru tieing spokes together.
    This isnot building construction math. But JB stands by that.

    Build your wheels without weaving and compare.

    Think textiles, warp and woof, iron girder bridges, diagnol siding...

    ?
     
  6. dabac

    dabac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    139
    I've read a post or two about tied and soldered, consider that subject done and over with. What I'm asking about now is just the basic outbound-under-inbound at the last cross.

    I have, they were a bit noisy until I got the spoke tension sorted. Oh, and wheel reflectors didn't stay put as well as they do otherwise.
    I probably don't ride hard enough to generate any sharp insights, my experiences seems to sum up rather nicely as: "well, that worked too"

    Besides, wouldn't whatever I could see simply be considered "anecdotal"?
     
  7. datakoll

    datakoll Guest

    no itsnot anecdotal. It's your assembly. Itsnot like ura qualifying
    for a journal or getting tenure (or not becasue of "it")

    Even on a sports tourer with Conti TT, I find non-woven lacing mushy
    compared to woven lacing: less sharpness at turn in over bumps,
    slowness in changing direction ? Sinusodial rim wobbling?
     
  8. jim beam

    jim beam Guest

    datakoll wrote:
    >
    > no itsnot anecdotal. It's your assembly. Itsnot like ura qualifying
    > for a journal or getting tenure (or not becasue of "it")
    >
    > Even on a sports tourer with Conti TT, I find non-woven lacing mushy
    > compared to woven lacing: less sharpness at turn in over bumps,
    > slowness in changing direction ? Sinusodial rim wobbling?


    so if that's the case, and it's only really friction between the two
    spokes that could be having this effect, why would not locking the two
    spokes with tying & soldering not have /more/ effect?
     
  9. datakoll

    datakoll Guest

    On Apr 24, 11:56 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
    > datakoll wrote:
    >
    > > no itsnot anecdotal. It's your assembly. Itsnot like ura qualifying
    > > for a journal or getting tenure (or not becasue of "it")

    >
    > > Even on a sports tourer with Conti TT, I find non-woven lacing mushy
    > > compared to woven lacing: less sharpness at turn in over bumps,
    > > slowness in changing direction ? Sinusodial rim wobbling?

    >
    > so if that's the case, and it's only really friction between the two
    > spokes that could be having this effect, why would not locking the two
    > spokes with tying & soldering not have /more/ effect?


    damned if I know. Althugh of the same class - fabricated structures
    meant to support weight on planet Earth - obviously a bridge truss
    and a framed wall are not a bicycle wheel. This insight plus the
    odious nature of tieing spokes leads me to give Jobst the nod on this
    one.
     
  10. datakoll

    datakoll Guest

    On Apr 24, 11:56 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
    > datakoll wrote:
    >
    > > no itsnot anecdotal. It's your assembly. Itsnot like ura qualifying
    > > for a journal or getting tenure (or not becasue of "it")

    >
    > > Even on a sports tourer with Conti TT, I find non-woven lacing mushy
    > > compared to woven lacing: less sharpness at turn in over bumps,
    > > slowness in changing direction ? Sinusodial rim wobbling?

    >
    > so if that's the case, and it's only really friction between the two
    > spokes that could be having this effect, why would not locking the two
    > spokes with tying & soldering not have /more/ effect?


    weaving the last crossing is more aerodynamic, less likely to trap
    squirrels.
    while the shorter spoke question is open but buried, comparison to
    building engineering is unequal with curve bracing from the rim.
    but 4x spokes are braced by the mate. Is "braced" an acceptable
    engineering term ?
    ?
     
Loading...
Loading...