T
Tim McNamara
Guest
jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
> it's all for your edumacation jobst.
The chicken farmer is back. Hi, Bob.
> it's all for your edumacation jobst.
The chicken farmer is back. Hi, Bob.
T
Tim McNamara
Guest
jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
> it's all for your edumacation jobst.
The chicken farmer is back. Hi, Bob.
> it's all for your edumacation jobst.
The chicken farmer is back. Hi, Bob.
R
rs
Guest
Well my original post seems to have gotten some very technical and perhaps a
few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new Velocity Aerohead
24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building. I just didn't know if the
24 spoke would be strong enough for around town use and it seems I should use
cross spoking. The OEM wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot and
the side is wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've already
replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes were breaking.
So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the fun of wheel building but I
don't want to waste the rim and time if 24 isn't enough, hence the orginal
post.
thanks to all
few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new Velocity Aerohead
24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building. I just didn't know if the
24 spoke would be strong enough for around town use and it seems I should use
cross spoking. The OEM wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot and
the side is wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've already
replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes were breaking.
So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the fun of wheel building but I
don't want to waste the rim and time if 24 isn't enough, hence the orginal
post.
thanks to all
M
Matt O'Toole
Guest
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:21:54 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
> Equipment fads on which huge sums are spent amaze me. I can't believe
> that people are so fragile that they need to grasp at gossamer threads
> to boost their bicycling egos. On the other hand it could be like
> drivers of huge SUV's who don't so much believe in the superiority of
> their vehicles as the image that sitting higher than their neighbors'
> car roofs gives.
>
> "My wheels are more expensive than yours" seems to be the subtext of
> "these wheels make me faster than the ones I used to ride."
I read a thread recently on another bicycle forum where someone was
looking for advice on which new wheels to buy. They had considered one
pair or another, but wanted one with more "bling." So the fashion
statement was at least as important as the technical aspects (notice how I
didn't say "performance"), and the bigger the fashion statement per dollar
the better.
The sad thing is, people blow outrageous sums of money on this stuff,
leaving too little for for things like good clothing that allows them to
ride year-round, or to travel to interesting places to ride. Many people
can afford all of it, but most really can't. In the end, what will be
most memorable is not the bikes you owned, but the rides you did and the
experiences you had.
I sure wish "Bicycling" and its ilk were more about that, and less about
bicycles.
Matt O.
> Equipment fads on which huge sums are spent amaze me. I can't believe
> that people are so fragile that they need to grasp at gossamer threads
> to boost their bicycling egos. On the other hand it could be like
> drivers of huge SUV's who don't so much believe in the superiority of
> their vehicles as the image that sitting higher than their neighbors'
> car roofs gives.
>
> "My wheels are more expensive than yours" seems to be the subtext of
> "these wheels make me faster than the ones I used to ride."
I read a thread recently on another bicycle forum where someone was
looking for advice on which new wheels to buy. They had considered one
pair or another, but wanted one with more "bling." So the fashion
statement was at least as important as the technical aspects (notice how I
didn't say "performance"), and the bigger the fashion statement per dollar
the better.
The sad thing is, people blow outrageous sums of money on this stuff,
leaving too little for for things like good clothing that allows them to
ride year-round, or to travel to interesting places to ride. Many people
can afford all of it, but most really can't. In the end, what will be
most memorable is not the bikes you owned, but the rides you did and the
experiences you had.
I sure wish "Bicycling" and its ilk were more about that, and less about
bicycles.
Matt O.
M
Michael Press
Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (rs) wrote:
> Well my original post seems to have gotten some very technical and perhaps a
> few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new Velocity Aerohead
> 24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building. I just didn't know if the
> 24 spoke would be strong enough for around town use and it seems I should use
> cross spoking. The OEM wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot and
> the side is wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've already
> replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes were breaking.
> So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the fun of wheel building but I
> don't want to waste the rim and time if 24 isn't enough, hence the orginal
> post.
>
> thanks to all
24 is not enough.
Choose the crossing pattern that puts the spoke leaving
the hub flange closest to tangential.
You can build a wheel that will run true from day one
until the side walls wear thin from braking; that will
never need truing unless the wheel is struck an out of
context blow; that will get you home even if a spoke or
two is broken.
--
Michael Press
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (rs) wrote:
> Well my original post seems to have gotten some very technical and perhaps a
> few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new Velocity Aerohead
> 24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building. I just didn't know if the
> 24 spoke would be strong enough for around town use and it seems I should use
> cross spoking. The OEM wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot and
> the side is wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've already
> replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes were breaking.
> So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the fun of wheel building but I
> don't want to waste the rim and time if 24 isn't enough, hence the orginal
> post.
>
> thanks to all
24 is not enough.
Choose the crossing pattern that puts the spoke leaving
the hub flange closest to tangential.
You can build a wheel that will run true from day one
until the side walls wear thin from braking; that will
never need truing unless the wheel is struck an out of
context blow; that will get you home even if a spoke or
two is broken.
--
Michael Press
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
rs wrote:
> Well my original post seems to have gotten some very technical and perhaps a
> few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new Velocity Aerohead
> 24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building. I just didn't know if the
> 24 spoke would be strong enough for around town use and it seems I should use
> cross spoking. The OEM wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot and
> the side is wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've already
> replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes were breaking.
> So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the fun of wheel building but I
> don't want to waste the rim and time if 24 isn't enough, hence the orginal
> post.
>
> thanks to all
Lace it 24, 2 cross, 14/15 spokes, brass nipps, build well and go
ride...
> Well my original post seems to have gotten some very technical and perhaps a
> few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new Velocity Aerohead
> 24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building. I just didn't know if the
> 24 spoke would be strong enough for around town use and it seems I should use
> cross spoking. The OEM wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot and
> the side is wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've already
> replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes were breaking.
> So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the fun of wheel building but I
> don't want to waste the rim and time if 24 isn't enough, hence the orginal
> post.
>
> thanks to all
Lace it 24, 2 cross, 14/15 spokes, brass nipps, build well and go
ride...
J
Michael Press writes:
>> Well my original post seems to have gotten some very technical and
>> perhaps a few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new
>> Velocity Aerohead 24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building.
>> I just didn't know if the 24 spoke would be strong enough for
>> around town use and it seems I should use cross spoking. The OEM
>> wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot and the side is
>> wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've already
>> replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes
>> were breaking. So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the
>> fun of wheel building but I don't want to waste the rim and time if
>> 24 isn't enough, hence the original post.
> 24 is not enough.
I'll second that. I see that these days people are embarrassed to
ride sturdy 36-spoke wheels even though they never compete in events
where a spoke or two fewer -might- make a difference. I have on
various occasions ridden more than 100 miles with a broken spoke
without making any adjustments or worrying about the safety of
descending hills at high speed with 36-spoke wheels as have the people
with whom I ride.
> Choose the crossing pattern that puts the spoke leaving the hub
> flange closest to tangential.
Good advice.
> You can build a wheel that will run true from day one until the side
> walls wear thin from braking; that will never need truing unless the
> wheel is struck an out of context blow; that will get you home even
> if a spoke or two is broken.
These wheels we read about here coming out of true have insufficient
tension (usually because they have too few spokes) and rattle their
spoke nipples loose. Just consider how a wheel can become untrue from
riding. The only thing that can change, barring a rim bending event,
is spoke nipples turning.
Don't let 36-spokes be a blot on your image for not having the latest
in unpronounceable wheels (pkzsyrumium).
Jobst Brandt
>> Well my original post seems to have gotten some very technical and
>> perhaps a few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new
>> Velocity Aerohead 24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building.
>> I just didn't know if the 24 spoke would be strong enough for
>> around town use and it seems I should use cross spoking. The OEM
>> wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot and the side is
>> wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've already
>> replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes
>> were breaking. So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the
>> fun of wheel building but I don't want to waste the rim and time if
>> 24 isn't enough, hence the original post.
> 24 is not enough.
I'll second that. I see that these days people are embarrassed to
ride sturdy 36-spoke wheels even though they never compete in events
where a spoke or two fewer -might- make a difference. I have on
various occasions ridden more than 100 miles with a broken spoke
without making any adjustments or worrying about the safety of
descending hills at high speed with 36-spoke wheels as have the people
with whom I ride.
> Choose the crossing pattern that puts the spoke leaving the hub
> flange closest to tangential.
Good advice.
> You can build a wheel that will run true from day one until the side
> walls wear thin from braking; that will never need truing unless the
> wheel is struck an out of context blow; that will get you home even
> if a spoke or two is broken.
These wheels we read about here coming out of true have insufficient
tension (usually because they have too few spokes) and rattle their
spoke nipples loose. Just consider how a wheel can become untrue from
riding. The only thing that can change, barring a rim bending event,
is spoke nipples turning.
Don't let 36-spokes be a blot on your image for not having the latest
in unpronounceable wheels (pkzsyrumium).
Jobst Brandt
P
Paul Kopit
Guest
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:00:28 -0600, [email protected] (rs)
wrote:
>A related question concerning front wheels: given a specific spoke count, say
>24, will the wheel be significantly stronger if cross-spoked rather then
>radially spoked?
I don't believe so.
wrote:
>A related question concerning front wheels: given a specific spoke count, say
>24, will the wheel be significantly stronger if cross-spoked rather then
>radially spoked?
I don't believe so.
R
rs
Guest
I'm 185lb and hub will be a Ritchey WCS which I can pick up inexpensively.
Otehwise hub woulb be a 24H Ultegra.
I appreciate everyone's specific advise, especially to my last post which was
probably more to the point of what I'm trying to do.
thanks!
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
>
>rs Wrote:
>> Well my original post seems to have gotten some very technical and
>> perhaps a
>> few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new Velocity
>> Aerohead
>> 24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building. I just didn't know
>> if the
>> 24 spoke would be strong enough for around town use and it seems I
>> should use
>> cross spoking. The OEM wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot
>> and
>> the side is wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've
>> already
>> replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes were
>> breaking.
>> So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the fun of wheel building
>> but I
>> don't want to waste the rim and time if 24 isn't enough, hence the
>> orginal
>> post.
>>
>> thanks to all
>How much do you weigh?
>What hub do you have?
>
>
>--
>daveornee
>
Otehwise hub woulb be a 24H Ultegra.
I appreciate everyone's specific advise, especially to my last post which was
probably more to the point of what I'm trying to do.
thanks!
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
>
>rs Wrote:
>> Well my original post seems to have gotten some very technical and
>> perhaps a
>> few far afield answers. Let me clarify, I have a new Velocity
>> Aerohead
>> 24-hole rim and I'm interested in wheel building. I just didn't know
>> if the
>> 24 spoke would be strong enough for around town use and it seems I
>> should use
>> cross spoking. The OEM wheel on the bike is getting out of true a lot
>> and
>> the side is wearing, it wasn't a great wheel to begin with and I've
>> already
>> replaced the drive side spokes on the rear wheel because spokes were
>> breaking.
>> So its an attempt to have a better wheel and the fun of wheel building
>> but I
>> don't want to waste the rim and time if 24 isn't enough, hence the
>> orginal
>> post.
>>
>> thanks to all
>How much do you weigh?
>What hub do you have?
>
>
>--
>daveornee
>
T
Tim McNamara
Guest
[email protected] (rs) writes:
> I'm 185lb and hub will be a Ritchey WCS which I can pick up
> inexpensively. Otehwise hub woulb be a 24H Ultegra.
Spoke holes are like the perforated edge of a check in a checkbook.
Because of the holes in close proximity, it tears more easily. With
radial spoking, the spoke forces are pulling in the weakest direction;
with tangential spoking, less so.
185 lbs, 24 spokes, go 3 cross IMHO.
I can be the lesson here. I had a radial spoked front hub fail
catatrophically (American Classic hub) once. I was climbing out of
the saddle when three adjacent spokes ripped right out of the flange.
The tire jammed against the fork and I came to a stop. Since I was
going slow, I was able to get a foot down and not fall. Had the same
thing happened at high speed, I would have probably crashed.
Because I ride bikes with sufficient clearance at the fork and
chainstays, I was able to tweak the wheel enough to be able to ride
home, which was 25 miles as I was almost halfway through a 55 mile
ride. With a tight clearance racing bike, I'd have been done. I've
seen a couple of folks in this predicament this year when they broke
just one spoke on their paired-spoke wheels, and discovered that their
$5000 bike was now inconvenient luggage. (Probably didn't help that
neither of these guys had a spoke wrench or a clue how to use one- or
for that matter even a decent pump. In fairness, though, there wasn't
anywhere on the frame where they could have mounted a pump...).
Good luck with this wheel. There's no benefit to radial spoking and
there are significant downsides, so I'd recommend 3x.
> I'm 185lb and hub will be a Ritchey WCS which I can pick up
> inexpensively. Otehwise hub woulb be a 24H Ultegra.
Spoke holes are like the perforated edge of a check in a checkbook.
Because of the holes in close proximity, it tears more easily. With
radial spoking, the spoke forces are pulling in the weakest direction;
with tangential spoking, less so.
185 lbs, 24 spokes, go 3 cross IMHO.
I can be the lesson here. I had a radial spoked front hub fail
catatrophically (American Classic hub) once. I was climbing out of
the saddle when three adjacent spokes ripped right out of the flange.
The tire jammed against the fork and I came to a stop. Since I was
going slow, I was able to get a foot down and not fall. Had the same
thing happened at high speed, I would have probably crashed.
Because I ride bikes with sufficient clearance at the fork and
chainstays, I was able to tweak the wheel enough to be able to ride
home, which was 25 miles as I was almost halfway through a 55 mile
ride. With a tight clearance racing bike, I'd have been done. I've
seen a couple of folks in this predicament this year when they broke
just one spoke on their paired-spoke wheels, and discovered that their
$5000 bike was now inconvenient luggage. (Probably didn't help that
neither of these guys had a spoke wrench or a clue how to use one- or
for that matter even a decent pump. In fairness, though, there wasn't
anywhere on the frame where they could have mounted a pump...).
Good luck with this wheel. There's no benefit to radial spoking and
there are significant downsides, so I'd recommend 3x.
J
John Dacey
Guest
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:23:36 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 24 spokes, go 3 cross IMHO.
From a practical standpoint, the maximum number of spoke crossings is
limited to the number that the wheel's spokes is divisible by nine.
Attempting to cross a 24 spoke wheel will have each spoke lying across
the head of an adjacent spoke. It can even be troublesome to use the
combinations that are evenly divisible by nine (36×4, 18×2) for the
same reason. For 24 spokes, stick to 2× lacing.
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996.
http://www.businesscycles.com
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 24 spokes, go 3 cross IMHO.
From a practical standpoint, the maximum number of spoke crossings is
limited to the number that the wheel's spokes is divisible by nine.
Attempting to cross a 24 spoke wheel will have each spoke lying across
the head of an adjacent spoke. It can even be troublesome to use the
combinations that are evenly divisible by nine (36×4, 18×2) for the
same reason. For 24 spokes, stick to 2× lacing.
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996.
http://www.businesscycles.com
R
rs
Guest
Normally carry a pump and spoke wrench, though hopefully if I build the
wheel right the wrench will not be needed. I intend to use 14/15/14 butted
spokes and as someone else pointed out, I think 2x will be the practical
cross limit for 24.
Yes, I can see how paired low count spoke wheels are light and fast and great
.. . . . until a spoke pops and then your up sh*t creek without a paddle.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>[email protected] (rs) writes:
>
>> I'm 185lb and hub will be a Ritchey WCS which I can pick up
>> inexpensively. Otehwise hub woulb be a 24H Ultegra.
>
>Spoke holes are like the perforated edge of a check in a checkbook.
>Because of the holes in close proximity, it tears more easily. With
>radial spoking, the spoke forces are pulling in the weakest direction;
>with tangential spoking, less so.
>
>185 lbs, 24 spokes, go 3 cross IMHO.
>
>I can be the lesson here. I had a radial spoked front hub fail
>catatrophically (American Classic hub) once. I was climbing out of
>the saddle when three adjacent spokes ripped right out of the flange.
>The tire jammed against the fork and I came to a stop. Since I was
>going slow, I was able to get a foot down and not fall. Had the same
>thing happened at high speed, I would have probably crashed.
>
>Because I ride bikes with sufficient clearance at the fork and
>chainstays, I was able to tweak the wheel enough to be able to ride
>home, which was 25 miles as I was almost halfway through a 55 mile
>ride. With a tight clearance racing bike, I'd have been done. I've
>seen a couple of folks in this predicament this year when they broke
>just one spoke on their paired-spoke wheels, and discovered that their
>$5000 bike was now inconvenient luggage. (Probably didn't help that
>neither of these guys had a spoke wrench or a clue how to use one- or
>for that matter even a decent pump. In fairness, though, there wasn't
>anywhere on the frame where they could have mounted a pump...).
>
>Good luck with this wheel. There's no benefit to radial spoking and
>there are significant downsides, so I'd recommend 3x.
wheel right the wrench will not be needed. I intend to use 14/15/14 butted
spokes and as someone else pointed out, I think 2x will be the practical
cross limit for 24.
Yes, I can see how paired low count spoke wheels are light and fast and great
.. . . . until a spoke pops and then your up sh*t creek without a paddle.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>[email protected] (rs) writes:
>
>> I'm 185lb and hub will be a Ritchey WCS which I can pick up
>> inexpensively. Otehwise hub woulb be a 24H Ultegra.
>
>Spoke holes are like the perforated edge of a check in a checkbook.
>Because of the holes in close proximity, it tears more easily. With
>radial spoking, the spoke forces are pulling in the weakest direction;
>with tangential spoking, less so.
>
>185 lbs, 24 spokes, go 3 cross IMHO.
>
>I can be the lesson here. I had a radial spoked front hub fail
>catatrophically (American Classic hub) once. I was climbing out of
>the saddle when three adjacent spokes ripped right out of the flange.
>The tire jammed against the fork and I came to a stop. Since I was
>going slow, I was able to get a foot down and not fall. Had the same
>thing happened at high speed, I would have probably crashed.
>
>Because I ride bikes with sufficient clearance at the fork and
>chainstays, I was able to tweak the wheel enough to be able to ride
>home, which was 25 miles as I was almost halfway through a 55 mile
>ride. With a tight clearance racing bike, I'd have been done. I've
>seen a couple of folks in this predicament this year when they broke
>just one spoke on their paired-spoke wheels, and discovered that their
>$5000 bike was now inconvenient luggage. (Probably didn't help that
>neither of these guys had a spoke wrench or a clue how to use one- or
>for that matter even a decent pump. In fairness, though, there wasn't
>anywhere on the frame where they could have mounted a pump...).
>
>Good luck with this wheel. There's no benefit to radial spoking and
>there are significant downsides, so I'd recommend 3x.
P
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Guest
rs wrote:
> Normally carry a pump and spoke wrench, though hopefully if I build
> the wheel right the wrench will not be needed. I intend to use
> 14/15/14 butted spokes and as someone else pointed out, I think 2x
> will be the practical cross limit for 24.
>
> Yes, I can see how paired low count spoke wheels are light and fast
> and great . . . . until a spoke pops and then your up sh*t creek
> without a paddle.
My race wheels (Aerohead/AC hubs/DT 2.0/1.5/2.0) are 32 spokes, 3-cross,
1360 grams, and $270. Pretty decent aero cross-section at 19mm. I doubt
I'll be losing an aero advantage with 8 more spokes that are crossed.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> Normally carry a pump and spoke wrench, though hopefully if I build
> the wheel right the wrench will not be needed. I intend to use
> 14/15/14 butted spokes and as someone else pointed out, I think 2x
> will be the practical cross limit for 24.
>
> Yes, I can see how paired low count spoke wheels are light and fast
> and great . . . . until a spoke pops and then your up sh*t creek
> without a paddle.
My race wheels (Aerohead/AC hubs/DT 2.0/1.5/2.0) are 32 spokes, 3-cross,
1360 grams, and $270. Pretty decent aero cross-section at 19mm. I doubt
I'll be losing an aero advantage with 8 more spokes that are crossed.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
T
Tim McNamara
Guest
John Dacey <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:23:36 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 24 spokes, go 3 cross IMHO.
>
> From a practical standpoint, the maximum number of spoke crossings
> is limited to the number that the wheel's spokes is divisible by
> nine. Attempting to cross a 24 spoke wheel will have each spoke
> lying across the head of an adjacent spoke. It can even be
> troublesome to use the combinations that are evenly divisible by
> nine (36×4, 18×2) for the same reason. For 24 spokes, stick to 2×
> lacing.
John, I hadn't even thought of that- probably due to always using 32
or 36 spoke wheels.
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:23:36 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 24 spokes, go 3 cross IMHO.
>
> From a practical standpoint, the maximum number of spoke crossings
> is limited to the number that the wheel's spokes is divisible by
> nine. Attempting to cross a 24 spoke wheel will have each spoke
> lying across the head of an adjacent spoke. It can even be
> troublesome to use the combinations that are evenly divisible by
> nine (36×4, 18×2) for the same reason. For 24 spokes, stick to 2×
> lacing.
John, I hadn't even thought of that- probably due to always using 32
or 36 spoke wheels.
M
Michael Press
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:00:28 -0600, [email protected] (rs)
> wrote:
>
> >A related question concerning front wheels: given a specific spoke count, say
> >24, will the wheel be significantly stronger if cross-spoked rather then
> >radially spoked?
>
> I don't believe so.
If the hub is not specifically designed for radial
spoking, then it will be stronger in a cross pattern
because radial spoking can tear the spoke drilling in some
hub flanges, whereas cross spoking will not tear the spoke
drilling.
--
Michael Press
Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:00:28 -0600, [email protected] (rs)
> wrote:
>
> >A related question concerning front wheels: given a specific spoke count, say
> >24, will the wheel be significantly stronger if cross-spoked rather then
> >radially spoked?
>
> I don't believe so.
If the hub is not specifically designed for radial
spoking, then it will be stronger in a cross pattern
because radial spoking can tear the spoke drilling in some
hub flanges, whereas cross spoking will not tear the spoke
drilling.
--
Michael Press
