Reversed spokes ok?

I recently rebuilt a wheel following Jobst's book. When I compared the wheel to another wheel I've
got, the other wheel is laced identically except that each spoke is reversed in the hub (i.e. an
inbound spoke on the new wheel is outbound on the other wheel).

Is this a problem? Is a wheel identical if it's laced the same but inbound vs. outound is reversed?
I've ridden the other wheel several thousand miles already...

(Details: both wheels are rear; new wheel is Mavic MA3 32-hole rim, Wheelsmith 14/15/14 spokes,
Sachs New Success hub. Old wheel is Mavic Open Pro 32-hole rim, 14/15/14 spokes, Ultegra hub.)

 

In article <[email protected]>, Michael
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I recently rebuilt a wheel following Jobst's book. When I compared the wheel to another wheel I've
>got, the other wheel is laced identically except that each spoke is reversed in the hub (i.e. an
>inbound spoke on the new wheel is outbound on the other wheel).
>
>Is this a problem? Is a wheel identical if it's laced the same but inbound vs. outound is reversed?
>I've ridden the other wheel several thousand miles already...

You've already answered your own question then. It is not a problem. It is an opportunity to
speculate about whether it makes any difference (a topic of annual interest on rec.bicycles.tech).
It might make more than no difference at all, but perhaps not.

I lace the rear wheel with the pulling spokes heads-out.

--Paul

 

Paul Southworth writes:

>> I recently rebuilt a wheel following Jobst's book. When I compared the wheel to another wheel
>> I've got, the other wheel is laced identically except that each spoke is reversed in the hub
>> (i.e. an inbound spoke on the new wheel is outbound on the other wheel).

>> Is this a problem? Is a wheel identical if it's laced the same but inbound vs. outbound is
>> reversed? I've ridden the other wheel several thousand miles already...

> You've already answered your own question then. It is not a problem. It is an opportunity to
> speculate about whether it makes any difference (a topic of annual interest on rec.bicycles.tech).
> It might make more than no difference at all, but perhaps not.

> I lace the rear wheel with the pulling spokes heads-out.

And since the reader has a copy of "the Bicycle Wheel", his question is answered there. It
practically makes no difference but the effects are discussed... Leave no turn unstoned, or
something like that.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

michael-<< the other wheel is laced identically except that each spoke is reversed in the hub (i.e.
an inbound spoke on the new wheel is outbound on the other wheel).

Bad idea, may break a flange if you lace opposite to what it was done before-particularly on right
side rear-

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message
> Bad idea, may break a flange if you lace opposite to what it was done before-particularly on right
> side rear-
>

how often do mis-relaced flanges break? and would it be a "damn, my flange broke while riding and a
spoke popped" moment, or a crash and burn spontaneous wheel deconstruction moment?

 

"ant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message
> > Bad idea, may break a flange if you lace opposite to what it was done before-particularly on
> > right side rear-
> >
>
> how often do mis-relaced flanges break? and would it be a "damn, my flange broke while riding and
> a spoke popped" moment, or a crash and burn spontaneous wheel deconstruction moment?

I don't think I've heard about any flanges breaking from re-lacing the spokes opposite from where
they were the first time, but I've heard of spokes breaking from it.

I used to re-lace my wheels opposite the way they were the first lacing and didn't have any problems
with it. I read somewhere (or heard somewhere) that it wasn't as good for the spokes, so I went to
re-lacing the same as the old spokes came out. Still don't have any problems.

I wouldn't tear apart a perfectly good wheel just because the spokes are laced opposite to how they
came out until it is proven to break spokes consistently.

Re: the flange breaking. Depends on the wheel. Could be bad, may not be. Depends on a lot of things
that you won't know till (if) the flange breaks. Chances are you're going to break a spoke before
you break a flange. I also don't have the knowledge (customer) base that Peter does... It can be
truly amazing what you see coming into a bike shop sometimes!

Mike

 

Anthony Anagnostou writes:

>> Bad idea, may break a flange if you lace opposite to what it was done before-particularly on
>> right side rear-

> How often do mis-relaced flanges break? and would it be a "damn, my flange broke while riding and
> a spoke popped" moment, or a crash and burn spontaneous wheel deconstruction moment?

I have a couple of such hubs lying in my collection of failures. When they fail, usually more than
one spoke breaks out so when two or more spokes become slack, your wheel stops rotation. I should
add that these were right side rear flange failures. I can imagine that front hubs with small
flanges, where spokes are closer together could also suffer such a failure. I'm not going to
experiment.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

"ant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message
> > Bad idea, may break a flange if you lace opposite to what it was
done
> > before-particularly on right side rear-
> >
>
> how often do mis-relaced flanges break? and would it be a "damn, my flange broke while riding and
> a spoke popped" moment, or a crash and burn spontaneous wheel deconstruction moment?

Its a "spoke pop" (actually "thud") moment and not a catastrophe -- at least with the rear wheel.
Like Jobst says, the failure usually extends through a couple spoke holes. This has happened to me a
few times, and I was always able to get home after some spoke retensioning. One of the failed hubs
was laced only once. The other two had been laced a number of times without much attention to spoke
orientation (I wasn't particularly scrupulous about maintaining spoke orientation 20 years ago). All
were right side rear failures. Based on my experience, I suspect there is a pretty high incidence of
failure on "mis-relaced" flanges. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Anthony Anagnostou writes:
>
> >> Bad idea, may break a flange if you lace opposite to what it was done before-particularly on
> >> right side rear-
>
> > How often do mis-relaced flanges break? and would it be a "damn, my flange broke while riding
> > and a spoke popped" moment, or a crash and burn spontaneous wheel deconstruction moment?
>
> I have a couple of such hubs lying in my collection of failures. When they fail, usually more than
> one spoke breaks out so when two or more spokes become slack, your wheel stops rotation. I should
> add that these were right side rear flange failures. I can imagine that front hubs with small
> flanges, where spokes are closer together could also suffer such a failure. I'm not going to
> experiment.
>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected]nfordalumni.org Palo Alto CA

Jobst-

I've done this experiment (OK, I was young and stupid...). I laced a 36-spoke wheel radially with a
small-flange OMAS hub (told you I was stupid). The hub flange broke off over the length of four
spoke holes while I was tensioning the stupid wheel. I think a piece of flange rebounded off the
ceiling. I ain't gonna do that again.

Jeff

 

In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Wills
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I've done this experiment (OK, I was young and stupid...). I laced a 36-spoke wheel radially with a
>small-flange OMAS hub (told you I was stupid). The hub flange broke off over the length of four
>spoke holes while I was tensioning the stupid wheel. I think a piece of flange rebounded off the
>ceiling. I ain't gonna do that again.

I have seen that failure happen on the road with a Record hub laced radially, but this hub had _not_
been laced differently before. More than 1/4 of the flange flew off. Bicycle not
ridable/controllable afterwards, time to hitch-hike. Just one of the reasons I don't bother building
radial front wheels any more.

Instantly detensioning a wheel, front or back, can be very hazardous, depending on riding
conditions, very easy to wreck the bike, not to be screwed around with. I don't re-lace hubs in new
ways. If I rebuild with a hub that was built asymmetrically (each opposite spoke head facing the
same way instead of being a mirror image of each other) I rebuild it that way to match the incorrect
original lacing.

--Paul

 

[email protected] wrote in message

> I have a couple of such hubs lying in my collection of failures. When they fail, usually more than
> one spoke breaks out so when two or more spokes become slack, your wheel stops rotation. I should
> add that these were right side rear flange failures. I can imagine that front hubs with small
> flanges, where spokes are closer together could also suffer such a failure. I'm not going to
> experiment.

the failure is precipitated from the stress riser, the notch that the old spoke seated into, am i
correct? i am no engineer, just an archive browser.

if this is so, would re-countersinking the spoke holes make the hub as good as new? it would take
away a little material, but cant most non-ultralightweight hubs afford a bit of this? i was thinking
it would mean that the seated spoke would bite into the hub more, but as long as you plan on leaving
it laced as such, who cares?

seeking enlightenment,

anthony

 

Anthony Anagnostou writes:

>> I have a couple of such hubs lying in my collection of failures. When they fail, usually more
>> than one spoke breaks out so when two or more spokes become slack, your wheel stops rotation. I
>> should add that these were right side rear flange failures. I can imagine that front hubs with
>> small flanges, where spokes are closer together could also suffer such a failure. I'm not going
>> to experiment.

> The failure is precipitated from the stress riser, the notch that the old spoke seated into, am I
> correct? I am no engineer, just an archive browser.

No, it is the deformation that caused the flange eye to yield. Doing that again at about right
angles to the first time generates cracks that ultimately separate. You'll notice that the old
placement caused significant plastic metal deformation.

> If this is so, would re-countersinking the spoke holes make the hub as good as new? It would take
> away a little material, but cant most non-ultra lightweight hubs afford a bit of this? I was
> thinking it would mean that the seated spoke would bite into the hub more, but as long as you plan
> on leaving it laced as such, who cares?

There is no extra material to countersink the deformed and upset material away.

> seeking enlightenment,

What means this?

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

> I've done this experiment (OK, I was young and stupid...). I laced a 36-spoke wheel radially with
> a small-flange OMAS hub (told you I was stupid). The hub flange broke off over the length of four
> spoke holes while I was tensioning the stupid wheel. I think a piece of flange rebounded off the
> ceiling. I ain't gonna do that again.
>
> Jeff

Been there done that. I built a radial front wheel after radial front wheels became popular (again?)
in the UK in the early 80's. Rigida rim on a mailard small flange hub, got a couple of hundred miles
from it before four spoke holes worth of flange departed company from the hub jamming the tyre
against the forks. Luckily I was only pulling away from a set of lights, had only gone a few yards
and my speed was low. I think that the fact that I was pulling hard on the bars and moving the bike
under me made the hub fail sooner than later. I have never used a radial built wheel since.

 

i wrote
> > seeking enlightenment,

[email protected] wrote
> What means this?

just that. and you enlightened me.

thanks to all for the replies, anthony

 

Anthony Anagnostou writes:

> I wrote:

>>> seeking enlightenment,

>> What means this?

> Just that. And you enlightened me.

The comment rings odd and out of place at the end of a question... redundant and an apparent attempt
at ennoblement of the question, as though asking were otherwise a ploy for something less than valid
information.

It is alright to ask. That's what this newsgroup is here for although questions are often hidden in
such camouflage.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[email protected] (ant) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> i wrote
> > > seeking enlightenment,
> [email protected]umni.org wrote
> > What means this?
> just that. and you enlightened me.

Ah! I thought it meant drilling holes everywhere.

--
Dave...