Bicycle Mechanics - 32h Hybrid Crow Foot

I am planning to build a set of 32h fixed gear wheels with Robert Torres' suggestion of hybrid crow foot; however, I am confuse if all of the spoke heads should be on the inside of the flange or should the alternate.

http://spokeanwheel.110mb.com/crows_foot_f32.gif

In Robert's picture, it shows that they are all on the inside, but a fellow member did it with the heads alternate between inside and out.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/peedtm/020208_23381.jpg

Does it matter if I do it alternately or all on the outside?

Any tips, comments, criticisms are welcomed. :)

It doesn't seem like it would much matter other than you would no longer have the alternating heads in the flange like in the picture you attached.

Frankly I'd just use the pattern you showed since it maintains what I suspect is a nicer looking alternating spoke head pattern in the flange vs one which would be quite jumbled to allow two of the opposite crow's feet to be switched.

One thing I think might be nicer would be to swing the whole pattern by one spoke. This would put the radial spoke of the "feet" on the inside and put the crossing of the other two on the outside.

All of this is the sort of thing you could play with once the spokes are poked through the flange. But by the same token you could get so obsessed over the small niceties of each pattern that you just go into meltdown playing with them and never get around to actually lacing on a rim.... :D

Post some finished pictures when you're done.

Starting from scratch? why not use the evenly divisable by 3 , 36 hole?
32/3=10.66666666, 36/3=12

I don't know of any 2/3rds spokes, do you?

Bob, that's why the "hybrid" part. Note how the picture shows a single radial spoke between the "feet".

.. seems a non sensible project, mix 2x and 1x in opposite flanges
if "different" is all you seek.

drill another 16 holes in the 32, and a 48 spoke
becomes 16 crows foot groups

as 24 holes, would net 8 ..
:innocent:

And as the OP was saying they were, confused ,
simplify the project to eliminate the confusion..

***

I note Aarons bike shop in Seattle modifies Rohloff hubs
for using in cargo hauling Big Dummies,
by making the 2 cross 32 hole into a 48 hole
crows foot pattern laced to a 48 spoke rim. :rolleyes:

Squirrelli, I'm only seeing the second picture that shows the heads alternating. The first is a failed link with just a little red X in a box.

The pattern he used in the second one looks good. Or try doing the crow's feet one spoke over so the angled ones are head in with the crossed spokes on the outside. As I said that's about your option in the matter.

With the three spokes trying to cross so closely I would not expect the bends to work out if they were all head in or head out. Alternating the heads gives you a less crowded bend where the crow's feet spokes all cross.

Thank you all for your comments, I would love to use 36/36 but the rims I'm getting will be 32. I'm getting a set of CR-18 for a really low price.

I've built several wheels with 3x before and they all turned out great but it doesn't hurt to experiment with different spoke patterns. Unless it actually fails and spontaneously combust.

@BCRider, I linked the illustration and should be fine now. That was what I was thinking to; having the radial spoke on the inside so the crossed ones are on the outside. I will post pictures if I actually do follow up with this build.

Thank you for the comments again. :)

That's not working any better with that link. It's sending me to a page at hostvoice.com asking for information pertaining to them hosting a website for me. Perhaps right click the image and then save it to your 'puter then attach it from your 'puter to the thread so it appears like the other one.

I'm guessing the method with the radial spokes heads-in has more lateral stiffness, and the other way is more aero.

However, as with any variation in spoke patterns, it'll amount to 2/3 of stuff-all... with the exception of those employed to minimise issues associated with dish.

Update on this build:
ui
I'm struggling to get the right tension and it is really hard...maybe I'm doing it wrong. I did the two crosses first then the radial ones last but still couldn't achieve event tension. A little pointer would help.

sorry I only built normal 2,3,4,5, cross wheels.



A little pointer would help.

start over with a matching rim and hub with a spoke hole count
divisible by 3, (and 4)
which comes out a whole number..

either 24, 36, or 48.

I don''t really understand the whole 'hyrid' thing. what is wrong ith a standard crows foot? personally I think doing something like this just because a rim is a good deal is dumb. they make hubs and rims with matching numbers of holes for a reason.

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=209980&d=1310310099

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=209979&d=1310309863

I used 32h and a 32h rim and it turned out great.

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=210160&d=1310363807

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=210162&d=1310363899


EDIT: To clear up the confusion, I was using 32h hub and 32h rim all along, it just took me a bit to figure out the right steps.

So you sorted out your issues in #10? So, I guess this thread is done..

What is the point of lacing that way?

em

Because he wanted to do something a bit different?

I find it odd that so many of you that would normally jump in and help out are dismissing this wheel build as a silly idea. It's a touch different but it's still highly do-able and not that far off the beaten track as odd spoke patterns go.

Squirrelli, nicely done. And well done on solving your own tensioning issues.

What is the point of lacing that way?

Given there are both advantages and disadvantages of radial vs tangential lacing, crow's foot and hybrid crow's foot split the difference to varying degrees.

Mind you, these are small effects on mass, aerodynamics and strength (except for wheels with cogs or hub brakes, and hubs with flanges at risk of failure under radial loads), so it's mostly a matter of aesthetics.

I find that using a thinner gauge spoke aids in building up a crow's foot, or any other multi-cross lacing, substantially, especially on hubs with thick flanges.
which is probably why the spokes are alternating in some of those builds.

Although, IMO, you are defeating some of the benefits by alternating in a pattern that doesn't cause the radial spokes to touch the tangent spokes.

deleted because it was too confusing to live.

Given there are both advantages and disadvantages of radial vs tangential lacing, crow's foot and hybrid crow's foot split the difference to varying degrees.
Mind you, these are small effects on mass, aerodynamics and strength (except for wheels with cogs or hub brakes, and hubs with flanges at risk of failure under radial loads), so it's mostly a matter of aesthetics.
I was hoping the OP would explain why he wants that particular build.

I find that using a thinner gauge spoke aids in building up a crow's foot, or any other multi-cross lacing, substantially, especially on hubs with thick flanges.
which is probably why the spokes are alternating in some of those builds.

Although, IMO, you are defeating some of the benefits by alternating in a pattern that doesn't cause the radial spokes to touch the tangent spokes.
What benefits are you defeating? It looks to me like that wheel needs 4 uncrossed radial spokes just to make the symmetry work in a 32 hole rim. What's the benefit of having 3 spokes cross in one spot? IF you use a lighter spoke in that case, why can't you use a lighter spoke in an ordinary pattern?