grumpus

We had inherited some bladed spokes that were never going to get used, so I used them to build myself some wheels, cutting and threading them by hand. I'm glad they were only 28 spoke wheels, that was plenty.

grumpus

​​​​​​I think what he's saying is that they are angled alternately as in a "normal" spoking pattern, but they're too short to actually cross.

grumpus

I did that once but full twist, for the same reason; I never used them much but they worked OK.

Duragrouch

No, I didn't mean spiral on one side, and opposite spiral on the other side. I meant trailing and leading spokes on both sides, just not crossing. I see this most frequently with very large hubs (like a hub motor), most especially with smaller wheels (like 20"/406, and even 16"), where crossing the spokes would be extremely difficult and bad, *with low spoke numbers*, the spokes would meet the rim at a bad angle (assuming rims not dimpled, aimed and drilled). I *think* that 1X patterns are possible with higher spoke numbers, as the angles aren't as bad. But again, the crossing is not essential, just some trailing and leading angle to the spokes, and I've sometimes seen this, same side, 0X. It doesn't take that much angle to transmit torque, especially with a very large diameter hub, there's more leverage at the flange holes.

FBinNY 

When thinking about tension structures, you have to consider the line of action, rather than the actual part.

So, those spokes do cross operationally, but it happens within the shell rather than beyond, where the spokes actually are.

By example if you want to consider torque implications on a typical 3x32h wheel, you'd measure the radius at a right angle to where the spoke would pass even though it ends before that.

If i were asked (though nobody ever would) to name the pattern, I'd call them by -X crosses, based on the number of skipped holes.

Duragrouch

Well of course. I was going by conventional labeling terms, but of course converging spokes cross at a point in space. You're talking to a vehicle dynamics and suspension engineer, we use "instant centers" in dozens of places in suspension design; Examples: For a double wishbone suspension, in the front view, the convergence of the two links forms an instant center (which moves dynamically with wheel motion), that constitutes the Front View Swing Arm length, and a line from the instant center to the tire contact point, where it crosses the vehicle centerline, is the roll center of the suspension (for a given suspension position). If the wishbones are parallel and level, the IC is at infinity, and the roll center is at ground level. In side view, if the front wishbones converge to a point aft of the axle, that IC constitutes the Side View Swing Arm length, and the IC in relation to the vehicle center of gravity, determines the amount of anti-dive in the suspension, acting about the torque produced by the brakes at the steering knuckle (different case entirely if the vehicle has inboard front brakes like an NSU Ro80). But I digress.

Actual physical crossed spokes are possible, with large hubs close to rim size, with the right rims with dimpled and aimed spoke holes:

sd5782 

One comment I found interesting as relates to my original post is that 4x could be done with 2 different length spokes. Perhaps this was what the original builder did by accident on the NDS on my wheel.

FBinNY 

Within reason, any crossed pattern csn be built with 2 different length spokes.

As a simple example, imagine that your 3x wheel calls for 295mm spokes, which you don't have. Of course you can order them, but you're facing s deadline and can't wait.
If you have 297s and 293s, you can use them with all the long ones going one way and the short ones opposite. The wheel will come out fine with all spoke ending equally high in the nipples. The hub will be slightly twisted vs. the rim, but it won't be noticeable.

Way back in the early days of 32h, I was to build 32h track wheels for a sprinter. He was adamant that the non-tangent pattern wouldn’t handle the peak torques of sprinting as well, nor was going 36h an option.

I assured him I'd handle it, and built the rear with two lengths, so the pulling spokes were full tangent, and the others not. He was thrilled and had a great season. IMO another example of the placebo effect.

grumpus

That's the reason for tied and soldered spokes, sometimes mistakenly claimed to be for stronger or more rigid wheels.

Duragrouch

I would agree, thanks for that, I thought it was for strength. Thinking about it, if you ever had a wheel where spokes could be loaded in compression, crossed spokes might make them stronger, by reducing the unconstrained length of the spoke under compression. However, bicycle wheels, being designed for tension at all times, just varying between more tension and less tension, yes, I think you are right.

sd5782 

Kinda funny that a bike I’ve had sitting for nearly 3 years and I am tearing apart now also has 4 cross wheels. This one is from 1984 I believe. It is a Torpado Nuovo Sprint with low flange Miche hubs laced 4X to Ambrosia 19 rims. Spoking looks fine, but finding a two prong Regina freewheel tool is the problem now. That’s what makes it all interesting and keeps the mind occupied.

FBinNY 

[QUOTE=Trakhak;23153644
.....Some of the older posters here will undoubtedly remember going to bike trade shows in the early '80's and visiting the Hi-E Engineering booth, where Harlan Meyer's latest wild designs would be on display.....[/QUOTE]

Harlan Meyers....brings back fond memories of a great era, and interesting people. Thanks for the trip down memory lane....

Duragrouch

Find two pieces of metal that match the freewheel slots. Clamp both in a good vise, at the correct spacing. Put freewheel over the metal parts. Turn wheel anti-clockwise to unscrew freewheel. I think in my toolbox is a two prong of some type that I altered at the bench grinder to fit another type.

FBinNY 

This is a good way to destroy a Regina or Everest freewheel. Removing these requires a solid purchase that absolutely shift, lift, or cam. It is necessary that you use the right remover, and clamp it down with the QR.

Interestingly, Regina removers were the second tool I produced BITD, after cone wrenches. you won't find any to buy these days, but any mechanic who was working before the 90s will still have one tucked away.

Duragrouch

Due to your vast experience (really, not sarcasm, I've grokked that from your posts), I believe you. Dang I miss when I had access at employers to a full machine shop; Start with a suitable hardenable steel with good toughness (I bought a whole set of security bits at harbor freight, all brittle as glass), a little lathe time, a little mill time, heat treat, and I could make one of those. A hyperglide tool would be more complex, requiring a rotary table or super-spacer (indexed rotary table) to do the splines.

Spoke wrench, had just bought a new Cannondale and my old wrench didn't fit, Sunday, bike shop closed, had 24/7 access to machine shop at my college, whipped one out. 35 years later, still works great:

oldbobcat

Likely that the butt ends would contact the heads of the adjacent spoke. But let's leave it at annoying and pointless.