2x or 3x for Nexus Wheel
06-13-06, 08:39 PM
#1
Mild-mannered Commuter
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
2x or 3x for Nexus Wheel
Hi all
I am planning to build a 27" 36-hole wheel with a 7-speed Nexus hub for my old touring bike. I have read in a couple of places (Sheldon Brown's site, a spoke site) that wheels with large hubs like Nexus should be built in 2x for better spoke/nipple alignment, but in other places that anything less than 3x doesn't allow transfer of torque from the hub to the rim (I'm no engineer).
Which is correct?
I am planning to build a 27" 36-hole wheel with a 7-speed Nexus hub for my old touring bike. I have read in a couple of places (Sheldon Brown's site, a spoke site) that wheels with large hubs like Nexus should be built in 2x for better spoke/nipple alignment, but in other places that anything less than 3x doesn't allow transfer of torque from the hub to the rim (I'm no engineer).
Which is correct?
06-13-06, 08:53 PM
#2
Gone, but not forgotten
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newtonville, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,301
Bikes: See: https://sheldonbrown.org/bicycles
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
Originally Posted by jimmay
I am planning to build a 27" 36-hole wheel with a 7-speed Nexus hub for my old touring bike. I have read in a couple of places (Sheldon Brown's site, a spoke site) that wheels with large hubs like Nexus should be built in 2x for better spoke/nipple alignment, but in other places that anything less than 3x doesn't allow transfer of torque from the hub to the rim (I'm no engineer).
Which is correct?
Which is correct?
The Nexus 8 is larger and I normally do those cross 2.
Sheldon "Playing The Angles" Brown
06-13-06, 10:35 PM
#3
Over the hill
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 24,376
Bikes: Giant Defy, Giant Revolt
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 998 Post(s)
Liked 1,206 Times
in
692 Posts
With 36 spokes, you won't be getting all that far around the rim anyway. I used to build my track wheels (large flange hubs) with 36 holes 4 cross, and those usually got nicely tengential. I can see not wanting to get the spokes too far around because it would pull at a weird angle, but 36 spokes won't go wrong with 3X even if you're on a Zipp 404 with track hubs... imo of course, Sheldon can ammend as needed.
06-14-06, 02:04 PM
#4
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,796
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1392 Post(s)
Liked 1,324 Times
in
836 Posts
There is always a compromise between torque transfer (tangency to the hub would be ideal) and nipple angle at the rim. My default build is 3X, absent a convincing reason to do something else, such as in Sheldon's Nexus 8 example.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
06-14-06, 07:20 PM
#5
Gone, but not forgotten
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newtonville, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,301
Bikes: See: https://sheldonbrown.org/bicycles
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
Originally Posted by John E
There is always a compromise between torque transfer (tangency to the hub would be ideal)...
If this distance is too short (as with a wheel with insufficient crossings for the spoke number and flange size) you can have a problem, but beyond a certain point there is no advantage in increasing the distance. This is typically in the range of 2 cm or so.
Sheldon "Enough Is Enough" Brown
06-14-06, 07:20 PM
#6
Gone, but not forgotten
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newtonville, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,301
Bikes: See: https://sheldonbrown.org/bicycles
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
Originally Posted by John E
There is always a compromise between torque transfer (tangency to the hub would be ideal)...
If this distance is too short (as with a wheel with insufficient crossings for the spoke number and flange size) you can have a problem, but beyond a certain point there is no advantage in increasing the distance. This is typically in the range of 2 cm or so.
Sheldon "Enough Is Enough" Brown
