Cynikal 

I'm about to build a new commuting wheelset. I'm using some IRO cold fusion rims (velocity fusion unbranded) 32 hole laced to some LX hubs (will be respaced to 130mm). I'm thinking I want to do a half radial build to equalize the spoke tension. Anyone have any experience doing this? I've build 8-10 wheelsets in the past so it's not my first rodeo but I've mostly stuck to 3x.

Thanks in advance.

miamijim

Its been a done a bizzilion times and your going to get a a bazzillion different answers.

Equalizing spoke tension is way over rated. You can build it 3X/3x and be done with it or build it 3X/radial for the fun of it.

FBinNY 

If you go half radial to improve tension balance, that means radial off the right flange. That means that you'll be transfering the torque from the right side of the hub to the left. It's OK for many modern hubs with large center sections, but classic hubs with thin centers may not built to withstand much torque.

Other than that go ahead and do it if you wish, but don't expect any miracles. Classic 3x build will work as well, and maybe even better. The other way to reduce the effects if dish is to use lighter spokes on the left. That allows you to elongate them a bit, without over tightening the right side spokes.

fietsbob

Only a dish less wheel will have equalized spoke tension.

but if building one that way amuses you , go for it.

You Have a backup wheel set to put on if needed , I presume..

my novel wheel builds 36 hole, high/low flange rear hub,
3x right, 4x left, so difference in spoke length exaggerated more.

Touring set: Phil medium flange 48 spoke 5 cross, 40 hole front , 4 cross.

Lots of scenery seen on those wheels

FBinNY 

Not necessarily true.

Dish usually refers to a wheel whose rim is not centered between the flanges. But the relative R&L tension depends on the angle of the spokes. The angle can be equalized (or made more similar) for asymmetrical flanges by changing the line of the spokes by raising the height at which spokes meet the right flange, as compared to the left.

You can do this by, for example, by building with fewer crosses right vs. left. Or by using hubs with larger right flanges than left, or a combination of both. Whether you can totally equalize the tension, or only get closer depends on the hub.

You can also use rims with spoke holes offset to one side.

ultraman6970

+1 with miamijim

mrrabbit 

As hinted already by FBinNY...dish, dishing, and dished has two meanings:

1. As an adjective describing the appearance of a kitchen dish when a wheel is held horizontal. Symmetrical wheels will be the same either way - asymmetrical wheels will have sides that differ in appearance.

2. A verb referring to the action of centering the rim between the locknuts - or a wheel in such a state. This is the technical use of the term - not the use noted above.

All typical wheels have the "appearance of dish" - and all wheels are either "dished" or not - there is no such thing are less dished or more dished in the technical sense. You can say "off-dish" or "needs improvement", etc.

However, if you really do want to see a truly "dishless" wheel in the "adjective" sense - visit Phil Wood in San Jose as they have a wheel hanging up that is built around a hub with only ONE flange. Technically though in the "verb" sense it is roughly "centered" and therefore considered to be "dished".


=8-)

mrrabbit 

See my previous post...

=8-)

Retro Grouch 

One nice thing about building a half-radial rear wheel is you can't make the 2 too long and 2 too short spokes laceing mistake.

fietsbob

My hub shell came from a Garage sale at a bike shop in Sausalito, NOS part,
the original hub design steel tube aluminum flanges,
I thought having the freewheel thread in steel was a fine thing.
sent it down to PW and they pressed the axle in it.
fine touring wheel set , laced to Mavic Mod 4 rims.

Pretty much the opposite of the OP and what they want, i went for durability
seemed a success..

operator

So let me get this straight - the reason for radial rear, left. Is so that each invididual spoke has higher spoke tension, and thus less chance of them loosening. Assume for arguments sake that drive side spokes are up to correct tension?

Cynikal 

I was planning on lacing the non-drive side radial. The idea being that the non-drive side with a 3x carries less tension than the drive side. Using radial will increase the tension required by the spoke . This is all based on the idea that spoke breakage on the non-drive side is due to the lower tension allowing additional flex, thus fatigue.

Cynikal 

That is the thought.

mrrabbit 

I think what operator is trying to hint is:

"Is it about tension, or about positioning the spoke head and elbow in such a way that flexing of the elbow is minimized upon application of torque thereby lengthening the life of the looser non-drive spokes?"

=8-)

FBinNY 

This is backwards.

If the spoke meets the flange nearer the rim (radial is as close as possible) the angle between the spoke and center plane is greater.

If you don't see this draw an H on the bottom of a sheet of paper to represent the hub flanges. Then draw a dot centered high above the H to be the rim. Now spoke it up, bringing the radial spoke to the top of one side of the H, and the crossed (tangent) spoke where the vertical meets the crossbar.

Since radial spoke has a larger angle to the center plane, the side component of it's tension will be higher than that of a similarly tensioned tangent spoke. Applying Newton's 2nd law we know that the side component has to be equal for both spokes. That means that the radial spoke would need a lower tension than a tangent spoke going to the same flange.

Long story short, by building radial left and tangent right, you're increasing the difference in tension between left and right spokes, which is exactly opposite to your stated goal.

Cynikal 

Thanks FB, that does make sense.

DannoXYZ 

While there is a slight included-angle difference between a spoke that's at the top of the flange (radial), versus one that's tangential (2 or 3x), that difference is not as great as the difference between a spoke that's coming in from the outside of the flange versus inside of the flange. A radial spoke that's heads-out, coming out on the inside of the flange will have smaller angles than ones from the outside. If all of them are coming out the inside of the flange, the overall tension will still be higher than the crossed configuration.



The red & orange spokes are in a 2x configuration. While the orange inside spoke of the 2x does have slightly less angle than the radial (blue), it's only slightly less. However the outside spoke (red) has significantly more angle and less tension. The overall total tension of the red & orange spokes still ends up being less than the radial for a larger difference between the left & right sides. We really should take a weighted-average of the angles of the outside & inside crossed spokes to compare with radial.

I've built up numerous wheels with identical parts and with exactly the same right-side tension, the resultant tension on the heads-out radial is about 10-15% more than with a crossed configuration. Still doesn't fully make up for the tension-difference between the two sides, but it's minimized best with the heads-out radial configuration.

davidad

There is no advantage with radial spoking. If you like the look go for it.
Radial spokes are not good at the transfer of power until they are stressed back a little.

DannoXYZ 

Well, there are:

1. more laterally and radially stiff wheel
2. more even spoke-tension between left & right sides of rear wheel when used in radial-left, crossed-right configuration

Whether or not you can detect it or take advantage of it is another.

Tunnelrat81

I always assumed that the value of Radial spokes on the NDS was to eliminate the low tension problems of the Leading NDS spokes when under torque. They are pretty much always the spokes that go loose due to the drop in tension under torque. The theory being that whether or not your overall NDS tension is slightly higher or lower when radially laced, you won't have big drops in that tension under torque load. Thus by eliminating any "leading NDS spokes" you've eliminated the problem. Leading DS spokes will remain under tension because of their ultimately higher DS tension and thus usually don't cause a problem.

*Following paragraph edited to correct typos and confusion*

That part that doesn't sit well for me, however, is that by eliminating the leading NDS spokes, you're also eliminating the trailing (pulling) NDS spokes. This then leaves ALL of the torque transfer up to the trailing DS spokes, potentially (just a guess) creating an even greater dynamic tension range in the leading DS spokes while riding.

-Jeremy

DannoXYZ 

Compute the actual tension-variations due to torque and compare to tension-changes due to weight through the load-zone and you'll have your answer.

Also use an RMS torque-value for average rider, not max-torque from Olympic Match Sprinter.

Since fatigue includes a time-variable, we would need to integrate with respect to time to arrive at a more accurate figures as well.

Tunnelrat81

It sounds like you're suggesting that wheels fail more due to inadequate overall tension than with tension changes related to torque.... I can't argue physics with you but in my limited experience, it seems pretty clear that the spokes that cause the most trouble are the leading NDS ones. If torque transfer doesn't have much to do with it, how do you explain the correlation? Do those of you with lots more wheel experience not see as much of this?

-Jeremy

DannoXYZ 

Calculate the actual tension-changes due to weight versus torque and you'll have your answer.

I think the issues we see on this board is partly the squeakiest-wheel-gets-the-grease syndrome. For every issue that's brought up, there may be hundreds, thousands of samples that do not have any problems. Speaking of thousands, I've built around 1000 wheels myself since my 1st one and have not had any more issues with left-side breakage than right. Then again, most of those were in the 8-spd & earlier days when wheel-dish wasn't as bad as it is now.

I'm still riding on a 20-year old set of MA40 training-wheels that's had over 50k-miles and some of the spokes were finally failing from fatigue. But there wasn't a particular pattern with more leading NDS spokes breaking.

operator

We build pretty much 3x only, left and right for rear. From campy record hubs to powertap hubs. Never had a wheel come back that had constant issues with spokes coming loose or wheels coming out of true. FWIW.

Thus never seen the need to do radial left, whatever the supposed benefits are.

bubbagrannygear

(need to add something here since message boad doesn't recognized writing in the quotes as a reply)