Roadie607

Hey guys, happy MLK day!

So backstory: I'm a 150 lbs competitive rider and I bent the axle and put a hop in the rear wheel of my Vuelta Corsa SLRs, though I don't remember hitting a pothole or anything that heinous. Bummer, since those wheels were incredibly light, smooth as butter, fairly stiff, and generally great performers for the $300-ish I paid for them. I did have a few gripes with them though, mostly their nonstandard lacing pattern on the rear wheel (0x NDS, 1x DS), and their lack of outstanding stiffness despite having a relatively high spoke count (24,28), though this is probably more related to the low box profile of the rim.

I've decided to go custom for my next wheelset since I did the math and could probably do it for under $500.

I'll probably do
- 24h, 1x or 0x on the front, Sapim CX-Rays, laced to one of those bicyclehubstore.com wide hubs
- 32h, 2x or 3x on the rear, Sapim Lasers NDS and Sapim Races DS, laced to a Shimano FH-6800 Ultegra rear hub or White Industries H3 if I can save up enough clams.

I have a few questions for this build. First is with the spoke lacing. Do you guys have any suggestions as to why I should choose one of the above listed lacing patterns over the other for each wheel? If so, then why? Also, I am stumped on the front rim choice. I'm more or less decided on a IRD Cadence Aero on the rear (30mm depth, 19mm width) if only for the stiffness of a deep profile rim. However, for the front, I torn between two options. I could just make the front match the rear and reap the aero benefits of blah blah blah (this would be mostly for aesthetics), or I could go with a lighter lower profile wide rim. I had the Velocity A23 (23mm wide, 19.5mm depth).

The way I see it, the wider rim has the advantage of having better cornering manners than a traditional road width. I'm operating under the assumption that the front wheel has a bigger impact on cornering than the rim, correct me if I'm wrong. I also believe that unlike the front wheel, a high profile rear wheel is less susceptible in cross winds because the rear is more weighted by the rider. A high profile front wheel would be more aerodynamic in headwinds, but also be as stiff or stiffer than a wider but lower profile rim. Which would you prefer? Are my assumptions correct?

Thanks for the help guys!

canam73

Lacing for the rear should be whatever gives you the most tangent spoke to the hub flange. For 32h that will usually be 3x.

Just an FYI, but I believe the IRD Cadence Aero is the same rim as the Kinlin XR-300. If you are ordering from the BHS anyway, they carry the Kinlin. If you haven't seen it already, you may find this rim comparison useful: https://fairwheelbikes.com/c/forums/t...3-rim-roundup/ It seems you may do better with a pair of either 270 or 279s. At any rate note that the A23 really doesn't save much weight over the Kinlins. I believe they originally were spec'd at 426 grams, but in the real world they are heavier.

I like your choices in hubs. I have used that BHS Wide front on a couple of wheels and it has performed well. And the Ultegra and WI are both strong. Note that the H3 has been replaced with the T11 which is 11 speed compatible.

Bob Dopolina 

Skip 1X and go radial on the front (although some hubs are not able to handle this so confirm before purchase).

For your weight 28H on the rear is fine. That spoke count is best at 2X/2X as it gives the best bracing angles. Skip radial on the NDS as it doesn't save weight and isn't as stiff as 2X due to tension imbalance.

RollCNY

You get more benefit from aero front wheel than rear. I have the Cadence Aero rim on as a rear wheel, and would not hesitate to use it as a front (it is coupled with a Velocity Fusion now). That 30mm profile has never been noticeable to me, in comparison to my A23 based wheel set, but I am heavier than you. My cadence aero / Fusion set is 28/32, and has so far been very sturdy at my 205-210 lbs, so you probably wouldn't hurt a thing at 24/28, granted that the 28 rear rules out Shimano hubs.

plpete

Check out my wheel build thread from not too long ago - https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ead?highlight=

I weigh a bit more than you and the wheels have been fantastic.

canam73

I would like to hear your (or other wheelbuilders) thoughts on this.

I have built most of my front wheels 20 or 24 hole 2x. I realize that they are not passing torque and are rim braked so crossing is not necessary, and most if not all of my front hubs will accept radial lacing. One of my reasons is simply that I like the looks better, as the rear is going to be crossed and I just like them to have a similar look. But past aesthetics, there are a couple of possible advantages that appeal to me.

First, just because a hub is approved for radial doesn't mean it won't last longer with a crossed spoke. Products have been known to break under what is considered normal use, and even if it is rare for a hub to fail that way I don't see not giving it an advantage if it doesn't hurt me somewhere else.

Second, the angled spoke line approaching the rim can help to keep the nipple from unwinding. Again, generally a small worry but still an advantage I would rather have than not.

I have heard of a couple of other advantages but they are of less a concern to me or can be solved other ways, like preventing wind up on flat spokes.

And that brings me to asking what can be gained with radial lacing or what are the disadvantages to crossing. Three things come to mind:
The spokes would be shorter for radial giving a lighter wheel.
Could be slightly more aero.
Could be laterally stiffer (if laced heads in).

I am not a weight weeny and am not concerned with whatever aero advantage there may be to radial (which in my mind is going to by less than 1 watt at 20mph). That leaves lateral stiffness. I am sure somebody has a test out there, it may well be in the Brandt book which I own but haven't looked at for a while. But if somebody could post or link one, I would appreciate it. But I do tend to select front hubs that already have wider flanges so I don't know if there is a significant gain to be had.

I also realize that due to front wheel already having wider and symmetrical flange spacings that in a well built wheel all of this may be purely academic. Front wheels just tend to outlast the rears. But they still have to be built one way or another, and so I would like to know what reasons I may be missing.

Bob Dopolina 

@canam73.

Honestly, any front hub that suffers bearing issues or flange failure, over any period of time, because of radial lacing is, IMHO, a piece of crap. The most likely causes are material choices (using softer, CHEAPER 6000 series alloys and flange placement in relation to bearings).

In the OE work we do, I build and ride every wheel we supply parts for to our customers. Sometimes they source their own hubs which means I build with those instead of hubs of my choosing and I use the same spokes, nipples and lacings as our customers do. This means we can give real world feedback during development and that we can anticipate any real world issues that may arise.

This is the long way of saying I have experience with crappy hubs.

Front radial is mostly cool. Very little weight savings and minimal aero advantage. If the flanges are spaced well and the wheel is built well the front wheel should last forever and need only an occasional tweak once a season or so. Build it and forget it.

The voodoo is mostly in the rear.

Unwinding can be solved with spoke prep and stress relief during the build. This shouldn't be an issue on the front.

Based on how most rims are drilled, a radial lacing on the front should give the best nipple seating and spoke alignment possible unless the rim is drilled SPECIFIC to a hub. This usually only happens on proprietary wheels. Aftermarket rims need to be drilled in a generic way so that they can be used for the greatest number of applications.

For a 28H rear rim this means 2X/2X. Which yields good alignment and the best bracing angles.

canam73

Follow up question: What do you make of these comments from Fair Wheel's hub review:

Hub shell material: Even though not every manufacturer will state the alloy they use, most manufacturers use a very high strength alloy (usually 7000 series), and at first glance this seems like a good idea. Stronger is better, right? In some applications though, we believe that 6061 might be a better choice. The reason is that 6061 has higher corrosion resistance, and more importantly resistance to something called “stress corrosion cracking”. The spokes exert concentrated and variable forces at the holes in the hub flanges, and high strength is a less important factor than ductility and corrosion resistance. Another advantage is that the softer alloy will deform more readily providing better support for the spoke in the flange. If you live and ride in a particularly corrosive area, anodized 6061 hubshells would likely last the longest. As far as we know, only White Industries and Alchemy use this alloy. Chris King won’t divulge the series of alloy they use for their hubshells stating only that it is proprietary.

Full artictle: https://fairwheelbikes.com/c/forums/t...ad-hub-review/

Bob Dopolina 

Corrosion resistance? I live on an island surrounded by sea water. I've never had to deal with this problem.

The key phase I see is DEFORMATION. If the holes in the flange are drilled properly there should already be a perfect seat for the spoke. Why do I want my holes to deform any more than they already do with 7000series alloys?

The real issue with regards to deformation is when the flanges pull on the bearing bore and push it beyond tolerance. This means lateral play in the bearings once tension has been reached.

I have built several wheels using a popular brand of hubs and had this issue develop in the truing stand and about 100 kgf. Why? Cheaper alloys. Even if play doesn't develop bearing life will be greatly reduced.

canam73

Any chance it is one of the hubs mentioned in quote?

Bob Dopolina 

No. The problems I've experienced are with another brand. It has happened more than once and with more that one model.

I'm not saying that 7000 is always the best choice. 6061 can work and we haven't touched on hardening. What I can say is that the problems I've experienced have all been with 6000 series alloy, when materials related, with flange placement, when design related or tolerance related, when dealing with worn tooling.

canam73

Alright. It's hard not to be skeptical of things I haven't seen first hand. Aluminum corrosion I have seen, although not specifically causing problems on bicycle hubs. Deformation of bearing bores I have not, all though I do have at least one set of wheels built with 6061 hubs shells (WI H2/H3) and the last time I checked they were ~100nm front and 125/60nm rear.

Bob Dopolina 

We were building complete alloy wheels here for an OE customer and had to halt production because of this issue.

I just finished a front wheel sample that developed this issue in the truing stand. It does happen.

Corrosion is an issue for guys who ride the trainer a lot and sweat all over their bikes. I've never seen a hub corrode on the inside but have seen some polished hubs suffer on the outside after a few years of use.

fietsbob

32 hole 3 cross , is a well tested combination ,,

A hard anodized rim and sewups was the Roubaix cobbled route veteran for a very long time..

only supplanted because the companies making carbon rims wanted to prove claims for their sales campaigns,
I suspect . to sell to you all ..

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...ix-2011-29868/

canam73

??

You have the first mention of carbon rims in this whole thread. And past that, OP is not riding cobbles.

Roadie607

I'd like to thank you all for your input, I appreciate it! This forum constantly amazes me with its wealth of knowledge.

I indeed am not riding cobbles but thanks. The super low profile and narrow rims of the past that were used on Paris-Roubaix were probably favored by riders because their flex made them feel smooth compared to a more rigid rim. Good if you ride cobbles, bad if you race crits, something I plan on doing with these.

As for the Kinlins, I was trying to steer clear of them since I have not heard too much good about them from my bike wrench buddies. Likewise, I guess the IRDs are out of the picture now too... Instead, I now have my eye on a pair of Pacenti SL23s. They have the wide profile of the A23s, depth of the IRDs, and a very attractive weight @ 450g. Much more pricey but I figure if I'm going handbuilt, I might as well do it right.

BDop, may go that route since the I have never had integrity issues with a front and radial is very simple to do (probably why factories use it too). Plus, the before mentioned cool factor.

With a wide, stiff rim like the Pacenti SL23, I'm guessing the consensus is that 32 spokes is a bit overkill for a 150 lbs rider? However, one thing I did like about the Ultegra hub is that it has a steel axle rather than the alloy axles you find on most hubs nowadays. The extra weight, I believe, would be inconsequential because it is so close to the axis of rotation. However, the durability increase would be substantial, especially for someone who rides on some pretty miserable roads at times.

If I do decide on going 28h for the rear wheel, I am open to suggestions for a hub. Just discovered Novatec hubs, and they look pretty attractive given their price, weight, and ability to source steel replacement axles. I did, however, appreciate the peace of mind Shimano internals gave me with the Ultegra hub. How is the reliability of these nicer OEM quality rear hubs? I realize they come in a ton of different brands/rebadges, mostly front the same handful of manufacturers in China/Taiwan. I've had Formula hubs that were garbage but from what I understand, Novatec is quite a step up from Formula.

Even found this factory tour on Pinkbike. https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Making-...-Hub-2013.html
Pretty neat. Got me thinking about a new MTB wheelset build...if this one doesn't bleed me dry first.

rpenmanparker 

Kinlins are the best aluminum rims I have ever used. They build up rounder and straighter with less aggravation than Velocities any day of the week. Also with more even spoke tension meaning the rim started out truer. Can't say about Pacenti, never used them, but I hear good things.

rpenmanparker 

Bob, what do you specifically mean by "best bracing angles? Do you mean the widest angles and therefore greatest stiffness? Do you mean closest angles between the two sides, so most even tension side to side? Some compromise?

In BHS hubs the variation from NDS to DS is fairly extreme. I find head-out radial on the NDS and 2X DS helps to balance this with only acceptable loss of stiffness due to lower NDS bracing angle. I'm interested in your reasoning which leads to a different conclusion. Frankly, I really like radial on the DS and 2X on the NDS. Overall improved stiffness, and with today's modern large diameter hub shells and axles, I suspect also efficient power transfer by driving through the NDS. Your thoughts?

Roadie607

I believe he means that 2x gives you spokes that are the most tangent to the hub flange.

Radial DS, 2x NDS? Are you sure you don't have this the other way around? Granted I'm not a wheel building guru, but I have heard from some pretty reputable builders (Sheldon Brown) that radial lacing is not appropriate for drive side usage. Some even argue it is not appropriate for rear wheel usage.

coachboyd

Radial spokes put the most amount of stress on the flange, and combined with the high tensions of the drive side spokes that is where you can run into trouble with the drive side spokes cracking flanges.

Also, a radial spoke can not transfer torque from the hub to the rim. When you put pressure on the pedals you are putting a lot of torque to the hub, so why would you ever want a radial spoke on a rear wheel? Even if one side can transfer a lot of that torque you are still missing out on the 15% or more that the non crossed side can provide. Double crossing the spokes on both sides will make a stronger and stiffer wheel. If you recall Zipp used to lace with the radial drive side, but after feedback from athletes who demanded a stiffer wheel that responded better they changed to 2X lacing on both sides.

Lacing with radial spokes on the rear wheel offers no advantage at all, with the exception of making it much quicker to tension as you don't have to worry about the under/over spokes and making tension consistent with those.

Roadie607

Don't get me wrong, I'd say that 95% of the people who've laced them up would say that they are fine rims. However, it's those 5% that have me worried. I've juggled with products like that in the past and come up short and I tend to keep my gear for a very long time, so I'd like that piece of mind that I won't be replacing these 2 years down the road.

Roadie607

+1 Radial lacing is probably moreso a way of easing production and reducing production time, rather than something that offers any tangible benefits.

Bob Dopolina 

@rpenmanparker. Entire books have been written in response to your questions.

There are several things at play here. The comment I made was specific to 24H or 28H hubs. What I am shooting for in a 2X pattern is for the spokes to cross each other at a point that is not too close to the flange thereby avoiding spokes that are pulled over the flange and immediately cross a spoke. That's a lot of bending in a short length and then no other support until the rim. Spokes laced this way will often break just after the point where they cross the other spoke due to the difference in movement.

Also, this allows the spoke to enter the rim at the best angle which is one that allows the spoke to enter a well seated nipple without a bend on the way in.

I have seen several PT builds laced radial on the drive side. Based on my weight and power output I gave it a pass but this lacing does have supporters.

When we were looking to launch our own wheel brand a few years ago I spent a season building wheels for my team and we all raced the crap out of them. I started with radial NDS and 2X DS but found that we experience more NDS failures this way because the compression of each spoke was handled alone. Once we switched over to 2X/2X the failures stopped.

Also, the radial NDS wheels felt noticeable softer when attacking or sprinting. When we got a wheel above 800W we could feel the flex and sometime brake rub. 2X/2X didn't seem to have this problem.

Flange to flange spacing is important but where most hubs fail is the the center to right spacing. This needs to be as close to 20mm as you can get. Very few hubs actually get there. Good ones are 18-19 with the new Shim 11spd even less.

Another method to achieve left-right spoke tension balance is by varying the size of each flange. The math does some of the work for you.

Bob Dopolina 

Not really. The women that lace wheels at the assembly factories are amazing. They grab a fist full of spokes and pop them into place unbelievably fast. Lacing makes little difference.

rpenmanparker 

Coach Boyd treated the concerns in his reply to my message. No, I don't have it backwards. If a hub were perfectly stiff, it wouldn't matter which side you laced radially in one-side-radial design. Assuming the hub flange was strong enough to take the extra tension. I should comment that the radial tension on the DS of a standard wheel design is no higher than on the NDS of a 1:2 (or 8:16, etc.) design. I use that all the time as do a number of OEMs. It is my standard wheel. So if we can ignore the concern about radial tension on the DS, and you assume a reasonably stiff (as in modern) oversize diameter hub shell, the torque transfer on the NDS shouldn't be significantly different than on the DS. I have built wheels with DS radially laced, and for me they work perfectly well. Anecdote is one thing (my own included), but an up-to-date engineering assessment of this would be very interesting.

What radial lacing does for you allows you to put all the head facing one way and get a significant bracing angle modification which can be used to help balance spoke tension from side to side. I just don't like having 120 kgf on one side and 50 on the other as with X lacing on both sides of many modern hubs. With heads-in radial lacing on the DS, I can increase the low tension side to 70% of the high tension side of a wheel that would otherwise be only 40% on the low tension side. Big difference. Even if you use radial on the NDS and put the head out, you get a nice improvement in the balance of side-to-side spoke tension. That is why I like radial lacing on the rear.

There are other mechanisms for accomplishing these things. I find it best to not rely on any one "knob" to turn to get an improvement. I like to use several knobs each turned a little. So offset spoke drilling can help, as can radial lacing as can the 1:2 side-to-side drilling. Lots of tricks to pick from.

Robert