DvB

I'm a reasonably experienced wheelbuilder. I got my copy of Jobst Brandt's book during my first bike shop job in high school -- some 20 years ago. I'd always thought that Jobst's way was the "industry standard," and all my wheels (none of which has ever failed in use) were built as spelled out in that book.

I recently checked out a copy of Lennard Zinn's (excellent) book on bike maintenance, and his wheelbuilding section suggests lacing the rear wheel in a manner different from Brandt's. Zinn says that the "pull" spokes should be oriented inside-out (spoke heads on the inside of the flange) so that the spokes under highest tension have the widest, most stable "stance" on the wheel. This makes sense, I guess, but in so doing it creates a wheel that, when under torque load from pedaling, actually "widens" (in a 2, 3, or 4x lacing, the pull spoke's last crossing would be UNDER a spoke, rather than over it, moving the push spokes out from the centerline when torqued). The nice thing about Brandt's technique, with pull spokes outside-in (spoke head on the outside of the flange), is that when the wheel is being torqued by the rider, the whole structure actually compresses slightly (the pull spokes are OVER the last spoke they cross, and thus, when torqued, push the pull spokes in towards the centerline). This would seem to ensure that rear derailleur clearance is maintained under all riding conditions.

It's a fairly minor point, granted, and clearly good wheels have been built both ways for many years. Just curious as to the preferences of the experienced wheelbuilders on this forum. I still think I prefer Jobst's way, but maybe that's just because I've gotten so used to it. I wonder if any strength tests have actually been done?

--D

waterrockets 

Yeah, it's pretty subtle. I've built both ways and never seen a difference. What are we supposed to do for flip-flop SS/FG wheels

operator

You don't care about derailleur clearance if you don't even have a derailleur

Wordbiker

Well, Zinn would definitely have Brandt on reach and an early KO is likely...but if he could hold him off til the later rounds, Brandt is scrappier and he'd have it if it came down to a decision...

Al1943

Brandt's just a Stanford mechanical engineer, what would he know?

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/

Wordbiker

True, but he has written some good stuff despite that fact...

Little Darwin

Back in the dark ages, before normal people got obsessive/compulsive about such things... I built a 3 speed wheel from a pile of used spokes, a used rim, and a used hub and it stayed true for years on gravel roads, off road (before mountain biking existed as a term).

I didn't even lace the spokes or worry about leading/trailing...

While I do agree that there is a minimal benefit to lacing, I do think that it is only minimal.

You are probably asking yourself, "What else does Little Darwin think?"

Well, let me tell you. For scale, lets assume that skipping the lacing makes a significant difference, to the point that skipping the lacing leads to a wheel that never stays true for more than 10 minutes on a smooth road... Even then the difference between lacing leading over or under trailing spokes would be minimal... as would spoke heads in or out.

Of course, this is just my uninformed opinion based on a very small sample size.

AKTed

I've wondered about this as well for the few wheels that I have built. I like the Gerd Schraner book best, and he prefers the heads In (as does Zinn). But I've built wheels both ways and it seems there is no real practical difference.

But here's how the various "experts" call it:

Pulling spokes, heads In or Out

Sheldon Brown - Out
Gerd Schraner - In
Jobst Brandt - Out
Barnett's - Says it doesn't matter, but his procedures show them Out
Lennard Zinn - In

So, sort of a split decision I guess.

melville

Rear derailleur clearance can be an issue with the right mismatch of parts when heads are IN. More than once in the 90s I replaced a Campy upper pulley with a Shimano (blasphemy!) 8S pulley to solve dynamic (under load) clearance problems on bikes and tandems that used Shimano hubs, Campy derailleurs, and heads IN. There would be as much as 1mm clearance when on the stand but "ting ting ting" going up a hill. IIRC the Shimano pulleys were at least 2mm narrower. The Campy bolts just needed to be ground down a touch once it was bolted together.

For this reason all my derailleur rear wheels are heads OUT. My SS wheels are heads IN because I think it's prettier.

lymbzero

Heads in.

dbg

Heads out. Sheldon preferred this as well for the reasons listed on his page. His only caveat was to reverse it for fixed gear and coaster brake wheels.

nitropowered

Another argument for heads out is if you jam your chain between the top cog and spokes, you won't damage your drive spokes. This really isn't an issue if your derailleur is adjusted correctly but as all of you have seen, even properly adjusted can get out of adjustment and create an oops.

Deanster04

Truly doesn't matter. Just select a method and stick with it. I have built wheels for years and it just happens to be the way Zinn builds them. If you go over the method of Sheldon and Zinn (and Gerd Schraner) they are exact mirror images of each other. I prefer heads in but the justification has nothing to do with some gedanken head game. If you build either way and find it easy then stick with it. Most good wheel builders I know have a method they perfect and stick to: Symmetric, pulling spoke head in, head out, or Assymetric. If a wheel is built well it will "stand" for many miles.
Spoke technology has changed over the years and the material and manufacturing processes have been perfected so that spokes are pretty consistant. In the late 50's and early 60's I had to tie and solder my track and road wheels (especially the rear wheel) because I would break a spoke every time I got in a sprinting match if I didn't. I was very young and I used every method to build wheels as an experiment. Today I have one way just for consistancy. I don't even have to think when I build my wheels. I often ride wash board roads on my road bike and honestly I can't tell you the last time I broke a spoke. I just don't let them get out of true. Wheel building ain't a religion inspite of the 'true believers' who expouse that their way is the only true way. Sheldon or Zinn...flip a coin.

DvB

I didn't really read any responses from "true believers" who think "their way is the only way." Consensus seems to be that it doesn't really matter in terms of wheel strength, the determination of which was my main aim in posting my question.

I still think Brandt's way makes more sense, intuitively, in terms of maximizing derailleur clearance and preventing pulling-spoke damage -- but as we've all said, it's a pretty minor point.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

--D

smurf hunter

I've little experience, but have followed Schraner. I vaguely recall hub brakes (disc or other), as well as hub generators had a benefit one way or the other.

When I laced up a shimano centerlock hub generator, the instructions had a warning about which way to orient the pulling spokes - but I can't recall what was prescribed. Oops

A more involved example would be a rear disc brake hub. On the drive side we know how that's twisting, but when brakes are applied, the hub twists in the opposite direction. Does that suggest a rear disc hub should have the in/out method inverted between drive and non-drive sides?

Regardless of your preference/belief, the same one wouldn't be optimal for both sides - would it?

I've done all sides Schraner's way and I've got thousands of miles without issue.

23.35

I prefer spoke head-out. My reason is that, to me, it has a straighter line from hub to rim, with less stress. I have always believed that the head-in puts an additional bend in the spoke, with potential weakening.
I have built more than a few sets of wheels. I also have never had a spoke tension guage. I used to build wheels for long distance touring riders, beginning in the 70s. I had no complaints from thoe using my wheels. these wheels usually saw long miles without tune-ups.
different spokes for different folks.
Jackinthesac from the heart of the big tomato

cs1

Bingo, Brandt is an engineer who writes for other engineers. Zinn is a mechanic who writes for laymen. I like Brandt but he is just needlessly complicated in his descriptions.

Tim

Deanster04

It was meant in Jest...

Road Fan

Just to say, as an engineer I don't always follow Jobst's descriptions, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. I do think he's not the greatest technical writer.

Zinn is also a physicist by training, and that deeper understanding of bike mechanics shows through sometimes. Plus, I've not seen him less than clear.

Road Fan

smurf hunter

Seems that concern would be mitigated a great deal if butted spokes were used.

operator

Do not agree. If we wanted explanations in laymen, we'd read bicycling magazine. Zinn, always leaves you going to jobst for the complete explanation.

Nikola

For rear wheels, I always follow Sheldon’s guidelines Wheelbuilding:

Derailleur wheels: all trailing spokes heads out
Singlespeed with freewheel: all trailing spokes heads out
Coaster brake hub: all trailing spokes heads in
Fixed gear: all trailing spokes heads in
Flip flop: all trailing spokes heads out on freewheel side, all trailing spokes heads in on the fixed sprocket side

Front wheel: all trailing spokes heads in

Disk brake (and other hub brakes): all trailing spokes heads out (however, I ignore this for wheels with coaster brake hubs)

The spokes with the heads inside the flange are capable of carrying more load, but that’s not an issue on derailleur wheels. That’s true. Here Disc wheel Lacing - Pvdwiki says that the drive-side trailing spokes should be heads in. However, on wheels with disk brakes, the braking forces are much, much higher than the driving forces, so it’s worth lacing all the spokes that carry the braking load (leading spokes) with the heads in, like I do. And a wheel built symmetrically, with all trailing spokes oriented with the heads outside (or inside) is much better than a wheel built asymmetrically. If someone is concerned about breaking spokes on a derailleur rear wheel without disk brake (for example a road racer), than it’s better to lace the wheel with all trailing spokes with the heads inside. For the same reason, I sometimes lace coaster brake wheels and fixed gear wheels with the trailing spokes with the heads on the inside, if the owner of the wheel wants.

I always lace with the label on the hub pointed directly to the valve hole (readable from left to right, or same as the matching rear hub); the label on the rim readable from the right side.

Whenever possible, on rims withous eyelets, I put M4 washer under every nipple. And fair amount of grease on the thread on every spoke.

And I always make sure that the valve is boxed the right way Wheel Building

Great thanks to Sheldon Brown, Jobst Brandt, Gerd Schraner, Roger Musson and John Barnet.

FBinNY 

I guess you must have thought this was VERY IMPORTANT since you posted it 4 times today on old threads.

That's fine, but it's generally frowned upon to do multiple posts.

daveed

Oh man. While building both rear wheels on my fixed gear and single-speed bikes, I gave nary a thought to which way the trailing spoke heads were positioned. It was trouble enough making sure the valve holes were centered between the parallel spokes. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

migrantwing

It's all Greek to me. Therefore, I do not build wheels.