Originally Posted by
Timmi
....
Long-story short, more with more crosses is better (their model used only 28 spokes, recommended as 3X, so one can conclude that 4X on a 36 hole has it's advantages).
Scientific analysis is fine, but when analyzing the results you have to apply 2 steps of logic.
1- is it accurate and a fair representation of my real world problem? For example, science may tell you that one pattern is torsionally, radially, or axially more rigid, but which is of concern to you?
2- Is the "proven" difference significant is the scheme of things. It's one thing to prove there;s a difference, but something else entirely to decide if that difference is meaningful when weighed against other factors. This is where judgement and experience come into play. I build various wheels with different patterns to "optimize" them for various purposes, such as track, touring, road racing, expected pavements, etc. But I don't deceive myself into believing that subtle differences, ie. 3x vs. 4x, are meaningful in the real world.
BF is full of very heated debates over these niggling differences, but I compare them to arguing over pennies on a million dollar deal. So, 3x or 4x, whichever you prefer, or whatever the spokes on hand dictate.