It's been proposed that due to offset hub flange drilling the only way to use a single spoke length with equal tensions to lace a 36 hole hub to a 24 hole rim is with nonstandard spoke patterns such as:
LLRR

or
16 spokes


But I was just talking with a guy who claims you can use a normal spoke pattern with any rim drilling, any way you want it, that's the way you need it, any way you want it, all night, all night, oh every night:



But when I tried this I ended up with a twist in my wheel. What gives?

buy a 36 spoke rim..

Coaster brake forces, you know ..

... A wheel rim 622 or 451 makes a Big Difference.

28 and 24 spoke is fine with a 349 rim, Brompton and Bike Friday Tikit, work,
with those.

Why? If rear wheels are strong enough to be dished then you can surely lose a few spokes on an undished wheel. Especially without a rim brake it doesn't need to be as perfectly true. I have about a thousand miles on my rear 36/24 undished 700c niobium wheel and it's held up just fine.

This is exactly the problem with you anti-weightweenies. Add a pound for a coaster hub and you want another for 36 spokes and then you want another for a stiff rim and then you want another for a wide tire and you want another for a steel frame and you want another for...before you know it the bike weighs 40 pounds.

Apparently not. 3/4 pics I posted were 700c wheels...the last from a titanium road bike.

Besides a high flange hub on a large diameter rim is similar to low flange hub on a small diameter rim....and these are the hubs that typically aren't available with 24H drilling.

36h hub on a 18h or 16h rim doesn't work without more than one spoke length on the same side.

36h hub on a 24h rim works. just use 2.18x

Can you please elaborate on how this works for both flanges? I tried it and the wheel was twisted. So I thought about it for a long time and realized that since the opposite flange is offset 10 degrees, it doesn't align with the 15 degrees between spoke holes at the rim (ie L,R,L,R...the Ls should be the same as the Rs except offset 15 degrees which seems impossible w/ hub holes at 10 degree increments).

What am I missing to make it work? It worked when I switched to a LLRR pattern (first pic) with 30 degree offsets (ie two holes over at the rim = one hole over plus flange swap at the hub), but I'd prefer the pattern to be LRLR if it is indeed possible.

My wheel (the second picture) is now in pieces after receiving lots of conflicting advice about building it. I will probably just do 36x3, as I've bought a Mavic tubular for racing.

FYI - I noticed your post in my thread. It is not a LLRR spoke pattern at the rim. Skipping only one hole, it becomes LR*LR*LR*. So even if the missing spokes were added, it would not be LLRR. It would be something weird like LRLLRRLR

the wheels you have pictured are all 1 cross.

take a look at the far side flange on this page
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/36-24.htm

Actually they're 1.17x. The problem is that the Rinard method can only be used on ONE flange. The other flange requires a different pattern due to the lack of proper flange symmetry.

Unless someone else can think of something, as far as I can tell, there's nothing special about 2.17x that compensates for this.

Nobody have an opinion on this?

who proposed This daft idea?

What is the reason for not using a 36h rim to match the hub? To save weight?? 85- 100 grams (the weight of 12 spokes plus brass nipples) is a far cry from a 40lb bike.

We all have an opinion, it's just not the same as yours

Ride nude. What's the problem? Oh, wait, you're a weightweenie, you already do.

I just tried to come up with a way of doing this in CAD where the spokes would all be symetrical for at least a front. So far no luck at doing it with one spoke length. It's close but there's always some difference in the crossing points where the cross leads or lags a radial line in some of the pairs. And unless all your spoke crossings is on the virtual radial the wheel will have built in unbalanced stresses which would explain your twisted rim.

...plus extra rim tape, x2 wheels, makes for a total increase of ~200g of rotating weight which is equivalent to ~400g (nonrotating) when accelerating.

That's the weight difference between a steel and carbon frame. So the sensible thing is to lose the unnecessary spokes (if you're a light rider like me) and "spend" the weight savings on something that matters like a steel frame or wider tires. On the other hand, anti-weightweenies pick the heavier choice every time whether it's overkill or not which leads to the 40 pound bikes.

I'm not a weight weenie, I just think one should stick to a reasonable weight budget so you can use heavy components where they matter without ending up with an extremely heavy bike. Not all of us require 36 spoke wheels to support 200+ pound bodies.

Yeah, when I studied it it seemed the only way to make it work was by lacing to each flange in pairs (left, left, right, right, etc) because then the change from L to R is 30 degrees apart both at the rim and the hub (15degx2 holes over at rim = one 20deg hole over at hub + 10deg flange offset).

The strange thing is that there are a lot of people who say a normal LRLR pattern can work (AEO, Sheldon Brown w/ "radial", etc). So I'm trying to learn what their secret is because I'd like to see if the LRLR pattern would be any easier to true (but surely not if it the stresses are unbalanced).

That only applies to weight in direct contact with the ground. Hub weight has an extremely small impact on acceleration due to rotation, and spokes are in between. I'd have to think too hard on a Saturday to tell you what effect a spoke has, but rotational inertia increased by the square of the radius. The weight of the inner 1/2 of a spoke only adds 1/4 of what the outer half adds. Saying rotating mass is 2x exaggerates to the extreme.

A good portion of the weight is in the nipples and the rim tape and there are also aerodynamic effects. But even if it were 1x instead of 2x that's still half the difference between a steel and carbon frame. So to be precise, the weight difference is somewhere between a lot (1x) and a whole lot (2x); Either way it's well worth eliminating.

But why are we arguing about this? There are obviously plenty of reasons why one would want to use a 24 spoke rim with a 36 hole hub such as cost savings, rim choices, etc. Weight savings is just one of them.

Well, I'm always up for a challenge so I kept playing with the CAD. Turns out that it looks like it IS possible. On this diagram I've shown one side of the hub as red and the other as black. The spoke lengths are all the same at 262.25 for this particular close to lifesize drawing. Of course the actual length will be dependent on rims and hubs.

I don't like the fact that it's only a one cross pattern and that the spokes ended up paired two to one side, two to the other all the way around. I'm going to keep playing with it.

Ah, this is better. I spread out the flange spacing and how it's more tangential but still symetrical so all spokes are the same length. There does not appear to be any way to do this with all the same spokes and avoid the alternating side pairs. So you'd want a fairly stiff rim to avoid it S'ing between the pairs pulling to each side.

Thanks for your interest. Yeah, clearly it is possible for the LLRR pattern (and you don't need CAD to see why).

The question is is it possible for a LRLR pattern? Many people claim it is, but neglect to explain how.

Here's the best one yet. I spread out the spoke pattern to reach around each pairing over 4 holes at the rim and now it's a 2 cross pattern. It's still suffering from the pairs to each side at the rim.

I have built a lot of wheels... have never thought there was much benefit to building a 36 hole hub into a 24 spoke rim.

The cost and weight savings are nominal, building it is a pita (as we can see here) and a standard 36 spoke / 3 cross rear wheel under your skinny butt is going to stand up to all the abuse you can throw at it... and if it is a coaster hub you are working with here.

I run 32 spoke wheels (26 inch) on my touring bike... I curb out at 145 and have never had a wheel issue although they are some pretty fine wheels.

People keep saying this, but we've established that the weight savings is almost as much as upgrading from a steel to a carbon frame. If that's "nominal" then what isn't?

It all comes down to the bike's intended purpose... a full carbon frame is going to be designed for high performance applications and a comparable steel frame will weigh an extra pound. If you went really nuts you could build a steel racing bike that is as light as carbon but your pockets have to be pretty deep as then you are looking at a full custom build with some pretty exotic parts.

If you are not riding competitively and counting seconds a nice steel frame is probably a better choice as you won't be fretting about every little scratch / nick that comes your way either.

If you are building up a coaster hub I don't think a little extra wheel weight is going to matter much... there are 24 spoke coaster hubs out there but these tend to be equipped on children's bikes with smaller wheels.

Compromising the integrity of the wheel to save a few grams isn't worth it... although it is an enjoyable exercise to try these things.

My road bike is a custom frame and fork with some nice solid parts... it hits the curb at 21 pounds and I add another 145 so the total package is 166 pounds. The weight I would save by riding an 18 pound bike is 3 pounds which is only 1.8 % of my total riding weight.

That is nominal and you are only looking at a pound which is probably less than 1% of the whole package.

Why choose? With 24 spokes you can have a steel frame with close to the overall inertia of carbon. Why not have your cake and eat it too?

Lack of skill and intelligence at wheel building are not compelling excuses.

Who says it compromises the integrity of the wheel? If going to 24 spokes constitutes a "compromised" wheel for a 130 pound person then so is a 36 spoke wheel for a 200 pound person. According to your logic, why try to save a few grams by using 36 spokes when you could use 48?

Ironically enough, given the stance on drivetrain maintenance you expressed over in the commuting forum, I'd say you're the one riding bikes with "compromised integrity".

Frankly I didn't want to get into this because it's only going to distract from the topic at hand, but needless to say it doesn't work that way. Sure you can say that riding a 70 pound bike is "only 50% more weight" for a 145 pound man, but what you'd be neglecting to realize is that "only 50% more" weight is about a hundred times more difficult to carry.

Use the wrong metric and you will draw the wrong conclusions. It takes a lot more energy to push that last 1% than it does the first 99%.

Chucky - 24 spokes vs 36 spokes is 12 spokes and 12 nipples.

The weight difference here is nominal.

If you were building racing wheels I'd say knock yourself out but you are building on a coaster hub... the wheel is going to be heavy and those 12 spokes are not going to change that by any appreciable degree and won't improve the aerodynamics by much either.

Do you build bicycles or wheels for a living ?

I ask because you come here with a question, get good answers and then try to discount those answers that come from people who do this for a living.

Not saying you can't build some funny wheels but have to ask, why ?