Just look at picture #2 . Spokes from opposite flanges cross paths.
Take,for example, the near flange heads up spoke at 12 o'clock.
The spoke in the far flange is in the flange hole immediately clockwise from the near spoke, but traverses to the rim
hole immediately COUNTERclocksise of the referenced spoke.
The paths visually cross right about at the diameter change of the spokes.
Obviously the stagger is incorrect for a true radial pattern.
Had the spoke in the far flange been laced to the hole immediately clockwise to the reference spoke,
the paths would be parallel and result in a true radial lacing pattern.

Simple.

There is no way that wheel was ever built that way and ridden. With the left spokes pulling one direction and the right spokes pulling the opposite direction the hub would twist as soon as the wheel was tensioned and would not be rideable. Just re-lace it properly and move on.

There are no crossed spokes on the same side of the hub. When talking about spoke crossing, I've never heard anyone talk about spoke crossing on opposite sides of the hub.

Yes, the solution is simple. I've already discussed why and how to fix it. Read my post and look at the picture. It's clear once you look at spokes 12 through 14. You are just making it harder than it really is.

Well, the near flange spokes pull in a clockwise direction, the away flange spokes pull in the opposite direction.
Visually, they cross. Not on the same side, I agree.
But, in a correctly radially spoked lacing pattern, there is NO visible crossing.
The spokes are staggered incorrectly.
I am unable to detect adjacent near flange holes being laced to adjacent holes in the rim.
There is not sufficient depth of field to see that (at least I can't.)
But, anyway you look at it, the stagger is incorrect.

So?

You keep making the same point and keep missing the obvious. The wheel isn't laced correctly. The whole wheel is laced mostly correctly. There are two spokes out of place that are causing the hub to twist. The solution is simple and straight forward and will solve the problem. No need to talk about bracing angles or which spokes pull and which push or whether it is better to have the heads out or heads in (head in is just goofy looking) or crossing spokes or whether it was made at the factory that way. It's a lacing mistake. Pure and simple. Fix the lacing and all the crossing and angles will go away.

I've looked at the close-up shot a couple of times and I'm not seeing the problem you are talking about. It looks to me like the spokes alternate left-right just fine. In my early morning not fully awake fog, I think the reason is that one side is laced one spoke hole off from where it should be. The only reason(s) I can come up with are 1) mistake from factory, or 2) they did it on purpose for some reason.
If you're looking at the OP's photos, the fix should be to move all the spokes on the far side of the wheel one hole clockwise. That should rotate the hub slightly clockwise and fix all the angle problems, making a 'true' radially laced wheel.


I think.

This should settle it: El Clique Aqui

Bingo.

Based on this, which if taken at face value means that the original pattern is as it is now, there are limited possibilities.

1- it was built this way by mistake, which I consider unlikely, but of course not impossible.
2- it was built this way intentionally, which might be supported or refuted by looking at the rear wheel, or the maker's website
3- it was rebuilt and screwed up by a prior owner if there was one.
4- the OP is lying, and removed more than a single spoke at one time. If he removed two adjacent spokes at any time he could have changed the pattern from the original radial to this.

I have no basis on which to decide which if the above is right, though I'd be surprised if it was intentionally built this way.

However, for those who fee it's impossible to build this way, I suggest looking at the Fallon pattern, and other stock novelty wheels on the Merlyn Mechanics website. In Hamlet's words, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, han are dreamt of in your philosophy".

In a strange coincidence, I happened to be visiting a client today who had a custom track bicycle in the entrance way to their design studio (not a bicycle related design studio FWIW). The wheels on it happened to be an older set of Shimano Dura Ace wheels (WH-7700) which to my surprise actually had the left and right spokes anchored through the opposite side of the rim, very near the brake track. I searched for some more information on those wheels and found this lateral stiffness test by Damon Rinard: https://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm

If you scroll down to section 6, he directly addresses the supposed stiffness gains of the laterally crossed spokes on the Shimano wheels. While theoretically there should be gains by doing this, it doesn't appear that Shimano was all that successful with their implementation, at least judging by the test results. Perhaps they missed the boat by only implementing the crossed spokes for the drive side rear wheel and using a standard spoke arrangement) for the non-drive side.

Nono. It's not a problem to build an all-leading, all-trailing wheel. In fact, you can disassemble any cross-laced wheel and rebuild it with all spokes on one side slanted clockwise and all spokes on the other side slanted anti-clockwise. Riding it - at least with rim brakes is a non-issue entirely.

There's only one thing - if you use 3X spoke length, you need a big and beefy hub spindle, as it's entirely possible to twist a slender one to serious deformation. I've posted pic of that here earlier. Using 1X length, even a slender hub would probably survive.

Interesting. However, I would have to believe that the thickness of the rim wall or grommet at the nipple exit point would be a factor.

The only front spokes I have ever broken were on a cross laced Velocity Dyad rim.
I cross laced it in error as I didn't recognize that the stagger of the access holes was opposite that of the exit holes to facilitate building.
The rim wall is too thick at the exit hole to allow the nipple to cant towards the hub flange, causing a stress point
at the exit of the spoke from the nipple.
I relaced correctly and have never broken another spoke in several thousand miles.

Rims designed to be cross laced are drilled that way, and it's not only a question of the angle of the hole, but the angle of the inside surface of the rim, or countersink. If the hole is big enough to allow the nipple to pivot, one side of the head will be digging into the rim. You sometimes see the effects of nipple angle as dimples with light rims, even when they're not cross laced.

Yeah, I've read that too.
But what it is missing is the "all other things considered equal" bit.
Granted, for that rim, with that spoke count, that gauge, those wheels didn't look much different from the other wheels.
But I'm not convinced about the fairness of the comparison. A relevant comparison would feature the same spoke count and the same gauge, the same hub geometry and preferably the same, or very similar extrusion, and then we could compare center drilled to lateral cross. Otherwise we're just looking at the performance of that particular implementation, and not the performance of the concept as such.

+1

Think about what a radially spoked wheel is. Spoke #1 travels from the right flange to the rim, spoke #12 travels from the left flange to the rim one hole clockwise from hole #1, spoke 3 travels from the right flange to the rim one hold clockwise from hole #2, etc all the way around. You can't be off by spoke on the right side hub flange without also being off by one spoke on the left side. There are no consequences of being off by one hole other than the label on the hub won't be aligned with the valve hole.

A correction first: I've looked at the picture several times. I was incorrect in labeling #12 as the bad actor. I was able to blow up the picture a bit more and looked at it again. Look at spoke #1. It actually quite radial. So is spoke #24, oddly enough. By what should be spoke #3 (second spoke right side hub flange), the spoke is noticeable tangential as are all the spokes until you get back to spoke 24. However, spoke #3 (second spoke right side hub flange) doesn't travel to hole number 3 in the rim. It travels to rim hole #4. Likewise, spoke number 23 (12th spoke on the right hand hub flange) travels to rim hole #24. There are 2 spokes traveling from the right hand side hub flange to adjacent holes on the rim. There are also two spokes (#2 and #4) from the left hand hub flange that are traveling to adjacent holes on the rim. To quote the great Crewman #7 (AKA "Roc" Ingersol), "That's not riiight."

It's not a mistake from the factory. It's not made that way. It has nothing to do with exotic lacings. It has nothing to do with being built that way on purpose. It's not even a lie on the part of SumoMuffin. He made a mistake during lacing.

Just a note to the moderators: This hash tag thing you have going now is a royal pain. The hash tag or number symbol has been used for eons to designate numbers. Using it to link to some weird, and as far as I can tell useless, section of the Bike Forums is annoying.

Now that you mention it, the second and third spokes down from the valve hole (in the clockwise direction) are from the same side. The OP needs to start over.

The first and last spoke (above and below the valve hole are also on the same side. The good news for SumoMuffin is that spoke 1 and spoke 2 are in the right place. The bad news is that the other 22 aren't.

I feel it is impossible to draw conclusions such as "that spoke is going to the wrong hole and that's your problem" from 2 photographs when there are angle of the camera lens and parallax and all to consider. The guy has the wheel in his hand and ubdoubtedly looked at, counted, and examined it many times. He's not an idiot. So taking stab in the dark like that is not likely to help. The only question here is simply as the OP originally stated...why are the spokes going to the other side of the rim?

amen !!

It's not impossible. Take a look for yourself.



Look at spoke 24 (top orange arrow) which is right above the valve and spoke 1 (bottom orange arrow) below the valve. If you trace them back, you can see that they come from the same side of the hub (blue and orange arrow at the hub). In fact, spoke "24" should be spoke "23". Now look at spoke 2 , spoke "3" (blue arrows pointing to spokes) and spoke "4". Spoke 2 comes from the left flange but spoke 3 also comes from the left flange. That's wrong.

And the reason that the spokes are going to the other side of the rim is because spoke number 4 is going into rim hole number 3 and spoke 3 is going into hole 4. The third hole on the rim is on the "right hand" side of the rim so the spoke is going into the wrong side of the rim. Once one spoke is out of place, the rest just naturally follow.

Nope. The top arrow is pointing to a different (near flange) sppke than the arrow to the right of it.
See the color difference between the upper spoke and lower spoke??
They are from opposite flanges.
the fact that you have altered your assessment several times now just proves that it is not
possible to discern that much detail from the photos.
I would find it VERY difficult to believe that anybody could screw up lacing a rim as badly as you indicate.

by now the OP has probably moved on and dealt with it, but keep up the entertainment

I figured that the sages must be deriving some enjoyment from the banter.........

The OP says it came this way and very first response asked if the OP replaced the spokes one at a time, to which he answered yes.

Since it's impossible to change the pattern replacing spokes only one at a time (only one rim hole and one hub hole available) then either the wheel came this way, someone else tampered with it, or the OP is lying.

In any case the OP had what he needed long ago, so the rest is meaningless argument about what may or may not be parallax in a photo. Have at it guys.