Recently picked up a pretty old Raleigh road bike ('62-'63), and noticed the spokes never really crossed over (hard to describe, please see pictures). In fact, no two spokes ever touch each other, and they certainly don't go in an under-over pattern. Problem? Not? Safe to ride? Thanks for any help. I can deal with most maintenance issues, but wheels are my weak point.
Oh yeah, I should add that both wheels are built the same way, and seem structurally sound...

It's generally considered less than ideal, but usually not a problem.
As you lose a bit of springiness when the spokes don't brace against each other, rear wheels are sometimes built like that to give snappier acceleration. The straghter path of the spoke increased torsional stiffness a tiny bit. Or out of lazyness, as the build is a tad faster. Can't see any advantage to the pattern on a rim drake front wheel.
The (potential) downside is that the reduced springiness increase the risk of spokes going slack and suffering fatigue.
You can rebuild it interlaced with the same spokes unless the nipples have seized.

Ok, thanks, I'll proceed accordingly. A lot of the spokes were seized and were preventing me from truing, so I replaced them; I just laced them to match the rest of the wheel, but started having second thoughts.

I you're re-lacing, I'd tuck under/over that final crossing as you'll get a slightly stronger/stiffer wheel. But I don't think there is anything wrong with running them the way they are. As the previous poster said, you should be able to use the same spokes if you want to re-lace. A lot of discussion on this forum about re-using spokes, but I take wheels apart for a thorough cleanup and re-lace with new spoke nipples (but old spokes and rim) quite often. Never had any issues whatsoever. I do keep track of spokes carefully in four groups so they return to the same flange (left/right) and same orientation (head-in or head-out).

- Mark

In a 3X wheel you normally see the subject spoke stay on the same size of the first two spokes it crosses (based on which side of the flange it is on). On the third cross the subject spoke goes behind the crossed spoke. So it should be over, over, under or under, under, over depending upon which spoke you are looking at. It all comes out right in the end either way.

Looks to me like it has run successfully that way for a long time. I always interlace when I build, although early on I built a few without interlacing, and I was never discerning enough to detect a difference in the ride.
I don't believe durability suffers either.

On a front - that doesn't have to carry any torque - I'm having trouble visualizing any advantages or disadvantages.
On a rear - carrying torque - it's easier.
When you interlace, the spokes will brace against each other at an angle. When half of the spokes strive to straighten out due to increased tension from drive torque, they push the other spokes further out from a straight path thereby reducing the loss of tension they would otherwise have seen.
Non-interlaced, all spokes run a straight path from hub to rim. The ones that see strain already are in their ideal position. and the others are a tiny bit freer to flop around.

i see it as one of those things where most people will do fine either way, but then there are the few who are hard on wheels and need every margin they can get for their kit to stay in one piece.

That's fairly typical for Raleighs of that vintage. Not lacing the spokes saved a little time and money.

What is your reason for using new nipples?

They're cheap and the old ones are typically grungy and require too much work to clean up. But if they're in good shape, they certainly can be re-used if you like.

- Mark

Thank you.

Strength and stiffness don't necessarily mean the same thing. Over/under weaving of the last cross increases resilience and can make for a slightly linger lived wheel. However it reduces stiffness. If stiffness is a premium than the straight line path of non-woven construction is the way to go.

As a rule I weave the last cross on all wheels except for the track, where I'll usually build unwoven.

With large flanges and small wheels, it's nearly impossible to do that weave without really bending the spoke in ways it doesn't wanna... So I sometimes forgo the weave in that case.

One advantage of not weaving is that pinging the spoke rings more true for tensioning. But since I got a tension meter, I don't tension spokes by tone anymore.

Good point and this makes sense.

- Mark

Bending a spoke to get it into position is not a problem as long as you don't put a sharp kink in it. I've bent spokes nearly into a semi circle to get them into place when replacing broken ones, and they straighten right out with tension.

Dan, I suspect you might be misreading the intent of the quoted post. He's referring (I think) to the problem of a short run, hub to rim, where weaving introduces too much bend. You see the same problem on 1x builds when the cross is too close to the hub.

This is why I rarely weave spokes when building on motor hubs.

No, I caught that, and I agree. I've done numerous large flange small rim builds, and I do the same. I was just noting that there is no need to fear putting a temporary bend in a spoke to wrestle it into place.

If you haven't already, I'd tear them fully down, fully clean throughout, polish to the nines everywhere, re-lube, set, re-build with high quality spokes and finally calibrate.

It has been my experience that an unlaced wheel is weaker as each spoke has to carry the entire weight of bike/rider. Lacing farms out this load to two spokes. I've replaced more broken spokes on unlaced wheels than their laced cousins.