29er Wheel: Why Not Cross-4?

Per http://tinyurl.com/2g3xqu7

"More crosses creates longer, more tangential spokes and a more
torsionally efficient wheel. Less crosses require a shorter
spoke, but it is less torsionally efficient. Basically the hub
is better at resisting twist caused by the torque force applied
by either the cassette or a disk brake. For this reason, more
torsional wheels, like rear wheels and disk brake wheels use 3
and 4 cross. We will be doing the basic 3-cross pattern, which
is most common."

Seems like the above quote argues for cross-4 lacing, but for
some reason most use cross-3.

On the wheel I'm contemplating, the spoke length diff between x3
and x4 is about 10mm additional per spoke. Weight-wise, that's
10mm of spoke times 32 spokes = about 320mm of additional spoke
weight - or about one additional spoke's worth of weight...
albeit concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

OTOH, people don't seem that reluctant to go for 36 spokes
instead of 32 to get a little extra strength, rigidity... and
that's about 300mm/spoke * 4 extra spokes = about 3,000 mm of
extra spoke weight.... over 10x more than just going x4... but
not concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

Can somebody elucidate? At 220#, I'm tempted to go the x4
route. OTOH, I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB
tires bc I enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires.
--
PeteCresswell

On 17 June, 16:22, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Perhttp://tinyurl.com/2g3xqu7

"More crosses creates longer, more tangential spokes and a more
torsionally efficient wheel. *Less crosses require a shorter
spoke, but it is less torsionally efficient. *Basically the hub
is better at resisting twist caused by the torque force applied
by either the cassette or a disk brake. *For this reason, more
torsional wheels, like rear wheels and disk brake wheels use 3
and 4 cross. *We will be doing the basic 3-cross pattern, which
is most common."

Seems like the above quote argues for cross-4 lacing, but for
some reason most use cross-3.

On the wheel I'm contemplating, the spoke length diff between x3
and x4 is about 10mm additional per spoke. * Weight-wise, that's
10mm of spoke times 32 spokes = about 320mm of additional spoke
weight - or about one additional spoke's worth of weight...
albeit concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

OTOH, people don't seem that reluctant to go for 36 spokes
instead of 32 to get a little extra strength, rigidity... and
that's about 300mm/spoke * 4 extra spokes = about 3,000 mm of
extra spoke weight.... over 10x more than just going x4... but
not concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

Can somebody elucidate? * At 220#, I'm tempted to go the x4
route. * OTOH, I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB
tires bc I enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires.
--
PeteCresswell

36 spoke wheels can still be wrecked quite easily. I took out five or
six spokes from a rear wheel due to a polythene bag. The wheel was
still ridable(just, if unweighted). That was a cross 4. I have
stuck with this pattern on the rear, and they do make for the best
climbing wheels (with a full complement of spokes). It is not simply
to the overall length which matters, it is the distance from the
interlaced crossing to the hub flange which is significant. When this
is longer, as with a 4-cross on a 36, it makes for a smaller deviation
at the crossing resulting in a wheel with greater stability. If you
want to enjoy your wheels, rather than worry about them, go for
36x4. A builder will choose to go for x3 because it is easier, there
is usually a slight overlap of the spoke heads which some dont like.
It makes not a jot of difference, a good build remains good.

On Jun 17, 10:22*am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Perhttp://tinyurl.com/2g3xqu7

"More crosses creates longer, more tangential spokes and a more
torsionally efficient wheel. *Less crosses require a shorter
spoke, but it is less torsionally efficient. *Basically the hub
is better at resisting twist caused by the torque force applied
by either the cassette or a disk brake. *For this reason, more
torsional wheels, like rear wheels and disk brake wheels use 3
and 4 cross. *We will be doing the basic 3-cross pattern, which
is most common."

Seems like the above quote argues for cross-4 lacing, but for
some reason most use cross-3.

On the wheel I'm contemplating, the spoke length diff between x3
and x4 is about 10mm additional per spoke. * Weight-wise, that's
10mm of spoke times 32 spokes = about 320mm of additional spoke
weight - or about one additional spoke's worth of weight...
albeit concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

OTOH, people don't seem that reluctant to go for 36 spokes
instead of 32 to get a little extra strength, rigidity... and
that's about 300mm/spoke * 4 extra spokes = about 3,000 mm of
extra spoke weight.... over 10x more than just going x4... but
not concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

Can somebody elucidate? * At 220#, I'm tempted to go the x4
route. * OTOH, I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB
tires bc I enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires.
--
PeteCresswell

With a regular small hub flange, 4x will make the first cross over the
head of the neighboring spoke, making spoke replacement a royal pain.
That said, if you have a larger flange hub, go for it. I've done the
former when re-rimming a wheel with a smaller ERD rim--but I wasn't
too proud of it.

landotter wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:22 am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Perhttp://tinyurl.com/2g3xqu7

"More crosses creates longer, more tangential spokes and a more
torsionally efficient wheel. Less crosses require a shorter
spoke, but it is less torsionally efficient. Basically the hub
is better at resisting twist caused by the torque force applied
by either the cassette or a disk brake. For this reason, more
torsional wheels, like rear wheels and disk brake wheels use 3
and 4 cross. We will be doing the basic 3-cross pattern, which
is most common."

Seems like the above quote argues for cross-4 lacing, but for
some reason most use cross-3.

On the wheel I'm contemplating, the spoke length diff between x3
and x4 is about 10mm additional per spoke. Weight-wise, that's
10mm of spoke times 32 spokes = about 320mm of additional spoke
weight - or about one additional spoke's worth of weight...
albeit concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

OTOH, people don't seem that reluctant to go for 36 spokes
instead of 32 to get a little extra strength, rigidity... and
that's about 300mm/spoke * 4 extra spokes = about 3,000 mm of
extra spoke weight.... over 10x more than just going x4... but
not concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

Can somebody elucidate? At 220#, I'm tempted to go the x4
route. OTOH, I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB
tires bc I enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires.
--
PeteCresswell

With a regular small hub flange, 4x will make the first cross over the
head of the neighboring spoke, making spoke replacement a royal pain.

Yup, used to be you'd see lots of sources saying this overlap made 4x
"impossible." (Not so).

That said, if you have a larger flange hub, go for it. I've done the
former when re-rimming a wheel with a smaller ERD rim--but I wasn't
too proud of it.

I've got thousands of miles on a rear tandem wheel, 36 4-cross on a Phil
hub, mid-size flange. Worked fine, but I doubt there's going to be much
difference between 3x and 4x. 36 vs. 32, though, would help with
strength quite a bit.

Mark J.

Per Mark J.:
I've got thousands of miles on a rear tandem wheel, 36 4-cross on a Phil
hub, mid-size flange. Worked fine, but I doubt there's going to be much
difference between 3x and 4x. 36 vs. 32, though, would help with
strength quite a bit.

I guess I'll go with 3x then - rather than try to blaze new
trails.

This is front-wheel-only. Rear is a geared hub that the maker
says has tb laced 2x (100mm flanges).

36 isn't a player bc I'm recycling a hub that I already have.

I set my bikes up weirdly enough that the front ends are quite
light - and experience indicates that impact-strength-wise I
don't need that much up there.

OTOH, resistance to the wheel folding sideways (as in turning 90
degrees going slowly downhill on a really steep slope... or maybe
doing something like a stationary tail whip) is something I've
never thought much about and it seemed like maybe x4 might make
it stronger in that respect.
--
PeteCresswell

On 17 June, 17:29, landotter wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:22*am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:



Perhttp://tinyurl.com/2g3xqu7

"More crosses creates longer, more tangential spokes and a more
torsionally efficient wheel. *Less crosses require a shorter
spoke, but it is less torsionally efficient. *Basically the hub
is better at resisting twist caused by the torque force applied
by either the cassette or a disk brake. *For this reason, more
torsional wheels, like rear wheels and disk brake wheels use 3
and 4 cross. *We will be doing the basic 3-cross pattern, which
is most common."

Seems like the above quote argues for cross-4 lacing, but for
some reason most use cross-3.

On the wheel I'm contemplating, the spoke length diff between x3
and x4 is about 10mm additional per spoke. * Weight-wise, that's
10mm of spoke times 32 spokes = about 320mm of additional spoke
weight - or about one additional spoke's worth of weight...
albeit concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

OTOH, people don't seem that reluctant to go for 36 spokes
instead of 32 to get a little extra strength, rigidity... and
that's about 300mm/spoke * 4 extra spokes = about 3,000 mm of
extra spoke weight.... over 10x more than just going x4... but
not concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

Can somebody elucidate? * At 220#, I'm tempted to go the x4
route. * OTOH, I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB
tires bc I enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires.
--
PeteCresswell

With a regular small hub flange, 4x will make the first cross over the
head of the neighboring spoke, making spoke replacement a royal pain.

Not at all. If the wheel is tight and there is rotation when the
spokes break, relax the spokes in the other direction and the heads
become uncovered enough to enable working. That said, ripping the
spokes out is not something I go out of my way to accomplish. Should
it happen again, I know the 36x4 wheel is the best one to handle it.
If you desire a neat appearance, here more than anytime is the use of
punches appropriate, if only to get the spoke heads all neatly lined
up with the crossing spoke.

That said, if you have a larger flange hub, go for it. I've done the
former when re-rimming a wheel with a smaller ERD rim--but I wasn't
too proud of it.

Heck, I've shoved a rim on 32x4 (no 'correct length' spokes), so what,
it works?

On Jun 17, 7:00*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

I guess I'll go with 3x then - rather than try to blaze new
trails.

This is front-wheel-only. *Rear is a geared hub that the maker
says has tb laced 2x (100mm flanges).

36 isn't a player bc I'm recycling a hub that I already have.

You have to spoke the Rohloff hub to a 32 hole rim, but the special
reasons that the 32 hole rim work with the Rohloff, well known to you,
do not necessarily apply at the front, where flange diameter and
especially dish etc may be different.

Rohloff bikes with 32 spoke rear wheels but 36 spoke front wheels are
not at all uncommon. For instance, my Utopia Kranich has 32 spokes for
the Rohloff rear wheel and 36 spokes for the SON front wheel.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's recipes:
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/FOOD.html
Off to cook chicken and ham pie; already sampling the Pino Grigio rose
I shall serve with it, much more agreeable than the over-dry plain
white

On 17 June, 19:00, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Mark J.:

I've got thousands of miles on a rear tandem wheel, 36 4-cross on a Phil
hub, mid-size flange. *Worked fine, but I doubt there's going to be much
difference between 3x and 4x. *36 vs. 32, though, would help with
strength quite a bit.

I guess I'll go with 3x then - rather than try to blaze new
trails.

This is front-wheel-only. *Rear is a geared hub that the maker
says has tb laced 2x (100mm flanges).

36 isn't a player bc I'm recycling a hub that I already have.

I set my bikes up weirdly enough that the front ends are quite
light - and experience indicates that impact-strength-wise I
don't need that much up there. * *

OTOH, resistance to the wheel folding sideways (as in turning 90
degrees going slowly downhill on a really steep slope... or maybe
doing something like a stationary tail whip) is something I've
never thought much about and it seemed like maybe x4 might make
it stronger in that respect.

Yes, for the reason I've previously stated, longer distance from
interlace to flange. Rudge termed the stiffness you desire (about the
long axis of the bike) as torsional stiffness and placed high priority
on it. This is quite different in what is commonly bandied about
today (for drive torque).

On 17 June, 19:17, Andre Jute wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:00*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

I guess I'll go with 3x then - rather than try to blaze new
trails.

This is front-wheel-only. *Rear is a geared hub that the maker
says has tb laced 2x (100mm flanges).

36 isn't a player bc I'm recycling a hub that I already have.

You have to spoke the Rohloff hub to a 32 hole rim, but the special
reasons that the 32 hole rim work with the Rohloff, well known to you,
do not necessarily apply at the front, where flange diameter and
especially dish etc may be different.

Rohloff bikes with 32 spoke rear wheels but 36 spoke front wheels are
not at all uncommon. For instance, my Utopia Kranich has 32 spokes for
the Rohloff rear wheel and 36 spokes for the SON front wheel.


There is a peculiarity about 32 spoke front wheels, if you overtension
them, they are very prone to lateral buckling. 36s and 28s are just
as susceptible to radial buckling as they are to lateral buckling (not
as much as a 32. It is good reason not to choose a 32 spoke front,
although using proper spoke tension, the wheel does not succumb to
this problem. Using adequate spoke gauges permits the operation of a
front wheel without excessive tension. Other than for road time
trial, or show, I'd be wary of using less than 16swg.

On Jun 17, 12:55*pm, "Mark J." wrote:
landotter wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:22 am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Perhttp://tinyurl.com/2g3xqu7

"More crosses creates longer, more tangential spokes and a more
torsionally efficient wheel. *Less crosses require a shorter
spoke, but it is less torsionally efficient. *Basically the hub
is better at resisting twist caused by the torque force applied
by either the cassette or a disk brake. *For this reason, more
torsional wheels, like rear wheels and disk brake wheels use 3
and 4 cross. *We will be doing the basic 3-cross pattern, which
is most common."

Seems like the above quote argues for cross-4 lacing, but for
some reason most use cross-3.

On the wheel I'm contemplating, the spoke length diff between x3
and x4 is about 10mm additional per spoke. * Weight-wise, that's
10mm of spoke times 32 spokes = about 320mm of additional spoke
weight - or about one additional spoke's worth of weight...
albeit concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

OTOH, people don't seem that reluctant to go for 36 spokes
instead of 32 to get a little extra strength, rigidity... and
that's about 300mm/spoke * 4 extra spokes = about 3,000 mm of
extra spoke weight.... over 10x more than just going x4... but
not concentrated near the outside of the wheel.

Can somebody elucidate? * At 220#, I'm tempted to go the x4
route. * OTOH, I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB
tires bc I enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires.
--
PeteCresswell

With a regular small hub flange, 4x will make the first cross over the
head of the neighboring spoke, making spoke replacement a royal pain.

Yup, used to be you'd see lots of sources saying this overlap made 4x
"impossible." *(Not so).

Not impossible, but when I did a 4x lacing to reuse some spokes that
were too long on an RSX Shimano hub onto a CXP33, I got the overlap.
Easy enough to build, but a bitch if you break a spoke.