Spoke Pattern on Front Disc Hub

I've seen a lot of discussion and some prescriptions concerning spoke patterns for front disc hub wheels (e.g. trailing spokes with heads in on one side or both). Does the spoke pattern really make a difference? I've always just built front discs as I would any front wheel, and I haven't had any problems with spoke breakage. My usual pattern is 3X, 14/15, trailing spokes heads out.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/29/2014 8:05 AM, jbeattie wrote:
I've seen a lot of discussion and some prescriptions concerning spoke patterns for front disc hub wheels (e.g. trailing spokes with heads in on one side or both). Does the spoke pattern really make a difference? I've always just built front discs as I would any front wheel, and I haven't had any problems with spoke breakage. My usual pattern is 3X, 14/15, trailing spokes heads out.

-- Jay Beattie.


Other than not using a radial pattern, I think any otherwise reasonable
build should suffice.

In the 80's we had long discussions/arguments/religious wars about
whether wheels should be laced symmetrically or anti-symmetrically, etc.
- and the only point I ever saw that could make even a grain of
difference was whether the lacing or crossings could be arranged to give
a tad more clearance to a derailleur.

I think the idea was that when torquing the rear wheel in one's largest
cog, one wanted the trailing spokes on the outside of the crossings, as
those spokes would be tightest, pushing the crossing inward. Whether
this made /any/ real difference is a good question, when the wheel is
built to appropriate tension.

Kind of like tying and soldering was really useful to keep broken spokes
from flailing.

I can't see how this would be relevant on a front wheel; the disc
mechanism doesn't have clearance issues, does it?

Maybe some of the prescriptions you've seen allow more safety margin in
a poorly-built wheel, but I don't sense that this is a problem for you.

Mark J.

theoretic tire/rim to hub thru bearings to...? entry attack and carry thru when cornering esp on patchy surfaces ?

which spoke is more important ? trail or lead ?

vote he

my vote goes to lead spokes head out.

On 7/29/2014 3:05 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 7/29/2014 8:05 AM, jbeattie wrote:
I've seen a lot of discussion and some prescriptions concerning spoke
patterns for front disc hub wheels (e.g. trailing spokes with heads in
on one side or both). Does the spoke pattern really make a difference?
I've always just built front discs as I would any front wheel, and I
haven't had any problems with spoke breakage. My usual pattern is 3X,
14/15, trailing spokes heads out.

-- Jay Beattie.


Other than not using a radial pattern, I think any otherwise reasonable
build should suffice.

In the 80's we had long discussions/arguments/religious wars about
whether wheels should be laced symmetrically or anti-symmetrically, etc.
- and the only point I ever saw that could make even a grain of
difference was whether the lacing or crossings could be arranged to give
a tad more clearance to a derailleur.

I think the idea was that when torquing the rear wheel in one's largest
cog, one wanted the trailing spokes on the outside of the crossings, as
those spokes would be tightest, pushing the crossing inward. Whether
this made /any/ real difference is a good question, when the wheel is
built to appropriate tension.

Kind of like tying and soldering was really useful to keep broken spokes
from flailing.

I can't see how this would be relevant on a front wheel; the disc
mechanism doesn't have clearance issues, does it?

Maybe some of the prescriptions you've seen allow more safety margin in
a poorly-built wheel, but I don't sense that this is a problem for you.

I forgot to post an answer for Jay, but I agree with every detail of
what Mark wrote. I can't imagine any reasonable pattern is going to
give problems. Sure, stay away from radial or 1 cross; but you knew that.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/29/2014 6:58 PM, wrote:
theoretic tire/rim to hub thru bearings to...? entry attack and carry thru when cornering esp on patchy surfaces ?

which spoke is more important ? trail or lead ?

vote he

I vote to abstain.

my vote goes to lead spokes head out.

Why?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:46:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/29/2014 6:58 PM, wrote:

theoretic tire/rim to hub thru bearings to...? entry attack and carry thru when cornering esp on patchy surfaces ?



which spoke is more important ? trail or lead ?



vote he



I vote to abstain.



my vote goes to lead spokes head out.



Why?





--

- Frank Krygowski

COMPLIANCE

On 7/29/2014 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:46:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/29/2014 6:58 PM, wrote:


my vote goes to lead spokes head out.

Why?

COMPLIANCE

i.e. to comply with the notion that the lead spokes should have their
heads out?


--
- Frank Krygowski

thhh at rim contact frees up with a heads out leading spoke followed by a controlled rim/spoke/head/flange moment.

visualize visualize !

as a revolutionary energy transfer...think helical bands of force.....eyeyyahhahhah !

make urhead spin

On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:00:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/29/2014 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:46:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/29/2014 6:58 PM, wrote:


my vote goes to lead spokes head out.

Why?

COMPLIANCE

i.e. to comply with the notion that the lead spokes should have their
heads out?

The difference in angle between head in and head out for an
approximately 11 inch long spoke seems to be about 0.2% of the
diameter of a 22 in circle. Is that a significant change when
calculating the load on a spoke?
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B.

? no time.....my proposition rests on contact time for lead and trail spokes with head position either in opposition to rim movement or not.

pure speculation