Retro wheels. 2cross, 3cross, 4cross, or snowflake?

[mattr]

Re: Re:

For a time trial bike, maybe radial front, but not a great deal in it, regarding aerodynamics I don't think.

absolutely nothing in it. Unless you go down to stupid low spoke counts. Where a crossed pattern is all but impossible.

 

[Mike Muz]

Re:

I think it's more a psychological thing Mr M

 

[jonboy]

Re:

Never liked the idea or look of snowflake patterns. Are they more difficult to build true?

My belief is that more crosses give a more durable, tougher wheel, but less crosses give a stiffer wheel.

I have always built my mountain bike wheels as 2x drive side / 3x non-drive side for the rear and a rarely used 1x on the front. My logic of using different patterns on each side of the rear is down to the difference in flange/rim offset, where the lower offset of the drive side is helped by the stiffer 2x pattern. I've had spokes come loose in radially built front wheels so by crossing the spokes only once you get some dampening of vibration in the spokes, but close to the stiffness of a radial. ...and it's a bit different. Very rarely need to true them up.

 

[Mike Muz]

Re:

Anyone for crow's foot lacing?

I'd have thought more crosses would give a stiffer wheel, personally.

No idea on snowflake. In theory, I guess they should be very stiff, owing to the part of the spokes not in contact with any other, being that much shorter. But I don't know for sure. There must be a good reason why snowflake isn't used a great deal.

 

[shogun]

Crows foot, snowflake, lacing a wheel for a pattern is all a load of bollocks.

Go 3 cross, it works and is inoffensive.

 

[Rob H]

Re:

I have always built my mountain bike wheels as 2x drive side / 3x non-drive side for the rear and a rarely used 1x on the front. My logic of using different patterns on each side of the rear is down to the difference in flange/rim offset, where the lower offset of the drive side is helped by the stiffer 2x pattern. I've had spokes come loose in radially built front wheels so by crossing the spokes only once you get some dampening of vibration in the spokes, but close to the stiffness of a radial. ...and it's a bit different. Very rarely need to true them up.

Interesting, I was always under the impression that 3X was stronger and therefore better suited to the drive side than 2X

 

[Rob H]

OP - What are your plans for the bike once it's built? if it's a rergular ride then go for 3X but if it's more of a show queen go for something a bit more fancy.

 

[mattr]

Re: Re:

Interesting, I was always under the impression that 3X was stronger and therefore better suited to the drive side than 2X

depends what bit of "stronger" you mean!
That's the same way I've always built my wheels too.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Re:

Early 90s radial front or 2x was the cool thing.

Rear was 3x/Radial or 3x/2x.

By 96 I though the playing with wheels era had stopped but I'll stick to early 90s

But 1.8 DB spokes if a racer or 2.0 DB if normal.
Alu nipples if course in anything but silver.


I assumed this wasn't about what was best and what I build them up as, but what was the in thing BiTD?

28 h front and 32 rear or 28 hole rear if you are really going for it.