# 2-cross Nds / 3-cross Ds Lacing



## johnroth26 (Oct 11, 2009)

I am having a rear 28 spoke 700c wheel built and need to land on a lacing pattern. The wheel builder suggested 2-cross on both sides. However, after some research, I'm not sure if this is the best pattern. 

One interesting discussion recommends 2-CROSS NDS / 3-CROSS DS lacing. Link below: 

http://spokeanwheel.110mb.com/lacingsr.htm#23

Would like to get some recommendations from the group on this mixed lacing pattern and other suggested patterns.


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

What type & gauge of spokes are you planning to use? I would suggest 14g double butted, 3x for the DS & radial, bladed or oval for the NDS. This pattern is one that is highly recommended by Sheldon Brown. Radial lacing on the NDS will yield a wheel that is more evenly tensioned with a little better aerodynamics while not affecting the compliance or strength of the wheel.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

I would have to advise you to go with a 3x both sides. Doing radial NDS as mentioned above will make for poor power transfer. A 3x pattern will provide you with a very laterally stiff wheel. And concerning aerodynamics, I disagree with gamara. Radial lacing would have absolutely no noticeable difference between 3x when slicing through the wind.


----------



## johnroth26 (Oct 11, 2009)

Thanks for the feedback guys. The spokes that will be used for this build are SAPIM X-Ray Aero spokes.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

better to just do the same lacing on both sides so you dont have to buy two different boxes of spokes


----------



## valleycyclist (Nov 1, 2009)

What hub and rim are you using? If the hub has a large flange diameter like a Powertap, then 2x is better. The same goes with very small flanges. With 3x you need to be more careful with the spoke line going into the rim. I think that is why the builder suggested 2x.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Pointless*



johnroth26 said:


> I am having a rear 28 spoke 700c wheel built and need to land on a lacing pattern. The wheel builder suggested 2-cross on both sides. However, after some research, I'm not sure if this is the best pattern.
> 
> One interesting discussion recommends 2-CROSS NDS / 3-CROSS DS lacing. Link below:
> 
> Would like to get some recommendations from the group on this mixed lacing pattern and other suggested patterns.


Frankly, all these discussions about using different crossing patterns on the DS and NDS sides is just a bunch of mental masturbation. The only thing lower cross numbers offer is that it makes it easier to clean the spokes and hub. There is no advantage of any kind (shorter spokes? you've got to be kidding me!) to doing this. It is all for bling. That is if you somehow think that this constitutes bling.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

alexb618 said:


> better to just do the same lacing on both sides so you dont have to buy two different boxes of spokes


This is actually untrue. Even if you were to build with the same X pattern NDS and DS you would still have different spoke lengths. This is because the NDS flange sits farther out relative to the center of the hub. The only way this would work is if you didn't mind having a wheel that was way out of dish to the left (which may create an issue or three)


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Zen Cyclery said:


> Radial lacing would have absolutely no noticeable difference between 3x when slicing through the wind.


Well... that isn't true... it's obvious by looking at it. But it isn't a big effect... and 2x or 3x on either side is an even smaller one.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

rruff said:


> Well... that isn't true... it's obvious by looking at it. But it isn't a big effect... and 2x or 3x on either side is an even smaller one.


The difference is placebo. Saying that radial is noticeably more aerodynamic than 2x or 3x is like saying that the weight difference between radial length spokes and 2x spokes makes you climb faster. It's all mental.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

And what is the difference between 2x and 3x?


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

rruff said:


> And what is the difference between 2x and 3x?



Aerodynamically? Nothing.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

No... in regards to this statement you made "I would have to advise you to go with a 3x both sides. Doing radial NDS as mentioned above will make for poor power transfer. A 3x pattern will provide you with a very laterally stiff wheel."

So... how would you quantify the lateral stiffness and and power transfer? Or the aerodynamics for that matter. How do you decide that one is a big deal and the other is "zero"?


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

Zen Cyclery said:


> This is actually untrue. Even if you were to build with the same X pattern NDS and DS you would still have different spoke lengths. This is because the NDS flange sits farther out relative to the center of the hub. The only way this would work is if you didn't mind having a wheel that was way out of dish to the left (which may create an issue or three)


actually you are right, all my handbuilt wheels bar one set are for track racing... same on each side for those


----------



## eddie m (Jul 6, 2002)

With only 28 spokes, chances are pretty good that there will be some interference with the spoke heads if you use 3X, especially if you use deep section rims. That's probably why your builder recommends 2X. Sometimes you can use one size of spoke if you mix crosses, but that's only a convenience to the builder, and it's no benefit at all if you use lighter spokes on the NDS, which is a good practice.
A 3X pattern will transfer your massive torque better, but 2X will work fine. Radial NDS will add a little lateral stiffness, which some of my heavier friends tell me may be noticeable.
People obsess about this stuff because they can count crosses, but no one can actually estimate the difference in strength or reliability with numbers.

em


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

There isn't an issue with running into adjacent spoke heads... not on any 3x 28h that I've encountered. But 2x works fine also, with only a slight decrease in torque *stiffness* (not power transfer) compared to 3x. This is easy to calculate via simple geometry. If power transfer was an issue you wouldn't see any pros riding the new Zipp wheels because the torque stiffness on those is very low. As a bonus 2x gives a slightly better DS bracing angle than 3x. On the NDS cross lacing is unnecessary for most riders although you can get better torque stiffness by doing so. The downside to this is that when you involve these lightly-tensioned spokes in torque transfer, it increases the chance that they will go slack. 

The laterally stiffest configuration for the NDS is heads-in radial or 1x... but this isn't always a good idea since widening the bracing angle reduces the tension.

The moral of the story is that there are several possible configurations that are viable and the "best" one (or ones) will depend on the details of the hub, spokes, rim, and rider.


----------



## johnroth26 (Oct 11, 2009)

Building with a HED C2 rim and DT Swis 240s hub.


----------



## johnroth26 (Oct 11, 2009)

You know, I didn't think this topic would generate so much disagreement. But selecting the proper lacing for the rear wheel appears to be much more complicated then first thought.

Here are a few more details on the wheel specs and rider:

Rim: HED C2 28 spoke
Hub: DT Swiss 240s
Spokes: SAPIM CX-Ray Areo
Rider: 180 lbs
Ride Style: Non-competitive. Group, charity and solo training rides on rolling hills up to 10% grade. ~7000 miles per year.

Thanks again for all the great feedback.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

DT isn't fond of radial lacing on their hub, so we can toss that out. So then the only decision is whether to do 2x or 3x on each side. Frankly anything you chose will be fine... 2x gives a hair better lateral stiffness and 3x a hair better torque stiffness... and you won't be able to tell the difference. Your original idea of 3x DS and 2x NDS is certainly a good one.


----------



## johnroth26 (Oct 11, 2009)

rruf, Thanks for your additional comments. They were very helpful!


----------



## johnroth26 (Oct 11, 2009)

Just wanted to post the response from my wheel builder explaining their 2x logic:

Ideally, we would 2x lace a 28-spoke wheel. The goal with lacing patterns is to get as close to a 90-degree angle to the hub as possible. 3x does not give you increased strength for a 28-spoke build, that lacing pattern actually decreases the wheel strength. With a 28-spoke wheel, 2x is closer to that 90-degree goal angle, whereas 3x becomes a very acute angle.


----------



## roadbat (Oct 29, 2012)

*Spoke up, louder!*

"DT doesn't advise radial lacing their hubs", like so many other mfg., except in their own pricey built-up wheelsets!
Are we to infer that they, Campy Record (32H only), etc. like Mavic rims, are not acceptable with odd, small number, radial lacings, etc. when in all likelihood the hubs (and rims) used are no different than the ones used by them in often dramatically reduced drilling numbers, for their proprietary built-up wheels?
Realistically, it is likely they all use the same manufacturing processes for comparable rims, and hubs of equal caliber. Only the final step of drilling is likely any different, so in spite of disclaimers the components are no more likely to fail when the shop or homebuilder laces wheels radially, versus the company doing the same thing.
At least a few like Velocity admit as much and are willing to sell rims in optional drilling configurations.
The two divergent themes here, and on so many sites, seems to be "old-school, 3x or 4x only, radial bad", opposed to "so why can't I build a radial drive-side 22x rear with x-ray spokes, no-name off-brand carbon rim and 105 hub, skipping holes"?
A general survey of wheel-building ref. sites* suggests a few key issues:
1. Large flanges preclude 4x patterns, if spokes cross other spokeheads
2. 3x is an overall classic for good reason - strong both laterally, and especially under torque.
3. Overall stiffness: 2X 1.7%> 3x 1.8% > 4x but all still very stiff
4. lateral stiffness: radial> (1x?) > 2x > 3x > 4x, but only slightly, again
5. torsional / torque stiffness: 4x > 3x > 2x >> 1x
6. with lateral / side load, spoke strain increases as x pattern decreases: 1x >2x >3x >4x
7. spoke breakage = 90% elbow / 10% threads
8. looseness/ gap at head elbow increases risk of breakage, alleviated by use of washers
9. spoke pattern affects the over-all stiffness more than it affects the spoke strains
10. Tight spokes = far stronger, less likely to break than loose ones

*search for the HPGavin Wheel Paper PDF, the Only authoritative research found pertaining to actual tested spoke fatigue and lacing options.

Beyond these, a lot of the spoke lore appears hypothetical, theoretical, anecdotal, or otherwise of debatable validity.
While many have decided that Sheldon's advice re: radial leftside on rear wheels may be useful, as is lighter spokes, to help offset flexing in less-tight spokes from dishing issues, noone seems to have advanced the Gavin research into these areas (unless mfg. in-house secret tests?) Quite possible offcenter rims may solve this issue anyway.

My own early experience circa 1980, Nuovo Record hubs and Mavic (MA-4?) clincher rims I built very tight, just by feel and sound - second ride, head down, rode right over a 2x4 at 20mph, no reaction time to jump it, full weight. Zero flats, zero spoke breaks, zero off-true. Tight spokes rule.
///***///
"I am absolutely convinced, and say with 100% certainty, that I am completely wrong."


----------



## tidelag (Sep 23, 2005)

roadbat said:


> A general survey of wheel-building ref. sites* suggests a few key issues:
> 1. Large flanges preclude 4x patterns, if spokes cross other spokeheads
> 2. 3x is an overall classic for good reason - strong both laterally, and especially under torque.
> 3. Overall stiffness: 2X 1.7%> 3x 1.8% > 4x but all still very stiff
> ...


beautiful written! ( snipped it and keeped it to make it CLEARER)
I have readed and forgotten the pdf-file, thanks a lot for the reminder.
This is highly recommed! I think that I'll read it again. :thumbsup:


If we takes the number 10: tighter is better, so 28 better than 32, and 24 is better than 28, and 36 is a nightmare. 
Seriously, it seems like that peoples treat wheelbuilding like rocket business, all small parameters are blown up to big scales.

I can understand why 36 spokes was popular at 80's, the spokes are stronger now, so one will be fine with 32 spokes now. (Check out back on in the Jobst Brandt book, there is measurement of spoke thickness and strength, compared with those at 80's and 90's)


----------



## cathyandrob (Jun 15, 2006)

*The way I choose...*

the spoke pattern is see what spoke lengths I have in my spoke box leftover from previous builds, plug the numbers in to spoke calc, and build them up.

within limits of course
- thicker spokes on DSR with brass nips
- at least 2x for disc
- rarely do radial
- as long as the spokes don't interfere too much at the hub.

My latest build is Novatec disc/Campy 135mm hubs 24/28, DSR 3x DB14, NDSR Rev 2x.

Front will probably be CX ray 2x, had some revs that fitted 1x, but thought I needed 2x with front disc. Thought about 2x on the disc side and radial on the right, that might look cool.

Rims are 20mm Chinese carbon, 350G.

PS- I'm not a proper wheel builder, I'm not heavy, I'm not powerful, I don't ride lots of K's, so don't take this as advice.

Rob


----------

