# 32 hole -- 2x or 3x



## teleguy57 (Apr 23, 2006)

Home building up my first set of wheels in about 25 years, so it's almost like starting over again. Have a set of 32 hole Velocity A23s and Circus Monkey hubs coming for a set of cross/dirt road wheels. Will use a 14g DB spoke (mfg TBD yet) and brass nips.

For lacing I was planning 3x fr and rr, but I've seen some recommendations for 2x. What's the difference, and how should I decide which pattern to choose?

Thanks!


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

......


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

the hub has a 47mm DS flange

No-one would say anything about lacing a 28h DT hub 2X
Well. In this case. The angle from the hub going 2x is 45deg, giving effective flange diameter of 33.23 mm BUT 16 spokes (DS) -> 531

In dt's 28h case, you get 14 spokes with effective flange diameter of 36.7 -> 514.44

A total of 400 and above is_ more_ than adequate to take care of torque forces. Even for the strongest sprinter
Radial loads is what always should be ones concern

I recommend 2X. Gives U a stronger and stiffer set of wheels. 
NDS with it's small flange aint that important..I'd do it 2x too...Don't like no radial lacing.
Want it a tad stronger (but not as stiff) go 1X head out NDS

If you don't know what I'm talking about...Go 3X all the way if that makes U feel safer


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

3x might not be as stiff, but it is ultimately stonger (will accept more abuse before failing or breaking a spoke) than 2x or less, and will ride nicer. 

For a 32 spoke wheel, 3x is the standard. And it will be stiffer than a wheel with fewer spokes in any lacing.

IMHO, YMMV, yada, yada.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> 3x might not be as stiff, but it is ultimately stonger (will accept more abuse before failing or breaking a spoke) than 2x or less, and will ride nicer.
> 
> For a 32 spoke wheel, 3x is the standard. And it will be stiffer than a wheel with fewer spokes in any lacing.
> 
> IMHO, YMMV, yada, yada.


Please elaborate....I can give a detailed explanation on how and why I'd prefer 2X. I must be missing something

Wouldn't the increased bracing angle going 3X on a non eyeleted rim stress the nipples and spoke-holes more?

I am also not quite sure how the 3X rides nicer? Yes, it is more compliant, but how much?


----------



## Becky (Jun 15, 2004)

I'm interested in hearing a little bit more about 3x vs. 2x. I'm planning to build up a set of 28-hole Dura Ace hubs in the near future, but haven't made a decision about lacing yet. 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

You are always trying to ensure that once the wheel is built that spokes transferring torsional force leave the hub flange at as close to 90 degrees possible. (rear wheels) This loads each spoke completely linearly and allows for the most seamless transfer of driving force from the hub to the rim. 

There are no hard and fast rules but these are the variables that I keep in mind when building. 

1 is the hub flange diameter. As this gets bigger the spokes will leave the hub at an increasingly acute angle

2 is the number of spokes being used. As this gets larger the respective spoke holes on the rim and hub get closer together. This means each spoke leaves the hub at a much more obtuse angle because less distance needs to be traveled top meet the required number of crosses. 

3 is the ERD of the rim. AS this gets smaller the rims is closer to the hub. This means that in order for a spoke to make the respective number of crosses it has less (radial) real estate to travel and thus must make a much more acute exit from the hub in order to cross the required number of spokes.


After building with many hub and spoke patterns here are the general trends that I find. 
24 hole 2x
28 and 32 hole 3x

One notable exception to this rule is an ENVE 68 28 hole built onto a Powertap. Because of a very small ERD and large flange diameter a 2x will allow a nearly 90 degree angle between spoke and flange. 

teleguy, 
Being that your using a hoop with a large ERD and a hub with a standard flange diameter it would be ideal for you to use a 3x pattern to ensure as close to a 90 degree angle between flange and spoke as possible. As for the pattern on the front I have posted several times on my opinions in earlier threads and there are different schools of thought on the topic. I suggest that you do either a radial or 1x elbows out pattern. With that said if you would like the wheels to have the same pattern so that they match 3x would be just fine.


----------



## Becky (Jun 15, 2004)

Zen- thanks for the synopsis. I may try to find some spokes laying around and tinker with patterns. My gut feeling is that 3x would be quite feasible, as the the hubs are small flange and the ERD is larger. At the same time, I want to consider the possiblity that 2x may be a better choice.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

On your describe small flange, large ERD, there's no benefit going 2X
The spokes will only be symbolic shorter, angles hardly changed at all 
and you will get a bit more movement in the spokeholes, causing wear.

My recommendation would be going on a slightly thinner spoke NDS.

As for always aiming for as close to 90degrees as possible..
How come Zipp, Shimano and Mavic run radial DS?
They don't know better? Someone should tell'em


----------



## teleguy57 (Apr 23, 2006)

As I hoped, great input from experts here -- really appreciate it (although I have to re-read some of the more technical explanations to make sure I get it).

So on this 32 hole build with lower profile rims will go 3x rear both sides, and will consider thinner spokes NDS. Front I'm leaning to 3x, but need to noodle that a bit more.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

Lectron said:


> How come Zipp, Shimano and Mavic run radial DS?
> They don't know better? Someone should tell'em


They dont know better...
Mavic also still uses the most un-aero spoke designed on a box section rim and call it a road racing wheel. They also still to make an exploding wheels.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

Zen Cyclery said:


> Mavic also still uses the most un-aero spoke designed on a box section rim and call it a road racing wheel. They also still to make an exploding wheels.


Well...that _*is*_ noteworthy....


----------



## teleguy57 (Apr 23, 2006)

Lectron,

Where did you find the hub dimensions? I have the rims in hand to measure ERD, still waiting on the hubs and haven't found specs on line so I could calculate spoke lengths and get those ordered. Thanks!


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

teleguy57 said:


> Lectron,
> 
> Where did you find the hub dimensions? I have the rims in hand to measure ERD, still waiting on the hubs and haven't found specs on line so I could calculate spoke lengths and get those ordered. Thanks!


A few pics can tell more than thousand words


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

@Teleguy

I just made a set for a 32/32 A23 for a big lads CX using 2X all the way.
Revo spokes all over, thou I would prefer a somewhat stronger DS

The guy is pure muscles and had never experienced that kind of control on his bike.
The acceleration/response was also way better than his old set.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Lectron said:


> Please elaborate....I can give a detailed explanation on how and why I'd prefer 2X. I must be missing something
> 
> Wouldn't the increased bracing angle going 3X on a non eyeleted rim stress the nipples and spoke-holes more?
> 
> I am also not quite sure how the 3X rides nicer? Yes, it is more compliant, but how much?


Well, you can give reasons about bracing angle, stiffness, etc. But longer spokes absorb more stress than shorter ones, and 3x puts less stress on the flange than shallower angles.

As far as the rim entry angle goes, that is usually self correcting. The nipples take their angle from the rim more than the spoke. Take a look.

How much more compliant? It's probably a function of the difference in spoke length.


Wheels have been and continue to be built 3x for reasons that are both historically proven and reasonable. They don't have to be, but I have never seen compelling data (not theories) why another lacing would be superior from the standpoint of wheel longevity (which is the most important factor when building conservative wheels).

I'm sorry if "don't fix what isn't broken" isn't compelling, but I find theoretical arguments don't stack up to proven solutions.


If we were talking lower spoke count wheels, where stiffness is an issue because of the larger distance between spoke holes, that would be different. But I can't see a reason to make changes to a proven and relatively conservative wheel system for largely theoretical improvements. And I don't see what you're looking at that convinced you otherwise.


I would also advise against drawing wheelbuilding lessons from the designs of companies like Mavic. Radial lacing is as much marketing as useful. And the R-Sys is an abortion. It really isn't hard to match the weights and durability of radically expensive factory wheels with basic and somewhat conservative wheel building technique. Marketing, and the appearance of innovation sells more wheels than actual performance.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> Well, you can give reasons about bracing angle, stiffness, etc. But longer spokes absorb more stress than shorter ones, and 3x puts less stress on the flange than shallower angles.Difference in length is ~1 cm. Compliance is not an issue...67.5 deg compared 45 deg ..Not really much more stressful on the flange. We do no build with 2mm straight gauge anymore
> 
> As far as the rim entry angle goes, that is usually self correcting. The nipples take their angle from the rim more than the spoke. Take a look. I have my friend, I have. CF rims and rims without eyelets strugle
> 
> ...



nuf said...


----------



## teleguy57 (Apr 23, 2006)

Lectron,

A big thanks for the diagrams! I wasn't finding the schematic on the web.

And thanks to for the first-hand story on your customer's experience.

And if it matters, I've always respected Norske pro's going back to Dag-Otto Lauritzen w/7-11. And now Thor hammers!


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Lectron said:


> nuf said...


Your arguments seem to be a bit circular. There are only two reasons to go to less than 3x on a 32 spoke alloy wheel (I don't know why you brought up CF rims):
1. Weight 
2. Stiffness

That's why stiffness is coming up. For a 32 spoke wheel, weight isn't a concern and stiffness isn't a problem, so why increase stiffness by going to shorter, less compliant spokes????

A radial laced 32 spoke wheel is going to be the stiffest, harshest wheel. A 3x is going to go as far as you can go in the opposite direction. 2x and 1x are moves in the direction of increasing wheel stiffness. 

Why do you want a 32 spoke wheel to be stiffer and harsher by going to 2x, when you already stated that 32 spoke wheels are already at risk of being too stiff?????? 

I think 22.5 degrees of flange angle difference and an addition centimeter of spoke *are* valuable, IF you are building for compliance and longevity. And what other goal does one have with a 32 spoke wheel?


I am ignoring the fact that higher cross angle distributes torque load changes better on drive wheels. But we can get into that if you want.


Just for clarity, I've been builidng wheels on and off for 22 years.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> Your arguments seem to be a bit circular. There are only two reasons to go to less than 3x on a 32 spoke alloy wheel (I don't know why you brought up CF rims):
> 1. Weight
> 2. Stiffness
> 
> ...


Don't take it personal, but you do not seem to understand the physics so having this discussion is a waste. Instead. Read what I say and pick up some valuable info 
We're gonna have a mine's bigger than yours kinda discussion too now? No thanks.....
I've been riding a bike all my life....doesn't make me Lance Armstrong


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

teleguy57 said:


> Lectron,
> 
> A big thanks for the diagrams! I wasn't finding the schematic on the web.
> 
> ...


Knut Knudsen and Dag-Otto where great.

Knut being captain at Bianchis factory team without knowing Italian and dag Otto at 7-11 (Great jerseys)

But what Thor did..Being a world class sprinter and winning the worlds..WOW.
That's no slope for a sprinter!

Just glad I could help BTW...Slip me a PM if you have any questions


----------



## cdhbrad (Feb 18, 2003)

Teleguy: You MAY want to wait til you get your hubs to finalize your spoke order. The rear hub diagram Lectron posted is for a 32 hole rear, but the front is a 20 hole. I don't know about Circus Monkey, but I have seen some of these Tiawanese hubs advertised on ebay that are 32 hole fronts and they specifically state that they have larger flanges to accomodate the extra holes. 

Not saying it can't be done, but I don't see how you could squeeze 6 more holes into that size front flange. Nothing wrong with using his diagrams to play around with spoke lengths on the calculators, but may want to wait til hubs are in hand to confirm dimensions.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Lectron said:


> Don't take it personal, but you do not seem to understand the physics so having this discussion is a waste. Instead. Read what I say and pick up some valuable info
> We're gonna have a mine's bigger than yours kinda discussion too now? No thanks.....
> I've been riding a bike all my life....doesn't make me Lance Armstrong


I suppose I do take it personally when someone who uses phrases like "rolling brick" and "improved products" thinks they're lecturing me about physics. Especially when you go from advocating radial driveside lacing to decrying it all within one thread.

The only point you seem to be making is that the increased bracing angle between 2x and 3x makes the wheel stronger. I'd say, the diffrence in bracing angle is much smaller than the difference between outside and inside the flange. A fraction of a degree. Insignificant compared to other factors, like spoke length and flange exit angle. And then you'd say "Nuff said", when you haven't said much of anything.

Maybe geometry is different in Norway. 


Anyway, for your theories to have value, they'd actually match reality. I don't know which 32 3x laced eyeletless rims you're looking at, but all the ones I've seen seem to be winning the "struggle" handily. Even mediocre Matrix aero rims laced this way seem to stand up to decades of use and tension.



Just for clarity, I mentioned my experience in the hopes you'd stop being so damn condescending to a fellow professional.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

No need to clarify rx-79g, no need at all.......


----------



## teleguy57 (Apr 23, 2006)

cdhbrad, Circus Monkey hubs are in (amazing packaging and finish on the hubs themselves) and specs for both front and rear 32 hole are per the diagram Lectron posted.

Thanks for the counsel on waiting though, good not to be unpleasantly surprised. (BTW, ordered from Taiwan via eBay on 3/7, delivered to Wisconsin on 3/14)

Now to run through a few different spoke calculators, get some more good advice, and order spokes!


----------



## cdhbrad (Feb 18, 2003)

Good to hear. Enjoy your new wheels.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Zen Cyclery said:


> You are always trying to ensure that once the wheel is built that spokes transferring torsional force leave the hub flange at as close to 90 degrees possible. (rear wheels) This loads each spoke completely linearly and allows for the most seamless transfer of driving force from the hub to the rim.


All spokes are loaded linearly... it's the only direction in which they have significant stiffness. 

http://www.whitemountainwheels.com/LacingPatterns.html

"Cross lacing is necessary for transferring torque via the rear wheel, so at least one side of the hub must be cross-laced... usually the drive side (DS). Generally a rider will be fine with only 10 crossed spokes in a rear wheel, but there are special circumstances where this could be inadequate. Many have the impression that powerful sprinters subject the rear wheel to high torque loads, but this is untrue. They put a lot of torque on the *cranks* but the torque that the rear wheel sees is inversely proportional to gear ratio. Consequently, the highest torque loads possible occur when a rider stomps with high force while in a low gear... for instance sprinting up a very steep hill in a 34/27. In this case the load on the spokes can be high enough to cause problems, and it would be better to use a fairly stout hub and cross-lace both sides. Few riders ever feel "inspired" to ride this way on a regular basis, though.

The number of crossings depends primarily on the number of spokes. As a general rule, the maximum number is ~ #holes/9... in other words if you have a 28h or 32h hub the max is 3, and on a 20h or 24h hub the max is 2. If you try to use 3x on a 24h hub the angle is too great and the spokes will probably run into the head of one next to them.

The closer the spokes are to being tangential at the hub, the smaller the tension/ detension cycle will be due to torque, so generally a hub will be laced with as many crossings as possible. In reality it doesn't make a big difference though... you can lace a 28h or 32h hub 2x if you like. The difference between a fully tangential spoking and one that is half way between that and radial (45 degrees) is only 30%. A benefit of fewer crosses is that the spokes are a little shorter which makes the effective bracing angle a little higher."

The bottom line is that 2x or 3x on a 28 or 32h doesn't make much difference.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

rruff said:


> All spokes are loaded linearly... it's the only direction in which they have significant stiffness.
> 
> http://www.whitemountainwheels.com/LacingPatterns.html
> 
> ...


The reason for crossing spokes on drive wheels is so the nipple is not being pulled right and left as torque rises and falls, worrying the hole in the rim. It is also more mechanically efficient because radial lacing allows more angle difference between rim and hub load vs. no load than crossed spokes - it is another sort of bracing angle.

The other two reason to cross spokes is to move the the direction of spoke tension to a stronger portion of the flange, and to have a longer spoke. Longer spokes are more elastic than shorter ones, and absorb more stress that is then not transferring it to rim, hub or rider.


If you ever actually look at the bracing angle difference between 2x and 3x you'd find that it is miniscule - fractions of a degree.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> If you ever actually look at the bracing angle difference between 2x and 3x you'd find that it is miniscule - fractions of a degree.


Or about 1cm length of the butted area -> ~5% length and about ~6% extra bracing angle.
Some call it something, some call it nothing............


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

Are you guys still bickering about 2x and 3x on a 32 spoke wheel?

Theres no practical difference. Both are fine. My _radial_ front 32 is fine even.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Lectron said:


> Or about 1cm length of the butted area -> ~5% length and about ~6% extra bracing angle.
> Some call it something, some call it nothing............


6% measured how? The range of bracing angles goes from 0 to 45 degrees. Half a degree isn't 6% of 45, it's 1%. And if you look at it as pitch, 1mm difference over a 270mm run is 0.4% (0,4% elsewhere).

It seems that the method of measure can certainly affect how much something seems to be worth. Comparing angles by percentage when the angle origin is arbitrary doesn't seem like the best method.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

Take a competition spoke...How much of the area is butted?
Bracing angle from rim to flange is typical 3.5 degree on a crossed pattern
.
It's a matter of balancing tension and increasing overall strength. Every little bit counts


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Lectron said:


> Take a competition spoke...How much of the area is butted?
> Bracing angle from rim to flange is typical 3.5 degree on a crossed pattern
> .
> It's a matter of balancing tension and increasing overall strength. Every little bit counts


If you're saying that the longer spoke will end up with the same length thin section between the butts as the shorter one (which is the dynamic part of the spoke), then that is a very good argument against using a longer spoke to get different ride qualities. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## foz (Sep 30, 2004)

Lectron, Have you a diagram for the front circus monkey MTB hub? Or do you know if the flanges on the 32 hole front road hub are larger than these? It seems like the flanges on these would not leave a lot of material if they're drilled for 32 holes so I was thinking about the MTB hub instead. Thanks!


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

Here you go


----------



## foz (Sep 30, 2004)

thanks, but I was looking for the non-disc version. do you have it?


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

Sorry M8


----------



## Nightcrawler50 (Jun 18, 2008)

*Confused.....Circus Monkey 32H road Hub flange to center measurement?*

Can someone please verify/clarify the hub-flange to center measurements shown in the schematics of the monkey-circus 32H hubs posted by Lectron? I'm building my first wheelset and after careful research, thought that this measurement was made from the center of the flange to the center of the hub? However, the schematics show measurements being made from the outside of the flange to center. Am I wrong in my thinking here, and if so, are the measurements shown of 19 ds center to flange, and 40 non-ds center to flange on the rear wheel correct? Any assistance here would be great!!


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

The flanges are probably 3mm thick, so subtract 1.5mm, to give you 17.5DS and 38.5 NDS. 

This value is close enough to get you accurate spoke measurements, if your rim ERD is properly measured too.


----------



## Nightcrawler50 (Jun 18, 2008)

TomH...

Thanks so much for the quick and helpful reply.....I think I've got everything else down for my build....

Thanks again to Lectron and TomH-


----------



## boldaddy (Oct 13, 2008)

*more thanks*

I wanted to say thanks as well for the diagrams.

Glen


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

I have had a set of CM hubs for two seasons - and just used them to build with new rims. (was OP, now Stans). They are 32x32 and both 3x. I'm 190-200# and riding on generally poor roads in Toronto. The front is per the diagram above. They have held up well.


----------



## castofone (Dec 24, 2010)

The reason Shimano and others put the driving spokes on the left side is, I believe, a handy way to manage the distortion of wheel dish under load. If you carry all the drive load through one side then the spokes on that side try to pull the rim towards that side. With the very flat dishing in modern wheels there is bugger all lateral bracing. Having the driving spokes on the left pulling the rim to the left effectively improves lateral bracing when the wheel is driven hard, and pulls the spokes away from the derailleur rather than vice versa.


----------



## thprice (Oct 12, 2011)

Have you read the Sheldon Brown wheelbuilding page: sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

_48-spoke wheels are usually built cross 5, 
40 spokes, cross 4; 
36 spokes, cross 3 or 4; 
32 spokes, cross 3; 
28 or 24 spokes, cross 2..._


----------



## ohdee (Nov 9, 2007)

For 32 hole rear wheels, it's 3 x til I die.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

I'm with Ohdee. Front I'll do either 2x or 3x. Typically 3x on training wheels. After all, it isn't about weight or aerodynamics, its about durability/longevity.

HTH

M


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

castofone said:


> The reason Shimano and others put the driving spokes on the left side is, I believe, a handy way to manage the distortion of wheel dish under load. If you carry all the drive load through one side then the spokes on that side try to pull the rim towards that side. With the very flat dishing in modern wheels there is bugger all lateral bracing. Having the driving spokes on the left pulling the rim to the left effectively improves lateral bracing when the wheel is driven hard, and pulls the spokes away from the derailleur rather than vice versa.


Nothing you said is correct. The crossed spokes do *not* pull the rim in that direction under torque. Half the spokes loose tension and half gain tension... net result is zero compared to the static condition.


----------



## castofone (Dec 24, 2010)

rruff said:


> Nothing you said is correct. The crossed spokes do *not* pull the rim in that direction under torque. Half the spokes loose tension and half gain tension... net result is zero compared to the static condition.


Well of course. So much for that idea. Then perhaps the reason for it is to keep all the drive side spokes as far to the right as possible by avoiding crossings. That makes sense.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

That's an issue only if you've decided that you "need" straight pull spokes on the DS...


----------



## castofone (Dec 24, 2010)

Not sure what you mean. If they are not crossing they can all line up on the far right whether or not they have elbows.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

You can line them all up if they are radial. Most straight pull crossed flanges take up a lot of lateral space and have a poor DS offset.


----------



## CAADEL (Jul 23, 2011)

Lectron said:


> the hub has a 47mm DS flange
> 
> No-one would say anything about lacing a 28h DT hub 2X
> Well. In this case. The angle from the hub going 2x is 45deg, giving *effective flange diameter* of 33.23 mm BUT 16 spokes (DS) -> *531*
> ...


What are these numbers? *531, **514.44, **400*? I don't understand what calculations are used.

And what is an "*effective flange diameter*"? Is there an "*effective*" and a non effective?  I only know about hub flange diameters without "effective" in the term. What am I missing here?


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

Lectron said:


> On your describe small flange, large ERD, there's no benefit going 2X
> The spokes will only be symbolic shorter, angles hardly changed at all
> and you will get a bit more movement in the spokeholes, causing wear.
> 
> ...


I have three sets of Shimano wheels here and they are all 2x/2x.


----------



## biker jk (Dec 5, 2012)

nhluhr said:


> I have three sets of Shimano wheels here and they are all 2x/2x.


Shimano used to use radial lacing on the drive side (and nipples at the hub). I have a Shimano 105 (5600) wheelset which used that lacing but it's six years old. Since then Shimano has gone 2x/2x as you indicate.


----------

