>>>>Harvey M. Sachs wrote: While down at Cirque, I overheard someone saying that 4x with low flange
spokes was a no-no, and some more of the conventional wisdom of the sages past. I and opened my eyes a bit, just looking at the flock of bikes in the stable there.
Lo! Behold! Richard Sachs's Masis both seemed to be 4x low-flange. Last
weekend I bought a Medici touring bike, 4x low flange Campy (Tipo) hubs.<<<<<
We covered this topic a couple years ago. I'm wondering if there may be some confusion between high and low flange relative to crossing pattern, because 36, 4x HF is where there may be a problem (the number of spokes is definitely a factor). Below is some of the exchange from that original thread, including a quote from Jobst Brandt's book. The photo link is inactive, since it was originally to Photopoint, but I can send a photo off-list if requested.
Wayne Bingham Falls Church, VA
My post>>>> .....I agree with Hilary here. In the photo (link below) from another recent project (I didn't build these either), you can see a 36 hole Record HF hub laced 4-cross. The spoke angle actually causes the spoke to rest on the head of the adjacent spoke. This is not a problem when using a 3-cross pattern. Also agree that the question of HF vs. LF is one of aesthetics, and the quality of the build is what's most important.
http://albums.photopoint.com/
Wayne Bingham
-----Original Message----- From: Hilary Stone [mailto:Hilary.Stone@Tesco.net] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:23 PM To: Greg Thies; Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR] High and Low flangews, 36H 4X
I must admit that I don't think 4X is a good idea with 36H, it works fine with 40H or 48H hubs but the spoke angle becomes very low and rim stability is impaired with just 36H. Build 3X and it really does not matter too much whether you use low or high flange. The quality of the build is more important than than the difference between low and high flange. Regards Hilary Stone
Greg Thies wrote:
> A clarification: the hubs are 36 H and the plan is to build 4 cross.
> My main concern is which, if either, hub would be most durable with
respect
> to spoke breakage considering my size. Intuitively, it would seem with
a
> higher flange the shorter spoke length would be less prone to flexing
and
> breaking. Both hubs were available in 1976, so either would seem
> appropriate for the period. Would appreciate additional thoughts.
> Greg
From "The Bicycle Wheel" by Jobst Brandt, page 68:
The maximum number of crossing is produced when the spokes lie most nearly tangent to the flange. This number can be determined by dividing the number of spokes by nine. For example,in a 32-spoke wheel the maximum number is 3. If this number is exceeded, the effective flange diameter will be reduced, and spokes will overlap the heads of others causing gridlock.
If the flange diameter is unusually large or small, the number of spoke crossing must be reduced to avoid interference between spokes at the flanges. When the flange diameter is greater than twice the spoke spacing at the rim, such as in a hub with an internal brake, the "divide by nine" rule no longer works because spokes will reach beyond the tandent point on the flange and interfere with adjacent spokes. Spokes that interfere with adjacent spoke heads are difficult to replace, and they receive an additional bend that increases stress.
[end quote]
I've always built 3x; when I did it with 28 holes, I found I had to order unusually long spokes and, if I had it to do again, I'd go for 2x with 28 holes. 3x with 32 or 36 holes seems about right although 4x, with low flange hubs, should work fine. With high flange hubs and 36 holes, 3x seems to be the most one should do.
-S-