I wrote the other day that "the AL300 rim has no radial runout," but I apologize. It does have slight radial runout.
It's the kind of runout where "you can't tell by looking at the assembled wheel, but you can just barely make it out when looking at the rim alone."
However, since the rim's apex is pointed and narrow, it seems there's no particular problem even if you ignore the runout and build the wheel.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I bought one AL300 24H rim and want to do a 2:1 lacing.
↑This is Italian 6-cross lacing on a 32H hub.
I'll draw the spokes coming from the drive side in blue (trailing spokes) and the non-drive side in red (leading spokes).
Normally we consider two crossed spokes plus two more spokes on the opposite side that are one phase offset as a single group of four.
Looking at just the two spokes on the drive side.
When a trailing spoke crosses y-cross lacing as seen from the red leading spoke, I'll call the trailing spoke coming from the spoke hole used in y+2 lacing "Trailing Spoke 2."
In tangent lacing, Trailing Spoke 2 comes from the hole used for 6-cross if it were 4-cross, from the hole used for 8-cross if it were 6-cross, from the hole used for 10-cross (hypothetically) if it were 8-cross—but it's just normally sitting there next to its neighbor.
Here, I'll call the relationship between the original red leading spoke and Trailing Spoke 2 "parallel lacing" (since it's nearly parallel, if not exactly).
This way of thinking is particularly meaningless when the spoke count is equal on both sides.
When a spoke hole exists perfectly at the midpoint between the phases of the parallel lacing spokes on the opposite side, we bring a spoke out from that hole and consider those three spokes as a single group.
Only in this relationship does thinking about parallel lacing gain meaning.
If the condition written in red above is met, you can do 2:1 lacing.
From here on, I'll call Trailing Spoke 2 F1 spoke, the leading spoke F2 spoke,
and the spoke on the opposite side at the midpoint between F1 and F2 the F3 spoke.
I wrote previously that having F1 and F2 completely parallel is what G3 lacing is.
If the direction of travel is toward the right in the image, spokes clockwise continue as
F2→F3→F1→... repeating.
So where should the valve hole be positioned for the most elegant result?
With Fulcrum, the valve sits within the parallel lacing group.
With Campagnolo G3, the valve is positioned between the parallel lacing groups.
This is an Eurus 21H, but
this position isn't exactly in the middle of the parallel lacing.
There's a reason it can't be.
If G3 lacing has an even number of groups, there's no spoke opposite the valve, but
when it becomes an odd number, the phase of the rim's spoke hole seam overlaps with the valve.
So they offset it like this.
This time I'm hand-building with 24H, and if I position the valve right in the middle of the three-spoke group
and use Campagnolo arrangement,
the spoke pattern becomes bilaterally symmetrical with respect to the line connecting the valve and rim seam.
With Fulcrum arrangement, it doesn't mirror.
Since the Campagnolo arrangement seems better in terms of balance, I'll build it that way this time.
In normal wheels, having the valve between crossed spokes is a big no-no.
I'm poking a screwdriver into the valve hole,
but this looks like that "wrong" way of threading.
But when built, it comes out like this. Rather than being conscious of crossing as the unit group, if you decide the valve position by being conscious of parallel lacing as the unit group, it ends up here.
The three spokes to the right from the screwdriver are one group.
If you build it so the crossing doesn't span the valve hole like a normal wheel,
it becomes Fulcrum arrangement.
And there it is, built.
With the screwdriver removed, it's a spoke pattern that's mirror-symmetrical with respect to the line connecting the valve hole and its opposite side.
Regarding spoke gauge, if you want to increase the non-drive side tension further in addition to 2:1 conversion,
you could use thinner spokes for the non-drive side 8 spokes.
But using thin spokes for only 8 spokes seems risky.
If in a wheel with equal spoke count on both sides you use 2.0mm plain on the drive side (right) and CX-RAY (Sapim CX-RAY) on the non-drive side (left),
the specific gravity ratio of spokes becomes left:right = 63:100 (ignoring length differences).
In that case, if all spokes were the same, it would be left:right = 100:200,
so this is quite a significant correction regarding spoke tension left-right difference.
If only the left is CX-RAY, it becomes 63:200,
but this time I'm trying the reverse.
I'm not lacing the drive side this time.
If you look closely at the images,
I'm using DT Competition 2.0–1.8–2.0mm for F1 spokes
and Sapim CX-RAY for F2 spokes.
Since F1 has specific gravity 90.3 and F2 has 63,
the total specific gravity of drive side spokes comes to 153.3.
The non-drive side is 2.0mm plain.
I'm using through-spokes because I believe this is advantageous against spoke breakage at the neck.
So by simple calculation, the left-right ratio of the total specific gravity of spokes is
100:153.3, but compared to an equal-spoke-count wheel,
even this (100:153.3 ≈ 65.2:100) is an excellent number.
In Campagnolo's view on G3 lacing, F2 spokes seem to be treated as negligible (laugh) regarding power transmission.
I largely agree with that.
Here, I want to investigate whether there's a noticeable difference in feel when riding with F1 spokes as Competition and F2 spokes as CX-RAY versus
when F1 and F2 are switched later,
which is why I'm doing something this strange.
I'll also measure the spoke tension of F3 spokes when F1 is Competition and F2 is CX-RAY (or vice versa).
Then later, when I rebuild with both F1 and F2 as 2.0mm plain, I want to check whether there's any noticeable difference in feel,
and also measure the spoke tension of F1 and F2 (which should be lower) when F3's spoke tension is the same.
Since I want the final state to be 2.0mm plain on the drive side, I'm doing the Competition/CX-RAY build first so I can do the rebuilding in one swap.
↑This is from the perspective of normal crossing rather than thinking about parallel lacing, showing
on a 32H rim the spoke hole positions for 32H (outer red line) and for 24H (inner black line).
If we consider the F3 spoke spacing as one interval,
the 32H divides it into 4 parts, while the 24H divides it into 3 parts.
When building a 32H hub with a 24H rim,
the phase of F3 spokes (red-colored spokes) is exactly the same as with a 32H.
Since F2 and F1 deviate from F3 in a direction away from parallel compared to when building with a 32H rim,
the spokes become very slightly shorter.
Impressions and such
I've only used it during night rides yesterday, but there was no sense of unease in use.
If someone did a blind test, there's no way they'd recognize this as a 2:1 laced wheel.
However, I still have strong reservations about selling a wheel with only 8H on one side (and with through-spokes at that)
as a finished product, so I won't sell Nomulab wheels in this specification.
The state of having less left-right difference in spoke tension than normal can also be achieved with
46-lace (24H 6-cross and 32H 8-cross) or 48-lace, where only the non-drive side is tangent laced.
As a product, I'll go with that.
Between 24H 46-lacing and 2:1 lacing with a 32H hub,
the 2:1 lacing is overwhelmingly superior in terms of correcting spoke tension left-right difference. That's for certain.
If there's also a wire solder joint, 46-lacing can make the apparent spoke tension left-right difference nearly the same, so I'll make this safer option into a product.
Complete-build wheels from Campagnolo and Fulcrum are specially designed to achieve high safety even with 2:1 lacing,
and I got a sense of an antagonistic structure where hand-built wheels have to attack from a different angle to challenge that.
I'll use this wheel a bit more, then do things like swapping F1 and F2
and later rebuilding F1 and F2 as 2.0mm plain.
What I gain from that might be reflected in Nomulab wheels.
Completely separately, I got a hint for Number 4 from a conversation with a customer today.
If I have rim inventory, I'd like to start building (though I still have preorders for Number 1 first).
It's the kind of runout where "you can't tell by looking at the assembled wheel, but you can just barely make it out when looking at the rim alone."
However, since the rim's apex is pointed and narrow, it seems there's no particular problem even if you ignore the runout and build the wheel.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I bought one AL300 24H rim and want to do a 2:1 lacing.
↑This is Italian 6-cross lacing on a 32H hub.
I'll draw the spokes coming from the drive side in blue (trailing spokes) and the non-drive side in red (leading spokes).
Normally we consider two crossed spokes plus two more spokes on the opposite side that are one phase offset as a single group of four.
Looking at just the two spokes on the drive side.
When a trailing spoke crosses y-cross lacing as seen from the red leading spoke, I'll call the trailing spoke coming from the spoke hole used in y+2 lacing "Trailing Spoke 2."
In tangent lacing, Trailing Spoke 2 comes from the hole used for 6-cross if it were 4-cross, from the hole used for 8-cross if it were 6-cross, from the hole used for 10-cross (hypothetically) if it were 8-cross—but it's just normally sitting there next to its neighbor.
Here, I'll call the relationship between the original red leading spoke and Trailing Spoke 2 "parallel lacing" (since it's nearly parallel, if not exactly).
This way of thinking is particularly meaningless when the spoke count is equal on both sides.
When a spoke hole exists perfectly at the midpoint between the phases of the parallel lacing spokes on the opposite side, we bring a spoke out from that hole and consider those three spokes as a single group.
Only in this relationship does thinking about parallel lacing gain meaning.
If the condition written in red above is met, you can do 2:1 lacing.
From here on, I'll call Trailing Spoke 2 F1 spoke, the leading spoke F2 spoke,
and the spoke on the opposite side at the midpoint between F1 and F2 the F3 spoke.
I wrote previously that having F1 and F2 completely parallel is what G3 lacing is.
If the direction of travel is toward the right in the image, spokes clockwise continue as
F2→F3→F1→... repeating.
So where should the valve hole be positioned for the most elegant result?
With Fulcrum, the valve sits within the parallel lacing group.
With Campagnolo G3, the valve is positioned between the parallel lacing groups.
This is an Eurus 21H, but
this position isn't exactly in the middle of the parallel lacing.
There's a reason it can't be.
If G3 lacing has an even number of groups, there's no spoke opposite the valve, but
when it becomes an odd number, the phase of the rim's spoke hole seam overlaps with the valve.
So they offset it like this.
This time I'm hand-building with 24H, and if I position the valve right in the middle of the three-spoke group
and use Campagnolo arrangement,
the spoke pattern becomes bilaterally symmetrical with respect to the line connecting the valve and rim seam.
With Fulcrum arrangement, it doesn't mirror.
Since the Campagnolo arrangement seems better in terms of balance, I'll build it that way this time.
In normal wheels, having the valve between crossed spokes is a big no-no.
I'm poking a screwdriver into the valve hole,
but this looks like that "wrong" way of threading.
But when built, it comes out like this. Rather than being conscious of crossing as the unit group, if you decide the valve position by being conscious of parallel lacing as the unit group, it ends up here.
The three spokes to the right from the screwdriver are one group.
If you build it so the crossing doesn't span the valve hole like a normal wheel,
it becomes Fulcrum arrangement.
And there it is, built.
With the screwdriver removed, it's a spoke pattern that's mirror-symmetrical with respect to the line connecting the valve hole and its opposite side.
Regarding spoke gauge, if you want to increase the non-drive side tension further in addition to 2:1 conversion,
you could use thinner spokes for the non-drive side 8 spokes.
But using thin spokes for only 8 spokes seems risky.
If in a wheel with equal spoke count on both sides you use 2.0mm plain on the drive side (right) and CX-RAY (Sapim CX-RAY) on the non-drive side (left),
the specific gravity ratio of spokes becomes left:right = 63:100 (ignoring length differences).
In that case, if all spokes were the same, it would be left:right = 100:200,
so this is quite a significant correction regarding spoke tension left-right difference.
If only the left is CX-RAY, it becomes 63:200,
but this time I'm trying the reverse.
I'm not lacing the drive side this time.
If you look closely at the images,
I'm using DT Competition 2.0–1.8–2.0mm for F1 spokes
and Sapim CX-RAY for F2 spokes.
Since F1 has specific gravity 90.3 and F2 has 63,
the total specific gravity of drive side spokes comes to 153.3.
The non-drive side is 2.0mm plain.
I'm using through-spokes because I believe this is advantageous against spoke breakage at the neck.
So by simple calculation, the left-right ratio of the total specific gravity of spokes is
100:153.3, but compared to an equal-spoke-count wheel,
even this (100:153.3 ≈ 65.2:100) is an excellent number.
In Campagnolo's view on G3 lacing, F2 spokes seem to be treated as negligible (laugh) regarding power transmission.
I largely agree with that.
Here, I want to investigate whether there's a noticeable difference in feel when riding with F1 spokes as Competition and F2 spokes as CX-RAY versus
when F1 and F2 are switched later,
which is why I'm doing something this strange.
I'll also measure the spoke tension of F3 spokes when F1 is Competition and F2 is CX-RAY (or vice versa).
Then later, when I rebuild with both F1 and F2 as 2.0mm plain, I want to check whether there's any noticeable difference in feel,
and also measure the spoke tension of F1 and F2 (which should be lower) when F3's spoke tension is the same.
Since I want the final state to be 2.0mm plain on the drive side, I'm doing the Competition/CX-RAY build first so I can do the rebuilding in one swap.
↑This is from the perspective of normal crossing rather than thinking about parallel lacing, showing
on a 32H rim the spoke hole positions for 32H (outer red line) and for 24H (inner black line).
If we consider the F3 spoke spacing as one interval,
the 32H divides it into 4 parts, while the 24H divides it into 3 parts.
When building a 32H hub with a 24H rim,
the phase of F3 spokes (red-colored spokes) is exactly the same as with a 32H.
Since F2 and F1 deviate from F3 in a direction away from parallel compared to when building with a 32H rim,
the spokes become very slightly shorter.
Impressions and such
I've only used it during night rides yesterday, but there was no sense of unease in use.
If someone did a blind test, there's no way they'd recognize this as a 2:1 laced wheel.
However, I still have strong reservations about selling a wheel with only 8H on one side (and with through-spokes at that)
as a finished product, so I won't sell Nomulab wheels in this specification.
The state of having less left-right difference in spoke tension than normal can also be achieved with
46-lace (24H 6-cross and 32H 8-cross) or 48-lace, where only the non-drive side is tangent laced.
As a product, I'll go with that.
Between 24H 46-lacing and 2:1 lacing with a 32H hub,
the 2:1 lacing is overwhelmingly superior in terms of correcting spoke tension left-right difference. That's for certain.
If there's also a wire solder joint, 46-lacing can make the apparent spoke tension left-right difference nearly the same, so I'll make this safer option into a product.
Complete-build wheels from Campagnolo and Fulcrum are specially designed to achieve high safety even with 2:1 lacing,
and I got a sense of an antagonistic structure where hand-built wheels have to attack from a different angle to challenge that.
I'll use this wheel a bit more, then do things like swapping F1 and F2
and later rebuilding F1 and F2 as 2.0mm plain.
What I gain from that might be reflected in Nomulab wheels.
Completely separately, I got a hint for Number 4 from a conversation with a customer today.
If I have rim inventory, I'd like to start building (though I still have preorders for Number 1 first).