I see a lot of hand-built and factory-built wheels where the non-freewheel side of the rear wheel is laced radially,
and there are so many of them that today I want to write about this topic.
↑This is the non-freewheel side spoke pattern of a J-bend spoke, but
I'm thinking about wheels that are completely radially laced.
Radial lacing minimizes the total weight of spokes,
so if we're only talking about wheels that feel light in hand, it's the optimal solution.
↑Starting from that state, to counteract the twisting of the freewheel body, only the freewheel side was laced tangentially.
That's it.
Wheels with freewheel-side tangential lacing and non-freewheel-side radial lacing
are probably built with just this level of thinking.
In certain diagrams it looks like this, but
because the non-freewheel side spokes have no contact with other spokes,
there will be no noise even if spoke tension is slack.
For hand-built wheels,
or wheels that are otherwise the same as hand-built except the spokes have been replaced with straight ones,
doing this without reason is an abandonment of thought.
It's true that radial lacing compared to tangential lacing
is "lighter this way" and "better aerodynamically,"
but that is indeed a fact.
With 24-spoke four-cross lacing on the rear wheel, depending on the rim and spokes,
the wheel becomes about 30 grams heavier.
But that's not weight in the outer portion, and since it relates significantly to rigidity,
which is the primary characteristic of wheel performance, I'd ask that you overlook the 30-gram weight increase.
This is genuinely difficult for me. Because I'm explaining the downsides.
Using the same rim and hub as Nomu Lab Wheel No. 2,
the Tni off-the-shelf wheel catalog weight is 735g,
while Nomu Lab Wheel No. 2 with four-cross lacing plus soldered spoke connections on the non-freewheel side
measures 759g in actual weight.
I ask that customers trust the rigidity advantages over the weight disadvantages I mention
(at least initially), which is why they purchase Nomu Lab wheels,
but I always get nervous when hearing their impressions.
If I call non-freewheel-side radial lacing "bad,"
then freewheel-side radial lacing on Ksyrium is quite an unusual wheel.
With equal spoke counts on both sides and minimizing left-right spoke tension differences,
isn't it the theoretical extreme?
I just wrote something radical like "non-freewheel-side radial lacing is an abandonment of thought,"
but there are plenty of wheels that aren't simply radially laced on the non-freewheel side,
and have defensible reasons and careful engineering.
The original was Roval, and the 2:1 lacing you see often nowadays is Fulcrum,
where the non-freewheel side has half the usual number of spokes and bears all the spoke tension from one side,
causing the non-freewheel side spoke tension to spike dramatically.
This has such a dramatic effect that the lowered spoke tension from non-freewheel-side radial lacing becomes inconsequential.
G3 lacing, which treats the two freewheel-side spokes as parallel lacing
and the one non-freewheel-side spoke sandwiched by parallel lacing on both sides
as three spokes forming a single unit, works similarly in this respect.
Cosmic Carbone Arctiminx has freewheel-side tangential lacing
and non-freewheel-side radial lacing, but with its quite high-low flanges
and offset rim at this rim height,
it virtually eliminates the weaknesses of non-freewheel-side radial lacing. What's remarkable is
that because the non-freewheel side is radially laced, it can use nipples, making true adjustment possible
—this wouldn't be possible if the non-freewheel side were tangentially laced.
Whether this was planned from the start (←probably this one),
or it was a clever inspiration that makes the best of things either way, I can't say,
but either way it's a design that only works with factory-built wheels.
Next is R-SYS. This also has non-freewheel-side radial lacing.
The circumstances that led to this are easy to imagine.
It might have been interesting to make the freewheel side carbon-spoke radial lacing,
but if the chain ever jams inside the sprocket
the wheel would be destroyed instantly. As a product, they apparently judged it too risky.
So they reluctantly made the freewheel side aluminum spokes.
So if the freewheel side were aluminum-spoke radial lacing
and the non-freewheel side were carbon-spoke tangential lacing,
the flange design would become quite beefy.
I don't see much merit aerodynamically or in wheel theory,
so they apparently had no choice but to make the freewheel side tangential lacing and the non-freewheel side radial lacing.
R-SYS carbon spokes, due to their structure, have spoke tension characteristics from nipple tightening and loosening that differ significantly from conventional spokes, so evaluating them
the same way as non-freewheel-side radial lacing in hand-built wheels isn't possible.
So far I've presented examples of "non-freewheel-side radial lacing wheels I can accept,"
and they're all factory-built wheels.
For hand-built wheels (including non-specialty factory-built wheels),
the merits of radial lacing on the non-freewheel side
are limited to the slight weight reduction and slight aerodynamic characteristics I mentioned earlier,
so I basically don't build them that way.
Even using hand-built materials for non-freewheel-side radial lacing,
I don't think I can solve the wheel-balance problem.
(In fact, I've touched on how it makes things worse in various posts about wheels)
This is why I lace the non-freewheel side tangentially.
The Echo bug enthusiasts have a reputation for really disliking it (laugh).
Whether radial or tangential lacing, the matter seems much the same in terms of the cluster being torn apart.
I think you can ignore what they say,
but please trust that the weight increase from non-freewheel-side tangential lacing comes with greater merits than that.
and there are so many of them that today I want to write about this topic.
↑This is the non-freewheel side spoke pattern of a J-bend spoke, but
I'm thinking about wheels that are completely radially laced.
Radial lacing minimizes the total weight of spokes,
so if we're only talking about wheels that feel light in hand, it's the optimal solution.
↑Starting from that state, to counteract the twisting of the freewheel body, only the freewheel side was laced tangentially.
That's it.
Wheels with freewheel-side tangential lacing and non-freewheel-side radial lacing
are probably built with just this level of thinking.
In certain diagrams it looks like this, but
because the non-freewheel side spokes have no contact with other spokes,
there will be no noise even if spoke tension is slack.
For hand-built wheels,
or wheels that are otherwise the same as hand-built except the spokes have been replaced with straight ones,
doing this without reason is an abandonment of thought.
It's true that radial lacing compared to tangential lacing
is "lighter this way" and "better aerodynamically,"
but that is indeed a fact.
With 24-spoke four-cross lacing on the rear wheel, depending on the rim and spokes,
the wheel becomes about 30 grams heavier.
But that's not weight in the outer portion, and since it relates significantly to rigidity,
which is the primary characteristic of wheel performance, I'd ask that you overlook the 30-gram weight increase.
This is genuinely difficult for me. Because I'm explaining the downsides.
Using the same rim and hub as Nomu Lab Wheel No. 2,
the Tni off-the-shelf wheel catalog weight is 735g,
while Nomu Lab Wheel No. 2 with four-cross lacing plus soldered spoke connections on the non-freewheel side
measures 759g in actual weight.
I ask that customers trust the rigidity advantages over the weight disadvantages I mention
(at least initially), which is why they purchase Nomu Lab wheels,
but I always get nervous when hearing their impressions.
If I call non-freewheel-side radial lacing "bad,"
then freewheel-side radial lacing on Ksyrium is quite an unusual wheel.
With equal spoke counts on both sides and minimizing left-right spoke tension differences,
isn't it the theoretical extreme?
I just wrote something radical like "non-freewheel-side radial lacing is an abandonment of thought,"
but there are plenty of wheels that aren't simply radially laced on the non-freewheel side,
and have defensible reasons and careful engineering.
The original was Roval, and the 2:1 lacing you see often nowadays is Fulcrum,
where the non-freewheel side has half the usual number of spokes and bears all the spoke tension from one side,
causing the non-freewheel side spoke tension to spike dramatically.
This has such a dramatic effect that the lowered spoke tension from non-freewheel-side radial lacing becomes inconsequential.
G3 lacing, which treats the two freewheel-side spokes as parallel lacing
and the one non-freewheel-side spoke sandwiched by parallel lacing on both sides
as three spokes forming a single unit, works similarly in this respect.
Cosmic Carbone Arctiminx has freewheel-side tangential lacing
and non-freewheel-side radial lacing, but with its quite high-low flanges
and offset rim at this rim height,
it virtually eliminates the weaknesses of non-freewheel-side radial lacing. What's remarkable is
that because the non-freewheel side is radially laced, it can use nipples, making true adjustment possible
—this wouldn't be possible if the non-freewheel side were tangentially laced.
Whether this was planned from the start (←probably this one),
or it was a clever inspiration that makes the best of things either way, I can't say,
but either way it's a design that only works with factory-built wheels.
Next is R-SYS. This also has non-freewheel-side radial lacing.
The circumstances that led to this are easy to imagine.
It might have been interesting to make the freewheel side carbon-spoke radial lacing,
but if the chain ever jams inside the sprocket
the wheel would be destroyed instantly. As a product, they apparently judged it too risky.
So they reluctantly made the freewheel side aluminum spokes.
So if the freewheel side were aluminum-spoke radial lacing
and the non-freewheel side were carbon-spoke tangential lacing,
the flange design would become quite beefy.
I don't see much merit aerodynamically or in wheel theory,
so they apparently had no choice but to make the freewheel side tangential lacing and the non-freewheel side radial lacing.
R-SYS carbon spokes, due to their structure, have spoke tension characteristics from nipple tightening and loosening that differ significantly from conventional spokes, so evaluating them
the same way as non-freewheel-side radial lacing in hand-built wheels isn't possible.
So far I've presented examples of "non-freewheel-side radial lacing wheels I can accept,"
and they're all factory-built wheels.
For hand-built wheels (including non-specialty factory-built wheels),
the merits of radial lacing on the non-freewheel side
are limited to the slight weight reduction and slight aerodynamic characteristics I mentioned earlier,
so I basically don't build them that way.
Even using hand-built materials for non-freewheel-side radial lacing,
I don't think I can solve the wheel-balance problem.
(In fact, I've touched on how it makes things worse in various posts about wheels)
This is why I lace the non-freewheel side tangentially.
The Echo bug enthusiasts have a reputation for really disliking it (laugh).
Whether radial or tangential lacing, the matter seems much the same in terms of the cluster being torn apart.
I think you can ignore what they say,
but please trust that the weight increase from non-freewheel-side tangential lacing comes with greater merits than that.