I've received a comment from someone using hand-built wheels.
"The spoke head on the non-freewheel side of Italian lacing, which should theoretically have the easiest spoke tension,
keeps breaking. It's strange."
That's what they said.
Well, it's just coincidence.
I'd probably get yelled at if I just left it at that, so let me dig a bit deeper.
The non-freewheel side doesn't absolutely prevent spoke breakage,
so naturally it can happen there too.
Based on my personal statistical impressions, I do think
spoke breakage occurs more on the freewheel side than the non-freewheel side,
but there's not a dramatic difference between left and right.
It's not 5:5, but not quite 6:4 either—
maybe just slightly more on the freewheel side.
As for the difference in spoke breakage risk between pull spokes and push spokes mentioned in the comment,
theoretically yes, but in practice there doesn't seem to be much difference.
What surprises me more is that the term "pull spoke" (ヌポーク)—a term I coined for this blog—
is becoming somewhat of a general term now (laughs).
That said, actually there are certain conditions on the freewheel side where
pull spokes do break more easily.
↑This wheel, I built it. For something I built, it's unusual that the non-freewheel side is radial laced, but that's because all the spokes are pull spokes.
I don't think many people do this sort of thing.
Anyway, apart from that, as evidence of the chain dropping inside the low gear,
there are scratches only on the pull spokes.
If this gets severe enough, the spoke can break mid-length rather than just at the neck.
If spoke breakage occurs in this condition, it's hard to completely deny
the causal relationship with spoke damage.
"The freewheel side spokes break more easily"—if I feel that difference,
I haven't taken precise statistics on how many of the freewheel side spoke breakages
have a chain drop history.
But I think this is related to why the freewheel side has more spoke breakages (for pull spokes anyway).
Of course, the idea that the freewheel side experiences closer torsional stress from the freewheel body
and thus spokes break more easily there is also valid, I think.
Also, continuing in the comment,
"Pull spokes are internal-nipple, so there's play in the neck area, right?
If that's the case, then with double cross there'd be no play,
so they'd be less likely to break?
That's what I've been thinking lately.
But double cross with 32 holes seems a bit impossible."
About this, let me answer.
The spoke crossing pattern in tangential lacing is sometimes expressed as "X-cross lacing," but
another way to express it is as "X-cross."
This represents how many spokes a single spoke intersects with as it goes from hub to rim.
2-cross lacing has only one spoke intersection, so it's 1-cross.
Similarly,
4-cross lacing has two intersections, so it's 2-cross.
(In the image above, the red-colored sections on the blue spoke show the intersection points)
6-cross lacing is 3-cross.
8-cross lacing is 4-cross.
In other words, "X-cross lacing" can also be called "X/2-cross."
Now, making the intersection points contact each other is called "weaving,"
and with 3-cross (6-cross lacing) and higher, you can weave at the second-to-last intersection as well.
I call this double cross (not my original term).
Double crossing with 3-cross is, as the comment says, pretty tough.
Especially as the flange gets larger it becomes more difficult.
Realistically, it's pretty much the exclusive privilege of 4-cross.
↑These wheels I built as well. They're being overhauled right now.
This one is 3-cross with double weaving.
As you can see, the spokes look all bendy, but that's what happens with straight-gauge spokes.
As the comment says, the play or deformation amount of the spokes does decrease, I think,
but spoke breakage risk might actually increase,
that's my current thinking.
Solder wrapping kills play at the final intersection point, but
double cross mainly reduces spoke deformation inside the final intersection.
Whether this actually affects wheel rigidity at a perceptible level...
I do get the feeling that it makes it "stiffer laterally" and "doesn't wobble as much," actually.
But (though it's really unclear), I think spoke breakage risk increases,
so I don't offer it as a standard service menu.
Though if someone asks for it, I wouldn't refuse.
If you're interested, just let me know.
↑My rear wheel that's appeared many times before, but with aero spokes,
even with double cross, they don't get as bendy.
One last thing.
"There are people in the world who say the exact opposite of me,
that 'radial lacing on the non-freewheel side is correct.'"
I've received such a comment,
but let me take a bit of time on this one.
The conclusion up front is that's nonsense,
and I'm planning to write about why it doesn't work and what conditions
might make non-freewheel side radial lacing remotely acceptable.
"The spoke head on the non-freewheel side of Italian lacing, which should theoretically have the easiest spoke tension,
keeps breaking. It's strange."
That's what they said.
Well, it's just coincidence.
I'd probably get yelled at if I just left it at that, so let me dig a bit deeper.
The non-freewheel side doesn't absolutely prevent spoke breakage,
so naturally it can happen there too.
Based on my personal statistical impressions, I do think
spoke breakage occurs more on the freewheel side than the non-freewheel side,
but there's not a dramatic difference between left and right.
It's not 5:5, but not quite 6:4 either—
maybe just slightly more on the freewheel side.
As for the difference in spoke breakage risk between pull spokes and push spokes mentioned in the comment,
theoretically yes, but in practice there doesn't seem to be much difference.
What surprises me more is that the term "pull spoke" (ヌポーク)—a term I coined for this blog—
is becoming somewhat of a general term now (laughs).
That said, actually there are certain conditions on the freewheel side where
pull spokes do break more easily.
↑This wheel, I built it. For something I built, it's unusual that the non-freewheel side is radial laced, but that's because all the spokes are pull spokes.
I don't think many people do this sort of thing.
Anyway, apart from that, as evidence of the chain dropping inside the low gear,
there are scratches only on the pull spokes.
If this gets severe enough, the spoke can break mid-length rather than just at the neck.
If spoke breakage occurs in this condition, it's hard to completely deny
the causal relationship with spoke damage.
"The freewheel side spokes break more easily"—if I feel that difference,
I haven't taken precise statistics on how many of the freewheel side spoke breakages
have a chain drop history.
But I think this is related to why the freewheel side has more spoke breakages (for pull spokes anyway).
Of course, the idea that the freewheel side experiences closer torsional stress from the freewheel body
and thus spokes break more easily there is also valid, I think.
Also, continuing in the comment,
"Pull spokes are internal-nipple, so there's play in the neck area, right?
If that's the case, then with double cross there'd be no play,
so they'd be less likely to break?
That's what I've been thinking lately.
But double cross with 32 holes seems a bit impossible."
About this, let me answer.
The spoke crossing pattern in tangential lacing is sometimes expressed as "X-cross lacing," but
another way to express it is as "X-cross."
This represents how many spokes a single spoke intersects with as it goes from hub to rim.
2-cross lacing has only one spoke intersection, so it's 1-cross.
Similarly,
4-cross lacing has two intersections, so it's 2-cross.
(In the image above, the red-colored sections on the blue spoke show the intersection points)
6-cross lacing is 3-cross.
8-cross lacing is 4-cross.
In other words, "X-cross lacing" can also be called "X/2-cross."
Now, making the intersection points contact each other is called "weaving,"
and with 3-cross (6-cross lacing) and higher, you can weave at the second-to-last intersection as well.
I call this double cross (not my original term).
Double crossing with 3-cross is, as the comment says, pretty tough.
Especially as the flange gets larger it becomes more difficult.
Realistically, it's pretty much the exclusive privilege of 4-cross.
↑These wheels I built as well. They're being overhauled right now.
This one is 3-cross with double weaving.
As you can see, the spokes look all bendy, but that's what happens with straight-gauge spokes.
As the comment says, the play or deformation amount of the spokes does decrease, I think,
but spoke breakage risk might actually increase,
that's my current thinking.
Solder wrapping kills play at the final intersection point, but
double cross mainly reduces spoke deformation inside the final intersection.
Whether this actually affects wheel rigidity at a perceptible level...
I do get the feeling that it makes it "stiffer laterally" and "doesn't wobble as much," actually.
But (though it's really unclear), I think spoke breakage risk increases,
so I don't offer it as a standard service menu.
Though if someone asks for it, I wouldn't refuse.
If you're interested, just let me know.
↑My rear wheel that's appeared many times before, but with aero spokes,
even with double cross, they don't get as bendy.
One last thing.
"There are people in the world who say the exact opposite of me,
that 'radial lacing on the non-freewheel side is correct.'"
I've received such a comment,
but let me take a bit of time on this one.
The conclusion up front is that's nonsense,
and I'm planning to write about why it doesn't work and what conditions
might make non-freewheel side radial lacing remotely acceptable.