Another day with wheels (and so on).
This is the rear wheel, the counterpart to the CLX32 front wheel I worked on recently
It was built with a 2:1 pattern and tangential lacing on the non-freewheel side,
but the left and right spokes were different diameters in opposite directions.
That approach itself is fine,
but since tangential lacing increases spoke tension,
achieving tight tension with reverse mixed-diameter 2:1 lacing is
quite difficult.
And indeed, the spokes were quite tight.
The lateral run-out, radial run-out, and centering issues were all minor,
the kind of thing that inspection could handle,
so I thought about doing a semi-disassembly and rebuild,
but (that wouldn't satisfy the conditions of "another day with wheels")...
Whether semi or full disassembly,
there's a certain treatment I apply to the spoke threads,
and given the wheel's age, sand was packed
deep in the spoke holes, so cleaning that out during a semi-disassembly
would be impossible or at best half-baked...
So I ended up doing a full disassembly.
And rebuilt it.
I'll do the final truing later.
Visually, the only real difference you can see is that the hub shell is cleaner now,
but the condition of the wheel is completely different.
By the way, unlike the CL/CLX50 whose average weight is clearly documented,
these front and rear wheels aren't widely available, so their actual measured weights aren't well known.
Since I did a full disassembly of the CLX32 wheels this time,
I naturally measured them,
but regarding the CL/CLX50, I wrote "average weight" rather than "actual measured weight"
because I've accumulated enough samples that statistically
I can legitimately call it an "average."
You know whose fault that is, right?
↑This guy sounds smug and has bad vibes
Sorry for the wait! Please take a look at this image!
The CLX32's front rim!
The CLX32's rear rim!
↑Stop it already!
This is the rear wheel, the counterpart to the CLX32 front wheel I worked on recently
It was built with a 2:1 pattern and tangential lacing on the non-freewheel side,
but the left and right spokes were different diameters in opposite directions.
That approach itself is fine,
but since tangential lacing increases spoke tension,
achieving tight tension with reverse mixed-diameter 2:1 lacing is
quite difficult.
And indeed, the spokes were quite tight.
The lateral run-out, radial run-out, and centering issues were all minor,
the kind of thing that inspection could handle,
so I thought about doing a semi-disassembly and rebuild,
but (that wouldn't satisfy the conditions of "another day with wheels")...
Whether semi or full disassembly,
there's a certain treatment I apply to the spoke threads,
and given the wheel's age, sand was packed
deep in the spoke holes, so cleaning that out during a semi-disassembly
would be impossible or at best half-baked...
So I ended up doing a full disassembly.
And rebuilt it.
I'll do the final truing later.
Visually, the only real difference you can see is that the hub shell is cleaner now,
but the condition of the wheel is completely different.
By the way, unlike the CL/CLX50 whose average weight is clearly documented,
these front and rear wheels aren't widely available, so their actual measured weights aren't well known.
Since I did a full disassembly of the CLX32 wheels this time,
I naturally measured them,
but regarding the CL/CLX50, I wrote "average weight" rather than "actual measured weight"
because I've accumulated enough samples that statistically
I can legitimately call it an "average."
You know whose fault that is, right?
↑This guy sounds smug and has bad vibes
Sorry for the wait! Please take a look at this image!
The CLX32's front rim!
The CLX32's rear rim!
↑Stop it already!