Well, if possible, it would be helpful if you could include your email address.
It's something that's hard to write about here (laugh).
For example, in the case of a 4-cross pattern, within practical ranges, at around 20H the spoke angle becomes closest to the tangent of that spoke.
With 32H, the spokes stand much more upright (approaching radial lacing).
And yet, the reason why I exclusively use a true 4-cross pattern on the freewheel side regardless of hole count in my left-right different-diameter lacing,
and why I insist on lacing the non-freewheel side with spoke crossings near the hub's bisector (but not exceeding it) rather than n-cross lacing at angles closer to the tangent in the general sense, not just this blog's original term—there's a proper reason for it.
This is the limit of what I can write here.
When the spoke angle is at the point with no tension loss in the spoke's direction of extension (in other words, the tangent of the hub flange), the spoke tension is at maximum (you could express it as 100%), and as the angle moves toward radial lacing, it decreases—that's correct.
When evaluating the wheel's left-right balance
solely from spoke tension or spoke angle,
the non-freewheel side would be
"spoke crossings near the tangent of the hub flange,"
but the reason I'm placing the hub's bisector (the base of the triangle) as the primary evaluation target for the non-freewheel side
is something else entirely.
Your comment was very helpful.
Sorry as always.
Well, you could call it a "lie" if you want. My evasiveness was the problem.
It's something that's hard to write about here (laugh).
For example, in the case of a 4-cross pattern, within practical ranges, at around 20H the spoke angle becomes closest to the tangent of that spoke.
With 32H, the spokes stand much more upright (approaching radial lacing).
And yet, the reason why I exclusively use a true 4-cross pattern on the freewheel side regardless of hole count in my left-right different-diameter lacing,
and why I insist on lacing the non-freewheel side with spoke crossings near the hub's bisector (but not exceeding it) rather than n-cross lacing at angles closer to the tangent in the general sense, not just this blog's original term—there's a proper reason for it.
This is the limit of what I can write here.
When the spoke angle is at the point with no tension loss in the spoke's direction of extension (in other words, the tangent of the hub flange), the spoke tension is at maximum (you could express it as 100%), and as the angle moves toward radial lacing, it decreases—that's correct.
When evaluating the wheel's left-right balance
solely from spoke tension or spoke angle,
the non-freewheel side would be
"spoke crossings near the tangent of the hub flange,"
but the reason I'm placing the hub's bisector (the base of the triangle) as the primary evaluation target for the non-freewheel side
is something else entirely.
Your comment was very helpful.
Sorry as always.
Well, you could call it a "lie" if you want. My evasiveness was the problem.