Cycling UK Forum

Can you tell just from looking at some photos if a pair of used wheels are properly laced 3x?

The photos would have to be of a resolution that allows you to see which spoke is the outer where they cross….. for every pair of spokes.

I'm going cross-eyed peering at a couple of blurry photos.

What are your concerns - that somebody has made some mistakes building them, or that they have been correctly built, just not as three cross both sides?

It's not hard to get the pattern wrong at the start of a build and carry on until you're done, maybe then realise your mistake, maybe not.

There are also unusual lacing patterns, but they are more rare, except perhaps on "factory wheels".

Do the spokes bow away from the flange or lie flat against the flange?

531colin wrote: ↑15 Oct 2023, 9:25pm Do the spokes bow away from the flange or lie flat against the flange?

That's an interesting question. As far as I could tell, they were flat against the flange. I've sort of given up on this plan, but I'm curious Colin, can you easily spot wheels that have been laced incorrectly, or do you have to study them quite closely to spot a mistake in the pattern?

I suppose it depends on how familiar you are with lacing up wheels…the more familiar you are with doing it, the more something “out of pattern” will jump out at you. I always “see” pairs of near-parallel spokes (from opposite sides of the same flange). I found it easier to see the “Maltese cross” pattern in the old days of spoke numbers divisible by 8….. 40 rear and 32front. …than current 36 spokes.
Spokes from opposite flanges will make identical patterns just shifted round one spoke hole, with conventional patterns of spoking.
Spokes flat against the flange normally means the spoke line has been manually adjusted and or the spokes have been effectively stress relieved .. these are good signs that the builder knows what they are doing and has been concentrating

The most common error in 3x is to fail to cross one pair of spokes properly. Spotting that takes close examination, because the difference is just one spoke passing the wrong side of another (meaning that they don't support each other as they otherwise would). Another is to fail to arrange things so that parallel spokes are adjacent to the valve - that's explained here by Park Tools and shown in their last photograph, where the blue tape marks the valve hole and the adjacent parallel white and red spokes leave plenty of room for a pump (contrast with the gold and blue spokes two places along - get it wrong and they would be over the valve).

drossall wrote: ↑15 Oct 2023, 10:11pm The most common error in 3x is to fail to cross one pair of spokes properly. Spotting that takes close examination, because the difference is just one spoke passing the wrong side of another (meaning that they don't support each other as they otherwise would). ………..

If this is on rear driveside, the spoke from outside the flange which isn’t tucked under its partner from inside the flange might brush the R mech in bottom gear….but the spokes don’t really support each other at the crossing…. plenty of wheels built without “tucking under”. Particularly small wheels with short spokes.
Spokes used to be “tied and soldered” at the last crossing for track wheels allegedly for greater wheel stiffness, but even that was abandoned

If the rim has spoke holes that are offset toward the edges of the rim that wouldn't be easy to spot on a photo unless there was a close up from a suitable angle.

Some rims have spoke holes that are dished to point the spokes at the correct angle, in which case the spoke pattern has to align with the pattern on the rim, but if it's wrong it's easy to spot the curvature on the spokes as the rim points them in the wrong direction.

531colin wrote: ↑16 Oct 2023, 8:45am …. plenty of wheels built without “tucking under”. .....

IIRC all Raleigh bikes were built like this for years

531colin wrote: ↑16 Oct 2023, 8:45am…. plenty of wheels built without “tucking under”...

Yes, but the context was an assumption that it had been done for all the pairs but one!

drossall wrote: ↑16 Oct 2023, 8:21pm
Yes, but the context was an assumption that it had been done for all the pairs but one!

Please explain why this is a significant problem.