Rohloff spoke lacing uncertainty

[willywombat]

[Topic title changed to better reflect the whole of the thread -- Dan.]

Hello all
Please bear with me and forgive me If my understanding is wrong as I've never built a wheel but I've recently  been getting somewhat frustrated with trying to get a Speedhub built up correctly , in order to ensure warranty requirements are met.

I personally have owned a speedhub since 2005 without issue and recommended one to my brother who requested it as a retirement present.

His colleagues clubbed together and sourced the hub from SJSC a few months ago and I was recently asked to get it laced locally so got in contact with a wheelbuilder  who has a very good reputation but little experience with speedhubs themselves .

 I purchased the rim ( stans Baron 27.5 ) then came across the info in the handbook re different 2x lacing with french /european spoke hole patterns etc .

 I had seen on another website that the  current official manual ,available to download , had incorrectly labelled "leading" and "trailing" spokes and repeated this  mistake in the instructions also . I have a manual from 2005 and it's  the same there so has probably caused a number of incorrect lacings as a result over the years if you didn't pay careful attention and notice the mistake. My hub itself was in fact  laced incorrectly all those years ago as a result of this.

I also read through Mr Blance's comprehensive guide to" living with a Rohloff hub 2019" and he himself has ..it seems , made a mistake regarding this issue and  inadvertently reinforced incorrect information.

 In the article on p34/35 he states amongst other things " Many wheel builders don’t listen to Rohloff’s wheel building directives and their failure to comply can lead to hub flange failure. Rohloff are apparently targeting these irresponsible wheel builders by specifically limiting their warranty on broken hub flanges to 24 months." well ..considering the info in the handbook is a real mess is that fair ?

Also ..apparently Rohloff have identified 6 reasons for the hub flange failures and one of them is :
" The wheels have been incorrectly built with the pulling spokes exiting the hub from the outside of the flanges. This means that the spokes press against the hub flange exacerbating any of the other issues: He states that :
The solution is to have the pulling spokes exit the hub from the inside of the flange, exactly as it says in the
manual."

My understanding is that the "pulling"spokes are the trailing spokes and according to Rohloff should actually have the spoke head on the inside of the flange and thereby exit on the outside . If this is correct it seems Mr Blance  himself has been caught out by the wording mistakes in the manual too! Again , if I'm correct. what hope do  we have in getting things right if he can't with years of experience?

I went through a few images in the current official manual as well as looking at some  images of  older Thorn speedhub bike builds and the vast majority had the leading spokes with the  head on the outer side of the flange as I would have expected . I did however also find a few Thorn built speedhub wheel  with the spoke heads the other way round  in relation to  what we are now told is imperative. On top of this the spokes crossed the non drive side bolt holes too .

What I'm trying to say is that it has been made clear that Rohloff insist on  specific lacing  to avoid issues such as flange breakages ,but the literature produced by themselves and elsewhere  doesn't make it difficult to get  thoroughly confused.

Mr Blance may have made a mistake ( or may not have ? ) but Rohloff have and have no excuse not to clear this all up. They were informed a good while back and the mistakes remain .

Mr Blance also goes on to say "Rohloff say that they will no longer support those whose wheels have not been built in accordance with their directives - even if they are victims of bad wheel building practice and/or wheel builders, who for reasons of pride,ignorance or meanness don’t follow these directives." :  Again ...is this fair with the all the mistakes  that people may well refer to before a build?

 Finally I'm sorry if this post contains any incorrect information and /or is difficult to digest because of my presentation. I am currently  very unwell  and struggled to get my points across but I hope you get the gist . Maybe I've got it all wrong so please feel free to correct anything I may have misunderstood. I've attached a few pages relating to the literature involved if you'd like to have a look yourself and offer an opinion.

[mickeg]

One of my attachments would not post, too big.  I had to make a graphic from a screen shot and crop it, then attach later, thus the attached files are not in correct order.

***

I am not going to say what is right or what is wrong, I will just say what I did when I built my wheel in 2013.  That wheel has been trouble free on my Nomad since then.

I bought the Nomad frame in 2013, bought my Ryde Andra 30 CSS rims from SJS in the same order.  I bought my hub from another supplier in Germany.  I live in USA, bought Wheelsmith spokes and Sapim nipples from a supplier in USA.  My hub is for rim brakes, not disc.  I also built up a 36 spoke wheel, so my spoke lengths are slightly different than a typical SJS 32 spoke wheel.

I have a lot of difficulty keeping the terminology of leading and trailing spokes straight, so I look at half of the spokes as being pulling spokes, meaning when you pedal and that puts torque on the hub, that hub then pulls on half the spokes with more tension, which forces the wheel to go around.  So, I refer to those spokes as the pulling spokes.  I do not really have a name for the other half of the spokes, for purposes of this e-mail I will call them non-pulling spokes.

The manual you cited is newer than the manual I used.  Since I sourced my hub from Germany, I received instructions in German, which I cannot read.  So, I downloaded the english language manuals from Rohloff at that time.  And I still have my copies of those downloaded manuals which are older than yours.

I attached some files, the file labeled R1 has pages 55 and 56, I am referencing only page 55:

It makes it clear that my 26 inch wheel takes a 2 cross pattern, it is bigger than 24 inch.

In photo 3, you clearly are on the non-drive side of the wheel (or left side of the bike) because the hub cap screws in the photo are only on the non-drive side.  Thus, when the hub rotates counter clockwise, the wheel will push the bike forward.  From that photo the spoke labeled "leading" will pull harder on rim to accelerate the bike, thus, that means that what Rohloff calls  the leading spokes are what I call pulling spokes.

And you can see in that photo that the head of the spoke is inside, not outside of the flange on a pulling or leading spoke.

The pulling spokes on both sides of the wheel (both drive side and non-drive side) should have their spoke heads matching, meaning on both sides of the wheel the leading or pulling spokes should have their heads on the inside sides of their flanges.

The purpose of photos 3 and 4 are to tell you how to lace the non-drive side spokes relative to the cap screws.  I believe that SJS may have done this differently than the photos on page 55 on some bikes.

File R2 shows pages 35 and 36.  Of the three hubs that do not have disc brakes, you can see that all three of those hub photos have the spokes oriented to the cap screws and all three of those hubs have the pulling spokes with the spoke heads inside the same as in the photo on page 55.  The fourth wheel with disc brake, the disc obscures the detail on the spokes, cap screws and flange holes.  Also all three of those rim brake wheels have the leading or pulling spoke heads on the inside on both drive and non-drive side.

Third file shows my rear wheel, photo was taken in 2014.  (SJS recommends against using kickstands, thus disregard the kickstand on my bike.)  I laced my wheel to match the photos in the Rohloff manual.

So, I am not saying what is right or what is wrong, I am just saying I matched the photos that Rohloff had in their manuals at the time I built the wheel.

I am not going to spend an time comparing old and new Rohloff manuals or how they compare to SJS documents, my bike works fine so I am done researching it.

I do not know if you have built wheels before, but the Rohloff wheel is an expensive wheel to get it wrong.  I would recommend against learning on that wheel.  But if this is your first wheel and if you are going to lace it up, I think Sheldon has an excellent tutorial on wheelbuilding at:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

Even though I have been building wheels off and on since the 1970s and I built my own wheel, I had a friend check the spoke tension since I do not have a tension meter.

[Andre Jute]

Willy, take what I say for what it is worth. I've never built a wheel from scratch but I did manage to retune a badly built set of wheels on a Gazelle (a Gazelle! -- apparently it can happen to anyone), and I found a mathematical error in Jobst Brandt's key book on the subject, The Bicycle Wheel, which Jobst, a very prickly character, confessed to under much pressure, so I have some modest understanding of how the wheel works. But, much more usefully to you, I routinely hold manufacturers and vendors to the absolute letter of their promises, and if they don't deliver, I don't bother to go to court, I just smear them a couple of million in adverse  publicity and dump the Trading Standards and the Revenue  and the Customs and Excise on their heads.

1. I haven't read the two spreads of the manual you thoughtfully provided. I don't care whether you're right or the manual-Rohloff-Thorn are right; I'm not qualified to adjudicate between you. Instead I read the two pages of Andy Blance's text you provided, and I referred to what I know of Rohloff's generous warranty practice, which Mr Blance lays out. Why? Because all you need to know to exit this morass of uncertainty that you're in is this: If you do the right thing, according to people who have been doing this successfully for a lifetime, they will take the financial responsibility for making a mistake (or being utterly in the wrong, as you claim) off your shoulders.

2. It follows that the smart thing to do is to send the hub back to Thorn (with the rim if they approve of it, otherwise sell it and buy a rim from Thorn) and let them build the wheel and take the responsibility. It will be well worth the extra cost in your brother's peace of mind as he rides his bike, perhaps far from home. In the long run it will be worth many times the extra cost.

3. I will tell you in general that, like you, I've been riding a Rohloff for many years, and that mine is absolutely guaranteed to have been built into its wheel to the very last detail of Herr Rohloff's specification in the manual by people who are on first-name terms with him, and it is still as good as new. That's the other factor of importance I see for your decision, that your own wheel hasn't broken, but not weighing as heavily as Thorn and Rohloff taking the financial responsibility off you and placing squarely on their own broad shoulders.

4. Local wheel builders of "high reputation" often have that reputation regardless of their actual ability because the local cyclists have no one to compare them to, so they have to trust the accessible wheel builder. I once investigated having a wheel built and was told the best man was X; actually, he was the only man. I went up to the city to see him. He was about forty. He was self-taught, he said, because the last master wheel builder was dead by the time he started his bike shop; mostly, instead of building wheels, he preferred his customers to order computer-built wheels. Under no circumstance, he also said, would he build a wheel for a guy with a column in a national newspaper for fear that "a finicky bastard like you" (that's what he said) would ruin his business. There was, he told me after I nonetheless bought a bunch of expensive tools in his shop and ordered more for him to drop off to me when he went to visit his mum down the road from me, one acceptable builder in the country, in Dublin (160 miles away), "but you have to take the wheel he builds with the spokes he selects, not the wheel some German wants". That's a capsule example of what Andy Blance means by "wheel builders, who for reasons of pride, ignorance or meanness don’t follow these directives." The bane of sophisticated machinery is an elderly local "craftsman" who knows better. Cocky kids are worse.

5. If you decide to go ahead with the local builder, at least ask to see his tools. They should include a spoke tension meter from Park or DT Swiss or some other reputable supplier and a truing stand.

6. If you decide to do the job yourself, you may just get away with Chinese copies of the Park and DT Swiss tools, but they will still escalate the cost of the wheel well above what it will cost to have SJS build it for you -- and take the financial responsibility. For a wheel truing stand, you can make do with an upside down bicycle, a few pegs off the washing line, and some small pieces of cardboard or thin plastic. Here are some images from SJS to help you identify the major tools:

OR this one:



AND this one (OR an upside down bike)

[martinf]

I generally try and build my own wheels (since about 1980), but made an exception for the two Rohloff wheels I own, which I had built by SJS cycles (= Thorn).

The two wheels are not built the same as each other, and are not the same as the wheels in the manual extracts and photos posted by George.

The 2011 wheel on my Raven Tour has the pulling (leading) spokes on both sides with the heads to the outside of the hub flanges and the bends on the inside.

The 2016 wheel on my Raven Sport Tour has the pulling (leading) spokes on the right hand (drive) side with the heads to the outside of the hub flanges and the bends on the inside, but the  pulling (leading) spokes on the left hand (non-drive) side with the heads to the inside of the hub flanges and the bends on the outside.

Both Rohloff wheels are used with rim brakes, so I can't see any reason for this difference. When I received them I checked the wheels for out-of-round/side-to-side errors and spoke tightness, they were the only wheels that have passed through my hands recently that I deemed good enough not to need tweaking.

ALL the other wheels supplied on new or used bikes that I have acquired over the past 20 to 30 years have needed at least the spoke tension increased. They have sometimes also needed the correction of out-of-round or side-to-side wobbles.

So I reckon the orientation of the trailing/leading spokes makes no difference on a well-built, normal size (26", 650B, 700C) Rohloff wheel. Except maybe for the flange failure issue, which seems to be a specific potential weakness of the Rohloff hub, addressed in the past few years by the addition of flange reinforcing rings.

And I would go with the advice of André as to getting the hub built into a wheel by SJS/Thorn, because I believe they will guarantee their wheel build in the (unlikely) event of a flange failure.

For Rohloff and other hubs with large flanges I believe rims with specific drillings (angle-drilled) are best.

Rohloff are also particular about the spokes that should be used, with specific recommandations for the length of the bend near the spoke head, the finish of the head itself and the spoke diameter at the hub end.

- - - - - - - - - -

If I had built my Rohloff wheels myself I would probably have put the pulling (leading) spokes on both sides with the heads to the inside of the hub flange as George has done, this is how I believe (normal sized) rear wheels with rim brakes should be built.

- - - - - - - - - -

And if I ever get another Rohloff hub, now that I know about the spoke/rim issues, I would be confident building the wheel myself after asking for clarification from Rohloff on the recommended orientation of the leading/pulling spokes. I would not trust any local wheel builder with the job. I do know one very good builder, but he has little experience with hub gears.

[PH]

" Many wheel builders don’t listen to Rohloff’s wheel building directives and their failure to comply can lead to hub flange failure.

It made me chuckle the first time I read that - the only wheelbuilders I know who deviate from the Rohloff instructions are SJS!  My 700c wheel on a Mercury is currently built, by SJS after a flange failure, 1X with all the spoke heads on the outside of the flange.  I have no idea why they've done that, it's not a one-off, some of the bikes in the current catalogue are the same, but not all of them.  I think it also means the reinforcing rings that Rohloff now recommend can't be fitted.  I've never seen any other wheel, Rohloff or otherwise, built up like that.
Do I care?  Not a jot, SJS have demonstrated again and again that they stand behind what they do.  I'm entirely with Andre, I'd let them build the wheel and take the risk.

I do have another Rohloff, which I've built myself into a 24" folder wheel.  I bought this secondhand and this is it's third wheel size when Rohloff's advise is to not change size and pattern.  I'm aware of the risk and took it into account when negotiating the price.  I've built this 1X and followed the previous spoke orientation, this aligned the spokes as closely as possible with the existing wear marks.  Time wil tell...
Although the Rohloff warranty has been reduced, which I do find disappointing on a premium product, a broken flange isn't the end of the world if they'll still supply a replacement at a reasonable cost.

[willywombat]

Hello again and thanks to all for your contributions and advice ...

 I agree ideally I should get SJSC to build the wheel but I wanted an unusual Rim which they do not stock and offer nothing similar ( 27.5 " 32 hole 35 mm internal diameter ) .I do not know if they build wheels with rims not provided by themselves and with regards to the extended flange warranty that seems only to be offered on wheels built by themselves and as part of a complete bike purchase.

 I am simply intensely frustrated that so much emphasis is made re the hub being laced correctly but there seems to be  nothing in print that is clear and unambiguous .What is available is full of mistakes it appears.  I am  also aware of the lacing differences for what Rohloff call French and European spoke patterns (which appear to be related to left and right stagger drillings ) which adds another dimension to have to be aware of as well as  the required spoke neck length/ diameters etc.

I feel it is not satisfactory to have to rely on SJSC's to have a wheel built and know it has been done correctly or at least to cover yourself in relation to warranty issues . For such an expensive item  the correct information should be available to any wheel builder in a clear and definitive format thereby eliminating undue anxiety regarding whether it has been done correctly.

 I  had arranged for the wheel to be built this week but have had to cancel that now until I can get  some definitive answers.
 
I 'd like to ask MartinF if he is certain when he says that the "pulling "spokes are the leading spokes? In my mind when you pedal it is the trailing spokes that pull the rear rim around as you pedal but I  could well be mistaken. Once this is ascertained I will be able to confirm whether Andy Blance has made a mistake or not in his article. No doubt there will be different opinions to further complicate the issue as it seems nothing is agreed upon in the eclectic world of wheel builders.

[willywombat]

Seems like Sheldon Brown is indicating that the most likely spoke to be termed a "pulling "spoke would be the trailing spoke  : Here's a quote from his wheel building guide :

"The "trailing" spokes pull harder under drive torque to make the rim turn, and the "leading" spokes contribute by pulling less hard under driving torque. Each group of spokes contributes equally in its own way to turning the rim to keep up with the hub.
Trailing Spokes
Some writers have referred to the trailing spokes as "driving" or "pulling" spokes, and have referred to the leading spokes as "tension" or "static" spokes. These terms may be confusing, because all of the spokes contribute to driving, they are all under tension and they all pull. Depending on how you look at it, either all of them or none of them are "static". (Thanks to John Forester for suggesting "leading" and "trailing".)

[willywombat]

I have just spoken to "Marko" at Rohloff HQ who is responsible for the manual/handbook incl the download.

After considerable discussion he agreed the information on the pages I attached at the beginning of this thread ( downloaded yesterday from their site )contained numerous mistakes in the image labelling  and instructions  regarding leading and trailing spokes, and how easy it would be to make a mistake as a result.

 I pressed him on whether if mistakes in lacing are made as a result of this fact and the flange integrity was undermined ( as mentioned in Mr Blance's article) whether Rohloff would warranty this and he said Yes.

He promised that in 10 mins a correctly labelled updated version of the manual would finally be available for download but I haven't seen it yet and will check later.

So ..if it is corrected today it will have taken them 15 plus years to do it . I  also do hope that if it is finally more comprehensible
 and it will help future owners to avoid a migraine . 

Now all  that's  left is to sort out the issue re Mr Blance stating that the "Pulling" spokes should have  the heads on the outside of the flange.

[macspud]

Removing the words leading and trailing from the equation, the Rohloff manual and Andy Blance's statement in "Living with a Rohloff Hub" "The wheels have been incorrectly built with the pulling spokes exiting the hub from the outside of the flanges This means that the spokes press against the hub flange exacerbating any of the other issues.  The solution is to have the pulling spokes exit the hub from the inside of the flange, exactly as it says in the manual." are at odds. What is shown in the manual is the exact opposite of Andy's statement.

I'm sure it's been written about on this forum before, but with Rohloff now taking a firmer stance on their 24 month warranty for flange failures on wheels which aren't built to their specified lacing pattern, it should definitely be clarified.

On the SJS Cycles website out of photos of  20 separate Rohloff hub bikes, only one has the wheel laced as specified in the Rohloff manual, a used Thorn Sterling, all 19 others are laced in the fashion Andy Blance has stated to be correct.

I think you would be best to contact Rohloff for clarification.

Edit: I see that you have now had a phone conversation with "Marko" at Rohloff HQ. Did he say whether the pictures were correct (minus the leading/trailing labels) or is Andy Blance correct?   
 
From what I've seen, all bikes shown or linked to on the Rohloff website are at odds with Andy's statement and are laced in accordance with the photos in the Rohloff manual, even the two Thorns (Raven Sport Tour & Raven Nomad Mk1 S&S) last updated in 2011 but old photos.

Rohloff/Thorn should update their available Raven range on the Rohloff website's "Bike Finder".


 

[willywombat]

"What is shown in the manual is the exact opposite of Andy's statement."

 I'm glad someone else is starting to see my point even if we forget the issue re the incorrect labelling/descriptions .
 
The whole issue seems totally unclear ..full of different viewpoints/definitions/terminology  previous examples etc and trying to clarify is proving far harder than it should be . I'm sure someone will come along soon to say it's all perfectly clear just as Andy Blance says " Exactly as it says in the manual!"
 
When speaking to Marko (or was it Marco?) even he seemed to get confused  but eventually we settled on : leading spokes head outside flange , Trailing spokes head inside flange as per the photos themselves which as you say seems to be the opposite of Andy Blance's statement ( unless he calls leading spokes "pulling" ). This is also the opposite of many of Thorn's own wheel builds.

To be honest ,despite reassuring me that the mistakes would be corrected with an immediate ( 10mins ..his words) update to the latest downloadable manual , 2 hrs later all is the same . I have just emailed him with an attachment showing the pages where the mistakes are to be found ( from the appendix) so there can be no confusion at his end. 

I suspect that my initial celebration that all will be corrected may not actually materialize and the confusion will continue which is not acceptable. I'm now starting to question whether the info re which way the spokes must cross over/under each other ( see "pointer") is also actually correct,  or once again, they have used trailing for leading and vica versa.

[Pavel]

I have just spoken to "Marko" at Rohloff HQ who is responsible for the manual/handbook incl the download.
After considerable discussion he agreed the information on the pages I attached at the beginning of this thread ( downloaded yesterday from their site )contained numerous mistakes in the image labelling  and instructions  regarding leading and trailing spokes, and how easy it would be to make a mistake as a result. I pressed him on whether if mistakes in lacing are made as a result of this fact and the flange integrity was undermined ( as mentioned in Mr Blance's article) whether Rohloff would warranty this and he said Yes.  . He promised that in 10 mins a correctly labelled updated version of the manual would finally be available for download but I haven't seen it yet and will check later.
So ..if it is corrected today it will have taken them 15 plus years to do it . I  also do hope that if it is finally more comprehensible it will help future owners to avoid a migraine . 
Now all  that's  left is to sort out the issue re Mr Blance stating that the "Pulling" spokes should have  the heads on the outside of the flange.

Well done!  This topic is of great interest to me, because despite the good advice of other members here, I plan to (probably) build up my own Rohloff wheel myself, and it would be my first Rohloff build.  I'll get to the reasons later, but this sort of exactness and hunting down of (sometimes obscure) details, in order to strengthen our knowledge and self reliance - is exactly why I come to this forum.  So, again, well done, and I appreciate your tenacity.

For what it's worth, when I ordered my Nomad back in 2011, I was mostly very impressed with all aspects of the transaction and of the bike.  There were three exceptions.  Despite my clear instructions to not cut the steerer to my guessed at proper size, a mistake somewhere down the line was made and it came already cut.  It turned out, of course, that since then, I'd always have been a bit more comfortable than Thorns sizing guidelines, and my own optimism, led me to think, and I've always wanted just another three quarters of an inch more steerer length.  Oh well, not a really big deal, and I can always buy a new fork, but it goes to show that all companies and individuals can make mistakes.  That is why I would like to be as knowledgeable and self sufficient as possible.

It was a significantly bigger deal for me lower, that after all the emphasis on quality in the brochure, I received the rohloff wheel built up well, but the front was so badly done, that I could not get the brakes nice and tight the way they should be without bad rubbing.  I had to keep my pads so far off the wobbly rim surface that I was close to bottoming out the brakes during a hard squeeze.  Good thing I ride like someones old granny on her Sunday ride.  I had the wheel properly tensioned here, locals, but it burst the bubble for me a bit.  Nobody is perfect all the time.

And the last small quality quibble was in the front Thorn low riders.  Love em', but mine came with one of the black spacers without it's hole being threaded, making it completely useless.  Fortunately they provide two widths so three out of the four were fine, but how did quality control drop the ball that far? But I'm not complaining at all, as small glitches are a part of life. Life's too short to spend it grumbling, right. 

As I acknowledged earlier, I agree it is wise advice to let the experts at Thorn do the Rohloff lacing up of my next hub, but I'm not going to take that advice on principle.  I want to know how to do it, and we don't get to lace up Rohloffs every month.  Heck, I could just simply take my bike in for every bit of service there is, right?  The bike would probably run better, I'd be more broke, and for sure not nearly as much involved in cycling as now, where I have to figure things out and make them more perfect than any mechanic would take the time to do.

Can we imagine if Danneaux just simply let his LBS do it all for him?  So here's to fussing over minute details and reaching always further.  Glad so many here do it.  I'm going to lace up my own Rohloff hub. Yep.  Just as soon as I figure out what these nipple things are for.

And what if Thorn gets sold one day - to some Walmart sort of corporate giant? But by then I'll know what a trailing nipple is.

[willywombat]

that's a nice compliment Pavel and thanks for taking the time to make it. I suffer  quite badly with depression/anxiety etc  , currently have poor concentration / energy and making progress on this issue is proving rather taxing.

I too, like to be self reliant and understand things . I have very little income and so try to maintain /repair and make whatever I can to keep costs down.

 In the midst of all this I keep thinking I've got it all wrong and misinterpreted or not understood  something but I don't want to let it go until there's a crystal clear resolution . Rohloff are becoming very pernickety  how wheels are built  (re warranty issues) but  so many issues are unclear. I don't think people should be discouraged from building their own because of uncertainty / conflicting information etc.

At least ,so far ,nobody has had issue with any of my observations ,but that may be due to the effort involved in scrutinizing what I've suggested maybe wrong!

I'm hoping others will help make the push to get all the required info into a definitive unambiguous resource  to which all who are interested can refer to , in the certain knowledge it is correct, ....just like a manual should be !

[macspud]

" Many wheel builders don’t listen to Rohloff’s wheel building directives and their failure to comply can lead to hub flange failure.

It made me chuckle the first time I read that - the only wheelbuilders I know who deviate from the Rohloff instructions are SJS!  My 700c wheel on a Mercury is currently built, by SJS after a flange failure, 1X with all the spoke heads on the outside of the flange.  I have no idea why they've done that, it's not a one-off, some of the bikes in the current catalogue are the same, but not all of them.  I think it also means the reinforcing rings that Rohloff now recommend can't be fitted.  I've never seen any other wheel, Rohloff or otherwise, built up like that.
Do I care?  Not a jot, SJS have demonstrated again and again that they stand behind what they do.  I'm entirely with Andre, I'd let them build the wheel and take the risk.

I do have another Rohloff, which I've built myself into a 24" folder wheel.  I bought this secondhand and this is it's third wheel size when Rohloff's advise is to not change size and pattern.  I'm aware of the risk and took it into account when negotiating the price.  I've built this 1X and followed the previous spoke orientation, this aligned the spokes as closely as possible with the existing wear marks.  Time wil tell...
Although the Rohloff warranty has been reduced, which I do find disappointing on a premium product, a broken flange isn't the end of the world if they'll still supply a replacement at a reasonable cost.

PH, any chance that you could post a photo of your wheel?

[PH]

PH, any chance that you could post a photo of your wheel?

Here you go, though it's not always this clean, click for bigger
P1020588 by Paul, on Flickr

P1020592 by Paul, on Flickr

[PH]

Same hub in a previous life
Bust flange by Paul, on Flickr