Rohloff spoke lacing uncertainty

[mickeg]

Looks like I laced mine up the same way that the failed flange that Ph has posted the photo of. But since that matches the lacing pattern that Rohloff showed in their photos in my manual that was current when I bought my hub in 2013, I am not going to worry about it, as I built my wheel the same way that Rohloff used for their photos.. 

And as Martinf mentioned, the new flange reinforcing rings likely make the potential of a flange failure much less of an issue.  I added the flange rings about a year ago too, that should reduce any side stress that Rohloff cited.

My own rear derailleur bike wheels, on one I built it with the heads on the pulling spokes on the inside, another wheel on the outside.  I just had to go look at the third derailleur touring wheel that I built up, heads on the outside.  Manufacturers often recommend that the pulling spokes have the heads on the inside, but on a deraileur bike it can be advantageous if the spokes are laced the other way if a chain gets in between the spokes and cassette.  Bottom line, I do not think it is a big deal, especially since Rohloff and SJS appear to be on different wavelengths.

Regarding local builders, I was talking to a mechanic that said he would be building up a Rohloff wheel in the near future, since my Rohloff was the only one he ever saw, he looked closely at it.  And he wondered why I did not use 3 cross like he planned.  I do not think I need to elaborate more on what this says about some local builders.

One more point, you already said you had your rim.  If the rim nipple holes are not oriented at the sharp angle that the spokes will have from a Rohloff hub, Sapim Polyax nipples may work better than others, as they may take the different orientation slightly better.  I used those for that reason.

[macspud]

Thanks, PH.
Very strange. Looks like the erroneous picture 5 on page 132 of the Rohloff manual. It also has all the spoke heads on the outside, it also has the arrow pointing to the front, facing the wrong way. lol.   

willywombat,
Rohloff seems to have changed the labels on picture 3 and changed the wording in the description on page 61. Unfortunately, they have missed out on relabeling any of the pictures or rewording the description in the appendix pages 131 & 132.   

The result will be more confusing until rectified property. 

[PH]

Thanks, PH.
Very strange. Looks like the erroneous picture 5 on page 132 of the Rohloff manual, It also has all the spoke heads on the outside though that has the spokes crossing twice. It also looks like it was drawn rather than photographed. It also has the arrow pointing to the front, facing the wrong way. lol.   

Odd yes, particularly considering the talk from Thorn about not following Rohloff's instructions
Looking at the current brochures, it seems to be the way they're now doing it, the Mercury in 650B & 700C both have their Rohloffs built this way.  i haven't looked at the others.
Though I repeat - I'm not being critical, they can build them however they want, I know from experience that they put it right (And quickly) if it goes wrong.

[PH]

Looks like I laced mine up the same way that the failed flange that Ph has posted the photo of. But since that matches the lacing pattern that Rohloff showed in their photos in my manual that was current when I bought my hub in 2013, I am not going to worry about it, as I built my wheel the same way that Rohloff used for their photos.. 

I bought that bike in 2004 and I think the flange broke in 2009, the first six years were the hardest on the hub, 140 miles a week rough commuting, which is what I bought it for.
Broke on a Sunday, phoned SJS on Monday, posted Tuesday, back with me on Friday.  I've had punctures it's taken me longer to fix!

[macspud]

I've had punctures it's taken me longer to fix!

 

[martinf]

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

That's how SJS advised me to build a Nexus 8 Premium hub onto à 16" rim for a Brompton.

I believe that the logic for the small Brompton wheel is that placing the spoke heads all outside reduces the angle the spokes make laterally at the rim.

And 1X rather than the 2X generally used on large wheels reduces the angle the spokes make in the vertical plane.

Both these effects help spoke alignment at the rim, which can otherwise be pretty awful with a big hub and a small rim.

I have built wheels theoretically far worse than that and they have worked OK. An example is a Shimano Nexus 7 hub built onto a 16" rim for a Moulton. 36 spokes, built 3X because I couldn't find spokes short enough to build 1 cross (probably best) or even 2 cross.

[mickeg]

On the failed flange that PH had, it is possible that such a failure could have happened and gone unnoticed for a very long time if that hub had the new reinforcing rings.  On a rim brake bike you might develop a spot of brake rub, but a dirty hub, the dirt could easily hide such a failure. 

The spokes on that wheel look like they were straight gauge.  I was unable to source the lengths I needed in a butted spoke, thus I also used straight gauge spokes on my wheel.

[Pavel]

On the failed flange that PH had, it is possible that such a failure could have happened and gone unnoticed for a very long time if that hub had the new reinforcing rings.  On a rim brake bike you might develop a spot of brake rub, but a dirty hub, the dirt could easily hide such a failure. 

The spokes on that wheel look like they were straight gauge.  I was unable to source the lengths I needed in a butted spoke, thus I also used straight gauge spokes on my wheel.

I've wondered about that myself, if the reinforcing rings might not simply make a crack invisible for a time.  What are they made of, is it a plastic or an aluminum band?

[mickeg]

On the failed flange that PH had, it is possible that such a failure could have happened and gone unnoticed for a very long time if that hub had the new reinforcing rings.  On a rim brake bike you might develop a spot of brake rub, but a dirty hub, the dirt could easily hide such a failure. 

The spokes on that wheel look like they were straight gauge.  I was unable to source the lengths I needed in a butted spoke, thus I also used straight gauge spokes on my wheel.

I've wondered about that myself, if the reinforcing rings might not simply make a crack invisible for a time.  What are they made of, is it a plastic or an aluminum band?

Aluminum, painted or anodized, not sure which.

There is a small flange (not sure if the word flange is right word here) on the ring so that the ring will not slide onto the hub too far.  That ring-flange makes the ring look thicker than it is.  I attached a photo of the ring after I put it on the non-drive side of my hub when I added the rings.  If the hub looks odd, it is a 36 spoke hub, not 32.  Also, the nine spokes that I had to remove from the rim are not yet attached to the rim, so those spokes are not oriented correctly yet.  I had just added the ring to the non-drive side, but was not done yet re-attaching the nipples to the spokes.

In the photo, the drive side ring is already installed, drive side spokes were attached and tightened up. 

I think a dirty hub (dirty hubs are common when bike touring) would hide a crack quite easily.  Especially with a black hub like mine.

[Andre Jute]

Here's the Rohloff wheel on my Kranich. It's relevance to this discussion is that Utopia, makers of the Kranich, were the first OEM to specify the Rohloff on their bikes, that the owners are manic obsessive Germans who do everything precisely to the component manufacturer's most casual suggestion and then have it professionally tested to destruction, that Bernd Rohloff designed the quick-change Rohloff axle hanger for them, and that they created rather than merely set (they did that too) the fashion for Rohloff Speed 14 as the ultimate touring transmission (Herr Rohloff conceived it as a mud plugger's gearbox...), and, finally, that these people are on first name terms with Herr Rohloff and that he attends their annual summer festival at their factory (which is surrounded by a forest through which their test track runs) for owners of their rather pricey bikes. All of that adds up to an absolute guarantee that the wheel I'm showing, built about 2008/9 (the build and test sheet that came with the bike is dated and I can look it up if it becomes relevant) was built to be approved by Herr Rohloff himself.



You're looking at the non-drive side, the drive side flange also visible. It's a cross-2 spoke arrangement, with the heads of the leading spokes inside the flange, and the heads of the trailing spokes outside the flange. Those are Sapim Strong double butted spokes (ugly as sin but apparently immune to riding through potholes and off kerbs), with Sapim's Polyax nipples in a heavy-duty angle-drilled Exal XL25 rim, all of it originally designed by the manufacturers for Utopia. That's the state-of-the-art-Rohloff wheel, c2008, and thus by definition, considering who built it, also the state-of-the-Rohloff-manual wheel, c2008.

For further context and a description of the other elements of this well-packaged Rohloff rear end you can go to  http://coolmainpress.com/AndreJute'sUtopiaKranich.pdf
and scroll down until you see a (different) photograph of the rear end.

[PH]

Andre's photo reminds me of another way in which SJS have always deviated from the Rohloff script, my Raven wheelbuild had the spokes cross over the nuts on the none drive side, the opposite to what was (Maybe still is) recommended in the manual.  This wasn't some random decision, I remember reading the rationale for it and although I've forgotten what that was, I remember it sounded like a good idea. 

[macspud]

Andre's photo reminds me of another way in which SJS have always deviated from the Rohloff script, my Raven wheelbuild had the spokes cross over the nuts on the none drive side, the opposite to what was (Maybe still is) recommended in the manual.  This wasn't some random decision, I remember reading the rationale for it and although I've forgotten what that was, I remember it sounded like a good idea.

Ah, Thorn get a pass on that as Rohloffs rule is not to cross above the end cap screws on wheels with a diameter of 24" and smaller, over 24" it is permissible.   

[macspud]

I think it also means the reinforcing rings that Rohloff now recommend can't be fitted.

PH,
There is a version of the rings that can only be fitted by Rohloff service agents like SJSC that is fitted using heat to increase their size so that when they cool they are a tight fit. New hubs now come with these already fitted at the factory as standard , so I'd think that you could have those fitted if you wished. Should be a quick job seeing as there would be no spokes to remove to fit them.

The rings and your hub lacing were mentioned in this thread: http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=11802.msg99860#msg99860

[macspud]

Looking at the current brochures, it seems to be the way they're now doing it, the Mercury in 650B & 700C both have their Rohloffs built this way.  i haven't looked at the others.

Interesting, I hadn't noticed that, but now that I look I see that the Nomad Mk3 700C and 650B are also both also the same. I wonder if they plan on doing the Nomad Mk3 26" the same way. There are no photos because of the 26" forks being discarded and they're still waiting for the replacement batch. Is this the new standard for Thorn and are Rohloff on board with it?     

[martinf]

Andre's wheel is built in the same pattern as my 2011 Rohloff wheel. But with Sapim Strong spokes that are thicker at the hub end, and which fill the spoke holes slightly better than the plain-guage spokes in my 2 wheels.

George recommends Polyax spoke nipples, which I forgot to mention. They do help reduce misalignment at the rim.

The main issue with building a Rohloff wheel seems to be possible flange failure. The reinforcing rings are meant to address this problem on existing hubs, but I don't see why Rohloff haven't beefed up the flanges on new manufactured hubs, that seems to me to be a better solution.