Alternatives to 32h Three-Cross Spoking

There’s a good reason why the vast majority of wheels are built with 32 spokes crossed three times: quite simply, it works. If you want something different then you need a damn good reason for it! Why might that be?

The total number of spokes is always a number divisible by four, because these spokes are separated into four groups: leading & trailing, left & right. Either side of 32 spokes, this gives us 28 and 36. It’s a well established fact that the ultimate strength of a wheel is not determined by the yield point of the spokes, but by that of the rim eyelets and hub flange. I picked a 36 spoke configuration for my utility wheelset not because the extra four spokes give four spokes-worth, or 12.5%, of extra strength to the wheel but because they spread the loads experienced by the wheel over four extra points each on the hub and rim, providing a more even loading. The exact opposite is true of a 28 spoke wheel. 36 spokes is the next most popular configuration after 32, but it’s still not all that common. 28 spoke wheels are becoming increasingly rare since Mavic appear to have stopped producing 28 hole rims for the aftermarket.

A very distant second to 3X in terms of popularity is radial spoking, where the spokes run from the hub to the rim at right angles to the rim without crossing each other at all (also called zero cross). Radial spoking is only suitable when there is no force transmitted by the spokes from hub to rim (or vice versa) by a freehub or disc brake. It’s a stupid idea, no hub manufacturer (that I know of) warranties their products for use with such a pattern, so don’t use it. Its supposed advantages are that you need shorter spokes which saves a tiny amount of weight, and that it looks “cool”. Its disadvantages are several: uneven spoke tension means the nipples are more likely to work loose; it poses enormous loads on the hub flanges which can (and will) subsequently fail; the fact that the spokes aren’t butting up against each other means there’s greatly reduced lateral stiffness in the wheel; you can’t use radial spoking with disc brakes, nor on the drive side of a rear wheel. Some folk mix three cross spoking on one side of the wheel with radial on another (e.g. drive vs. non-drive side on a rear wheel), but many of the same objections apply. Do yourself a favour and leave radial spoking to the city ponces on their Cannondales!

One cross spoking is not that far removed from radial spoking, so the same objections apply here too, but two cross is a little different mainly because most hub manufacturers do actually warranty their hubs for use with such a pattern. Nevertheless, the only reason I can think for actually using 2X is because for some reason you are unable to source the required spoke lengths for a 3X wheel and can’t afford to wait.

Last up of the conventional patterns is four cross spoking. You need at least 36 spokes before this becomes an option otherwise the spokes will foul their neighbours’ spoke heads on the hub flange, but it will build an extra-strong wheel. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the physics of tangential spoking will understand why a wheel will be stronger if the spokes leave the hub flange at an angle as close to 90 degrees as possible, and 4X achieves this. I considered using 4X lacing on my utility wheels, but a combination of its complexity, my relative inexperience and the fact that I’ve never seriously damaged a 3X wheel put me off, and perhaps just as well: I foresee the process of lacing a 4X wheel being particularly fraught, but that may be unfounded so don’t let me put you off trying!

The standard X-cross patterns all have one thing in common which makes them relatively simple for the amateur wheel mechanic to build, this being that all the spokes on each side of the wheel are the same length. But there are other options for the brave! Damon Rinard’s website contains links which show some particularly fancy spoking patterns. The most visually striking is probably the “Three Leading, Three Trailing” pattern, but I have reservations about its ultimate strength due to apparent concentrations of stresses on the hub flanges and rims. Another is the “Crows Foot”, but as this uses partial radial spoking I’d argue that it’s unsuitable for MTB disc brake wheels.

Other oddities are the twisting together of spokes (butterfly spoking) and tying & soldering. Butterfly spoking strikes me as extremely difficult to build and I can also see it subjecting the spokes to stresses for which they simply haven’t been designed, both at the twist itself and also due to the resulting angle that the spokes enter the rim. Tying & soldering is an old technique that has recently found some favour again, as www.on-one.co.uk will now build you tied & soldered wheels for an extra £50 per pair. However, given the degree of precision and quality of workmanship required I can’t see why you’d want to get them from a company renowned for neither. Opinion is divided as to whether tying & soldering has any benefit at all: Schraner says it does (but what does he know?!?), but in his book Jobst Brandt says it doesn’t. All I’ll say is I’ve never owned a tied & soldered wheel, and nothing I’ve ever seen or experienced has got me sitting here now thinking “Now if only that wheel had been tied & soldered…”