When you make bonehead errors when lacing a NuVinci for use with BBSHD

kiltedcelt

100 W
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
158
Location
Chicago, IL USA
TL;DR - pay attention so you don't have to lace your wheel over again. Wow, what a rookie mistake.

So I bought a NOS N171 hub to use on my full-fat tadpole tandem trike powered with a BBSHD (and of course two tandem riders), and in the documentation from the N171 manual they call for 1-cross lacing, OR 2-cross ONLY if spokes will not enter the spoke nipples at too much of an angle. I'd ordered spokes after running everything through FreeSpoke and came up with 200mm spokes - interestingly the spokes were only 6mm off from what NuVinci recommends. The rims are 559 Origin8 80mm fat bike rims - double rows of spoke holes. The ERD from the Weinmann website (the actual makers of the rim list it as 536 versus 546 or 547 ERD listed as general values in NuVinci documentation. Anyway, I laced this wheel up 1-cross to light tension and it looks like it'll work, but it's the weirdest damned wheel I've ever laced (excluding offset Pugsley wheels). So everything works out where there is one skipped row of spoke holes between each group of drive/non-drive spokes (see the photos). It looks like it's a stable and strong layout but I think this is probably the only time I've ever done a 1-cross build with a high flange hub and on a fat bike rim with the double spoke holes. All the other wheels I've ever built were always 2 or 3-cross, so this is kind of new to me. Anyone got any advice on this? Does it look acceptable to anyone else who has experience with a similar build?

ACtC-3eBKGFbbiPkNhwYHY29Ul7avLtJF5LyOg3ikOZnOfRn-3BD6kq9mICt7eGz6LDOeIJGsuMiVtZPZo263-hFuZDeh_O4hJixa-tMSBjxronGBKdaDPi7PoNYbFKgS0RF3WoWn3eMMqqNLHQL4f-En1H7Tw=w469-h625-no


ACtC-3c7h1AMfrk2cb1cblF8BB7Lkgm36p90IS5oTEbEgmYTMYGuMcOAuRY2iYhgAgkEtYJDDCfcp6L0HQWY58j3HFD2o7bKtUUDlyv22v_W1eo8RwzWBrZ9Ad2SHhoBZJe718F8gtOOXWwS2Ko2B7IoKWY0Hg=w834-h625-no
 
Hub motor flanges are narrowly spaced, and the spacing between double row drilling on fatbike rims is wide. The resulting lateral bracing angle is not good if you lace the spokes to the same side of the rim. When I build them, I lace across to the opposite side of the rim when it's feasible.

Your lacing pattern looks workable, but it leaves longer unsupported spans of rim than if you staggered the spokes evenly (so it will probably be weaker). If you like the look of it, there's no overriding reason to lace conventionally. Just make sure the loosest spokes in the pattern are tight enough.
 
Never mind - figured it out. Don't know why it wasn't more obvious to me, but the non-drive side was one whole set of holes off in how it should've been laced. I unlaced the rim and did it over and now it looks normal to me, or at least as normal as double spoke hole rims *can* look. I always think they look a little weird since they're so wide and you're not lacing down a single row in the middle. Anyway - just goes to show ya - pay attention when lacing to make sure it looks normal before messing the whole thing up and having to do it over.

WGCuCCL68sqwQDgh3NUyPuUuJGCWobk95nkg1HQ0yBzlzitSqSxIexTjc5hb4nNgS9_CB_knv5hOWZs-pFfrHizt4KHpAm0l9NIUeRaPnkRs-GKt9s-WA8kqL489SLD-Wq56PKHnrPwjywxMC1nOGX7WHA0XHCcuu1lZ6jG7vnEi53QYxclSeRt_10g9FYKdN3qiZ5Ec_jchAP4_tYJNerBsmqLkru5O_n7j-Tmi7yQaTXelMtLKB6gIB1FBLNL_wauXL8WZXbe3_hs5JnYMxULCjX8kzo8yyQfytQWGREL41ToQt_5MK_ac2J83MaOBb5oqWf8T00fMZUn5rC1o5ScW0AfBuPwq-D4DRHbUGzVPiVU_M6Pa8NxzCbnMHlJzeO1bVnQihV4TG5BQ3N1vFTHn_Nmd0xWTssiOhbm1ZiTJGfTcLPLp1p9ZKWF6EG7RlYGVNcUwqCsxTHQwMZ63-OFR10ZU221nNtfljSenMk9W2luy47s6WsenHTqSMdxK0R82VhraOu2Qq5wCGASWLMI3Ls7VL96uCcNmUyzpe3PTJYxxJOAWk3hy_SAWs3AE_QJztMNyrDRB5yE1b7R4IEy3e9E9jaR2hLgFhoekswmEy86cxDkS-mEsTSouj1StFZdhteD_UbRB21rUnZU1M61fe0vwz6V-RzoUR1rUxKPv4dXOOswlnqoJSrvywLTJUKLrgnKhVaO3RxH5sWuKW1E1=w469-h625-no
 
I wonder why they drilled the rim 72h. I see no reason for that, other than confusing you into lacing a wrong pattern.
 
MadRhino said:
I wonder why they drilled the rim 72h. I see no reason for that, other than confusing you into lacing a wrong pattern.

It's 64 hole. Having two full sets of spoke holes gives options that allow you to avoid problems like extreme dish, inadequate bracing angle, chain rub on the tire, etc.
 
kiltedcelt said:
Never mind - figured it out. Don't know why it wasn't more obvious to me, but the non-drive side was one whole set of holes off in how it should've been laced.

Whoops. I thought you'd done that on purpose to accommodate a different spoke length or for some other reason. Glad you figured it out. You would have run into insoluble problems when you went to tighten the thing up that way.
 
I guess I wasn't entirely clear - I can't remember having ever laced a 1x wheel before and I've made a LOT of wheelsets. I kept thinking this was some weird thing as the result of 1x and really short spokes. It was as simple as moving all the non-drive spokes backwards one hole. Don't know why/how I got so far lacing it up and then couldn't figure that out. I think thrown by the 1x thing and also spokes being only on one side of the flange per NuVinci instructions. At any rate it's fixed now, but I've forever tarnished my wheel-building reputation. :roll:
 
MadRhino said:
I wonder why they drilled the rim 72h. I see no reason for that, other than confusing you into lacing a wrong pattern.

Surly Pugsley fat bikes have offset frames that use 135mm hubs front and rear and to achieve the wheel fitting in the frame and the chain clearing the tire, the front and rear wheels (they can be swapped front to back), are all laced to the drive-side set of holes. Now with symmetrical lacing of rear hubs with 170/190mm spacing there's no need for double holes, hence so many fat bike rims that only have a single row of holes.
 
Back
Top