You are reading a single comment by @cycleclinic and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
It not inconsistant as if you read on there needs to be a correction. This is the formula i use for triplet and it works.
cycleclinic-
It not inconsistant as if you read on there needs to be a correction. This is the formula i use for triplet and it works.
There's a correction factor to use if you pretend the DS is part of a 48h 5x wheel. But the post says that if you can use fractional crossing values then calculating spoke lengths on the basis of a 32h 3.17x wheels works and that it doesn't.
Doesn't matter to me, as they both (32h 3.17x or 48h 5x * fudge factor) give almost identical results.
Brommers
Yes, I found that post on the Weightweenies forum but was put off by its internal inconsistencies. 'using 3.17x will result in the spokes being too long!' seems difficult to reconcile with 'When one laces a triplet wheel with 24 spokes (16 DS, and 8 NDS), the angle theta turns out to be.... the same angle as for... a 32 spoke wheel laced with 3.17 crosses'. The post seemed to be saying that 3.17x was wrong, you should be using a figure of 3.17x instead...