The freewheel drives the hub, torque is transmitted to the non-drive flange through hub shell, then to the pulling spokes. I once saw a rear hub that had been twisted so that the spoke holes of the opposite flanges were no longer in the correct relative positions. I don't know how it got that way, but radial drive, tangental non-drive would give the best chance of achieving and cool and desirable effect.
I know I guy (who is lurking as you read) who set up full radial rear wheel, just for fun and perhaps to bug people. He said it rode like you would expect, tons of windup. It held up to light pedaling around town just fine. It had an MA40, 14 G spokes and a high flange hub, as I recall, so it had beefy parts in its favor. The bottom line is that such a wheel can be built and ridden without violating any laws of physics, just the rules of common sense.
Tom Dalton
> What would happen to a wheel with multiple gear cogs
> (not an internally geared hub) that was built radial
> on the right side and crossed on the left side.
> Physics would cause the torque to be transferred to
> the left side spokes, since the radially spoked
> right
> side is incapable of transmitting torque (if I
> understand correctly).
>
> Jason Cloutier
> Pawtucket, RI
> velo59@yahoo.com
>
> --- DTSHIFTER@aol.com wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > No, I'm not interested in opening the proverbial
> > "worm can" on this, but I
> > have to take issue with what you had to say
> > regarding the use of different
> > crossing patterns on rear wheels.
> >
> > The LH spokes of a (multi-speed) rear wheel do
> very
> > little to effect torque
> > transmission, due to their inherently lower
> tension
> > and steeper angles. They
> > do give support laterally, but the rear wheel will
> > stand or fall on the
> > merits of the RH spoking which takes nearly the
> > amount of torque stress
> > (regardless of the pattern of the LH spokes) which
> > of course varies by how
> > hard the pedals get "mashed" as well as the
> > technique of the "masher".
> >
> > As far as the "spring" effect for the LH spokes in
> > relation to the RH spokes
> > is concerned, what is the purpose of the rear
> wheel?
> > In addition to holding
> > up the bike (along with the front wheel of course)
> > it must transmit the
> > torque and the LH spokes aren't playing a role in
> > this, which is why you can
> > lace the LH side radially and not have a
> > self-destructing rear wheel (e.g.,
> > Mavic, Spinergy, Campy, Zipp....more I suppose?)
> in
> > 500 miles or less!
> > Spring effect of the left has no "real world"
> > relationship with stress and
> > power transmission for the RH spokes. If it did,
> we
> > would never see the LH
> > spokes of a rear wheel radially laced. When a
> > wheelbuilder builds a wheel,
> > he/she doesn't want the spokes to bend! If we
> did,
> > we would use low spoke
> > tension, but that IS the recipe for disaster in a
> > wheel build.
> >
> > Torque is more efficiently transferred with a 4x
> > pattern (drive side) as the
> > lever arm (spoke) is 90o to the hub axis. 3x is
> > also very good, and these
> > days with materials being so much better that
> 20-30
> > years ago, there really
> > is no need for 4x (and 36o hubs!) wheels except
> > tandems and fully laden
> > touring bicyles.
> >
> > Your argument against fewer crosses on the LH side
> > is not supported by the
> > reference to 8-10 speed wheels...."...radial
> > non-drive pattern on 8-10 sp
> > wheels actually works pretty well." By "works
> > pretty well" I am assuming you
> > mean "does not collapse"? I think I have
> addressed
> > why they do not collapse,
> > but consider the following: We never see the RH
> > spokes laced radially as
> > they would have no wind-up under load (pedaling)
> and
> > the fatigue factor would
> > be enormous. Even the new (trendy?) wheels from
> > Mavic, et. al., restrict the
> > radial laced spokes to the non-drive side. This
> > tells me that the spoke
> > configuration of the LH side is of little
> importance
> > and my expereince (and
> > experimentation) has indicated the same.
> >
> > As I mentioned in my previous response to
> Sterling,
> > I generally do 4x on the
> > RH (rear) whenever I am able to do so. Small
> flange
> > hubs are not well suited
> > for this, but it can be done with a little care.
> I
> > do the LH spoking (3x;
> > 2x; 1x) in whatever I feel like and by what spokes
> I
> > happen to have on hand.
> > I like to do 4x/2x as I like the pattern as viewed
> > from the right-side to the
> > left-side of the wheel, and I think that 4x looks
> > more "classical".
> >
> > While there is much room for debate on the value
> of
> > symmetrical vs.
> > non-symmetrical lacing, rims, hubs, crossing
> > patterns, tying/soldering, etc.,
> > I think that the majority of wheel builders will
> > agree that the most
> > important things are good materials, high/even
> spoke
> > tension and expereince.
> >
> > Hope this adds more light than "darkness"!!
> >
> > By the way, I'm glad Bicycle Classics, Inc. is
> > back!!! (I need some things!)
> >
> > Chuck Brooks
> > Malta (will spring never really arrive?) NY
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Classicrendezvous mailing list
> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> >
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/