Bearing play - SON delux hub dynamo (was Odd hub drilling )

[perdido]

Hello everyone,

I have been a member of this forum for a long time, although this is my first post. I come here often for the great audax content and plenty of great advise. I have purchased a second hand wheel with a SON deluxe hub dynamo, where the left and right flanges are not aligned. The spoke hole of one flange should line up right in between of two holes of the opposite flange.

20230108_202344 by alejogiron, on Flickr

20230108_202238 by alejogiron, on Flickr

20230114_202351 by alejogiron, on Flickr

This has proven impossible to build into a wheel using same length spokes.

The story behind this hub is that the original wheel had a special spoke pattern. My idea was to purchase the wheel, send it off to SON in Germany for an overhaul and build it up into a 3 cross wheel with an H+SON Archetype rim. For bearing replacement, these hubs need to be disassembled... the hub shell is composed of two halves, left and right, that must be taken apart in order to reach the bearings.

buje son 3 by alejogiron, on Flickr

It was after the hub returned from SON in Germany, during my attempt to lace the wheel that I noticed the issue with the flange spoke holes. I contacted SON via the local distributor to ask them about this, I was expecting an answer along the lines of... it was an special edition of some sort for this rim manufacturer... or it was our mistake when reassembling.

Instead, their reply was: the hub was reassembled the same way it reached them and that the two halves must have shifted when it was built into the paired spoke wheel, that I should lace the wheel normally and it should shift back to the original position. So much for precision engineering.

I contacted the local distributor and told them, politely, that I was not happy with that answer to say the least. I am not the original owner and thus, no warranty. However, I paid for an overhaul and would expect a correctly assembled hub or at least a warning that something was not right with this hub.

Anyhow, I am not certain I will get a reply back from them... I will insist but I am looking at my options.

My original intention was to build this hub 3 cross, but further research on the internet suggests that 2 cross is a better lacing pattern for this hub (it's 28 hole).
I am thinking that 1x or radial lacing would be affected less by the spoke hole misalignment and would be easier to build with same length spokes...
Am I right in my rationale?

Spoke calculators give the following spoke lengths:
3x: 291 mm
2x: 280 mm
1x: 272 mm
0x: 270 mm


This wheel is intended for audax riding, so not excessive weight carrying capacity...

[rogerzilla]

If there is movement possible between the two halves, spoke tension WILL realign them. We are talking about a lot of torque here.  To help, you may wish to tighten the "helpful" spokes first, the ones that will pull the flanges into proper alignment.  Then the others should tighten normally, all being the same length.

All 3-piece hubs (crap steel ones and old BHC Airlites) also have this potential issue.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I have a silver version of the same hub with spoke holes similarly aligned. I got it cheap and unused because of this issue. I built it up radial as the slight angle on the spokes resists the slight torque from generator drag.

[mzjo]

Could this hub drilling be intentional? I have a 20 spoke Bontrager front wheel with that pattern, although mine is built radial (which probably mâles sense).

[Polar Bear]

I have older SON hubs built into various wheels including one I did myself.  The flange drillings are not aligned on any of them.   I'd have to go and investigate other hubs but I'm not sure that alignment is a thing. 

[perdido]

All other hubs I have encountered, the flanges are stagered...equally spaced.
Onoy exception would be 2:1 factory wheels.

Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk

[perdido]

Could this hub drilling be intentional? I have a 20 spoke Bontrager front wheel with that pattern, although mine is built radial (which probably mâles sense).

I was hoping for an answer from SON in that sense.

Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk

[perdido]

If there is movement possible between the two halves, spoke tension WILL realign them. We are talking about a lot of torque here.  To help, you may wish to tighten the "helpful" spokes first, the ones that will pull the flanges into proper alignment.  Then the others should tighten normally, all being the same length.

All 3-piece hubs (crap steel ones and old BHC Airlites) also have this potential issue.

Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk

Edited: this assemby design is only for disc brake hubs, not for the case in hand.

[rogerzilla]

Ah right, it's clearer from that photo. The older SONs were screwed together, hence the exhortations not to run them backwards in the fork.  They have obviously moved to this stepped joint.

In that case, it's stunningly crap manufacture.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

The original SON hubs had the flanges screwed onto the barrel but that was decades ago. The Deluxe is castellated, as shown.

That hub is rated for radial spoking, so the easiest option is to do that. Even one-cross will have a noticeable spoke length difference when the spoke holes are aligned. The only problem will be replying to all the 'helpful souls' about why crossing spokes is better.

[rogerzilla]

Or buy an SP PV-9 

[perdido]

Ah right, it's clearer from that photo. The older SONs were screwed together, hence the exhortations not to run them backwards in the fork.  They have obviously moved to this stepped joint.

In that case, it's stunningly crap manufacture.

Apparently that built pattern is only for disc brake hubs, not rim brakes hubs.

Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Why?

[perdido]

Why?

To resist twisting forces from disc brakes?

I'm assuming the same reasons disc brakes are laced 3x and not radially.

Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I missed that you were using disc brakes. Most of my bikes are rim brake. I thought you were saying that directly aligned spoke holes was for disc brakes, hence my question. My SON with directly aligned spoke holes is rim brake only, no disc fitting.

You need a minimum of 2-cross to support disc brakes. You will need two slightly different spoke lengths to get the same nipple engagement.

[perdido]

I missed that you were using disc brakes. Most of my bikes are rim brake. I thought you were saying that directly aligned spoke holes was for disc brakes, hence my question. My SON with directly aligned spoke holes is rim brake only, no disc fitting.

You need a minimum of 2-cross to support disc brakes. You will need two slightly different spoke lengths to get the same nipple engagement.

I think we are mixing conversations. My hub is rim brake only.
I don't know of hubs with directly aligned holes. Only staggered, since rim holes are traditionally evenly spaced.


Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk

[Ian H]

Checking three non-disc SON hubs, they do not have a castellated fitting.  So I'd assume that, if the manufacturer says you can realign the flanges using spoke tension, that's the way to go.

[perdido]

Checking three non-disc SON hubs, they do not have a castellated fitting.  So I'd assume that, if the manufacturer says you can realign the flanges using spoke tension, that's the way to go.

Yes... I will try this approach with old spokes and 2x, since the old spokes are the right length. 2nd option is to do 0 cross and live with it.

Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk

[perdido]

I have a silver version of the same hub with spoke holes similarly aligned. I got it cheap and unused because of this issue. I built it up radial as the slight angle on the spokes resists the slight torque from generator drag.

Heads in or out? Heads out looks better, but any reasons to run heads in, better bracing angle maybe?

Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk

[LittleWheelsandBig]

My wheel is a 406, so I went heads out to reduce the spoke angle at the rim. Theoretically the bend of the spoke is better supported (less fatigue) with heads in and that is my preference for radial spoking, particularly if I am building a wheel that must withstand a lot of side load.

[rogerzilla]

Heads out puts less (almost no) bending stress on the flange, which is good in a radial wheel.

[perdido]

Success!

I can't tell if the flanges are perfectly aligned, but much better than before...
It really didn't take much force to move the two halves. It wasn't stupid high tension like I anticipated. I proceeded as suggested and tensioned first the spokes that would move the flanges in the intended direction.

Now I need to make up my mind regarding 2x or radial.
Radial would look better, slightly less rotational weight and the flanges wouldn't move again while tensioning the spokes. Also slightly easier to replace a broken spike on the road.

2x maybe more compliant, sturdier?

FWIW, it's a 28h wheel and the rim is an h plus son archetype. The wheel is intended for some what fast (for me), lightly ladden randonneuring,

Rear wheel is a traditional 32h 3x.

Opinions welcomed.

Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk

[LittleWheelsandBig]

You don’t get any compliance out of the spokes, so that isn’t a consideration.

Crossing and lacing the spokes reduces complete unloading of spokes through potholes, though that situation only really happens with under-tensioned spokes.

[rogerzilla]

Radial is only a pain with small wheels, when it's hard to get a pump head attached.

[perdido]

I've decided on 2 cross per SON's recommendation.
Waiting for spokes to arrive.

Enviado desde mi SM-A530F mediante Tapatalk