Disk brake front rim dimple pattern

Status
Not open for further replies.
dynodave said:
Your rim is flipped over from normal. That is not good.
Why so? The sprocket side spokes are apart by the thickness of the hub flange, almost 1/4". They easily pass by each other going down to the rim.
However...
The disc side spokes are (inner spoke) runs in a groove, and the outer spoke is on the hub surface and is smack adjacent to the inner spoke. They would easily and likely interfere with each other on the way down to the rim especially if the wrong dimples are used. Such is the case with yours currently being in the row of 3 dimples on the right.
Therefore:
The disc side outer spoke needs the 1 dimple on the right side of the rim to allow clearance for the inner spoke (in the groove) which then would go to one of the left side 3 dimples. They will then not rub each other in passing.

Even correctly assembled, they do all touch a little and/or come very close. It's a matter of how much they interfere with each other. 3 on left and 1 on right gives best clearance for all spokes.
Click to expand...


Dave,
Thanks for the explanation. Those pictures were taken before I stripped the rims to mount the Excels. Fortunately I had Buchanan’s label them when they shipped the parts to me. Looking at my rims now, they are correctly done. The original bent spokes were the reason I went with new rims and spokes.
Pete
 
L.A.B. said:
MC275 is the front disc brake rim so 1972 - early 1975.
Click to expand...

I am on about the date on the drawings, not when they may have first appeared in a parts book or bike.

As LAB and Jim have pointed out and on the all the MK3 wheels I have seen yesterday and last night, all as per drgs and physical findings. Nothing to indicate that a 3x1 front rim was ever specified for any of the retail bikes. A 2x1 rear rim for the MK3 was looked at and drawn up but looks like it was ditched by July '74 and the factory went with the 3x1.
 
Many thanks to all above, AN will shortly be stocking the correct front rim. Like much of what was discussed in the 70's by the experts then, invariably was either never implemented or overtaken by events and forced aside. The drgs and the physical findings are in agreement on this one.
 
Madnorton said:
I am on about the date on the drawings, not when they may have first appeared in a parts book or bike.
Click to expand...

Yes, well, you did say: "...was used from...". ;)


Madnorton said:
Many thanks to all above, AN will shortly be stocking the correct front rim. Like much of what was discussed in the 70's by the experts then, invariably was either never implemented or overtaken by events and forced aside. The drgs and the physical findings are in agreement on this one.
Click to expand...

It's good to know AN will (finally) be selling the correct 1x1 06-1951 rim! :)
 
L.A.B. said:
It's good to know AN will (finally) be selling the correct 1x1 06-1951 rim! :)
Click to expand...

and my thanks to Walridge for supplying the correct item all along

also:
spoke pattern = 4
1x1 short hand for 1x1x1x1 = 4
2x2=4
1x3=4
What do you think?

IIRC rims are pierced not drilled?
 
Last edited:
I think most in this thread know"x" means "by"
It's a logic notation not math.

yet 1 by 2 (as above) shouldn't it be 2 by 2 ? ....that's my point
What kind of wheel has 1x2x1x2x1x2 repeats every 3 spokes?
 
I've built front wheels using Wassells and CWC stainless rims, and both were correctly drilled for the disc hub.
I actually preferred the Wassels one. Must be British because it had WASSELL ENGLAND stamped on it o_O
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top