It is generally good practice when building a wheel to place the valve hole between 2 adjacent spokes that are running parallel and not where the two spokes 'cross'.

All the lightweights I've seen seem to have the valve hole between crossed spokes, making it harder to get a pump head in there, rather than 2 spots around where the spokes run parallel.

Why is that?

if you have to ask, you can't afford it...

Quality post.

Actually, that's a good question now that you raise it. Both the front and the rear look like the valve could have been placed in a better position. Only reason I can think of is maybe for balancing issues, but that's just a wild guess.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR

Looks like they 'fixed' in the Gen IIIs. All the images I can find show the valve hole in a different spot.

less spokes= bigger gap. I don't know what pump head you couldn't fit in there.

But yes i agree it is a touch weird

_________________
it's actually possible to come to the conclusion even before realising it makes no sense at all
-
tymon_tm

Maybe not to stress the rim at it's weakest point, and sort of make the spokes pull towards the valve hole.
With regular alloy rims, it's the best to make the spokes cross opposite the valve hole (where the rim is welded together). I have seen rims come apart when the spokes dont cross at the welding.
And when LW wheels dont have any welding, the weakest spot must be the valve hole..
Maybe thats why, i am no expert