U
User6179
Guest
Naming the spokes as trailing or leading doesn't help since a trailing spoke could be either outbound and inbound. It is only the latter that makes a material difference how the spokes are configured in the hub and the angle at which they're bent. Although a trailing and leading spoke undergoes cyclical stresses in different ways, this makes no difference. They both fatigue at the same rate. I'll explain. Let's assume the spokes on the left side are tensioned to 1000N. When pedaling, torque at the hub causes all the trailing spokes to increase tension and all the leading spokes decrease tension. It may help to visualize this by calling them pushing and pulling spokes. Even the strongest rider in a sprint produces only enough torque to increase/decrease that tension by 5%, in a wheel with 32 spokes. 5% up or down in a part of the spoke's strain graph that falls far short of the yield curve has no material effect on metal fatigue in steel. In other words, they all fatigue at the same rate.
Now back to your example. A poorly-built wheel will not have been stress-relieved and the base-line I mentioned in the previous post would not have been eliminated. Since one set of spokes are bent at the elbow more than the other set, the set with the more acute angle will fatigue faster. I'm sure this is what happened to your wheel but I can't say for sure because I don't know whether these were inbound or outbound spokes. Perhaps you can check and let us know.
As for the second example: sharp ridges in hubs where spokes exit are a big contributor to spoke fatigue. The use of soft aluminium hubs and stress relieving eliminates this problem in well-built wheels. I will be so bold as to say that your anecdote holds true for that wheel only and a general case can't be made.
They are outbound spokes