stress relieving used wheels? - Page 2

Stu who? writes shyly:

> still don't get it

If you "don't get it" then why are you trying to tell others what stresses spokes sustain and how to
stress relieve?

> never built a wheel in my life have straighten a few

That's not a good resume on which to build credibility in wheel building.

> and if riding on a wheel(back wheel more than the front, because it has the torque from pedaling,
> unless of course you have a disc front) doesn't stress relieve the wheel over time. then why
> stress relieve them by hand first?

I think you are there where wheel builders were many years ago. Stress and load cycles of spokes and
how spokes fail is apparently not obvious. You could inform yourself on these matters at a bike shop
that carries "the Bicycle Wheel" in their book department or you could order it from:

http://www.avocet.com/wheelbook/wheelbook.html http://tinyurl.com/8yl8

> what part of the spoke are you stress relieving?

Those with residual high stresses, there where spokes generally fail because they are not
stress relieved.

> the way l see it, it is where the spokes cross each other, right?

Wrong.

> (looking at the pic on Mr sheldon browns page) ie bending the spokes so they sit well against each
> other while l agree that this may make a "wheel that is true and round, and will stay that way
> better than most machine made wheels"

That is not the goal of his method.

> but l don't understand how it helps with fatigue. don't most spokes break at the nipple end?

That is because you don't understand what causes spoke failure. You ought to at least read the FAQ:

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8c.1.html

> am dieing to go my spokes with and old crank, just trying to understand why

You don't need an old crank to do that. Meanwhile, please take a course in English so your
meandering thoughts are more readable. Nouveau spelling and punctuation is gauche and dilettantish.

Jobst Brandt jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org Palo Alto CA

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:25:08 +1000, "stu" <st@hotmail.com> wrote:

>am dieing to go my spokes with and old crank, just trying to understand why

Have a look at:

http://yarchive.net/bike/stress_relieve.html

thanks, l understand what you are saying now just one more qestion is there anyway to tell if cheap
wheels have been stress relieved or do you just asume that they haven't been?

>If you "don't get it" then why are you trying to tell others what stresses spokes sustain and how
>to stress relieve?
umm where?

>> never built a wheel in my life have straighten a few
>That's not a good resume on which to build credibility in wheel building
umm where did l say l had any credibility as a wheel builder? the point of putting it there, was so
people would know l have no idea what l was on about

asking questions
>just trying to understand why
so sorry that my english offends you but thanks for your answers anyway

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 06:16:20 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
clip -------
>> am dieing to go my spokes with and old crank, just trying to understand why

>You don't need an old crank to do that. Meanwhile, please take a course in English so your
>meandering thoughts are more readable. Nouveau spelling and punctuation is gauche and dilettantish.
>
>Jobst Brandt jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org Palo Alto CA

After mention here of crank as stress relieving tool, I offer an alternative which I have found
"delicious" for grabbing and twisting those spokes:

A hickory handled tackhammer. The hammer head makes a nice T-wrench grip, length (10") is just right
for leverage. The oval 1" handle provides a great shape and surface for the bending spokes.

As with all wodden-handled tools, an infrequent linseed oil rubbing is a treat.

Fits like a Brooks, and no skid.

Bruce Ball

st@hotmail.com wrote:

> thanks, l understand what you are saying now just one more qestion is there anyway to tell if
> cheap wheels have been stress relieved or do you just asume that they haven't been?

Assume they haven't been. Even if they have already, stress relieving a second time certainly
won't hurt.

--
Benjamin Lewis

On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --
Wolfgang Pauli

"Benjamin Lewis" <bclewis@cs.sfu.ca> wrote in message news:yy7o65p3n5la.fsf@css.css.sfu.ca...
> st@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > thanks, l understand what you are saying now just one more qestion is there anyway to tell if
> > cheap wheels have been stress relieved or do you just asume that they haven't been?
>
> Assume they haven't been. Even if they have already, stress relieving a second time certainly
> won't hurt.

From what I've read that makes sense.

Back to the OQ though .... if a spoke has started to yield and crack, presumably at the elbows, then
would stress relieving help?

Again, it would seem from sitting here with sketchy knowledge "it won't hurt", but perhaps they'd be
severly compromised.

So, a different question would be, can you trust the spokes on a non stress relieved and well used
wheel when one spoke has already gone, and you have tried to rectify this situation with "stress
relieving".

W K writes secretively:

>>> thanks, l understand what you are saying now just one more qestion is there anyway to tell if
>>> cheap wheels have been stress relieved or do you just asume that they haven't been?

>> Assume they haven't been. Even if they have already, stress relieving a second time certainly
>> won't hurt.

> From what I've read that makes sense.

> Back to the OQ though.... if a spoke has started to yield and crack, presumably at the elbows,
> then would stress relieving help?

Then it is to your advantage to break it by stress relieving than to let it break at a random
time when underway. Stress relieving will make sure that there are no spokes just about to break.
That this will prevent a slightly cracked spoke from failing later if it doesn't fail immediately
is doubtful.

> Again, it would seem from sitting here with sketchy knowledge "it won't hurt", but perhaps they'd
> be severely compromised.

Who would be compromised and why?

> So, a different question would be, can you trust the spokes on a non stress relieved and well used
> wheel when one spoke has already gone, and you have tried to rectify this situation with "stress
> relieving".

No more than if it hasn't had a failure. Stress relieving is essential to a durable wheel. Your
question leads into the common belief that once a spoke has broken, all spokes should be replaced.
That may be good from a bicycle shop's perspective but not for the user.

Jobst Brandt jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org Palo Alto CA

W K wrote:

> Back to the OQ though .... if a spoke has started to yield and crack, presumably at the elbows,
> then would stress relieving help?

Stress relieving can reduce or even eliminate the growth of a crack, but only if there is still
enough intact material to take up the added stress without yielding. Stress relieving reduces the
stress in the high stress areas, but increases it in the low stress areas (conservation of energy
requires this to be true).

If the crack is quite small, stress relieving might keep it from growing. If the crack is
substantial, stress relieving would probably break the spoke. These are both good outcomes, don't
you think?
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

I have always wondered if the "riding weight" on the bike really made any difference. After all the
weight doesn't change the circumference of the tire, which is really all that counts in distance,
not the diameter! Think about it.

Oh yeah, I do try to weight my bike when doing the rolling measurement

mho, Bob

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:23:12 -0400 (EDT), ChriszCorner@webtv.net (Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote:

>How accurate do you want it?
>
>Use the size stamped on the tire=95% (if you're lucky)
>
>Measure the diameter/circumference=about the same (maybe a little better)
>
>Roll it on the ground=96% (97% best)
>
>Roll it on the ground for several turns while sitting on the bike=97-98%
>
>Actually ride the bike over a measured distance of known accuracy=I've gotten as close as 99.993%.
>
>May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills! Chris
>
>Chris'Z Corner "The Website for the Common Bicyclist": http://www.geocities.com/czcorner