or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Maintenance Manuals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Maintenance Manuals - Page 11

post #151 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:32:29 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:36:55 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
>>> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>>> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>>> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>>> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>>> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>>> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>>> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>>> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>>> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>>> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>>> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>>>
>>> >> >> >> you're bull****ting peter. grow up.
>>>
>>> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>>> >> >> > who's bull****ting.
>>>
>>> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>>> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>>
>>> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>>
>>> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>>> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>>> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>>>
>>> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>>> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>>> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>>> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?
>>>
>>> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>>> >> >> bull****ting? terribly sorry!
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>>> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>>> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>>> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>>> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>>>
>>> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>>>
>>> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>>> >> >> squirm you want to add?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!
>>>
>>> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.
>>>
>>> >> >> you are a shameless bull****ting prick.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>>> >> >> >> bull**** cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really
>>> >> >> >> convincing too!
>>>
>>> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>>> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>>>
>>> >> >> bull****'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!
>>>
>>> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick.
>>> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>>>
>>> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>>> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>>> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>>> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>>> >> >held at the same angle.
>>>
>>> >> Dear Spike
>>>
>>> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>>> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>>>
>>> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>>>
>>> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:
>>>
>>> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>>>
>>> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>>> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>>>
>>> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>>> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>>>
>>> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>>> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>>> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>>>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>>
>>> >> Carl Fogel
>>>
>>> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>>>
>>> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
>>> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
>>> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
>>> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
>>> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
>>> >taken.)
>>>
>>> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
>>> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
>>> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
>>> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
>>> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
>>> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
>>> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
>>> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
>>> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
>>> >and thinner.
>>>
>>> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
>>> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
>>> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
>>> >mistake.
>>>
>>> Dear Spike,
>>>
>>> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>>>
>>> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
>>> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
>>> screw not being visible.
>>>
>>> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
>>> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
>>> yours.
>>>
>>> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>>>
>>> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
>>> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
>>> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>>>
>>> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel

>>
>>Carl,
>>
>>It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam might
>>be up to his regular fraud again. I asked that he deny it. What
>>supported this observation and request was his past history of obvious
>>and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
>>observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
>>our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers. Thank you for expounding
>>further on their possible differences.
>>
>>I meant to suggest that "jimmying" of the spring tension was only one
>>possible method by which such a deception could be produced --
>>certainly this is what could have been done. I should have been
>>clearer and more expansive. This was a error on my part; I am not
>>embarrassed by it.

>
>Dear Spike,
>
>You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your
>hatred of Jim Beam.
>
>You've lost most of your credibility.
>
>Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel


And please learn how to send a single post to the newsgroup.

The multiple copies on the newsgroup are bad enough, but now you're
emailing me copies of the duplicates.
post #152 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Oct 7, 12:38 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:

>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
> >> >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
> >> >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
> >> >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
> >> >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
> >> >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.

>
> >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
> >> >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
> >> >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
> >> >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
> >> >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
> >> >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?

>
> >> >> >> >> >> you're bull****ting peter. grow up.

>
> >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> >> >> >> >> > who's bull****ting.

>
> >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/

>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
> >> >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
> >> >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.

>
> >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.

>
> >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
> >> >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
> >> >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.

>
> >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
> >> >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
> >> >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
> >> >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?

>
> >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
> >> >> >> >> bull****ting? terribly sorry!

>
> >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
> >> >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
> >> >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
> >> >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
> >> >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]

>
> >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.

>
> >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
> >> >> >> >> squirm you want to add?

>
> >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!

>
> >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.

>
> >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bull****ting prick.

>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> >> >> >> >> bull**** cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really
> >> >> >> >> >> convincing too!

>
> >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
> >> >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?

>
> >> >> >> >> bull****'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!

>
> >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick.
> >> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"

>
> >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
> >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
> >> >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
> >> >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
> >> >> >> >held at the same angle.

>
> >> >> >> Dear Spike

>
> >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
> >> >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:

>
> >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg

>
> >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible:

>
> >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg

>
> >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
> >> >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.

>
> >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
> >> >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.

>
> >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
> >> >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
> >> >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.

>
> >> >> >> Cheers,

>
> >> >> >> Carl Fogel

>
> >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.

>
> >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
> >> >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
> >> >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
> >> >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
> >> >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
> >> >> >taken.)

>
> >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
> >> >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
> >> >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
> >> >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
> >> >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
> >> >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
> >> >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
> >> >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
> >> >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
> >> >> >and thinner.

>
> >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
> >> >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
> >> >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
> >> >> >mistake.

>
> >> >> Dear Spike,

>
> >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

>
> >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
> >> >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
> >> >> screw not being visible.

>
> >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
> >> >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
> >> >> yours.

>
> >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.

>
> >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
> >> >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
> >> >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.

>
> >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.

>
> >> >> Cheers,

>
> >> >> Carl Fogel

>
> >> >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

>
> >> >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up
> >> >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his
> >> >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led
> >> >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the
> >> >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1
> >> >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that
> >> >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This
> >> >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it.

>
> >> Dear Spike,

>
> >> You've lost most of your credibility.

>
> >> Stop digging.

>
> >> Cheers,

>
> >> Carl Fogel

>
> >Carl,

>
> >Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
> >observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
> >our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been
> >clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...."

>
> >Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost
> >most of my credibility.

>
> Dear Spike,
>
> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior.
>
> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't
> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking
> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more
> expansive"?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


Carl,

Based on beam's past antics I would be embarrassed to give him
credibility. Apparently, you are not.

I didn't "announce" that he was faking pictures, but, yes, I certainly
intended to raise that possibility by asking him to deny that "You
tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool
TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." (Indeed, he may
have done just this.)

I now believe that even if I had been clearer and more expansive, you
still would he in disagreement.

--

Spike
post #153 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Oct 7, 12:44 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

>
> And please learn how to send a single post to the newsgroup.
>
> The multiple copies on the newsgroup are bad enough, but now you're
> emailing me copies of the duplicates.


I really am sorry for that, Carl. My browser seems to be a bit balky
-- and some posters a bit testy -- but it is all my fault. I'm new to
posting to news groups obviously.

Your multiple duplicate replies to the group do look funny; my
original post doesn't even appear once. You should maybe be pleased.
You can now do an exegesis on all seven editions (joke).

--

Spike
post #154 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Oct 7, 12:32 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

>
> Dear Spike,
>
> You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your
> hatred of Jim Beam.
>
> You've lost most of your credibility.
>
> Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


Carl,

I believe my skepticism is well founded. It is based on my past
assessment of beam's credibility. I would be embarrassed if I were not
skeptical.

--

Spike
post #155 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:
> ...
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> You've lost most of your credibility.
>>
>> Stop digging.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel

>
> Carl,
>
> Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
> observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
> our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been
> clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...."
>
> Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost
> most of my credibility.


Not that "Dear Carl" would ever make false accusations of dishonesty.
[end sarcasm]. Heck, this is the one that that Bill Sornson and I agree
upon.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
post #156 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Oct 7, 11:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and
> >> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the
> >> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true
> >> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the
> >> makers recommendations.

>
> > FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should
> > have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage.

>
> > And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily
> > out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that
> > doesn't destroy the rim.

>
> > - Frank Krygowski

>
> do you use a pressure gauge when inflating the tires on your car?


Why, yes, I do.

Do I use a pressure gage when inflating my bike tires? Sometimes yes,
sometimes no.

Do I use a torque wrench when tightening cylinder head bolts?
Absolutely.

Do I use a torque wrench when replacing brake pads on my bike brakes?
Never.

Should every mechanical operation involving a bike require investing
in a new, single purpose, $60 tool? Absolutely not.

Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool
to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not.

- Frank Krygowski
post #157 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:57:16 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Oct 7, 12:38 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>> >> >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>> >> >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>> >> >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>> >> >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>> >> >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>> >> >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>> >> >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>> >> >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>> >> >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>> >> >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> you're bull****ting peter. grow up.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> >> >> >> >> > who's bull****ting.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>> >> >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>> >> >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>> >> >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>> >> >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>> >> >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>> >> >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>> >> >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?

>>
>> >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>> >> >> >> >> bull****ting? terribly sorry!

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>> >> >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>> >> >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>> >> >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>> >> >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]

>>
>> >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>> >> >> >> >> squirm you want to add?

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!

>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bull****ting prick.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> >> >> >> >> bull**** cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really
>> >> >> >> >> >> convincing too!

>>
>> >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>> >> >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?

>>
>> >> >> >> >> bull****'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!

>>
>> >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick.
>> >> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"

>>
>> >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>> >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>> >> >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>> >> >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>> >> >> >> >held at the same angle.

>>
>> >> >> >> Dear Spike

>>
>> >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>> >> >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:

>>
>> >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg

>>
>> >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible:

>>
>> >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg

>>
>> >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>> >> >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.

>>
>> >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>> >> >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.

>>
>> >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>> >> >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>> >> >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.

>>
>> >> >> >> Cheers,

>>
>> >> >> >> Carl Fogel

>>
>> >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.

>>
>> >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
>> >> >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
>> >> >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
>> >> >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
>> >> >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
>> >> >> >taken.)

>>
>> >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
>> >> >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
>> >> >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
>> >> >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
>> >> >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
>> >> >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
>> >> >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
>> >> >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
>> >> >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
>> >> >> >and thinner.

>>
>> >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
>> >> >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
>> >> >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
>> >> >> >mistake.

>>
>> >> >> Dear Spike,

>>
>> >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

>>
>> >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
>> >> >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
>> >> >> screw not being visible.

>>
>> >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
>> >> >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
>> >> >> yours.

>>
>> >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.

>>
>> >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
>> >> >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
>> >> >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.

>>
>> >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.

>>
>> >> >> Cheers,

>>
>> >> >> Carl Fogel

>>
>> >> >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

>>
>> >> >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up
>> >> >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his
>> >> >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led
>> >> >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the
>> >> >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1
>> >> >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that
>> >> >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This
>> >> >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it.

>>
>> >> Dear Spike,

>>
>> >> You've lost most of your credibility.

>>
>> >> Stop digging.

>>
>> >> Cheers,

>>
>> >> Carl Fogel

>>
>> >Carl,

>>
>> >Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
>> >observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
>> >our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been
>> >clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...."

>>
>> >Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost
>> >most of my credibility.

>>
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior.
>>
>> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't
>> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking
>> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more
>> expansive"?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel

>
>Carl,
>
>Based on beam's past antics I would be embarrassed to give him
>credibility. Apparently, you are not.
>
>I didn't "announce" that he was faking pictures, but, yes, I certainly
>intended to raise that possibility by asking him to deny that "You
>tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool
>TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." (Indeed, he may
>have done just this.)
>
>I now believe that even if I had been clearer and more expansive, you
>still would he in disagreement.


Spike,

Bull****.

You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as
claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been
clearer:

"You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park
Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values."

You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be
ashamed.

Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses.

Carl Fogel
post #158 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:21:59 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Oct 7, 12:32 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your
>> hatred of Jim Beam.
>>
>> You've lost most of your credibility.
>>
>> Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel

>
>Carl,
>
>I believe my skepticism is well founded. It is based on my past
>assessment of beam's credibility. I would be embarrassed if I were not
>skeptical.


Quit emailing me bull**** excuses for emailing me duplicates.
post #159 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

A Muzi wrote:

> Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's cogent.


You sweet-talker you! LOL
post #160 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Oct 6, 10:38 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

> Dear Spike,
>
> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior.
>
> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't
> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking
> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more
> expansive"?


Dear Carl,

I don't care one way or another about jim beam's
photograph and see no reason to doubt its veracity, but:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...ff7a01beb8e1e7

You're in a fine position to lecture people about
the rudeness of disbelieving photographic evidence
on RBT.

Ben
post #161 of 239
Thread Starter 

Re: Maintenance Manuals

[snip
>
> The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high
> spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from road
> irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the
> buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent
> spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin to
> crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension because
> the force is not adequately distributed.


[snip]

After years of relying on the tensioning method in The Bicycle Wheel, I
discovered - two expensive rims too late - that "rims begin to crack
from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension." I wish I had
noticed sooner that your advice (and rim design) had changed.
post #162 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

Mark <mark@blackesthole.com> writes:

>> The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high
>> spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from
>> road irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the
>> buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent
>> spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin
>> to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension
>> because the force is not adequately distributed.


> [snip]


> After years of relying on the tensioning method in The Bicycle
> Wheel, I discovered - two expensive rims too late - that "rims begin
> to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension."
> I wish I had noticed sooner that your advice (and rim design) had
> changed.


It hasn't. The rims have changed. You cannot spoke most
non-deep-aero rims with tension close to buckling today without
cracking the rim. It is my contention that building unsocketed rims
has brought us to this point and don't find such rims useful for me or
for recommendation.

At InterBike I saw rims that might work but they are not available in
stores and catalogs from which I might purchase them.

Jobst Brandt
post #163 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Oct 7, 12:33 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 11:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >>>> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and
> >>>> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the
> >>>> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true
> >>>> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the
> >>>> makers recommendations.
> >>> FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should
> >>> have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage.
> >>> And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily
> >>> out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that
> >>> doesn't destroy the rim.
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> do you use a pressure gauge when inflating the tires on your car?

>
> > Why, yes, I do.

>
> > Do I use a pressure gage when inflating my bike tires? Sometimes yes,
> > sometimes no.

>
> > Do I use a torque wrench when tightening cylinder head bolts?
> > Absolutely.

>
> > Do I use a torque wrench when replacing brake pads on my bike brakes?
> > Never.

>
> > Should every mechanical operation involving a bike require investing
> > in a new, single purpose, $60 tool? Absolutely not.

>
> > Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool
> > to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not.

>
> > - Frank Krygowski

>
> that's uninformed and arbitrary.


Sorry, it's not "uninformed." You may steadfastly despise one of my
sources of information, but it's worked well for me during the
building of oh, perhaps 20 wheels.

None of the wheels has ever failed, including on very long fully
loaded tours including rough, even unpaved, riding surfaces.

> the logic for using instruments is
> that humans can't judge the effect of the process they're undertaking.
> that is as applicable to wheel spokes as it is to tire pressure or
> cylinder head bolting. if anything, more so given that the materials
> involved don't give any indication of pending failure until it's too
> late.


I seem to have judged the effect of the process rather well - as have
perhaps millions of wheel builders who have not bothered with tension
meters.

I don't feel the need to buy every special tool for every possible
process. My success proves to my satisfaction that I don't need every
such tool.

- Frank Krygowski
post #164 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:59:31 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>On Oct 6, 10:38 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior.
>>
>> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't
>> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking
>> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more
>> expansive"?

>
>Dear Carl,
>
>I don't care one way or another about jim beam's
>photograph and see no reason to doubt its veracity, but:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...ff7a01beb8e1e7
>
>You're in a fine position to lecture people about
>the rudeness of disbelieving photographic evidence
>on RBT.
>
>Ben


Dear Ben,

Are you still to dumb to read the original post and notice the smiley?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
post #165 of 239

Re: Maintenance Manuals

On 08 Oct 2007 00:41:01 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

[snip]

>I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead
>insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can thank the
>rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude people with
>arguments to support their style.
>
>In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses appearing
>often as anti free speech by intimidation.
>
>Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

Here's your idea of courtesy, a thread in which you implied your usual
vague claims that you're purely "Fact" and that anyone disagrees with
you is full of "Fiction, Lies, and Bull****":

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...46b665cdec7ce6

You started the thread and chose the title.

As usual, you couldn't believe that anyone thought that your own
attack might apply to you.

Again, I suggest reading Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in
American Politics."

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Maintenance Manuals