Cycling and bicycle racing discussion forums.   View New Forum Topics
Today's Forum Topics

Set as homepage


Go Back   Cycling Forums > Tech Corner > Power Training
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to CyclingForums.com

You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread.

By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds.


Alternative to stompin'

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 23-02.-2008, 02:35 PM   #1
daveryanwyoming
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,357
Default Alternative to stompin'

I promised I'd post a photo of the alternative method I use to torque test PT hubs. It basically replaces a weight (body weight or otherwise) with the crank tensioned in the upwards direction via a digital scale. The crank is rolled back into the upstroke position and tension is introduced by rotating the rear wheel backwards till you get the desired force. The cranks don't need to be horizontal, but the tensioned cord running to the scale should be at right angles to the crank arms for accuracy. I slide a wooden dowel between a spoke head and the stays to lock the wheel off when the cranks are close to perpendicular to the scale cord and the scale force is about where I want it. If the cords are stretchy it takes a few seconds for the system to settle out and then you read the scale and the PT computer in torque mode and follow the stomp testing math:

Force(pounds)* crank length(mm)/25.4*cog_teeth/chainring_teeth = expected torque.

If the cranks aren't perpendicular to the scale cord your expected torque will be higher than what you're actually putting on the system since it effectively shortens the crank length regardless of which direction you're in error. But the angle doesn't have to be dead on. A +/- 5 degree angle error relative to perpendicular only results in a measurement error of 0.4% and +/- 8 degrees of error is ~ 1% in measurement error.

The biggest hassle is making sure the PT computer stays awake, the torque is zeroed and the scale is zeroed with just the weight of the connecting cords between tests. But it's a lot more portable than 50 pound barbell plates.

Anyway, if you don't like the bodyweight test (didn't spend enough time balancing on concrete forms as a kid ) or don't have a lot of weight plates lying around then this is an alternative method.

-Dave
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  alt-stomptest.jpg
Views: 143
Size:  183.1 KB  

Last edited by daveryanwyoming : 23-02.-2008 at 02:42 PM.
daveryanwyoming is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 23-02.-2008, 03:43 PM   #2
kytyree
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
Default Re: Alternative to stompin'

thanks for posting the picture, I think I will have to try that
kytyree is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23-02.-2008, 05:35 PM   #3
swampy1970
Registered User
 
swampy1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 388
Default Re: Alternative to stompin'

Nice wheels ol' chap!

You know that says 40 and not 50lbs right?

I take it you calibrated the scale using scientifically tested calibration weights (where w >= 0.000001% deviation from Pi/0) during the median between a new and full moon and between high and low tides and when the planets were aligned such that Jupiter and Saturn were not on the same side of the Solar System and where the air pressure was 1013.25mbar exactly.
swampy1970 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23-02.-2008, 05:46 PM   #4
daveryanwyoming
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,357
Default Re: Alternative to stompin'

Quote:
Originally Posted by swampy1970
...You know that says 40 and not 50lbs right? ...
Actually, it's 40.9 kg on that particular scale.....
daveryanwyoming is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 23-02.-2008, 06:38 PM   #5
squidwranglr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 135
Default Re: Alternative to stompin'

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming
slide a wooden dowel between a spoke head and the stays to lock the wheel off when the cranks are close to perpendicular to the scale cord and the scale force is about where I want it.

Have you considered putting a tight rubber band onto the rear brake lever to immobilize the rear wheel instead of using the wooden dowel? It just seems "wrong" to apply force onto the spoke head in that manner, but it's probably nothing...

Berend
squidwranglr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-02.-2008, 01:18 AM   #6
daveryanwyoming
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,357
Default Re: Alternative to stompin'

Quote:
Originally Posted by squidwranglr
Have you considered putting a tight rubber band onto the rear brake lever to immobilize the rear wheel instead of using the wooden dowel? It just seems "wrong" to apply force onto the spoke head in that manner, but it's probably nothing...

Berend
That's how I previously locked the wheel, but I'd prefer a stiff toe strap to a rubber band since any wheel creep translates to torque changes and it can take a while for the numbers to stabilize. Yeah I sure wouldn't drop the dowel in and carelessly release all that force onto a spoke nipple and probably wouldn't use this method with carbon spokes. It's also why I used a wooden dowel instead of say a steel rod, figured it would be a bit kinder and gentler. But you don't have to lock the wheel at all if you can hold the wheel steady enough to take both readings. Personally the dowel method seems fine if you're careful, but don't do it if you're worried about stress to your spoke heads.

-Dave
daveryanwyoming is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-02.-2008, 06:03 AM   #7
daveryanwyoming
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,357
Default Re: Alternative to stompin'

Quote:
Originally Posted by squidwranglr
... It just seems "wrong" to apply force onto the spoke head in that manner, but it's probably nothing......
You definitely got me thinking about this, but I took a look at the hub torque numbers measured during that testing. With 40.9 kg on the scale the hub torque was approximately 171 pound-inches. That's with my 172.5mm cranks and using a 50:14 gearing. The spoke nipples are just over 11 inches away from the axle. So there's ~15.5 pounds of lateral force on that nipple. I've gotta believe hitting an average sized pothole results in a lot more lateral force than that.

-Dave
daveryanwyoming is online now  
Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001 - 2006 cyclingforums.com

Links to websites we like:
Pezcyclingnews | Cyclingnews.com | Wine Zone | iinet