Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Spoke 'wind-up' question

Started by Dan Daniel · · Last activity · 107 posts · 2,957 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
12 August 2004
Last activity
3 September 2004
Original author
Dan Daniel
Posts
107
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,957
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–60 of 107
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Quoted message said:
    RonSonic said:
    Quoted message said:

    Claims for the immortality of squeezed spokes seem to be
    confined to anecdotes from a small group on
    rec.bicycles.tech, whose metallurgical theories seem to be
    well-nigh unknown elsewhere and whose explanations do not
    seem to rule out improved spoke material, manufacture, or
    design as the source of the alleged improvement in fatigue
    resistance, to name a few alternatives.

    All too often, the stress-relief adherents reply to skeptics
    by challenging others to devise tests to disprove the
    stress-relief theory, as if the burden of proof were not on
    those proposing the theory.

    The trouble is that spoke fatigue does not lend itself to
    easy testing to demonstrate effects, much less causes, which
    is exasperating for those who strongly believe either way.

    Tthe spoke-squeezing stress-relief theory may be perfectly
    sound. Or it may be mistaken, while something other than
    stress-relief makes spoke-squeezing helpful. Or it may be
    just another incarnation of tying-and-soldering, something
    plausible, deeply believed in, and ultimately untrue.

    I can tell a high-school physics class that several posters
    on rec.bicycles.tech believe that spoke-squeezing is the
    most important step in wheel-building, although they often
    seem to disagree with each other on the fine points. But I
    can't yet point to anything other than a strong belief and
    personal anecdotes to demonstrate the claimed effect, much
    less to an unchallenged metallurgical theory.

    Here's what I can tell you about spoke squeezing....

    I've played guitar for over 35 years, and we've got the same problem: a nickel
    steel alloy under tension in a system of countervailing tensions that we insist
    remain at the intended tension despite repeated stress cycles and the fact that
    the entire stressed system is not symmetrical. On a bike the asymmetry is wheel
    dishing on a guitar it's the steel strings v a wood and steel bar neck.

    If you do not stretch the strings while tuning up a new set, tuning will NOT be
    stable until time and playing stresses do the job for you. Even then, the tuning
    will not be AS stable. The string will wear out before it completely settles in.
    With a guitar and it's .010 - .025 string thicknesses (only counting the core
    wire) at relatively low tension you get out of tuneness, with the much heaver
    gauge and tension of a spoke you get real damage.

    On a guitar the mechanism is pretty well defined. Yes, metal stretches and is
    work hardened. I know how hard I work a guitar string to settle it in and I
    doubt the wheel builders are applying that much force relative to the spoke
    gauge, but I'm sure it's a factor. Also all of the attachment points are
    imperfect, the wrap at the tuning post and the knotting of the string at the
    ball end all need to be seated in and a temporary increase in tension does that
    nicely. I'll suggest both are a factor in a wheel build. Those nipples are not
    perfectly seated on perfect surfaces, the bend in the spoke is obviously not
    mated perfectly to the hub. I know that mashed little nub at the end is not
    perfect and symmetrical and mated perfectly to the flange. There is unevenness
    there that will ether be corrected in the build or it'll introduce problems
    later.

    I'm a guitar and amp mechanic, not a bike tech, but I'll put my money on the
    spoke stretchers. I do know how steel wire behaves under tension and it tells me
    that prestressing during a build and tensioning makes sense.

    Quoted message said:

    Similarly, I can tell a high-school physics class that a
    poster on rec.bicycles.tech believes that both his tires
    come of the ground at the same time when he sprints, but I
    can't yet point to any evidence other than his claim that
    this happens, much less to an unchallenged theory explaining
    this kangaroo-like behavior.

    I'll believe someone with enough muscle and lack of finesse could make that
    happen. Or at least something that feels like that. That bike's a lively thing
    that resonates and bounces in all sorts of ways.

    Quoted message said:

    All that I can do is keep asking and try not to be too
    unkind. After all, a dozen sprinters may be posting at this
    very moment about their bouncing rear tires and wondering
    how I can be so ignorant.

    Have fun with it.

    Ron

    Dear Ron,

    We may not be talking about the same thing.

    If I follow you, you're saying that unless stretched beyond
    their normal tension, guitar strings not only go out of tune
    but also suffer some kind of damage.

    This doesn't sound like the spoke problem, which is that the
    spoke simply breaks. If the inner wire of the guitar strings
    broke, then it would be the same thing as the bicycle spoke
    problem, but I think that the tuning and damage that you
    have in mind involve the outer wire wrapped around the core.

    As I understand it, the theory is that stretching bicycle
    spokes beyond their normal tension by squeezing pairs of
    them together relieves stress at a microscopic level, not
    that it prevents the spokes from later losing tension. The
    spokes are not sagging or slackening--they're fracturing.

    I suspect that the stretching of the guitar strings is a
    matter of external friction involving how the outer wire is
    wound around the core wire and how whole wire is wound
    around the drum of the tuning peg than the kind of
    sub-microscopic stress relief that Jobst Brandt has in mind
    with bicycle spokes.

    Seating and preventing slackening is a possible benefit of
    stretching spokes, but I think that the usual claim is that
    this is not at all what's going on--the spoke squeezing is
    supposed to relieve internal stresses in the solid metal of
    the spoke that would otherwise lead to the spoke breaking in
    two.

    With guitar strings, I expect that the outer wire wrapped
    around the inner core complicates failure. At least on metal
    violin strings, it's usually the outer spiral-wound wire
    that fails, not the inner core wire.

    Still, the parallel of music strings is so interesting that
    I refuse to stoop to any puns about putting my finger on the
    problem or fretting about it.

    It is a fine fiddle we're in.

    I very definitely left the winding issues out of it - a whole nother can of
    worms.

    But what happened right before the spoke broke. Did adjacent spokes go slack, or
    that spoke suddenly relieve its own tension. I'm thinking that what would simply
    cause a string to go out of tune, would in the context of the much greater
    forces in a wheel cause breakage.

    Anyway, something to riff on.

    Ron

  2. Trevor Jeffrey said:

    squeezing the spokes don't like sub 300g rims. They fear that the rim would
    be damaged during construction. An unfortunate consequence of the poor
    building practice means there is now a scarcity of lightweight rims.

    That's an interesting conspiracy theory but it's utter rubbish in view of
    the fact that most wheels are machine built.

    Indeed, many of those wheels do not have spoke crossings and so, by your
    theory, should be highly reliable with machine-built low tension even on
    very light rims - how curious, then, in an industry where every product's
    weight is quoted at all times, that sub-300g rims are not commonly used.
    --
    David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!

  3. David Damerell wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:
    Trevor Jeffrey said:

    squeezing the spokes don't like sub 300g rims. They fear that the rim


    would

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    be damaged during construction. An unfortunate consequence of the poor
    building practice means there is now a scarcity of lightweight rims.

    That's an interesting conspiracy theory but it's utter rubbish in view of
    the fact that most wheels are machine built.

    Indeed, many of those wheels do not have spoke crossings and so, by your
    theory, should be highly reliable with machine-built low tension even on
    very light rims - how curious, then, in an industry where every product's
    weight is quoted at all times, that sub-300g rims are not commonly used.

    You seem to have confused me with another, I do call for spoke crossings.
    Lightweight rims are just not available off the shelf at local racing shop
    because "Nobody wants them." Which of course is untrue. I do. I expect it
    is the shops failing to offer such rims why nobody wants them. The rims
    Pete Matthew's uses are light and I expect all his 'Pianni' wheels would be
    using sub 300g rims.
    I think he has constructed 16 spoke wheels, 20 and 24, I think are the
    regular output. It is only fear which brings up such ridiculous boundaries.

    Trevor

  4. Benjamin Lewis wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    which improved spoke life and not stress relief.

    Even if this were true, it does not address my point that Jobst does not
    "require a specific grade of spoke".

    I was under the impression that the book advises to use DT stainless double
    butted. That is pretty specific. They only use one spoke material.

    Trevor

  5. [email hidden] wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:


    It takes over four years for a wheel rolling at 30 mph 24
    hours per day to cover a million miles:

    30 miles/hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year * 4 years =
    1,051,200 miles.

    Setting up such machinery to run night and day and tending
    it for even a hundred thousand miles would be an impressive
    undertaking--139 days.

    This is probably why the WheelSmith tests at Stanford in
    1984-85 were cut short, as mentioned in Professor Gavin's
    study.

    Mmmm. 4 1/2 months isn't too bad, but it wouldn't test the reliability
    between wheels made well. So it seems that the destructive test of
    increasing load may be more relevant to get an answer in practical time
    limits. I have had spoke failure at 30 000 on a Raleigh bicycle so I feel
    100 000 miles may not be sufficient to test wheels made with specific
    attention.

    Trevor

  6. [email hidden] wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    You seem to say you disagree with what I wrote in "the Bicycle Wheel"
    when in fact you seem not to have opened the book in which all these
    suppositions of yours are laid to rest.

    I have read your book a number of times, and find it failing, you claim to
    support your argument of standing on spokes with a graph of spoke strain
    within a loaded wheel, yet fail to include the datum line of when the wheel
    is unloaded and the spoke is in its normal state.

    Quoted message said:

    The increases you see are tiny and they result from the flattening of
    the circular rim at the ground contact point. This flattening
    increases the radius of the remainder of the rim ever so slightly and,
    if you sum the vertical component of the increases you will find that
    they give zero net force if the wheel has at least 36 spokes.
    Discretization makes this sum vary +- a bit for lower spoke counts.


    Are you saying your theory only applies to 36 spoke wheels? And that the
    figures must be bodged for lower spoke count? What is 'discretization' ,
    its not in my Ladybird book for junior engineers.?

    Quoted message said:

    I was unaware that you belong to the "hanging from the top" club until
    now which makes clear why you are so upset. About once a year one or
    more bicyclists from England attack the book with this perception. I
    don't understand why it is reserved for GB folks but that seems to be
    a trend.

    Got carried away there, meant to just say hangs from its spokes, and you
    would infer the rest. The question is do they have reason? I do, I have
    suffered buckled wheels due to overtensioning and instability.
    It's only a different description of the same effect. Dont let it worry
    you.
    The problem arises, in that standing on the bottom spokes has been taken to
    mean gross overtensioning is beneficial to loadbearing. Where if fact it is
    unnecessary to tension spokes past the requirement to bear the maximum load.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Mark McMaster's argument is the best I have seen to date, it shows
    that a pre-stressed wheel may be referred to in this way during
    normal service conditions only. It does not preclude the normally
    accepted explanation, that the rim is a self abutting arch which is
    retained by tensile members. The force is born by compression in
    the rim and tension in the spokes. Spoke tension varies as it
    travels around the wheel. This latter explanation caters for the
    overloaded wheel where a wheels instability is significant.

    I don't understand this paragraph. What is in that paragraph that
    disagrees with slackening of bottom spokes causing a net upward force
    on the hub. It is merely algebraic addition, for instance calling
    tension negative and compression positive. So long as the (positive)
    downward load is less than spoke tension in the load affected zone the
    wheel can support the load. When compression exceeds spoke tension,
    spokes become slack and wheel can easily collapse laterally.

    You've started it now. There is no load affected zone. The whole wheel is
    involved. The bottom spokes with residual tension only serve to pull the
    rim further towards the hub. If you load a stationary wheel, and cut those
    bottom spokes which have partially relaxed, it will be found that the rim
    will assume a more natural shape better preserving the arch within that
    area. If all the spokes are slackened (full complement) so that they are
    just about to come loose when the wheel is loaded, you have the same effect.
    A good wheel will bear over a quarter of a ton load with minor deflection.
    Monty Young of Condor Cycles(London) built the wheel and the test was by
    Mike Burrows(?) and it was published in Cycling monthly about 1983

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    The fact that spoke tension varies is significant. The rate of
    change is significant. Bending is significant. My method reduces
    all these quantities thereby significantly reducing fatigue without
    resort to expensive spokes.

    How does your method reduce variation of spoke tension under radial load?

    Because the spokes are taking a direct line between contact points. The
    spokes are left without any bending stresses left within them. My method
    advocates the use of crossed spokes and it is this which reduces the
    variation.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    The inherent stability of my wheels made them very easy to bring up
    to tension with very little truing required. The time spent on
    shaping the spokes at the crossing is saved from the otherwise
    necessary corrections and re-corrections necessary in a laterally
    unstable wheel.

    I don't believe you have established that the wheel is laterally
    unstable or that wheels without your spoke shaping require repetitive
    truing.

    You did, when you said you destroy wheels in the same manner I test mine.

    Trevor

  7. [email hidden] wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    ever harder to find. Not long ago on a tour in the alps, a rim got
    severely kinked on an unpaved road. We thought nothing of going to a
    bicycle shop in Lienz (A) and buying a new MA-2 rim and transferring
    the spokes. Regardless of what wheel you ride today, you can most
    likely not find the same rim and fix the wheel, especially if it is a
    low spoke count wheel.

    This is largely the customer's fault for too quickly jumping on the
    latest fad, not realizing what that does to durable conventional
    hardware. It vanishes.

    Two things can happen to a rim damaged through impact. Buckling and
    denting. I think you meant the rim was buckled and not kinked. Buckling
    occurs due to instability for the load. So increase stability or reduce the
    load. If the rim was not dented then the wheel should never have buckled.

    Trevor

  8. [email hidden] wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:


    I don't believe you have established that the wheel is laterally
    unstable or that wheels without your spoke shaping require repetitive
    truing.

    you established lateral instability here

    [email hidden] wrote in message

    Quoted message said:
    Trevor Jeffrey said:

    PLace foot on hub nut or qr and stand on it, lean bicycle out 30deg or
    whatever you think is best, and check for slack spokes at bottom of


    wheel.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If none come loose, the wheel is tight enough.

    Hey! That's the way I collapse a wheel when I want to. What are the
    parameter for this test? How forceful and how heavy should the person
    be? I think you are trying to lure people into destroying wheels.
    THis will not reveal whether the spokes are properly tight.

    It is your methods which destroy rims due to instability and overtensioning
    of spokes.

    Trevor

  9. Trevor Jeffrey said:


    Stop quoting from something fit for firelighting. Print out Gavin's graph
    on measured spoke strain and determine top area and bottom area from the
    datum line. It is plain to see that the tensile increases are one tenth
    greater than the tensile reductions, so a wheel hangs from its spokes and
    Jobstian theory is untrue. In fact I guessed thaT HE KNEW THIS SOME YEARS
    BACK and just like governments and the judicial system the world over, will
    not admit they have made a mistake.


    I think you are a bit off on the physical interpretation of your integration.

    A stretched spoke stores energy given by 1/2*k*x^2.

    A wheel at rest stores energy given by the sum of the energy in all the spokes.

    A mass moving towards the center of the earth loses gravitational potential
    energy given by m*g*y.

    Energy is conserved, we obey the laws of thermodynamics in this house.

    Do you see why one can not hang a weight from the hub of a bicycle wheel and
    get a net decrease in the stretch of all the spokes added together?

    Do you see why one could tell the integral is positive without ever looking
    at the graph?

    Do you see why this has nothing to do with jobstian theories?

  10. Jim Smith said:

    Do you see why this has nothing to do with jobstian theories?

    which are still as wrong as they ever were!

    pk

  11. Trevor Jeffrey said:


    Benjamin Lewis wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    which improved spoke life and not stress relief.

    Even if this were true, it does not address my point that Jobst does not
    "require a specific grade of spoke".

    I was under the impression that the book advises to use DT stainless
    double butted. That is pretty specific. They only use one spoke
    material.

    Well, why not then use the word "advise" rather than "require", if you're
    not deliberately trying to misrepresent him with not-so-subtle
    insinuations.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
    over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
    --Matt Groening

  12. "Trevor Jeffrey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Jay Beattie wrote in message


    <[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    The idea in the old days was to not goober-up your spokes with
    thread lock and that a well-oiled spoke/nipple could be


    brought

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    up to sufficient tension where thread lock was not necessary.

    That would be an exhorbitant tension if thread lock did not


    apply.

    Not al all. I built dozens of 5 and 6sp wheels on
    MA2/E2/ModE/G40/GP4/Gentleman rims (all basically the same
    design) using 36 14/15g spokes and turned them up to very high
    tensions with no binding, cracking or spoke breakage. Those
    wheels were tough and stayed true. I used to build 48 spoke
    tandem wheels on Super Champion Mod58s that could withstand a
    nuclear blast. The fact is, in the old days, you could build a
    sturdy set of wheels that stayed true without using any kind of
    thread lock. You can still do it with the right hub and rim
    combo today, but it is harder due to the 9/10 speed spacing. And
    the resulting wheel would be so low-zoot that only a reasonable
    person would buy it.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    From my perspective, there was nothing worse than working on a
    wheel that had been gummed up with linseed oil, spoke prep,
    Loctite, etc. And those wheels did require re-truing and were
    not straight forever.

    With the information that I freely give, you can have straight


    wheels until

    Quoted message said:

    accident.

    Maybe, but the goobered wheels I have worked on were not true,
    and they were a [censored] to true -- especially the ones with Al
    nipples (which would strip and the heads would pop off). -- Jay
    Beattie.

  13. Trevor Jeffrey said:

    [email hidden] wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    The increases you see are tiny and they result from the flattening of
    the circular rim at the ground contact point. This flattening
    increases the radius of the remainder of the rim ever so slightly and,
    if you sum the vertical component of the increases you will find that
    they give zero net force if the wheel has at least 36 spokes.
    Discretization makes this sum vary +- a bit for lower spoke counts.


    Are you saying your theory only applies to 36 spoke wheels? And that the
    figures must be bodged for lower spoke count? What is 'discretization' ,
    its not in my Ladybird book for junior engineers.?

    You might want to think about the word "finite" in the finite element
    analysis data you're looking at.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
    over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
    --Matt Groening

  14. PK said:
    Jim Smith said:

    Do you see why this has nothing to do with jobstian theories?

    which are still as wrong as they ever were!

    pk


    I was not kidding about the conservation of energy.

  15. Trevor Jeffrey said:


    Benjamin Lewis wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    which improved spoke life and not stress relief.

    Even if this were true, it does not address my point that Jobst does not
    "require a specific grade of spoke".

    I was under the impression that the book advises to use DT stainless double
    butted. That is pretty specific. They only use one spoke material.

    Trevor

    Dear Trevor,

    "SPOKES

    Decide on stainless steel, chromium- or zinc-plated
    spokes.

    Decide between straight-gauge or swaged spokes.

    Select 1.8 or 2.0 mm diameter spokes.

    Choose the proper length.

    Stainless steel spokes are more durable and reliable than
    plated spokes, but their main advantage is that they remain
    clean and bright and permit retruing after long exposure to
    weather. Plated spokes often rust solid into the spoke
    nipples. They eventually break at the nipple, either in use
    or when attempting to turn the nipple. On the other hand,
    good stainless steel spokes can and should be reused when a
    rim wears out or is damaged."

    --The Bicycle Wheel, 3rd editon, p. 80-81

    In "Spoke Strength" on page 125, Jobst tested both DT and
    WheelSmith spokes, straight and swaged.

    Carl Fogel

  16. The graph proves that summing of all the spoke strain figures gives a
    positive result in that there is an increase in tension when the wheel is
    loaded. This means a wheel supports its load by all the spokes except those
    whose tension decreases.
    I do not need a graph, I want the absolute strain figures Jobst obtained
    along with there rotation.

    Trevor

  17. Trevor Jeffrey said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    which improved spoke life and not stress relief.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Even if this were true, it does not address my point that Jobst
    does not "require a specific grade of spoke".

    Quoted message said:

    I was under the impression that the book advises to use DT stainless
    double butted. That is pretty specific. They only use one spoke
    material.

    Give it up! You have obviously not even seen the book or you wouldn't
    make the claims you have. You appear to be this year's attack dog for
    a "hangs from the top" club of the UK, although your line of argument
    comes from a slightly different side (with spoke shaping) than those
    of previous ten or more years. I sense that these annual attacks on
    "the Bicycle Wheel" are driven by historical belief in the myth and
    lore of bicycling, that which was so outrageous as to inspire me to
    research the subject and put it to rest by writing the book.

    The myths are dead. Let them rest.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  18. Trevor Jeffrey said:
    Quoted message said:

    You seem to say you disagree with what I wrote in "the Bicycle
    Wheel" when in fact you seem not to have opened the book in which
    all these suppositions of yours are laid to rest.

    Quoted message said:

    I have read your book a number of times, and find it failing, you
    claim to support your argument of standing on spokes with a graph of
    spoke strain within a loaded wheel, yet fail to include the datum
    line of when the wheel is unloaded and the spoke is in its normal
    state.

    If you read it then stop attributing claims to it that don't appear
    there. Each deflection graph shows the contour of the unloaded wheel
    with the deformed wheel. You keep trying to prove that you never
    opened the book.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The increases you see are tiny and they result from the flattening
    of the circular rim at the ground contact point. This flattening
    increases the radius of the remainder of the rim ever so slightly
    and, if you sum the vertical component of the increases you will
    find that they give zero net force if the wheel has at least 36
    spokes. Discretization makes this sum vary +- a bit for lower
    spoke counts.

    Quoted message said:

    Are you saying your theory only applies to 36 spoke wheels? And
    that the figures must be bodged for lower spoke count? What is
    'discretization', its not in my Ladybird book for junior engineers.?

    This term refers to discrete solutions in contrast to continuous ones,
    the fewer spokes the more discrete the results become and can give
    different solutions depending on where the load is assumed to bear.
    For this reason all calculations were mad with one spoke in the center
    of the ground contact point. Just the same, this means that there may
    not be an equal number of spokes above and below the horizontal
    centerline so summing the vertical components of the secondary tension
    changes doe not necessarily have a zero sum but could have a net
    upward or downward remainder. This does not support the "hangs from
    the top" hypothesis however.

    That is your willful misinterpretation. I am saying that
    discretization of reduced spoke count wheels makes this effect more
    difficult to see. Forty and forty-eight spoke wheels demonstrate this
    even better.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I was unaware that you belong to the "hanging from the top" club
    until now which makes clear why you are so upset. About once a
    year one or more bicyclists from England attack the book with this
    perception. I don't understand why it is reserved for GB folks but
    that seems to be a trend.

    Quoted message said:

    Got carried away there, meant to just say hangs from its spokes, and
    you would infer the rest. The question is do they have reason? I
    do, I have suffered buckled wheels due to overtensioning and
    instability. It's only a different description of the same effect.
    Don't let it worry you.

    Quoted message said:

    The problem arises, in that standing on the bottom spokes has been
    taken to mean gross overtensioning is beneficial to loadbearing.
    Where if fact it is unnecessary to tension spokes past the
    requirement to bear the maximum load.

    I don't see how you come to this conclusion, but not having read the
    book, you make these things up and attribute them to it just the same.
    Your perception is entirely out of agreement with the forces analyzed
    and the causes of wheel collapse that are clearly explained.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Mark McMaster's argument is the best I have seen to date, it shows
    that a pre-stressed wheel may be referred to in this way during
    normal service conditions only. It does not preclude the normally
    accepted explanation, that the rim is a self abutting arch which
    is retained by tensile members. The force is born by compression
    in the rim and tension in the spokes. Spoke tension varies as it
    travels around the wheel. This latter explanation caters for the
    overloaded wheel where a wheels instability is significant.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I don't understand this paragraph. What is in that paragraph that
    disagrees with slackening of bottom spokes causing a net upward
    force on the hub. It is merely algebraic addition, for instance
    calling tension negative and compression positive. So long as the
    (positive) downward load is less than spoke tension in the load
    affected zone the wheel can support the load. When compression
    exceeds spoke tension, spokes become slack and wheel can easily
    collapse laterally.

    Quoted message said:

    You've started it now. There is no load affected zone. The whole
    wheel is involved. The bottom spokes with residual tension only
    serve to pull the rim further towards the hub. If you load a
    stationary wheel, and cut those bottom spokes which have partially
    relaxed, it will be found that the rim will assume a more natural
    shape better preserving the arch within that area. If all the
    spokes are slackened (full complement) so that they are just about
    to come loose when the wheel is loaded, you have the same effect. A
    good wheel will bear over a quarter of a ton load with minor
    deflection. Monty Young of Condor Cycles(London) built the wheel
    and the test was by Mike Burrows(?) and it was published in Cycling
    monthly about 1983.

    I don't see what I have started but your cutting spokes is an old saw
    of the "hang from the top" clique. How about performing the more
    meaningful test of measuring tension changes in spokes when a
    vertical load is brought to bear on the axle. When you do that you
    will see that the only spokes to be compressed are under the hub and
    that no other spokes of the wheel change tension enough to have any
    effect. By this I did not mention whether this is a wagon wheel with
    wooden spokes or a wire spoked bicycle wheel. In "the Bicycle Wheel" a
    die cast moped wheel is shown that has such slender spokes that it
    looks at first like a conventional bicycle wheel.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The fact that spoke tension varies is significant. The rate of
    change is significant. Bending is significant. My method reduces
    all these quantities thereby significantly reducing fatigue
    without resort to expensive spokes.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    How does your method reduce variation of spoke tension under radial load?

    Quoted message said:

    Because the spokes are taking a direct line between contact points.
    The spokes are left without any bending stresses left within them.
    My method advocates the use of crossed spokes and it is this which
    reduces the variation.

    In that case, I see that you ignore what cases tension changes and
    that they don't auto generate but are caused by the load applied to
    the wheel. Therefore, tension changes can be predicted from knowing
    the load and the number of spokes.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The inherent stability of my wheels made them very easy to bring
    up to tension with very little truing required. The time spent on
    shaping the spokes at the crossing is saved from the otherwise
    necessary corrections and re-corrections necessary in a laterally
    unstable wheel.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I don't believe you have established that the wheel is laterally
    unstable or that wheels without your spoke shaping require
    repetitive truing.

    Quoted message said:

    You did, when you said you destroy wheels in the same manner I test
    mine.

    I did not. I said that loading a wheel in the manner you describe is
    how I can fold wheels. I don't find your loading scheme controlled or
    practical to accomplish anything.

    Have you tried presenting your theses to engineers in your area? I
    doubt that you can find any who agree with what you presented here.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  19. Benjamin Lewis wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:


    Well, why not then use the word "advise" rather than "require", if you're
    not deliberately trying to misrepresent him with not-so-subtle
    insinuations.

    because he fails to advise the use of any other spoke, so essentially making
    it a requirement.

    Trevor

  20. [email hidden] wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    Trevor Jeffrey writes:
    Give it up! You have obviously not even seen the book or you wouldn't
    make the claims you have. You appear to be this year's attack dog for
    a "hangs from the top" club of the UK, although your line of argument
    comes from a slightly different side (with spoke shaping) than those
    of previous ten or more years. I sense that these annual attacks on
    "the Bicycle Wheel" are driven by historical belief in the myth and
    lore of bicycling, that which was so outrageous as to inspire me to
    research the subject and put it to rest by writing the book.

    The myths are dead. Let them rest.

    I wasn't the one to bring up how a wheel bears its load. If you will attack
    me, you must bear the consequences. Provide the spoke strain data with
    rotational displacement.

    I produce a perfectly valid argument of the best way of how a wheel should
    be constructed to operate with high loads without buckling. You and your
    supporters have continually attacked me, basing their evidence on your
    conclusions, which are wrong.

    My evidence comes from the wheel itself.

    Now show me yours. Give me the spoke strain data.

    Trevor

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.