Maintenance Manuals

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>
> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> > who's bullshitting.
>
> deny this, *****.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
> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>
>
>
> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>
> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>
> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!


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

Deny this you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring
adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about
double actual values. In your 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.
--
Spike

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>
> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> > who's bullshitting.
>
> deny this, *****.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
> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>
>
>
> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>
> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>
> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!

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

Deny this, you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring
adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about
double actual values. In your 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.
--
Spike

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>
> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> > who's bullshitting.
>
> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
...more expletives deleted...

Deny this you pathetic 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.
--
Spike

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>
> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> > who's bullshitting.
>
> deny this, *****.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
> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>
>
>
> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>
> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>
> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!

Deny this you pathetic 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.
--
Spike

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>
> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> > who's bullshitting.
>
> deny this, *****.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
> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>
>
>
> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>
> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>
> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!

Deny this you pathetic 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.
--
Spike

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>
> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> > who's bullshitting.
>
> deny this, *****.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
> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>
>
>
> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>
> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>
> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!

Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
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.
--
Spike

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:52:32 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>
>> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> > who's bullshitting.
>>
>> deny this, *****.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
>> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>>
>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>
>>deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>
>Deny this you pathetic fraud. You tightened down the tension spring
>adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about
>double actual values. In your 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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:58:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>
>> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> > who's bullshitting.
>>
>> deny this, *****.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
>> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>>
>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>
>
>>deny this, *****.
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>
>
>Deny this you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring
>adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about
>double actual values. In your 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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:02:43 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>
>> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> > who's bullshitting.
>>
>> deny this, *****.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
>> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>>
>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>
>>deny this, *****.
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>
>
>Deny this, you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring
>adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about
>double actual values. In your 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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:12:34 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>
>> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> > who's bullshitting.
>>
>> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
> ...more expletives deleted...
>
>Deny this you pathetic 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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:16:31 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>
>> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> > who's bullshitting.
>>
>> deny this, *****.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
>> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>>
>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>
>Deny this you pathetic 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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>
>> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> > who's bullshitting.
>>
>> deny this, *****.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
>> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>>
>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>
>Deny this you pathetic 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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>
>> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> > who's bullshitting.
>>
>> deny this, *****.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
>> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>>
>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>
>Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
>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

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" is
>> unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself.
>
> eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer. and
> don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again....

Dude, "yielding of the rim" is ambiguous, unless you specify tension or
compression, and along what axis the yield is occurring.

--
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

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Andrew Muzi mused:
>
> Been around bikes too much...

Every day since 1 April, 1971?

--
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

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>
> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> >> > who's bullshitting.
>
> >> deny this, *****.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
> >> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>
> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>
> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>
> >> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>
> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
> >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.

--

Spike

 

[[email protected]]

Chalo Colina writes:

>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to
>>> buckle. If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions
>>> because the spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed
>>> rim.

>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using
>> the rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly
>> designed"?

> I think what Peter's trying to say is that a rim's design should
> balance the ability of the rim to take overall loads, like hoop
> compression, with the ability to support the local loads of
> individual spokes.

> If the rim buckles long before the spoke holes have reached a
> problematic level of stress, then it is heavier than it needs to be
> for its wheel's load carrying capacity. It has more spoke bed or
> eyelet material than its structural section can use. If, on the
> other hand, the spoke holes crack long before the rim's buckling
> strength is reached, then it's also heavier than its load capacity
> should require. That is, the load capacity of such a wheel is
> limited by its spoke tension, but the rim section should be able to
> support higher loads.

> Many of us prefer the error to fall on the side of the eyelets
> supporting more tension than the rim section can support, because it
> allows us to find that optimal tension during the build process.

> The prescriptive approach, where all the rims from a given
> manufacturer carry the same spoke tension rating, is a copout. Rims
> of substantially different sectional sizes and weights should and do
> support different spoke tensions.

That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and
durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack
at spoke eyelets. Spoke eyelets are there to make a usable friction
interface between aluminum rim and spoke nipple and are not suitable
for spoke load distribution. Someone got the idea that sockets
formerly used by all durable rims to distribute load to the inner and
outer bed of rims was superfluous. That is where the error occurred.

I have more stacks of socketed rims (Fiamme, Ambrosio, Mavic, Super
Champion, and others), ridden until the sidewalls wore out, that were
spoked as tight as I have described in "the Bicycle Wheel" with no
cracks. To deny that rims that cannot support local spoke loads are
being offered is masochism. It reminds me of all the claims that jam
nut on Presta stems are causing inner tube stem separation failures on
Presta stems. That was a manufacturing error that went away as bad
stock was depleted and was not the user's fault. Cracked rims are
likewise a design (manufacturing) error.

That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in
itself. Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because
the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned. That was the limit
that any wheel builder had in his grasp without a lookup table, that
tension being dependent on the number of spokes between 28 and 40,
typically MA-2 and Monthlery Mavic rims coming in many drillings.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Ben C? writes:

>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to
>>>> buckle. If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions
>>>> because the spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed
>>>> rim.

>>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using
>>> the rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly
>>> designed"?

>>> Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker
>>> - it's just a question.

>> I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's
>> fair to say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you
>> land a hard jump or something like that which loads them radially &
>> laterally at the same time. What I mean by badly designed is that
>> the wheel isn't as strong for its weight as it could be. Where
>> strength would be its resistance to buckle under load.

> But doesn't a stiffer rim also improve buckle-resistance? So it
> isn't clear to me whether you necessarily get superior
> buckle-resistance from a 36H MA-2 with high spoke tension or from a
> 32H CXP-33 with lower tension.

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.

In the days of yore, inexpensive rims used flat washers to distribute
spoke loads, sockets being too expensive, requiring a special machine.
To make up for the lower cost, aligning washers with spoke holes when
lacing a wheel was tedious work for wheel builders.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> 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 bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>
>> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> >> > who's bullshitting.
>>
>> >> deny this, *****.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
>> >> bullshitting? 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 bullshitting *****.
>>
>> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! 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?
>>
>> >> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>>
>> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
>> >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

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote:


>
> That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and
> durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack
> at spoke eyelets.


If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH,
using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids
this problem in most cases.

<boilerplate blather snipped>


> That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in
> itself.

With all due respect, that's horse pucky. Shall we inflate tires until
they blow off the rim and just go 5 psi lower the next time? Or should
we at least look at the makers recommendations for max inflation?


> Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because
> the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned.

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.

<remainder snipped>