More spoke stress-relieving

[Gary Young]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:37:40 -0800, Ron Ruff wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>> > It also seems like it would be difficult to do a
>> > decent job of it. To me the WS butted spokes look like they are simply
>> > made with a shorter tapered region than DTs. The thin part isn't as
>> > smooth as the ends, but it doesn't look machined... just slightly lumpy
>> > down the length... but you have to look close to notice it.
>>
>> the d.t.'s or the wheelsmith? if the former [all my butted d.t.'s are
>> like this] that's because they're hammered.
>
> I only have WS spokes around at the moment... 2.0/1.7s. I'd say they
> look like they are hammered too, but the transition between between the
> two diameters is much more abrupt than the DTs I remember.

"jim beam" has no evidence that wheelsmith spokes are ground, except that
he claims to have, or to have seen, an Asahi-branded spoke with a similarly
abrupt transition that was ground. Asahi used to make spokes for
wheelsmith. Given jim beam's lack of credibility, I see no reason to doubt
wheelsmith's claim that the center sections of their spokes are forged.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Gary Young <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:37:40 -0800, Ron Ruff wrote:
>
> > jim beam wrote:
> >> Ron Ruff wrote:
> >> > It also seems like it would be difficult to do a decent job of
> >> > it. To me the WS butted spokes look like they are simply made
> >> > with a shorter tapered region than DTs. The thin part isn't as
> >> > smooth as the ends, but it doesn't look machined... just
> >> > slightly lumpy down the length... but you have to look close to
> >> > notice it.
> >>
> >> the d.t.'s or the wheelsmith? if the former [all my butted d.t.'s
> >> are like this] that's because they're hammered.
> >
> > I only have WS spokes around at the moment... 2.0/1.7s. I'd say
> > they look like they are hammered too, but the transition between
> > between the two diameters is much more abrupt than the DTs I
> > remember.
>
> "jim beam" has no evidence that wheelsmith spokes are ground, except
> that he claims to have, or to have seen, an Asahi-branded spoke with
> a similarly abrupt transition that was ground. Asahi used to make
> spokes for wheelsmith. Given jim beam's lack of credibility, I see no
> reason to doubt wheelsmith's claim that the center sections of their
> spokes are forged.

A few years back, jim beam posted this helpful link:

http://www.chickencycles.co.uk/products/spokes/index.html

Note the elbow angles of greater than 90 degrees. Contrary to his
recent posts about the effects of canted hub flanges, correcting the
spoke line is still necessary for outbound spokes to point towards the
spoke holes in the rims.

Checking DT's site reveals that they too bend the elbows of their spokes
to an angle greater than 90 degrees:

http://www.dtswiss.com/index.asp?fuseaction=spokes.bikedetail&id=8

This will accommodate the inbound spokes without having to open the bend
at the elbows but not the outbound spokes, which must be bent more
acutely by the wheel builder.

 

[Ron Ruff]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> > Ron Ruff wrote:
> > > It also seems like it would be difficult to do a
> > > decent job of it. To me the WS butted spokes look like they are simply
> > > made with a shorter tapered region than DTs. The thin part isn't as
> > > smooth as the ends, but it doesn't look machined... just slightly lumpy
> > > down the length... but you have to look close to notice it.
> >
> > the d.t.'s or the wheelsmith? if the former [all my butted d.t.'s are
> > like this] that's because they're hammered.
>
> I only have WS spokes around at the moment... 2.0/1.7s. I'd say they
> look like they are hammered too, but the transition between between the
> two diameters is much more abrupt than the DTs I remember.

Update with photo:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9383/wsae15db14gm1.jpg

Any ideas on why the AE15 is so incredibly rough on the oval section?
Are they just skipping the polishing step?

 

[[email protected]]

On 24 Dec 2006 01:10:41 -0800, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> A quick look through the archives shows that various A's have
>> identified Alpina-ACI and Asahi (connected with Wheelsmith)
>
>If the spoke has a stamp on the end, at least they are claimed by
>*some* manufacturer...
>
>I'm curious about this butting process. Some have conjectured that
>Wheelsmith spokes are machined, though they claim they are forged. I'm
>using their spokes for about 10,000 miles now on a set of wheels, and
>none have broken, so I can't complain. Machining seems like a poor way
>to butt a spoke. It also seems like it would be difficult to do a
>decent job of it. To me the WS butted spokes look like they are simply
>made with a shorter tapered region than DTs. The thin part isn't as
>smooth as the ends, but it doesn't look machined... just slightly lumpy
>down the length... but you have to look close to notice it.
>
>Joseph... what do the "machine marks" look like?
>
>I'm also curious to hear what the store you bought it from has to say
>about all the breakages...

Dear Ron,

For what it's worth . . .

"In 1996, the square footage of the Wheelsmith Fabrications facility
was significantly increased to house the spoke manufacturing equipment
it purchased from its Japanese partner, Asahi Spoke Manufacturing
Company. After extensive training in Japan on the use,
trouble-shooting, maintenance and repair of this equipment, Wheelsmith
Fabrications, Inc. began its venture as the only U.S. owned and
operating bicycle spoke manufacturer."

http://www.wheelsmith.com/index_files/wsintroduction.htm

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On 24 Dec 2006 14:10:05 -0800, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Ron Ruff wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>> > Ron Ruff wrote:
>> > > It also seems like it would be difficult to do a
>> > > decent job of it. To me the WS butted spokes look like they are simply
>> > > made with a shorter tapered region than DTs. The thin part isn't as
>> > > smooth as the ends, but it doesn't look machined... just slightly lumpy
>> > > down the length... but you have to look close to notice it.
>> >
>> > the d.t.'s or the wheelsmith? if the former [all my butted d.t.'s are
>> > like this] that's because they're hammered.
>>
>> I only have WS spokes around at the moment... 2.0/1.7s. I'd say they
>> look like they are hammered too, but the transition between between the
>> two diameters is much more abrupt than the DTs I remember.
>
>Update with photo:
>http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9383/wsae15db14gm1.jpg
>
>Any ideas on why the AE15 is so incredibly rough on the oval section?
>Are they just skipping the polishing step?

Dear Ron,

Nice picture--thanks for showing everyone what's being discussed.

I had no idea that there were spokes with a finish like that upper
spoke, but then I don't use ovals.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[jim beam]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>> It also seems like it would be difficult to do a
>>> decent job of it. To me the WS butted spokes look like they are simply
>>> made with a shorter tapered region than DTs. The thin part isn't as
>>> smooth as the ends, but it doesn't look machined... just slightly lumpy
>>> down the length... but you have to look close to notice it.
>> the d.t.'s or the wheelsmith? if the former [all my butted d.t.'s are
>> like this] that's because they're hammered.
>
> I only have WS spokes around at the moment... 2.0/1.7s. I'd say they
> look like they are hammered too, but the transition between between the
> two diameters is much more abrupt than the DTs I remember.
>
too abrupt a transition with a hammering process is not ideal - it wears
the hammering die comparatively quickly so is generally avoided since
dies cost so much.

 

[jim beam]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> Ron Ruff wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>> It also seems like it would be difficult to do a
>>>> decent job of it. To me the WS butted spokes look like they are simply
>>>> made with a shorter tapered region than DTs. The thin part isn't as
>>>> smooth as the ends, but it doesn't look machined... just slightly lumpy
>>>> down the length... but you have to look close to notice it.
>>> the d.t.'s or the wheelsmith? if the former [all my butted d.t.'s are
>>> like this] that's because they're hammered.
>> I only have WS spokes around at the moment... 2.0/1.7s. I'd say they
>> look like they are hammered too, but the transition between between the
>> two diameters is much more abrupt than the DTs I remember.
>
> Update with photo:
> http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9383/wsae15db14gm1.jpg
>
> Any ideas on why the AE15 is so incredibly rough on the oval section?
> Are they just skipping the polishing step?
>
somewhat! good question too. that looks almost like it's been
sandblasted to shape, not stamped or rolled. to be honest, i can't say
for sure what the fabrication route is without direct inspection. if it
was stamped, they sure have let the die deteriorate.

 

[Ron Ruff]

[email protected] wrote:
> I had no idea that there were spokes with a finish like that upper
> spoke, but then I don't use ovals.

jim beam wrote:
> somewhat! good question too. that looks almost like it's been
> sandblasted to shape, not stamped or rolled. to be honest, i can't say
> for sure what the fabrication route is without direct inspection. if it
> was stamped, they sure have let the die deteriorate.

It is strange... I used these spokes about 14 years ago and they were
smooth as I recall... but then they would have been made by Asahi. From
what I've been able to gather on this and other forums, this is pretty
common these days... even for the the $2+ DT and Sapim oval spokes. One
guy said that he polished them by hand after he got them! Anyway, they
work ok... I've never had one of those fail. In person they just look
like they have a matte finish. I wonder about their alleged aero
performance, though...

 

[jim beam]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> I had no idea that there were spokes with a finish like that upper
>> spoke, but then I don't use ovals.
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> somewhat! good question too. that looks almost like it's been
>> sandblasted to shape, not stamped or rolled. to be honest, i can't say
>> for sure what the fabrication route is without direct inspection. if it
>> was stamped, they sure have let the die deteriorate.
>
> It is strange... I used these spokes about 14 years ago and they were
> smooth as I recall... but then they would have been made by Asahi. From
> what I've been able to gather on this and other forums, this is pretty
> common these days... even for the the $2+ DT and Sapim oval spokes.

i have some of the sapims - they're not /that/ rough. they're clearly
stamped too.

> One
> guy said that he polished them by hand after he got them! Anyway, they
> work ok... I've never had one of those fail. In person they just look
> like they have a matte finish. I wonder about their alleged aero
> performance, though...

might one might idly speculate about surface finish and boundary flow
disruption? but i don't know about that stuff.

 

[Robert Lorenzini]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:32:10 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>> On 23 Dec 2006 12:02:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I did. Copper paste. The same stuff I use on my car lug bolts
>>
>> Aluminum and copper don't mix unless you want a battery.
>>
>> Bob
>
> what about 2000 series alloys?

"The alloys in the 2,000 series do not have as good corrosion resistance
as most other aluminum alloys and under certain conditions they may be
subject to intergranular corrosion. Therefore, these alloys in the form
of sheet are usually clad with a high-purity alloy or a magnesiumsilicon
alloy of the 6,000 series which provides galvanic protection to the core
material and thus greatly increases resistance to corrosion."

Aluminum and copper are at opposite ends on the galvanic scale. Just add
moisture.

Bob

 

[Ron Ruff]

jim beam wrote:
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> i have some of the sapims - they're not /that/ rough. they're clearly
> stamped too.

Do you mean that they have visible surface roughness as well? Could you
take a close up photo similar to the one I have to compare?

> might one might idly speculate about surface finish and boundary flow
> disruption? but i don't know about that stuff.

If you have Bicycling Science, there is a chart on page 185 showing the
effect of surface roughness on a round cylinder, comparing it to the
Re# regions that are typical on a bicycle. It looks like spokes are far
too small to receive any benefit from roughness... but it doesn't hurt
them either. They also show the drag for a 2/1 ratio elliptical
cylinder which is typical of a spoke... it looks the Cd is a little
more than half that of a cylinder, based on frontal area (hard to tell
on the log scale, though), and if you also consider that the frontal
area is smaller as well, the drag is easily less than half. Not sure if
it really helps, but that's why I like to use AE15s... and they cost
little more than a butted spoke anyway... same strength and weight as
1.8/1.55mm spokes.

 

[jim beam]

Robert Lorenzini wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:32:10 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>>> On 23 Dec 2006 12:02:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Actually I did. Copper paste. The same stuff I use on my car lug bolts
>>> Aluminum and copper don't mix unless you want a battery.
>>>
>>> Bob
>> what about 2000 series alloys?
>
> "The alloys in the 2,000 series do not have as good corrosion resistance
> as most other aluminum alloys and under certain conditions they may be
> subject to intergranular corrosion. Therefore, these alloys in the form
> of sheet are usually clad with a high-purity alloy or a magnesiumsilicon
> alloy of the 6,000 series which provides galvanic protection to the core
> material and thus greatly increases resistance to corrosion."
>
> Aluminum and copper are at opposite ends on the galvanic scale. Just add
> moisture.
>
> Bob

2000 series /contain/ copper, both as solid solution and intermetallic
precipitate. how does this affect electrode potential?

 

[jim beam]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>> i have some of the sapims - they're not /that/ rough. they're clearly
>> stamped too.
>
> Do you mean that they have visible surface roughness as well? Could you
> take a close up photo similar to the one I have to compare?

they're built and i'm having trouble getting a decent pic. their being
the black variety doesn't help either. i'll have to get back to you on
this one ron...

>
>> might one might idly speculate about surface finish and boundary flow
>> disruption? but i don't know about that stuff.
>
> If you have Bicycling Science, there is a chart on page 185 showing the
> effect of surface roughness on a round cylinder, comparing it to the
> Re# regions that are typical on a bicycle. It looks like spokes are far
> too small to receive any benefit from roughness... but it doesn't hurt
> them either. They also show the drag for a 2/1 ratio elliptical
> cylinder which is typical of a spoke... it looks the Cd is a little
> more than half that of a cylinder, based on frontal area (hard to tell
> on the log scale, though), and if you also consider that the frontal
> area is smaller as well, the drag is easily less than half. Not sure if
> it really helps, but that's why I like to use AE15s... and they cost
> little more than a butted spoke anyway... same strength and weight as
> 1.8/1.55mm spokes.
>

 

[Robert Lorenzini]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:11:00 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:32:10 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>>>> On 23 Dec 2006 12:02:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Actually I did. Copper paste. The same stuff I use on my car lug bolts
>>>> Aluminum and copper don't mix unless you want a battery.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>> what about 2000 series alloys?
>>
>> "The alloys in the 2,000 series do not have as good corrosion resistance
>> as most other aluminum alloys and under certain conditions they may be
>> subject to intergranular corrosion. Therefore, these alloys in the form
>> of sheet are usually clad with a high-purity alloy or a magnesiumsilicon
>> alloy of the 6,000 series which provides galvanic protection to the core
>> material and thus greatly increases resistance to corrosion."
>>
>> Aluminum and copper are at opposite ends on the galvanic scale. Just add
>> moisture.
>>
>> Bob
>
> 2000 series /contain/ copper, both as solid solution and intermetallic
> precipitate. how does this affect electrode potential?

Yes I am aware of that fact. I would speculate that it would be much
less but but 2000 series wants to self destroy as should be obvious
judging by it's composition.

Bob

 

[jim beam]

Robert Lorenzini wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:11:00 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:32:10 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Dec 2006 12:02:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Actually I did. Copper paste. The same stuff I use on my car lug bolts
>>>>> Aluminum and copper don't mix unless you want a battery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>> what about 2000 series alloys?
>>> "The alloys in the 2,000 series do not have as good corrosion resistance
>>> as most other aluminum alloys and under certain conditions they may be
>>> subject to intergranular corrosion. Therefore, these alloys in the form
>>> of sheet are usually clad with a high-purity alloy or a magnesiumsilicon
>>> alloy of the 6,000 series which provides galvanic protection to the core
>>> material and thus greatly increases resistance to corrosion."
>>>
>>> Aluminum and copper are at opposite ends on the galvanic scale. Just add
>>> moisture.
>>>
>>> Bob
>> 2000 series /contain/ copper, both as solid solution and intermetallic
>> precipitate. how does this affect electrode potential?
>
> Yes I am aware of that fact. I would speculate that it would be much
> less but but 2000 series wants to self destroy as should be obvious
> judging by it's composition.
>
> Bob

"as should be obvious judging by it's composition"???

ok, explain.

 

[Robert Lorenzini]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:13:54 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:11:00 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:32:10 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>>>>>> On 23 Dec 2006 12:02:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> Actually I did. Copper paste. The same stuff I use on my car lug bolts
>>>>>> Aluminum and copper don't mix unless you want a battery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>> what about 2000 series alloys?
>>>> "The alloys in the 2,000 series do not have as good corrosion resistance
>>>> as most other aluminum alloys and under certain conditions they may be
>>>> subject to intergranular corrosion. Therefore, these alloys in the form
>>>> of sheet are usually clad with a high-purity alloy or a magnesiumsilicon
>>>> alloy of the 6,000 series which provides galvanic protection to the core
>>>> material and thus greatly increases resistance to corrosion."
>>>>
>>>> Aluminum and copper are at opposite ends on the galvanic scale. Just add
>>>> moisture.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>> 2000 series /contain/ copper, both as solid solution and intermetallic
>>> precipitate. how does this affect electrode potential?
>>
>> Yes I am aware of that fact. I would speculate that it would be much
>> less but but 2000 series wants to self destroy as should be obvious
>> judging by it's composition.
>>
>> Bob
>
> "as should be obvious judging by it's composition"???
>
> ok, explain.

Please, it contains al & cu. There are just about as far apart on the
galvanic scale as possible and we are back to my original post. I have
the feeling I'm being baited. bye bye

Bob

 

[jim beam]

Robert Lorenzini wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:13:54 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:11:00 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:32:10 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Lorenzini wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23 Dec 2006 12:02:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> Actually I did. Copper paste. The same stuff I use on my car lug bolts
>>>>>>> Aluminum and copper don't mix unless you want a battery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>> what about 2000 series alloys?
>>>>> "The alloys in the 2,000 series do not have as good corrosion resistance
>>>>> as most other aluminum alloys and under certain conditions they may be
>>>>> subject to intergranular corrosion. Therefore, these alloys in the form
>>>>> of sheet are usually clad with a high-purity alloy or a magnesiumsilicon
>>>>> alloy of the 6,000 series which provides galvanic protection to the core
>>>>> material and thus greatly increases resistance to corrosion."
>>>>>
>>>>> Aluminum and copper are at opposite ends on the galvanic scale. Just add
>>>>> moisture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>> 2000 series /contain/ copper, both as solid solution and intermetallic
>>>> precipitate. how does this affect electrode potential?
>>> Yes I am aware of that fact. I would speculate that it would be much
>>> less but but 2000 series wants to self destroy as should be obvious
>>> judging by it's composition.
>>>
>>> Bob
>> "as should be obvious judging by it's composition"???
>>
>> ok, explain.
>
> Please, it contains al & cu. There are just about as far apart on the
> galvanic scale as possible and we are back to my original post. I have
> the feeling I'm being baited. bye bye
>
> Bob

i'm asking the question because i want to know if you have some
information i don't. please explain how you get galvanic corrosion in
this situation, especially if the alloy is a solid solution - get with
the details.