Radial or cross spokes for front wheels, etc ?

[rs]

It seems in road bikes that the higher end the bike is, the less spokes there
are on the wheels. Quality road bikes want the lightest wheels possible in
racing, so front wheels have radial spoking and 20 or 16 spokes. Low end town
and hybrid bikes have 36 spokes usually laced in cross patterns, but the high
end racing bike is probably ridden quite hard. Can quality radial and low
count spoked front wheels be used on city bikes? Or are the high end wheels
useable only because there's a team car with a quick replacement and/or a team
mechanic truing the wheels as necesary?

A related question concerning front wheels: given a specific spoke count, say
24, will the wheel be significantly stronger if cross-spoked rather then
radially spoked?

thanks to all, Rick

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

rs wrote:
> It seems in road bikes that the higher end the bike is, the less spokes there
> are on the wheels. Quality road bikes want the lightest wheels possible in
> racing, so front wheels have radial spoking and 20 or 16 spokes. Low end town
> and hybrid bikes have 36 spokes usually laced in cross patterns, but the high
> end racing bike is probably ridden quite hard. Can quality radial and low
> count spoked front wheels be used on city bikes? Or are the high end wheels
> useable only because there's a team car with a quick replacement and/or a team
> mechanic truing the wheels as necesary?

Why use a low spoke count wheel on a bicycle where reliability is one
of it's stronest points?
What quation are you trying to answer, what problem are you trying to
solve?

These wheels often times weigh as much as a typical front wheel with 32
or 36 spokes. The hubs are light, small bearings and have to have heavy
rims since they have so few spokes. Nothing gained in performance or
reliability. Bicycle 'design' run amok.


>
> A related question concerning front wheels: given a specific spoke count, say
> 24, will the wheel be significantly stronger if cross-spoked rather then
> radially spoked?

yes, of course. Cross spoking is done that way for a reason.


>
> thanks to all, Rick

 

[jim beam]

rs wrote:
> It seems in road bikes that the higher end the bike is, the less spokes there
> are on the wheels. Quality road bikes want the lightest wheels possible in
> racing, so front wheels have radial spoking and 20 or 16 spokes. Low end town
> and hybrid bikes have 36 spokes usually laced in cross patterns, but the high
> end racing bike is probably ridden quite hard. Can quality radial and low
> count spoked front wheels be used on city bikes? Or are the high end wheels
> useable only because there's a team car with a quick replacement and/or a team
> mechanic truing the wheels as necesary?

provided the wheel has not been monkeyed with by an incompetent, low
spoke count wheels stay true no problems. i weigh #205 and run both 16
and 24 spoke fronts no problems whatsoever. i commute in san francisco,
and if you've ever ridden there, you'll know how atrocious the roads
are, so again, low spoke count is no problem. the only advantage to
higher counts is in the event of breakage, but modern high quality
spokes are /very/ fatigue resistant, especially the straight pull
varieties [conventional spoke elbows are subject to fatigue load bending].

>
> A related question concerning front wheels: given a specific spoke count, say
> 24, will the wheel be significantly stronger if cross-spoked rather then
> radially spoked?

no. there is a theoretical advantage to crossed if there is torsion,
but in reality that's not an issue.

>
> thanks to all, Rick
>

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:00:28 -0600, [email protected] (rs)
wrote:

>Or are the high end wheels
>useable only because there's a team car with a quick replacement and/or a team
>mechanic truing the wheels as necesary?

Pretty much, yeah. They're also really expensive if you want the ones that
are any good, and the ones that are a mere twice as expensive or less as
conventional wheels aren't so much.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 06:15:21 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

>> A related question concerning front wheels: given a specific spoke count, say
>> 24, will the wheel be significantly stronger if cross-spoked rather then
>> radially spoked?
>
>no. there is a theoretical advantage to crossed if there is torsion,
>but in reality that's not an issue.

There's a not-so-theoretical advantage to tangential in the flange failure
modes, though.

Jasper

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

Jasper Janssen wrote:

> There's a not-so-theoretical advantage to tangential in the flange failure
> modes, though.

And this is the killer. Most hubs aren't designed or warranted for
radial spoking. To make a hub safe for radial spoking you may have to
build in sufficient extra metal that it negates the weight saving of a
radial wheel over a x3 wheel (two spokes).

They look cool though, and if you do have the right kind of hub, why not?

 

[daveornee]

Jasper Janssen wrote:

> There's a not-so-theoretical advantage to tangential in the flange failure
> modes, though.

And this is the killer. Most hubs aren't designed or warranted for
radial spoking. To make a hub safe for radial spoking you may have to
build in sufficient extra metal that it negates the weight saving of a
radial wheel over a x3 wheel (two spokes).

They look cool though, and if you do have the right kind of hub, why not?

Higher peak loads on spokes, hubs, rim hole interface area are all parts of the reason why radial spoking causes more peak stresses of the components of the wheel. However, if all the components are engineered and implemented to handle the stresses, you can do it without loosing.
Costs of special components and rim weights are often the reasons not to go this way.
One longer term cost that many seem not to realize is what happens when you have a spoke/rim/hub failure.
Is the wheel then practically a piece of junk? (due to cost and/or availability of parts and tools to handle replacement).
I think I finally came to a point of ageement with Peter C.
I am sure he will correct me on that if/when he finds reason(s) to.
And, as usual, despite the fact that I find Jim Beam's input interesting; I just can't agree with his perspective.

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
>> There's a not-so-theoretical advantage to tangential in the flange
>> failure modes, though.
>
> And this is the killer. Most hubs aren't designed or warranted for
> radial spoking. To make a hub safe for radial spoking you may have to
> build in sufficient extra metal that it negates the weight saving of a
> radial wheel over a x3 wheel (two spokes).
>
> They look cool though, and if you do have the right kind of hub, why
> not?

IME, they seem to rub in turns. I don't know if that's due to radial or low
spoke count or what, but it's annoying as hell. 32/3x for me on all my
bikes.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[daveornee]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
>> There's a not-so-theoretical advantage to tangential in the flange
>> failure modes, though.
>
> And this is the killer. Most hubs aren't designed or warranted for
> radial spoking. To make a hub safe for radial spoking you may have to
> build in sufficient extra metal that it negates the weight saving of a
> radial wheel over a x3 wheel (two spokes).
>
> They look cool though, and if you do have the right kind of hub, why
> not?

IME, they seem to rub in turns. I don't know if that's due to radial or low
spoke count or what, but it's annoying as hell. 32/3x for me on all my
bikes.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

It's the lower spoke count.
You can't get higher spoke support angle than radial spoking. Lateral stiffness goes down with decrease in spoke support angle.... if all other items are held constant.

 

[Ron Ruff]

daveornee wrote:
> Higher peak loads on spokes, hubs, rim hole interface area are all
> parts of the reason why radial spoking causes more peak stresses of the
> components of the wheel.

Why is that? I can't think of any reason for that to be so. The only
issue I'm aware of is that the load on the hub is in a direction that
is more likely to cause it to fail... but the magnitude of the loads
(and peak stresses everywhere else) should be the same... radial or 3x.

Spoke tension barely increases from the static case anyway (peak load=
static load), unless there are large side loads. The much more
pronounced effect is the *detensioning* of spokes at the bottom of the
wheel.

 

[daveornee]

daveornee wrote:
> Higher peak loads on spokes, hubs, rim hole interface area are all
> parts of the reason why radial spoking causes more peak stresses of the
> components of the wheel.

Why is that? I can't think of any reason for that to be so. The only
issue I'm aware of is that the load on the hub is in a direction that
is more likely to cause it to fail... but the magnitude of the loads
(and peak stresses everywhere else) should be the same... radial or 3x.

Spoke tension barely increases from the static case anyway (peak load=
static load), unless there are large side loads. The much more
pronounced effect is the *detensioning* of spokes at the bottom of the
wheel.

Sharing the load over spoke pairs is my answer which does not happen in radial spoking.

 

[Ted Bennett]

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> > A related question concerning front wheels: given a specific spoke count,
> > say
> > 24, will the wheel be significantly stronger if cross-spoked rather then
> > radially spoked?
>
> no. there is a theoretical advantage to crossed if there is torsion,
> but in reality that's not an issue.


Do you mean that it's not an issue because radially spoked wheels can
work satisfactorily, or because most radial wheels are rim-braked?

It's been my experience that radial spoking on front wheels works fine,
with a couple of notable exceptions due to failure of the hub's spoke
flange. It's a very different result if there is a braked (or driven,
in the case of a radial rear wheel) hub involved. Spoke failures in
short order, and more hub failures.

I'd be interested in exploring the physics involved. Torque is most
"efficiently[1]" transmitted if the force is applied normal to a radius,
like most wheels. A truly radially spoked wheel can transmit a small
amount of torque dependent on the available friction at the area of
contact between spoke and spoke hole, but in reality the hub turns in
relation to the rim, forcing the spokes to a slightly nonradial
arrangement that can generate more torque. Since the area of contact
has moved only a little, there is still a lot of the force nearly
radially outward on the hub, and it breaks off.

But why the broken spokes? It's safe to say that in crossed wheels most
broken spokes are the result of fatigue, which is a result of the
cyclical loading of a wheel in use. What's different with a radial
spoked wheel, except that no new bends are added when built, unlike a
cross-spoked and woven pattern?


[1] This word is misleading here, but I can't think of a better one at
the moment.

--
Ted Bennett

 

[[email protected]]

Dave Ornee writes:

>>> Higher peak loads on spokes, hubs, rim hole interface area are all
>>> parts of the reason why radial spoking causes more peak stresses
>>> of the components of the wheel.

>> Why is that? I can't think of any reason for that to be so. The
>> only issue I'm aware of is that the load on the hub is in a
>> direction that is more likely to cause it to fail... but the
>> magnitude of the loads (and peak stresses everywhere else) should
>> be the same... radial or 3x.

>> Spoke tension barely increases from the static case anyway (peak
>> load= static load), unless there are large side loads. The much
>> more pronounced effect is the *detensioning* of spokes at the
>> bottom of the wheel.

> Sharing the load over spoke pairs is my answer which does not happen
> in radial spoking.

How do you "share the load over spoke pairs" when they make minimal
contact and have no mechanical interlocking. Besides which, even if
locked together at crossings produce no measurable effects on wheel
rigidity in lateral, radial, or torsional loading.

If you could support your contention, this might lead to a new era of
tying and soldering pokes together are interlaced crossings. Let's
not make a great leap backward in wheel design. It's bad enough that
the Lovelace Patent of 1890 for paired-spoke wheels was exhumed by
Rolf Dietrich and promoted by Trek, after it had been laid to rest
more than 100 years ago.

Equipment fads on which huge sums are spent amaze me. I can't believe
that people are so fragile that they need to grasp at gossamer threads
to boost their bicycling egos. On the other hand it could be like
drivers of huge SUV's who don't so much believe in the superiority of
their vehicles as the image that sitting higher than their neighbors'
car roofs gives.

"My wheels are more expensive than yours" seems to be the subtext of
"these wheels make me faster than the ones I used to ride."

Jobst Brandt

 

[jim beam]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> daveornee wrote:
>
>>Higher peak loads on spokes, hubs, rim hole interface area are all
>>parts of the reason why radial spoking causes more peak stresses of the
>>components of the wheel.
>
>
> Why is that? I can't think of any reason for that to be so. The only
> issue I'm aware of is that the load on the hub is in a direction that
> is more likely to cause it to fail... but the magnitude of the loads
> (and peak stresses everywhere else) should be the same... radial or 3x.
>
> Spoke tension barely increases from the static case anyway (peak load=
> static load), unless there are large side loads. The much more
> pronounced effect is the *detensioning* of spokes at the bottom of the
> wheel.
>
wow, all you krayzee kids go off at wild tangents don't you?

1. the op specifically mentioned a 24 spoke wheel. that's not a
standard combo for the average hub/rim lurking at your lbs. therefore,
and in the context of the rest of the op's comment, we're looking at a
pre-built wheel, something like a mavic cosmos. in that instance, since
the hub was built for radial spoking, radial spoking is not a problem.

2. radial spoking on a standard hub /is/ frequently an issue - not
because of stress magnitude but because of individual spoke stress
orientation.

3. specifically addressing your point ron, spoke tension in lateral
loading can increase significantly. do a ping test some time. to keep
the loading strictly radial requires a wheel to never get honked up a
hill, be mounted in a perfectly stiff frame, have a rider that always
sits/stands perfectly axial to the frame, that never bunny hops and
lands with the front slightly askew, etc. it may be convenient to
assume radial loading for some calculations, but it's not the whole
story of spoke loading in service.

 

[[email protected]]

Jim Crow (oops, I meant Old Crow) writes:

>>> Higher peak loads on spokes, hubs, rim hole interface area are all
>>> parts of the reason why radial spoking causes more peak stresses
>>> of the components of the wheel.

>> Why is that? I can't think of any reason for that to be so. The
>> only issue I'm aware of is that the load on the hub is in a
>> direction that is more likely to cause it to fail... but the
>> magnitude of the loads (and peak stresses everywhere else) should
>> be the same... radial or 3x.

>> Spoke tension barely increases from the static case anyway (peak
>> load= static load), unless there are large side loads. The much
>> more pronounced effect is the *detensioning* of spokes at the
>> bottom of the wheel.

> wow, all you krayzee kids go off at wild tangents don't you?

> 1. the op specifically mentioned a 24 spoke wheel. that's not a
> standard combo for the average hub/rim lurking at your lbs.
> therefore, and in the context of the rest of the op's comment, we're
> looking at a pre-built wheel, something like a mavic cosmos. in
> that instance, since the hub was built for radial spoking, radial
> spoking is not a problem.

> 2. radial spoking on a standard hub /is/ frequently an issue - not
> because of stress magnitude but because of individual spoke stress
> orientation.

> 3. specifically addressing your point ron, spoke tension in lateral
> loading can increase significantly. do a ping test some time. to
> keep the loading strictly radial requires a wheel to never get
> honked up a hill, be mounted in a perfectly stiff frame, have a
> rider that always sits/stands perfectly axial to the frame, that
> never bunny hops and lands with the front slightly askew, etc. it
> may be convenient to assume radial loading for some calculations,
> but it's not the whole story of spoke loading in service.

I think you ought to try that before guestimating that this occurs.
With the bicycle leaning at a typical climbing angle, where one front
wheel flange moves laterally to about vertically over rim center,
you'll find no significant increase in tension of the spokes you seem
to visualize getting tighter. What you will find is that the bottom
spokes on the high side of the lean are slacker than they would be
when the bicycle is vertical under the same conditions. Besides, it's
the rear wheel that is generally the one that takes more stress and
spoke failure so there is where you ought to look for these "lateral
loading can increase significantly" signs.

This has been one of your subjects for a while now and it should be
put to rest. Do some measuring. That is, have someone pluck spokes
while you stand on the bicycle while leaning it one way or the other.
It should be obvious that the large loss in tension from radial load
is not countered entirely by lean angle loads of the magnitude in
question. As I said before, if you lean absurdly far out it is
obvious that you can get increases but these do not occur on a regular
basis, the basis for fatigue failures.

Jobst Brandt

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jim Crow (oops, I meant Old Crow) writes:
>
>
>>>>Higher peak loads on spokes, hubs, rim hole interface area are all
>>>>parts of the reason why radial spoking causes more peak stresses
>>>>of the components of the wheel.
>
>
>>>Why is that? I can't think of any reason for that to be so. The
>>>only issue I'm aware of is that the load on the hub is in a
>>>direction that is more likely to cause it to fail... but the
>>>magnitude of the loads (and peak stresses everywhere else) should
>>>be the same... radial or 3x.
>
>
>>>Spoke tension barely increases from the static case anyway (peak
>>>load= static load), unless there are large side loads. The much
>>>more pronounced effect is the *detensioning* of spokes at the
>>>bottom of the wheel.
>
>
>>wow, all you krayzee kids go off at wild tangents don't you?
>
>
>>1. the op specifically mentioned a 24 spoke wheel. that's not a
>>standard combo for the average hub/rim lurking at your lbs.
>>therefore, and in the context of the rest of the op's comment, we're
>>looking at a pre-built wheel, something like a mavic cosmos. in
>>that instance, since the hub was built for radial spoking, radial
>>spoking is not a problem.
>
>
>>2. radial spoking on a standard hub /is/ frequently an issue - not
>>because of stress magnitude but because of individual spoke stress
>>orientation.
>
>
>>3. specifically addressing your point ron, spoke tension in lateral
>>loading can increase significantly. do a ping test some time. to
>>keep the loading strictly radial requires a wheel to never get
>>honked up a hill, be mounted in a perfectly stiff frame, have a
>>rider that always sits/stands perfectly axial to the frame, that
>>never bunny hops and lands with the front slightly askew, etc. it
>>may be convenient to assume radial loading for some calculations,
>>but it's not the whole story of spoke loading in service.
>
>
> I think you ought to try that before guestimating that this occurs.
> With the bicycle leaning at a typical climbing angle, where one front
> wheel flange moves laterally to about vertically over rim center,
> you'll find no significant increase in tension of the spokes you seem
> to visualize getting tighter. What you will find is that the bottom
> spokes on the high side of the lean are slacker than they would be
> when the bicycle is vertical under the same conditions. Besides, it's
> the rear wheel that is generally the one that takes more stress and
> spoke failure so there is where you ought to look for these "lateral
> loading can increase significantly" signs.
>
> This has been one of your subjects for a while now and it should be
> put to rest. Do some measuring. That is, have someone pluck spokes
> while you stand on the bicycle while leaning it one way or the other.
> It should be obvious that the large loss in tension from radial load
> is not countered entirely by lean angle loads of the magnitude in
> question. As I said before, if you lean absurdly far out it is
> obvious that you can get increases but these do not occur on a regular
> basis, the basis for fatigue failures.

there are no hills in palo alto are there? oh, wait, maybe there are.
in that case, every time you climb a hill jobst, you'll generating lean
angles somewhat in excess of rim center over flange [especially for a
dished rear with a flange offset of only 18mm like campy]. unless of
course you want to deny that just for the sheer bloody minded "sport" of
disagreement.

>
> Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Jim Crow (oops, I meant Old Crow) writes:

>>>>> Higher peak loads on spokes, hubs, rim hole interface area are all
>>>>> parts of the reason why radial spoking causes more peak stresses
>>>>> of the components of the wheel.

>>>> Why is that? I can't think of any reason for that to be so. The
>>>> only issue I'm aware of is that the load on the hub is in a
>>>> direction that is more likely to cause it to fail... but the
>>>> magnitude of the loads (and peak stresses everywhere else) should
>>>> be the same... radial or 3x.


>>>> Spoke tension barely increases from the static case anyway (peak
>>>> load= static load), unless there are large side loads. The much
>>>> more pronounced effect is the *detensioning* of spokes at the
>>>> bottom of the wheel.

>>> wow, all you krayzee kids go off at wild tangents don't you?

>>> 1. the op specifically mentioned a 24 spoke wheel. that's not a
>>> standard combo for the average hub/rim lurking at your lbs.
>>> therefore, and in the context of the rest of the op's comment,
>>> we're looking at a pre-built wheel, something like a mavic cosmos.
>>> in that instance, since the hub was built for radial spoking,
>>> radial spoking is not a problem.

>>> 2. radial spoking on a standard hub /is/ frequently an issue - not
>>> because of stress magnitude but because of individual spoke stress
>>> orientation.

>>> 3. specifically addressing your point ron, spoke tension in
>>> lateral loading can increase significantly. do a ping test some
>>> time. to keep the loading strictly radial requires a wheel to
>>> never get honked up a hill, be mounted in a perfectly stiff frame,
>>> have a rider that always sits/stands perfectly axial to the frame,
>>> that never bunny hops and lands with the front slightly askew,
>>> etc. it may be convenient to assume radial loading for some
>>> calculations, but it's not the whole story of spoke loading in
>>> service.

>> I think you ought to try that before guestimating that this occurs.
>> With the bicycle leaning at a typical climbing angle, where one
>> front wheel flange moves laterally to about vertically over rim
>> center, you'll find no significant increase in tension of the
>> spokes you seem to visualize getting tighter. What you will find
>> is that the bottom spokes on the high side of the lean are slacker
>> than they would be when the bicycle is vertical under the same
>> conditions. Besides, it's the rear wheel that is generally the one
>> that takes more stress and spoke failure so there is where you
>> ought to look for these "lateral loading can increase
>> significantly" signs.

>> This has been one of your subjects for a while now and it should be
>> put to rest. Do some measuring. That is, have someone pluck
>> spokes while you stand on the bicycle while leaning it one way or
>> the other. It should be obvious that the large loss in tension
>> from radial load is not countered entirely by lean angle loads of
>> the magnitude in question. As I said before, if you lean absurdly
>> far out it is obvious that you can get increases but these do not
>> occur on a regular basis, the basis for fatigue failures.

> there are no hills in palo alto are there? oh, wait, maybe there
> are. in that case, every time you climb a hill jobst, you'll
> generating lean angles somewhat in excess of rim center over flange
> [especially for a dished rear with a flange offset of only 18mm like
> campy]. unless of course you want to deny that just for the sheer
> bloody minded "sport" of disagreement.

Read the problem. I said the lean angle is about that of a rider with
one flange of the front hub over rim center. At that lean angle, you
will find no significant (if any) increase in tension of the rear
wheel on the low side and a slightly higher slackening on the high
side of the wheel. I see you haven't bothered to do this or you
wouldn't be so sure of your hypothesis. Besides, when climbing in the
standing position most of the weight is on the front wheel anyway, so
even less change occurs than if you do this statically just standing
on one pedal. Do it!

Jobst Brandt

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jim Crow (oops, I meant Old Crow) writes:
>
>
>>>>>>Higher peak loads on spokes, hubs, rim hole interface area are all
>>>>>>parts of the reason why radial spoking causes more peak stresses
>>>>>>of the components of the wheel.
>
>
>>>>>Why is that? I can't think of any reason for that to be so. The
>>>>>only issue I'm aware of is that the load on the hub is in a
>>>>>direction that is more likely to cause it to fail... but the
>>>>>magnitude of the loads (and peak stresses everywhere else) should
>>>>>be the same... radial or 3x.
>
>
>
>>>>>Spoke tension barely increases from the static case anyway (peak
>>>>>load= static load), unless there are large side loads. The much
>>>>>more pronounced effect is the *detensioning* of spokes at the
>>>>>bottom of the wheel.
>
>
>>>>wow, all you krayzee kids go off at wild tangents don't you?
>
>
>>>>1. the op specifically mentioned a 24 spoke wheel. that's not a
>>>>standard combo for the average hub/rim lurking at your lbs.
>>>>therefore, and in the context of the rest of the op's comment,
>>>>we're looking at a pre-built wheel, something like a mavic cosmos.
>>>>in that instance, since the hub was built for radial spoking,
>>>>radial spoking is not a problem.
>
>
>>>>2. radial spoking on a standard hub /is/ frequently an issue - not
>>>>because of stress magnitude but because of individual spoke stress
>>>>orientation.
>
>
>>>>3. specifically addressing your point ron, spoke tension in
>>>>lateral loading can increase significantly. do a ping test some
>>>>time. to keep the loading strictly radial requires a wheel to
>>>>never get honked up a hill, be mounted in a perfectly stiff frame,
>>>>have a rider that always sits/stands perfectly axial to the frame,
>>>>that never bunny hops and lands with the front slightly askew,
>>>>etc. it may be convenient to assume radial loading for some
>>>>calculations, but it's not the whole story of spoke loading in
>>>>service.
>
>
>>>I think you ought to try that before guestimating that this occurs.
>>>With the bicycle leaning at a typical climbing angle, where one
>>>front wheel flange moves laterally to about vertically over rim
>>>center, you'll find no significant increase in tension of the
>>>spokes you seem to visualize getting tighter. What you will find
>>>is that the bottom spokes on the high side of the lean are slacker
>>>than they would be when the bicycle is vertical under the same
>>>conditions. Besides, it's the rear wheel that is generally the one
>>>that takes more stress and spoke failure so there is where you
>>>ought to look for these "lateral loading can increase
>>>significantly" signs.
>
>
>>>This has been one of your subjects for a while now and it should be
>>>put to rest. Do some measuring. That is, have someone pluck
>>>spokes while you stand on the bicycle while leaning it one way or
>>>the other. It should be obvious that the large loss in tension
>>>from radial load is not countered entirely by lean angle loads of
>>>the magnitude in question. As I said before, if you lean absurdly
>>>far out it is obvious that you can get increases but these do not
>>>occur on a regular basis, the basis for fatigue failures.
>
>
>>there are no hills in palo alto are there? oh, wait, maybe there
>>are. in that case, every time you climb a hill jobst, you'll
>>generating lean angles somewhat in excess of rim center over flange
>>[especially for a dished rear with a flange offset of only 18mm like
>>campy]. unless of course you want to deny that just for the sheer
>>bloody minded "sport" of disagreement.
>
>
> Read the problem. I said the lean angle is about that of a rider with
> one flange of the front hub over rim center. At that lean angle, you
> will find no significant (if any) increase in tension of the rear
> wheel on the low side and a slightly higher slackening on the high
> side of the wheel. I see you haven't bothered to do this or you
> wouldn't be so sure of your hypothesis. Besides, when climbing in the
> standing position most of the weight is on the front wheel anyway, so
> even less change occurs than if you do this statically just standing
> on one pedal. Do it!
>
> Jobst Brandt

but jobst i have done it, tension /does/ increase, and the wheel leans
more than 18mm. is that "sporting" enough for you? or do you have some
other avoidance tangent you want to explore? denial doesn't work.

and btw, you never did comment on the non-collapsing wheel with no
tension and no bottom spokes on which to "stand"....

 

[[email protected]]

nospam example writes:

> but jobst i have done it, tension /does/ increase, and the wheel
> leans more than 18mm. is that "sporting" enough for you? or do you
> have some other avoidance tangent you want to explore? denial
> doesn't work.

I think these words befit your claim adequately. I have done the
tests. Besides, the front hub width is 70mm of which 1/2 is 35mm and
atan(35/334) is 6deg lean. Plucking spokes in the rear wheel at this
lean angle, even without much of your weight over the bars as one does
climbing, does not cause significant tension increase over the
unloaded state in either side of the rear wheel. You ought to try it!

> and btw, you never did comment on the non-collapsing wheel with no
> tension and no bottom spokes on which to "stand"....

How far did you ride that wheel? Actually it's not a wheel. It's a
partially disassembled wheel with missing parts so it can't have any
tension. You claim tension does not give a bicycle wheel strength so
I guess you like to believe that we also don't need spokes with
threads to tighten them. Why do all that tedious wrenching?

Jobst Brandt

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> nospam example writes:
>
>
>>but jobst i have done it, tension /does/ increase, and the wheel
>>leans more than 18mm. is that "sporting" enough for you? or do you
>>have some other avoidance tangent you want to explore? denial
>>doesn't work.
>
>
> I think these words befit your claim adequately. I have done the
> tests. Besides, the front hub width is 70mm of which 1/2 is 35mm and
> atan(35/334) is 6deg lean.

yes, and you don't lean the center line over 35mm? [6deg]. how about
18mm? [3deg].

> Plucking spokes in the rear wheel at this
> lean angle, even without much of your weight over the bars as one does
> climbing, does not cause significant tension increase over the
> unloaded state in either side of the rear wheel. You ought to try it!

how much more unambiguous do i have to be jobst? did you not read the
start of my paragraph?

>
>
>>and btw, you never did comment on the non-collapsing wheel with no
>>tension and no bottom spokes on which to "stand"....
>
>
> How far did you ride that wheel? Actually it's not a wheel.

bwaugh...

> It's a
> partially disassembled wheel with missing parts so it can't have any
> tension. You claim tension does not give a bicycle wheel strength

it doesn't. it keeps the spoke nipples tight enough to not unscrew.
and that's it. you want to prove tension means strength? go ahead, be
my guest. hint: calculation of load != calculation of strength.

> so
> I guess you like to believe that we also don't need spokes with
> threads to tighten them.

red herring.

> Why do all that tedious wrenching?

it's all for your edumacation jobst.

>
> Jobst Brandt