C
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:01:10 GMT, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>And in my experience, the few failures I've seen at the nipple end
>were clearly due to the spoke being stressed beyond the yield point of
>the threaded section; the failure was obviously caused by tension in
>excess of the spoke's load capacity. (I will note that I have yet to
>see a spoke break at that point without a spokejam being involved,
>also.)
[snip]
Dear Werehatrack,
I've never even had a spoke fail at the nipple-end, but the
1984-1985 Wheelsmith spoke testing at Stanford found that
about 10% of tensioned spokes cycled to destruction (8 out
of 76) broke at the nipple instead of the elbow:
http://www.duke.edu/~hpgavin/papers/HPGavin-Wheel-Paper.pdf
It would be interesting to find out if some change in the
manufacturing process has led to a greater reduction in the
nipple-end failures in the last twenty years, or if I've
just been lucky.
Carl Fogel
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>And in my experience, the few failures I've seen at the nipple end
>were clearly due to the spoke being stressed beyond the yield point of
>the threaded section; the failure was obviously caused by tension in
>excess of the spoke's load capacity. (I will note that I have yet to
>see a spoke break at that point without a spokejam being involved,
>also.)
[snip]
Dear Werehatrack,
I've never even had a spoke fail at the nipple-end, but the
1984-1985 Wheelsmith spoke testing at Stanford found that
about 10% of tensioned spokes cycled to destruction (8 out
of 76) broke at the nipple instead of the elbow:
http://www.duke.edu/~hpgavin/papers/HPGavin-Wheel-Paper.pdf
It would be interesting to find out if some change in the
manufacturing process has led to a greater reduction in the
nipple-end failures in the last twenty years, or if I've
just been lucky.
Carl Fogel