Spoke Question (butted vs. straight gauge)

[Mike S.]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Peter Chisholm writes:
>
> >>> Is tying and soldering really worth the effort?
>
> >> Yes, it certainly is. It improves the quality of the wheel. It extends its life expectancy
> >> without influencing the spoke pre-tension.
>
> >>> And so I ask: what (if anything) is wrong with this argument?
>
> > Nope, When using aluminum rims and then the wheel is ridden, the aluminum rim WILL become
> > deformed somehow. When it does, it changes the tension, has to. By tying and soldering, it helps
> > to reduce spoke at the flange movement of a too loose spoke(due to the deformed rim),
> > particularly on left side rear, making a broken spoke there much less likely.
>
> I think you would be more credible if you showed some evidence for this contention and explain
> what happens if the same wheel is used without this treatment. Repeating this claim may let it
> live a while longer but it does not hold up to any analysis. How do you explain that wheels that
> are not tied and soldered (most wheels) survive all manner of loading without problems? I am
> curious about what you think of measurements made on the same wheels before and after tying and
> soldering that show no measurable change in rigidity to side loads and rear wheel torque.
>
> > Of course Jobst will slam me for this, but, so what else is new???
>
> That is not a good defense of your hypothesis and it does not deter me from presenting the facts
> as they were measured. I'm not sure what you mean by "slam."
>
> > I choose to believe Gerd on this... who has built more wheels than Jobst and me put together...
>
> I know a man who has poured more cubic yards of concrete into prestressed concrete structures
> than you and I, but he does not understand the stresses in these structures. From what you say, I
> detect an anti-intellectual tone, a complaint that was broadly heard when "the Bicycle Wheel"
> came off the press, especially the one of: "Hey! Who's built more wheels, me or this guy from the
> ivory tower?"

I'm not an anti-intellectualist, but some of the stuff that engineers try and pass off directly
flies in the face of personal experience. eg: frame materials all riding alike because they have the
same stiffness factors, aero wheels not being faster than "normal" wheels, its not the frame, its
the wheels, dummy, etc.

I have no experience whether tied and soldered wheels are indeed stronger/safer/etc. now, but they
probably were at some point, otherwise why bother? Is there a need to tie and solder wheels now?
Probably not, but it shows that someone really cares about what they're doing to spend the time and
effort to do it right.

When engineers scratched their heads and said that bumblebees can't fly, it just proved that
sometimes, the guys who have actually done the job know much, much more than those engineers in the
ivory towers. Your statistical sample of a few wheels, under your riding conditions: weight,
ability, etc. is woefully inadequate when compared to the professional mechanic that has built
wheels for thousands of customers.

So, while I'm not an anti-intellectualist, I reserve the right to think for myself. If what the
intellectualist flies in the face of personal observation, I'm going to go with what I've actually
seen, felt, experienced rather than believe everything blindly.

So, that's my $0.02, next?

Mike

>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Alexey Merz writes:

>> Your question reminds me of the olden days.

> I was surprised to see the endorsement of tying and soldering on the DT website, given what I've
> seen here over the years. I had assumed that they of all manufacturers would understand the
> properties of spokes and wheels. Is it possible that DT have information (e.g., on wheel/spoke
> failure rates) that you do not?

I don't know what other information that might be, considering the extent to which I studied the
problems. There is no point in keeping it secret so if there is any we should have heard about
it by now.

> In other words, are you saying that DT's web materials simply are not vetted by engineers, or are
> you saying that their engineers don't agree with you?

I don't know the origin of this citation but with Gerd Schraner espousing tied and solder, what else
should the publisher do than endorse it. His book was written at their behest.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Tim McTeague]

I am sooo tired of this old canard. Urban myth I say. Exactly who are these engineers? This saying
comes up when people don't like the facts.

Tim

>
> When engineers scratched their heads and said that bumblebees can't fly,
it
> just proved that sometimes, the guys who have actually done the job know much, much more than
> those engineers in the ivory towers.
>
> Mike

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Mike Shaw writes:

>>>>> Is tying and soldering really worth the effort?

>>>> Yes, it certainly is. It improves the quality of the wheel. It extends its life expectancy
>>>> without influencing the spoke pre-tension.

>>>>> And so I ask: what (if anything) is wrong with this argument?

>>> Nope, When using aluminum rims and then the wheel is ridden, the aluminum rim WILL become
>>> deformed somehow. When it does, it changes the tension, has to. By tying and soldering, it helps
>>> to reduce spoke at the flange movement of a too loose spoke(due to the deformed rim),
>>> particularly on left side rear, making a broken spoke there much less likely.

>> I think you would be more credible if you showed some evidence for this contention and explain
>> what happens if the same wheel is used without this treatment. Repeating this claim may let it
>> live a while longer but it does not hold up to any analysis. How do you explain that wheels that
>> are not tied and soldered (most wheels) survive all manner of loading without problems? I am
>> curious about what you think of measurements made on the same wheels before and after tying and
>> soldering that show no measurable change in rigidity to side loads and rear wheel torque.

So Mike, what do you find unbelievable about this statement and why would you prefer to believe the
one to which it responds. That is what you seem to be saying.

>>> Of course Jobst will slam me for this, but, so what else is new???

>> That is not a good defense of your hypothesis and it does not deter me from presenting the facts
>> as they were measured. I'm not sure what you mean by "slam."

>>> I choose to believe Gerd on this... who has built more wheels than Jobst and me put together...

>> I know a man who has poured more cubic yards of concrete into prestressed concrete structures
>> than you and I, but he does not understand the stresses in these structures. From what you say, I
>> detect an anti-intellectual tone, a complaint that was broadly heard when "the Bicycle Wheel"
>> came off the press, especially the one of: "Hey! Who's built more wheels, me or this guy from the
>> ivory tower?"

> I'm not an anti-intellectualist, but some of the stuff that engineers try and pass off directly
> flies in the face of personal experience. eg: frame materials all riding alike because they have
> the same stiffness factors, aero wheels not being faster than "normal" wheels, its not the frame,
> its the wheels, dummy, etc.

Let's not get into platitudes. What precisely do you find should be otherwise in this thread? I
responded to an unsupported claim that ignores that the subject has been studied and measured. You
chime in with you doubt what engineers report. I suggest you not drive a car or fly in an aircraft,
these things being designed by engineers, many of whom have never flown an airplane or driven a race
car (such as I who designed a large part of an F1 car that won a Grand Prix.)

> I have no experience whether tied and soldered wheels are indeed stronger/safer/etc. now, but they
> probably were at some point, otherwise why bother? Is there a need to tie and solder wheels now?
> Probably not, but it shows that someone really cares about what they're doing to spend the time
> and effort to do it right.

So why are you complaining... or are you complaining? What is doing it right in your estimation? I
suspect you haven't seen "the Bicycle Wheel" or you wouldn't say that most likely. Wheel builders
who speak out most adamantly against the book have not read it.

> When engineers scratched their heads and said that bumblebees can't fly, it just proved that
> sometimes, the guys who have actually done the job know much, much more than those engineers in
> the ivory towers.

I guess we'll have to hear that old saw, a typical mainstay of anti-intellectuals, for another
century or so. That's such a weak crutch you should be embarrassed to repeat it. You probably
believe that someone actually said that. In fact it was uttered in conjunction with a superficial
flight analysis of that was out of scale and not serious, the engineer knowing full well that such
insects can fly.

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/3_29_97/mathland.htm

> Your statistical sample of a few wheels, under your riding conditions: weight, ability, etc. is
> woefully inadequate when compared to the professional mechanic that has built wheels for thousands
> of customers.

I am not citing a statistical sample. You sound like a bumblebee-ist looking for an equation.

> So, while I'm not an anti-intellectualist, I reserve the right to think for myself. If what the
> intellectualist flies in the face of personal observation, I'm going to go with what I've actually
> seen, felt, experienced rather than believe everything blindly.

The implication is that engineers are blind and lacking practical experience while mechanics are
savant and perceptive.

> So, that's my $0.02, next?

You don't get any change for such a negative contribution. Go to school.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[S. Anderson]

Oh brother..You should read Dr. Feynman's Cargo Cult Science..you've got the bamboo headphones on
but the plane just isn't landing!! And you just can't figure out why... There is no shame in
ignorance on its own, but to dismiss the concept of scientific method is shameful.

Scott..
--
Scott Anderson

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:Y%[email protected]...
>
>
> When engineers scratched their heads and said that bumblebees can't fly,
it
> just proved that sometimes, the guys who have actually done the job know much, much more than
> those engineers in the ivory towers. Your
statistical
> sample of a few wheels, under your riding conditions: weight, ability,
etc.
> is woefully inadequate when compared to the professional mechanic that has built wheels for
> thousands of customers.
>
> Mike

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <Y%[email protected]>, "Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> I have no experience whether tied and soldered wheels are indeed stronger/safer/etc. now, but they
> probably were at some point, otherwise why bother? Is there a need to tie and solder wheels now?
> Probably not, but it shows that someone really cares about what they're doing to spend the time
> and effort to do it right.

Er, no. It shows that they subscribe to useless myth and lore. If they've subscribed that that
particular bit of useless myth and lore, what else have the done wrong in building your wheels?

 

[Mike S.]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mike Shaw writes:
>
> >>>>> Is tying and soldering really worth the effort?
>
> >>>> Yes, it certainly is. It improves the quality of the wheel. It extends its life expectancy
> >>>> without influencing the spoke pre-tension.
>
> >>>>> And so I ask: what (if anything) is wrong with this argument?
>
> >>> Nope, When using aluminum rims and then the wheel is ridden, the aluminum rim WILL become
> >>> deformed somehow. When it does, it changes the tension, has to. By tying and soldering, it
> >>> helps to reduce spoke at the flange movement of a too loose spoke(due to the deformed rim),
> >>> particularly on left side rear, making a broken spoke there much less likely.
>
> >> I think you would be more credible if you showed some evidence for this contention and explain
> >> what happens if the same wheel is used without this treatment. Repeating this claim may let it
> >> live a while longer but it does not hold up to any analysis. How do you explain that wheels
> >> that are not tied and soldered (most wheels) survive all manner of loading without problems? I
> >> am curious about what you think of measurements made on the same wheels before and after tying
> >> and soldering that show no measurable change in rigidity to side loads and rear wheel torque.
>
> So Mike, what do you find unbelievable about this statement and why would you prefer to believe
> the one to which it responds. That is what you seem to be saying.
>

I don't find the statement unbelievable, I just don't have enough empirical evidence of my own to
prove or disprove that tying and soldering is good or bad. My contention is that the "engineers"
that live in labs, and do studies without real world experience come to some conclusions that may be
patently not true when put to actual use.

Getting back to the concrete guy. Granted he may not know a lot about the specific loads that go
into the making of whatever he's pouring, but I'd bet with the experience that comes from pouring a
lot of concrete, that he can tell you whether you're using enough, the right shape, etc. or not. If
you do something over and over and over... you see similar things happening over and over and over.
You get to recognize when something will or will not work based on past experience.

I say again: I reserve the right to think for myself. We may have to agree to disagree certain
things. Once proven to my satisfaction, and if whatever we're talking about fits with reality, we
may come to the same viewpoints.

Mike


> >>> Of course Jobst will slam me for this, but, so what else is new???
>
> >> That is not a good defense of your hypothesis and it does not deter me from presenting the
> >> facts as they were measured. I'm not sure what you mean by "slam."
>
> >>> I choose to believe Gerd on this... who has built more wheels than Jobst and me put
> >>> together...
>
> >> I know a man who has poured more cubic yards of concrete into prestressed concrete structures
> >> than you and I, but he does not understand the stresses in these structures. From what you say,
> >> I detect an anti-intellectual tone, a complaint that was broadly heard when "the Bicycle Wheel"
> >> came off the press, especially the one of: "Hey! Who's built more wheels, me or this guy from
> >> the ivory tower?"
>
> > I'm not an anti-intellectualist, but some of the stuff that engineers try and pass off directly
> > flies in the face of personal experience. eg: frame materials all riding alike because they have
> > the same stiffness factors, aero wheels not being faster than "normal" wheels, its not the
> > frame, its the wheels, dummy, etc.
>
> Let's not get into platitudes. What precisely do you find should be otherwise in this thread? I
> responded to an unsupported claim that ignores that the subject has been studied and measured. You
> chime in with you doubt what engineers report. I suggest you not drive a car or fly in an
> aircraft, these things being designed by engineers, many of whom have never flown an airplane or
> driven a race car (such as I who designed a large part of an F1 car that won a Grand Prix.)
>
> > I have no experience whether tied and soldered wheels are indeed stronger/safer/etc. now, but
> > they probably were at some point, otherwise why bother? Is there a need to tie and solder wheels
> > now? Probably not, but it shows that someone really cares about what they're doing to spend the
> > time and effort to do it right.
>
> So why are you complaining... or are you complaining? What is doing it right in your estimation? I
> suspect you haven't seen "the Bicycle Wheel" or you wouldn't say that most likely. Wheel builders
> who speak out most adamantly against the book have not read it.
>
> > When engineers scratched their heads and said that bumblebees can't fly, it just proved that
> > sometimes, the guys who have actually done the job know much, much more than those engineers in
> > the ivory towers.
>
> I guess we'll have to hear that old saw, a typical mainstay of anti-intellectuals, for another
> century or so. That's such a weak crutch you should be embarrassed to repeat it. You probably
> believe that someone actually said that. In fact it was uttered in conjunction with a superficial
> flight analysis of that was out of scale and not serious, the engineer knowing full well that such
> insects can fly.
>
> http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/3_29_97/mathland.htm
>
> > Your statistical sample of a few wheels, under your riding conditions: weight, ability, etc. is
> > woefully inadequate when compared to the professional mechanic that has built wheels for
> > thousands of customers.
>
> I am not citing a statistical sample. You sound like a bumblebee-ist looking for an equation.
>
> > So, while I'm not an anti-intellectualist, I reserve the right to think for myself. If what the
> > intellectualist flies in the face of personal observation, I'm going to go with what I've
> > actually seen, felt, experienced rather than believe everything blindly.
>
> The implication is that engineers are blind and lacking practical experience while mechanics are
> savant and perceptive.
>
> > So, that's my $0.02, next?
>
> You don't get any change for such a negative contribution. Go to school.
>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Mike S.]

"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <Y%[email protected]>, "Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
> > I have no experience whether tied and soldered wheels are indeed stronger/safer/etc. now, but
> > they probably were at some point, otherwise why bother? Is there a need to tie and solder wheels
> > now? Probably not, but it shows that someone really cares about what they're doing to spend the
> > time and effort to do it right.
>
> Er, no. It shows that they subscribe to useless myth and lore. If they've subscribed that that
> particular bit of useless myth and lore, what else have the done wrong in building your wheels?

Don't know, I build my own, thanks. and no, I don't tie and solder.

Mike

 

[lisated]

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> > I understand, this book was the basic step which transformed wheel
> building
> > from a little understood art into a well understood science.
> >
> > I have a copy which you can read.
> >
>
> Read it. Agree with some of it, don't agree with other parts. Don't ask which, its been awhile
> since I've read "the Book." Even though I haven't been posting in this thread, I've been
> "lurking" in it, getting more and more fed up with people blindly accepting whatever the
> engineers spout off with.
>
> I can accept that butted spokes make a more durable wheel by flexing slightly more every rotation,
> I can accept that tying and soldering isn't necessary anymore with the leaps forward in
> metallurgy, bikes, but there are things that haven't been explained to my satisfaction regarding
> some of the rest of the stuff we're discussing.
>
> Basically: Prove it beyond reasonable doubt, and I'll be one of the converted. Till then,
> prove it.
>
> Mike

The book proves it. Direct measurements of wheel deflection with or without tying and soldering.
What other parts don't you agree with?

I'm not an engineer, but I detect some ill will on your part against engineers. In the case of the
book we're talking about, the arguments are clearly and logically laid out. I don't see anything
wrong there, so I wouldn't care if it written by an engineer or a train driver. (Although Jobst does
like trains. . .)

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>, "Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> I don't find the statement unbelievable, I just don't have enough empirical evidence of my own to
> prove or disprove that tying and soldering is good or bad. My contention is that the "engineers"
> that live in labs, and do studies without real world experience come to some conclusions that may
> be patently not true when put to actual use.

ROTFL! Apparently you didn't notice "my wheels have hubs and spokes with more than 200,000 miles on
them" (not to mention the spare pair). How much more "real world experience" does an engineer need
than a quarter-million miles and about 35 trips to the Alps on his bike, not to mention countless
epic rides in the Sierras? Or did you have some other "real world" experience in mind?

While I'm at it, just because it's fun... _The Bicycle Wheel_, Avocet road tires, a spoke
tensiometer, the Avocet bike computer altimeter function, Porsche suspension design, Formula One
race cars- just a few things Jobst has been involved in as an engineer.

> Getting back to the concrete guy. Granted he may not know a lot about the specific loads that go
> into the making of whatever he's pouring, but I'd bet with the experience that comes from pouring
> a lot of concrete, that he can tell you whether you're using enough, the right shape, etc. or not.
> If you do something over and over and over... you see similar things happening over and over and
> over. You get to recognize when something will or will not work based on past experience.

Nice theory but as you say, let's see the proof. Which bridge would you rather drive over 20 years
after it was constructed- one whose building was directed by the guy who pours concrete into a mold?
Or one in which an engineer who actually understands prestressed concrete structures did the design
and supervised the construction?

> I say again: I reserve the right to think for myself. We may have to agree to disagree certain
> things. Once proven to my satisfaction, and if whatever we're talking about fits with reality, we
> may come to the same viewpoints.

I'd say that sums up your viewpoint quite nicely.

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Mike Shaw writes:

>>> Yes, it certainly is. It improves the quality of the wheel. It extends its life expectancy
>>> without influencing the spoke pre-tension.

>>>> And so I ask: what (if anything) is wrong with this argument?

>>> Nope, When using aluminum rims and then the wheel is ridden, the aluminum rim WILL become
>>> deformed somehow. When it does, it changes the tension, has to. By tying and soldering, it helps
>>> to reduce spoke at the flange movement of a too loose spoke(due to the deformed rim),
>>> particularly on left side rear, making a broken spoke there much less likely.

>> I think you would be more credible if you showed some evidence for this contention and explain
>> what happens if the same wheel is used without this treatment. Repeating this claim may let it
>> live a while longer but it does not hold up to any analysis. How do you explain that wheels that
>> are not tied and soldered (most wheels) survive all manner of loading without problems? I am
>> curious about what you think of measurements made on the same wheels before and after tying and
>> soldering that show no measurable change in rigidity to side loads and rear wheel torque.

>> So Mike, what do you find unbelievable about this statement and why would you prefer to believe
>> the one to which it responds. That is what you seem to be saying.

> I don't find the statement unbelievable, I just don't have enough empirical evidence of my own to
> prove or disprove that tying and soldering is good or bad. My contention is that the "engineers"
> that live in labs, and do studies without real world experience come to some conclusions that may
> be patently not true when put to actual use.

What engineers are you referring to? You seem to have an idée fixe about engineering. The kind of
person you are describing is an irresponsible dilettante. By what you say, I take it my book and the
scientific explanations with measurements and self verifying experiments I cite fall into that
category. If that is not the case, why do you doubt information, published and peer reviewed, in
"the Bicycle Wheel"? You do as if you are unaware how insulting your characterizations are.

> Getting back to the concrete guy. Granted he may not know a lot about the specific loads that go
> into the making of whatever he's pouring, but I'd bet with the experience that comes from pouring
> a lot of concrete, that he can tell you whether you're using enough, the right shape, etc. or not.
> If you do something over and over and over... you see similar things happening over and over and
> over. You get to recognize when something will or will not work based on past experience.

Pleas explain how any of that makes any sense. You can pour concrete from no until retirement and
not have the foggiest notion of how prestressed structures work. I chose that example because wheels
had been built for more than 100 years without the wheel builders having any idea how the wheel
supports a load. That was apparent when I wrote "the Bicycle Wheel" and wheel builders were as sure
as you that I had it all wrong.

> I say again: I reserve the right to think for myself. We may have to agree to disagree certain
> things. Once proven to my satisfaction, and if whatever we're talking about fits with reality, we
> may come to the same viewpoints.

It is interesting to hear someone like you at this time when we have lived through more than a year
without the semiannual attack on how wrong the analysis of the bicycle wheel in the book is. You are
keeping the flat earth type of argumentation alive.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Sdb]

IMHO, the wheel builder/concrete pourer analogy is not a fair one. The wheel builder most likely
sees a lot of failures and learns from them (using statistics, someone without knowledge of wheel
mechanics can learn that certain features of a setup can increase the risk of a certain type of
failure, for example). The concrete pourer rarely sees a failure in his work.

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Peter Chisholm writes:
>
> >>> Is tying and soldering really worth the effort?
>
> >> Yes, it certainly is. It improves the quality of the wheel. It extends its life expectancy
> >> without influencing the spoke pre-tension.
>
> >>> And so I ask: what (if anything) is wrong with this argument?
>
> > Nope, When using aluminum rims and then the wheel is ridden, the aluminum rim WILL become
> > deformed somehow. When it does, it changes the tension, has to. By tying and soldering, it helps
> > to reduce spoke at the flange movement of a too loose spoke(due to the deformed rim),
> > particularly on left side rear, making a broken spoke there much less likely.
>
> I think you would be more credible if you showed some evidence for this contention and explain
> what happens if the same wheel is used without this treatment. Repeating this claim may let it
> live a while longer but it does not hold up to any analysis. How do you explain that wheels that
> are not tied and soldered (most wheels) survive all manner of loading without problems? I am
> curious about what you think of measurements made on the same wheels before and after tying and
> soldering that show no measurable change in rigidity to side loads and rear wheel torque.
>
> > Of course Jobst will slam me for this, but, so what else is new???
>
> That is not a good defense of your hypothesis and it does not deter me from presenting the facts
> as they were measured. I'm not sure what you mean by "slam."
>
> > I choose to believe Gerd on this... who has built more wheels than Jobst and me put together...
>
> I know a man who has poured more cubic yards of concrete into prestressed concrete structures
> than you and I, but he does not understand the stresses in these structures. From what you say, I
> detect an anti-intellectual tone, a complaint that was broadly heard when "the Bicycle Wheel"
> came off the press, especially the one of: "Hey! Who's built more wheels, me or this guy from the
> ivory tower?"
>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Sdb]

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>
> I don't find the statement unbelievable, I just don't have enough
empirical
> evidence of my own to prove or disprove that tying and soldering is good
or
> bad. My contention is that the "engineers" that live in labs, and do studies without real world
> experience come to some conclusions that may be patently not true when put to actual use.
>

The engineers who do their testing in labs are creating the empirical evidence. In structural
engineering, at least, they design (using math and empirical knowledge), build prototypes (as many
as their budget allows), test them all, analyse the results, and adjust their design/theories based
on the new empirical knowledge. Then the design cycle repeats.

Assuming that the design method is similar for wheels, the wheel design is not based solely on
physics and math. Of course, the design is also based on economics and marketing (what customer are
they targeting? What cost/performance ratio are they targeting?). For that matter, we should always
try to distinguish between the marketing hype (or smoke and mirrors, or whatever) with the
engineering theory. It's not engineering that is creating the hype, it's marketing. Their goals are
different, their rhetoric is different.

> Getting back to the concrete guy. Granted he may not know a lot about the specific loads that go
> into the making of whatever he's pouring, but I'd
bet
> with the experience that comes from pouring a lot of concrete, that he can tell you whether you're
> using enough, the right shape, etc. or not. If
you
> do something over and over and over... you see similar things happening
over
> and over and over. You get to recognize when something will or will not work based on past
> experience.
>

Does the concrete guy know when the overly-thick dimension of a column is for strength, or if it's
an architectural feature? Probably not. He may be scoffing at a massive column when he doesn't
understand that it's due to the architect's sense of spatial balance (or whatever). It can be a long
journey between design and implementation. Misinformed judgement is a quick trip to the mall.

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> My point is I know how to fly pretty well, $50 million + military aircraft-((T)A-4E/F/F+/M,
> F-4C/D/J/N/S, F-14A/A+, F-16N, T-2C, T-34B, Cessna 150/172/182/T-210) but don't really understand
> Bernoullis and such...but as an operator, not a designer or engineer, you can still fly a good A/C
> or build a good wheel.

But don't expect me to get into the plane that you build . . .

--
Benjamin Lewis

Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>, "SDB" <[email protected]> wrote:

> IMHO, the wheel builder/concrete pourer analogy is not a fair one. The wheel builder most likely
> sees a lot of failures and learns from them (using statistics, someone without knowledge of wheel
> mechanics can learn that certain features of a setup can increase the risk of a certain type of
> failure, for example).

The wheelbuilder, if he does things right, will not see a lot of failures. If he does see a lot of
failures, there is no guarantee that he will learn from them if he does not understand the
principles that govern how a wheel functions. Without understanding, he will misattribute cause and
effect most likely.

I am not sure what your parenthetical statement is supposed to be an example of, nor how it relates
to the prior clause. I don't know any wheelbuilders who use statistics, but I know many who use
myth and lore.

> The concrete pourer rarely sees a failure in his work.

That's because the concrete is poured to spec based on well-known engineering principles. The pourer
doesn't have to understand the principles.

 

[Mike Latondress]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> The wheelbuilder, if he does things right, will not see a lot of failures.

On the other hand if he gets a reputation as a good wheel builder he may see a lot of falures, just
none of his own.

 

[Mike S.]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mike Shaw writes:
>
> >>>>> Is tying and soldering really worth the effort?
>
> >>>> Yes, it certainly is. It improves the quality of the wheel. It extends its life expectancy
> >>>> without influencing the spoke pre-tension.
>
> >>>>> And so I ask: what (if anything) is wrong with this argument?
>
> >>> Nope, When using aluminum rims and then the wheel is ridden, the aluminum rim WILL become
> >>> deformed somehow. When it does, it changes the tension, has to. By tying and soldering, it
> >>> helps to reduce spoke at the flange movement of a too loose spoke(due to the deformed rim),
> >>> particularly on left side rear, making a broken spoke there much less likely.
>
> >> I think you would be more credible if you showed some evidence for this contention and explain
> >> what happens if the same wheel is used without this treatment. Repeating this claim may let it
> >> live a while longer but it does not hold up to any analysis. How do you explain that wheels
> >> that are not tied and soldered (most wheels) survive all manner of loading without problems? I
> >> am curious about what you think of measurements made on the same wheels before and after tying
> >> and soldering that show no measurable change in rigidity to side loads and rear wheel torque.
>
> So Mike, what do you find unbelievable about this statement and why would you prefer to believe
> the one to which it responds. That is what you seem to be saying.
>
> >>> Of course Jobst will slam me for this, but, so what else is new???
>
> >> That is not a good defense of your hypothesis and it does not deter me from presenting the
> >> facts as they were measured. I'm not sure what you mean by "slam."
>
> >>> I choose to believe Gerd on this... who has built more wheels than Jobst and me put
> >>> together...
>
> >> I know a man who has poured more cubic yards of concrete into prestressed concrete structures
> >> than you and I, but he does not understand the stresses in these structures. From what you say,
> >> I detect an anti-intellectual tone, a complaint that was broadly heard when "the Bicycle Wheel"
> >> came off the press, especially the one of: "Hey! Who's built more wheels, me or this guy from
> >> the ivory tower?"
>
> > I'm not an anti-intellectualist, but some of the stuff that engineers try and pass off directly
> > flies in the face of personal experience. eg: frame materials all riding alike because they have
> > the same stiffness factors, aero wheels not being faster than "normal" wheels, its not the
> > frame, its the wheels, dummy, etc.
>
> Let's not get into platitudes. What precisely do you find should be otherwise in this thread? I
> responded to an unsupported claim that ignores that the subject has been studied and measured. You
> chime in with you doubt what engineers report. I suggest you not drive a car or fly in an
> aircraft, these things being designed by engineers, many of whom have never flown an airplane or
> driven a race car (such as I who designed a large part of an F1 car that won a Grand Prix.)
>

> > I have no experience whether tied and soldered wheels are indeed stronger/safer/etc. now, but
> > they probably were at some point, otherwise why bother? Is there a need to tie and solder wheels
> > now? Probably not, but it shows that someone really cares about what they're doing to spend the
> > time and effort to do it right.
>
> So why are you complaining... or are you complaining? What is doing it right in your estimation? I
> suspect you haven't seen "the Bicycle Wheel" or you wouldn't say that most likely. Wheel builders
> who speak out most adamantly against the book have not read it.
>
Doing it right is building a wheel that is as durable as it needs to be without being too heavy or
coming apart for no apparent reason. If that means a 36 spoke wheelset for a 200#+ guy that mashes
wheels, great. If it means you build a 24 hole wheelset for a featherweight climber, great. It means
picking the right parts for the job, something that comes from experience, not a book.

> > When engineers scratched their heads and said that bumblebees can't fly, it just proved that
> > sometimes, the guys who have actually done the job know much, much more than those engineers in
> > the ivory towers.
>
> I guess we'll have to hear that old saw, a typical mainstay of anti-intellectuals, for another
> century or so. That's such a weak crutch you should be embarrassed to repeat it. You probably
> believe that someone actually said that. In fact it was uttered in conjunction with a superficial
> flight analysis of that was out of scale and not serious, the engineer knowing full well that such
> insects can fly.
>
> http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/3_29_97/mathland.htm
>
> > Your statistical sample of a few wheels, under your riding conditions: weight, ability, etc. is
> > woefully inadequate when compared to the professional mechanic that has built wheels for
> > thousands of customers.
>
> I am not citing a statistical sample. You sound like a bumblebee-ist looking for an equation.
>
I know from personal experience that 15/16 butted spokes make too flexy a wheel for me. Diving into
corners in a criterium is not the place for a flexy front wheel, no matter how durable or
comfortable the ride. Other people that I know swear by 15/16 spokes for all of their wheels. I've
seen what happens when shops build wheels for individuals that HAVE to have 28 hole wheels, even
though they weigh 200#+. I've seen or heard from friends what happens when a Spinergy 4-spoke's
blades separate from the hub in a sprint. I've built wheels for myself, friends, and customers that
have had problems, and others that have seldom seen another spoke wrench. Yes, I've used info from
"the Book" as a basis for a lot of what I've done, but even more, I've used experience to figure out
what should work where.

> > So, while I'm not an anti-intellectualist, I reserve the right to think for myself. If what the
> > intellectualist flies in the face of personal observation, I'm going to go with what I've
> > actually seen, felt, experienced rather than believe everything blindly.
>
> The implication is that engineers are blind and lacking practical experience while mechanics are
> savant and perceptive.

Not at all. Some engineers certainly are blind and lacking practical experience, just as not all
mechanics are savants.
>
> > So, that's my $0.02, next?
>
> You don't get any change for such a negative contribution. Go to school.
>
>
I did, where do you think I figured out that engineers don't know diddly about the real world. When
you have one as a roommate and he burns water 'cause he doesn't have the common sense God gave an
ant, ya gotta scratch your head.

Jobst Brandt
> [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Mike S.]

"Benjamin Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > My point is I know how to fly pretty well, $50 million + military aircraft-((T)A-4E/F/F+/M,
> > F-4C/D/J/N/S, F-14A/A+, F-16N, T-2C, T-34B, Cessna 150/172/182/T-210) but don't really
> > understand Bernoullis and such...but as an operator, not a designer or engineer, you can still
> > fly a good A/C or build a good wheel.
>
> But don't expect me to get into the plane that you build . . .
>

No, but you'd ride his wheels...

Mike
> --
> Benjamin Lewis
>
> Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
> -- Mark Twain

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Mike S. wrote:

>
> "Benjamin Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>
>>> My point is I know how to fly pretty well, $50 million + military aircraft-((T)A-4E/F/F+/M,
>>> F-4C/D/J/N/S, F-14A/A+, F-16N, T-2C, T-34B, Cessna 150/172/182/T-210) but don't really
>>> understand Bernoullis and such...but as an operator, not a designer or engineer, you can still
>>> fly a good A/C or build a good wheel.
>>
>> But don't expect me to get into the plane that you build . . .
>>
>
> No, but you'd ride his wheels...

I might, but they wouldn't be my first choice, and I wouldn't expect them to be better than those
made by someone who understood the principles involved. In the case of wheels, there's not much a
builder can do that will lead to catastrophic failure no matter how poor a builder he is. This is
probably why the myths have persisted here, and not in aeronautical engineering.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Mike Shaw writes:

> I know from personal experience that 15/16 butted spokes make too flexy a wheel for me. Diving
> into corners in a criterium is not the place for a flexy front wheel, no matter how durable or
> comfortable the ride. Other people that I know swear by 15/16 spokes for all of their wheels.

Now we are getting to the nature of your beliefs and that you have not seen the book that dissects
all this in fine detail so that no stone should remain unturned, so to speak. You didn't say how
many spokes you use on these "too flexy" wheels but from the implications, they are not 16 spoke
wheels. Even if they were, you could not feel the elasticity of the spokes, these deflections being
on the order of riding over a piece of copier bond paper, on the order of 0.004". Next time you ride
over a sheet of paper and feel it, let me know about it.

> I've seen what happens when shops build wheels for individuals that HAVE to have 28 hole wheels,
> even though they weigh 200#+. I've seen or heard from friends what happens when a Spinergy
> 4-spoke's blades separate from the hub in a sprint.

Let's not grasp at straws and make overweight straw men who ride on faddish wheels. I think you are
sliding way down the slippery slope, far from the original subject, that of not trusting engineers
or what they write, regardless of how well reasoned and supported by experimental work.

> I've built wheels for myself, friends, and customers that have had problems, and others that have
> seldom seen another spoke wrench. Yes, I've used info from "the Book" as a basis for a lot of what
> I've done, but even more, I've used experience to figure out what should work where.

So why didn't you write the book. I only took up that cause because bicycle shops had no idea of the
parameters that affect wheel failure, sudden and fatigue. In fact fatigue failure and fretting
damage to bearings was and probably still is a mystery to many experienced bicycle mechanics.

>>> So, while I'm not an anti-intellectualist, I reserve the right to think for myself. If what the
>>> intellectualist flies in the face of personal observation, I'm going to go with what I've
>>> actually seen, felt, experienced rather than believe everything blindly.

>> The implication is that engineers are blind and lacking practical experience while mechanics are
>> savant and perceptive.

> Not at all. Some engineers certainly are blind and lacking practical experience, just as not all
> mechanics are savants.

So? Can you tell the difference? Recognizing a charlatan in contrast to a person who know what he
knows and doesn't know is one of the things most people learn and master as adults. Raking a whole
class of people, by race, color, or chosen profession (engineering) rings of jingoism. You don't
happen to work for the White House do you?

>>> So, that's my $0.02, next?

>> You don't get any change for such a negative contribution. Go to school.

> I did, where do you think I figured out that engineers don't know diddly about the real world.
> When you have one as a roommate and he burns water 'cause he doesn't have the common sense God
> gave an ant, ya gotta scratch your head.

Keep it up. I think there is room in the US Foreign service for you.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA