Spoke tension Question

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>
>>> real world is rim yielding due to spoke tension "as high as the rim
>>> can bear". it's the #1 cause of rim failure - it exacerbates
>>> buckling, flat spotting and causes rim cracking. slack spokes are a
>>> problem for the spokes, not so much the rim.
>>
>> I do not seem to have these problems? Could it be that I use
>> relatively heavy rims, small diameter wheels, and relatively wide tires?
>>
>
> hmmm, let's see, which will buckle first, the 2m pole or the 1m pole?

Insufficient information provided in the question for this to be
answered. Are other variable similar, and if not, how do they differ?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>
>>> real world is rim yielding due to spoke tension "as high as the rim
>>> can bear". it's the #1 cause of rim failure - it exacerbates
>>> buckling, flat spotting and causes rim cracking. slack spokes are a
>>> problem for the spokes, not so much the rim.
>>
>> I do not seem to have these problems? Could it be that I use
>> relatively heavy rims, small diameter wheels, and relatively wide tires?
>>
>
> hmmm, let's see, which will buckle first, the 2m pole or the 1m pole?

Insufficient information provided in the question for this to be
answered. Are other variable similar, and if not, how do they differ?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The test Ben C is proposing puts different maximum loads on the rim -
>>> if neither rim yields before the bottom spokes become slack, the test
>>> proves nothing.
>>
>> If the rim doesn't yield before the spokes go slack it means you could
>> have benefitted from higher tension (provided you didn't fatigue the
>> spoke bed too much).
>
> "provided you didn't fatigue the spoke bed too much" - and therein lies
> the question. rims can easily withstand a few slack spokes - an
> unspoked low profile ma2 bare hoop will take my full body weight without
> folding. 3 or 4 spokes slack are /much/ less of a problem. seeking
> tension at the borderline of yield is pointless and destructive for the
> spoke bed.
>
>
>>
>> If it does, it means tension was too high.

We are back to where we started. The rim is poorly designed if the spoke
bed fatigues well below the compressive hoop stress the rim can bear -
too much material in some places, too little in others.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The test Ben C is proposing puts different maximum loads on the rim -
>>> if neither rim yields before the bottom spokes become slack, the test
>>> proves nothing.
>>
>> If the rim doesn't yield before the spokes go slack it means you could
>> have benefitted from higher tension (provided you didn't fatigue the
>> spoke bed too much).
>
> "provided you didn't fatigue the spoke bed too much" - and therein lies
> the question. rims can easily withstand a few slack spokes - an
> unspoked low profile ma2 bare hoop will take my full body weight without
> folding. 3 or 4 spokes slack are /much/ less of a problem. seeking
> tension at the borderline of yield is pointless and destructive for the
> spoke bed.
>
>
>>
>> If it does, it means tension was too high.

We are back to where we started. The rim is poorly designed if the spoke
bed fatigues well below the compressive hoop stress the rim can bear -
too much material in some places, too little in others.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>> On 2007-11-03, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>> This would be an interesting experiment to do: build a wheel with
>>>>>> high
>>>>>> tension, and keep loading it (weight downwards on the hub, the same
>>>>>> thing it gets in use). Measure spoke tension in the bottom spokes.
>>>>>> Keep
>>>>>> adding weights until the tension goes to almost but not quite zero.
>>>>>> Remove weights. Check rim for permanent deformation. If it has
>>>>>> deformed
>>>>>> permanently, then reduction in rim yield strength due to spoke
>>>>>> tension
>>>>>> is a real issue.
>>>>> But if the spoke tension were less, the rim would permanently
>>>>> deform with the bottom spokes in a slack condition in this test?
>>>> No, in this test, you stop before the spokes go slack.
>>> But that is a different maximum load on the wheel, depending on
>>> original spoke tension. How does that prove anything?
>>
>> If the rim yields before the spokes go slack it shows that you probably
>> would have been better off with less spoke tension.
>>
>> [...]
>>>> This is because the total stress on the rim is the load PLUS the
>>>> precompression from all that spoke tension.
>>> Yes, but does this make a practical difference?
>>
>> I don't know. That's why it would be a good experiment to do.
>>
>>> If the spokes go slack before the rim yields, then the wheel will fail
>>> from other causes.
>>
>> You want to balance the two: as much spoke tension as you can get away
>> with without bringing the rim too close to yield.
>>
>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>>
>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose spoke
>> bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>> sub-optimally engineered.
>>
>>>> So optimal spoke tension would seem to be whatever amount means that
>>>> the
>>>> rim is just about to deform plastically at the load at which the spokes
>>>> are just going slack.
>>>>
>>>> There are (at least) three variables: load the rim the can support
>>>> before it yields; load the wheel can support before the spokes go
>>>> slack;
>>>> amount of tension the spoke bed can support without cracking after a
>>>> few
>>>> thousand miles.
>>>>
>>>> All three (plus others not thought of) one would expect to be
>>>> matched on
>>>> an optimized rim; otherwise it's stronger than it needs to be or weaker
>>>> than it should be somewhere.
>>> Remember that the buckling that occurs from excessive spoke tension
>>> occurs along a different axis than the yielding that causes flat
>>> spots on the rim.
>>
>> Indeed, I consider them to be different phenomena. How high tension
>> relates to buckling I don't know. At very high tensions we know the rim
>> tacos if you breathe on it. But at tensions people would actually use,
>> it might be more likely to buckle due to the big displacements that
>> happen when spokes go slack.
>
> you need to be careful repeating that "big displacements" story. i have
> mountain biked with a guy whose rear wheel was so slack spoked, the
> spoke crossing made a grinding noise as they went slack under the hub as
> it rolled. he rode that wheel for 6 months before i figured out that
> that it wasn't just his poor maintenance. that's 6 months of all kinds
> of hops, jumps and usual mtb abuse. and that wheel was as straight as
> they come. if a 180# mountain biker with slack spokes doesn't
> experience a problem, there's something wrong with the story.

Indeed (this can be interpreted several different ways other than what
Bourbon Man is suggesting).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>> On 2007-11-03, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>> This would be an interesting experiment to do: build a wheel with
>>>>>> high
>>>>>> tension, and keep loading it (weight downwards on the hub, the same
>>>>>> thing it gets in use). Measure spoke tension in the bottom spokes.
>>>>>> Keep
>>>>>> adding weights until the tension goes to almost but not quite zero.
>>>>>> Remove weights. Check rim for permanent deformation. If it has
>>>>>> deformed
>>>>>> permanently, then reduction in rim yield strength due to spoke
>>>>>> tension
>>>>>> is a real issue.
>>>>> But if the spoke tension were less, the rim would permanently
>>>>> deform with the bottom spokes in a slack condition in this test?
>>>> No, in this test, you stop before the spokes go slack.
>>> But that is a different maximum load on the wheel, depending on
>>> original spoke tension. How does that prove anything?
>>
>> If the rim yields before the spokes go slack it shows that you probably
>> would have been better off with less spoke tension.
>>
>> [...]
>>>> This is because the total stress on the rim is the load PLUS the
>>>> precompression from all that spoke tension.
>>> Yes, but does this make a practical difference?
>>
>> I don't know. That's why it would be a good experiment to do.
>>
>>> If the spokes go slack before the rim yields, then the wheel will fail
>>> from other causes.
>>
>> You want to balance the two: as much spoke tension as you can get away
>> with without bringing the rim too close to yield.
>>
>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>>
>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose spoke
>> bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>> sub-optimally engineered.
>>
>>>> So optimal spoke tension would seem to be whatever amount means that
>>>> the
>>>> rim is just about to deform plastically at the load at which the spokes
>>>> are just going slack.
>>>>
>>>> There are (at least) three variables: load the rim the can support
>>>> before it yields; load the wheel can support before the spokes go
>>>> slack;
>>>> amount of tension the spoke bed can support without cracking after a
>>>> few
>>>> thousand miles.
>>>>
>>>> All three (plus others not thought of) one would expect to be
>>>> matched on
>>>> an optimized rim; otherwise it's stronger than it needs to be or weaker
>>>> than it should be somewhere.
>>> Remember that the buckling that occurs from excessive spoke tension
>>> occurs along a different axis than the yielding that causes flat
>>> spots on the rim.
>>
>> Indeed, I consider them to be different phenomena. How high tension
>> relates to buckling I don't know. At very high tensions we know the rim
>> tacos if you breathe on it. But at tensions people would actually use,
>> it might be more likely to buckle due to the big displacements that
>> happen when spokes go slack.
>
> you need to be careful repeating that "big displacements" story. i have
> mountain biked with a guy whose rear wheel was so slack spoked, the
> spoke crossing made a grinding noise as they went slack under the hub as
> it rolled. he rode that wheel for 6 months before i figured out that
> that it wasn't just his poor maintenance. that's 6 months of all kinds
> of hops, jumps and usual mtb abuse. and that wheel was as straight as
> they come. if a 180# mountain biker with slack spokes doesn't
> experience a problem, there's something wrong with the story.

Indeed (this can be interpreted several different ways other than what
Bourbon Man is suggesting).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

Sandy Leurre wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Ben C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose
>> spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>> sub-optimally engineered.
>
> It could be expressed differently. A rim meeting the taco test satisfies
> the taco test, yet that is not necessarily an optimum design, save for
> meeting that test's criteria. Your idea, harmony and equilibrium makes more
> sense.
>
> The taco test favors spoke design over rim design. Favoring either one
> separately fails to properly measure wheel design. After all, you wouldn't
> fault spokes, necessarily, should they explode while tightening them. Each
> material has limits. You wouldn't say that a curry is not well composed
> unless the roof of your mouth melted, a "design" which would favor one
> specific element of the composition over others.
>
> The taco test is just another macho-feather-spreading myth, not a reliable
> index. I have never heard that taking something _over_ the limit to achieve
> the limit is a sensible approach. When a manufacturer specifies a limit,
> and one regularly exceeds it, it's hard to understand how the design would
> have been at fault.

Strange that the engineers who have to design things that work in real
life are on one side of this arguments, with the non-engineers on the
other. What can we learn from this?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

Sandy Leurre wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Ben C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose
>> spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>> sub-optimally engineered.
>
> It could be expressed differently. A rim meeting the taco test satisfies
> the taco test, yet that is not necessarily an optimum design, save for
> meeting that test's criteria. Your idea, harmony and equilibrium makes more
> sense.
>
> The taco test favors spoke design over rim design. Favoring either one
> separately fails to properly measure wheel design. After all, you wouldn't
> fault spokes, necessarily, should they explode while tightening them. Each
> material has limits. You wouldn't say that a curry is not well composed
> unless the roof of your mouth melted, a "design" which would favor one
> specific element of the composition over others.
>
> The taco test is just another macho-feather-spreading myth, not a reliable
> index. I have never heard that taking something _over_ the limit to achieve
> the limit is a sensible approach. When a manufacturer specifies a limit,
> and one regularly exceeds it, it's hard to understand how the design would
> have been at fault.

Strange that the engineers who have to design things that work in real
life are on one side of this arguments, with the non-engineers on the
other. What can we learn from this?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ben C? wrote:
> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C? wrote:
>>> On 2007-11-03, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ben C? wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> This would be an interesting experiment to do: build a wheel with high
>>>>> tension, and keep loading it (weight downwards on the hub, the same
>>>>> thing it gets in use). Measure spoke tension in the bottom spokes. Keep
>>>>> adding weights until the tension goes to almost but not quite zero.
>>>>> Remove weights. Check rim for permanent deformation. If it has deformed
>>>>> permanently, then reduction in rim yield strength due to spoke tension
>>>>> is a real issue.
>>>> But if the spoke tension were less, the rim would permanently deform
>>>> with the bottom spokes in a slack condition in this test?
>>> No, in this test, you stop before the spokes go slack.
>> But that is a different maximum load on the wheel, depending on original
>> spoke tension. How does that prove anything?
>
> If the rim yields before the spokes go slack it shows that you probably
> would have been better off with less spoke tension.

Or, in use it could show that an inadequately strong rim was chosen.

> [...]
>>> This is because the total stress on the rim is the load PLUS the
>>> precompression from all that spoke tension.
>> Yes, but does this make a practical difference?
>
> I don't know. That's why it would be a good experiment to do.
>
>> If the spokes go slack before the rim yields, then the wheel will fail
>> from other causes.
>
> You want to balance the two: as much spoke tension as you can get away
> with without bringing the rim too close to yield.

Too add to this, a properly designed spoke bed that will not prematurely
fatigue from this degree of spoke tension.

>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>> flat-spotting of rims?
>
> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose spoke
> bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
> sub-optimally engineered.

Less material could have been used elsewhere for this lower tension
wheel, saving on weight. Is not weight savings one of the primary goals
of a certain class of bicycle components?

>>> So optimal spoke tension would seem to be whatever amount means that the
>>> rim is just about to deform plastically at the load at which the spokes
>>> are just going slack.
>>>
>>> There are (at least) three variables: load the rim the can support
>>> before it yields; load the wheel can support before the spokes go slack;
>>> amount of tension the spoke bed can support without cracking after a few
>>> thousand miles.
>>>
>>> All three (plus others not thought of) one would expect to be matched on
>>> an optimized rim; otherwise it's stronger than it needs to be or weaker
>>> than it should be somewhere.
>> Remember that the buckling that occurs from excessive spoke tension
>> occurs along a different axis than the yielding that causes flat spots
>> on the rim.
>
> Indeed, I consider them to be different phenomena. How high tension
> relates to buckling I don't know. At very high tensions we know the rim
> tacos if you breathe on it. But at tensions people would actually use,
> it might be more likely to buckle due to the big displacements that
> happen when spokes go slack.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ben C? wrote:
> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C? wrote:
>>> On 2007-11-03, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ben C? wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> This would be an interesting experiment to do: build a wheel with high
>>>>> tension, and keep loading it (weight downwards on the hub, the same
>>>>> thing it gets in use). Measure spoke tension in the bottom spokes. Keep
>>>>> adding weights until the tension goes to almost but not quite zero.
>>>>> Remove weights. Check rim for permanent deformation. If it has deformed
>>>>> permanently, then reduction in rim yield strength due to spoke tension
>>>>> is a real issue.
>>>> But if the spoke tension were less, the rim would permanently deform
>>>> with the bottom spokes in a slack condition in this test?
>>> No, in this test, you stop before the spokes go slack.
>> But that is a different maximum load on the wheel, depending on original
>> spoke tension. How does that prove anything?
>
> If the rim yields before the spokes go slack it shows that you probably
> would have been better off with less spoke tension.

Or, in use it could show that an inadequately strong rim was chosen.

> [...]
>>> This is because the total stress on the rim is the load PLUS the
>>> precompression from all that spoke tension.
>> Yes, but does this make a practical difference?
>
> I don't know. That's why it would be a good experiment to do.
>
>> If the spokes go slack before the rim yields, then the wheel will fail
>> from other causes.
>
> You want to balance the two: as much spoke tension as you can get away
> with without bringing the rim too close to yield.

Too add to this, a properly designed spoke bed that will not prematurely
fatigue from this degree of spoke tension.

>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>> flat-spotting of rims?
>
> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose spoke
> bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
> sub-optimally engineered.

Less material could have been used elsewhere for this lower tension
wheel, saving on weight. Is not weight savings one of the primary goals
of a certain class of bicycle components?

>>> So optimal spoke tension would seem to be whatever amount means that the
>>> rim is just about to deform plastically at the load at which the spokes
>>> are just going slack.
>>>
>>> There are (at least) three variables: load the rim the can support
>>> before it yields; load the wheel can support before the spokes go slack;
>>> amount of tension the spoke bed can support without cracking after a few
>>> thousand miles.
>>>
>>> All three (plus others not thought of) one would expect to be matched on
>>> an optimized rim; otherwise it's stronger than it needs to be or weaker
>>> than it should be somewhere.
>> Remember that the buckling that occurs from excessive spoke tension
>> occurs along a different axis than the yielding that causes flat spots
>> on the rim.
>
> Indeed, I consider them to be different phenomena. How high tension
> relates to buckling I don't know. At very high tensions we know the rim
> tacos if you breathe on it. But at tensions people would actually use,
> it might be more likely to buckle due to the big displacements that
> happen when spokes go slack.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> <snip obstinate ****>
>
> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit. bye.

"jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can support a
static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> <snip obstinate ****>
>
> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit. bye.

"jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can support a
static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[jim beam]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Ben C <[email protected]> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose
>> spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>> sub-optimally engineered.
>
> It could be expressed differently. A rim meeting the taco test satisfies
> the taco test, yet that is not necessarily an optimum design, save for
> meeting that test's criteria. Your idea, harmony and equilibrium makes more
> sense.
>
> The taco test favors spoke design over rim design.

absolutely!!!

> Favoring either one
> separately fails to properly measure wheel design.

indeed.


> After all, you wouldn't
> fault spokes, necessarily, should they explode while tightening them. Each
> material has limits. You wouldn't say that a curry is not well composed
> unless the roof of your mouth melted, a "design" which would favor one
> specific element of the composition over others.
>
> The taco test is just another macho-feather-spreading myth, not a reliable
> index. I have never heard that taking something _over_ the limit to achieve
> the limit is a sensible approach. When a manufacturer specifies a limit,
> and one regularly exceeds it, it's hard to understand how the design would
> have been at fault.

well said.

 

[jim beam]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Ben C <[email protected]> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose
>> spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>> sub-optimally engineered.
>
> It could be expressed differently. A rim meeting the taco test satisfies
> the taco test, yet that is not necessarily an optimum design, save for
> meeting that test's criteria. Your idea, harmony and equilibrium makes more
> sense.
>
> The taco test favors spoke design over rim design.

absolutely!!!

> Favoring either one
> separately fails to properly measure wheel design.

indeed.


> After all, you wouldn't
> fault spokes, necessarily, should they explode while tightening them. Each
> material has limits. You wouldn't say that a curry is not well composed
> unless the roof of your mouth melted, a "design" which would favor one
> specific element of the composition over others.
>
> The taco test is just another macho-feather-spreading myth, not a reliable
> index. I have never heard that taking something _over_ the limit to achieve
> the limit is a sensible approach. When a manufacturer specifies a limit,
> and one regularly exceeds it, it's hard to understand how the design would
> have been at fault.

well said.

 

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Sandy Leurre wrote:
>> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
>> Ben C <[email protected]> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose
>>> spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>>> sub-optimally engineered.
>>
>> It could be expressed differently. A rim meeting the taco test
>> satisfies the taco test, yet that is not necessarily an optimum
>> design, save for meeting that test's criteria. Your idea, harmony and
>> equilibrium makes more sense.
>>
>> The taco test favors spoke design over rim design. Favoring either
>> one separately fails to properly measure wheel design. After all, you
>> wouldn't fault spokes, necessarily, should they explode while
>> tightening them. Each material has limits. You wouldn't say that a
>> curry is not well composed unless the roof of your mouth melted, a
>> "design" which would favor one specific element of the composition
>> over others.
>>
>> The taco test is just another macho-feather-spreading myth, not a
>> reliable index. I have never heard that taking something _over_ the
>> limit to achieve the limit is a sensible approach. When a
>> manufacturer specifies a limit, and one regularly exceeds it, it's
>> hard to understand how the design would have been at fault.
>
> Strange that the engineers who have to design things that work in real
> life are on one side of this arguments, with the non-engineers on the
> other. What can we learn from this?
>

we can learn that "engineers" that won't eat their own dog food are just
so much hot air. and bored.

 

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Sandy Leurre wrote:
>> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
>> Ben C <[email protected]> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose
>>> spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>>> sub-optimally engineered.
>>
>> It could be expressed differently. A rim meeting the taco test
>> satisfies the taco test, yet that is not necessarily an optimum
>> design, save for meeting that test's criteria. Your idea, harmony and
>> equilibrium makes more sense.
>>
>> The taco test favors spoke design over rim design. Favoring either
>> one separately fails to properly measure wheel design. After all, you
>> wouldn't fault spokes, necessarily, should they explode while
>> tightening them. Each material has limits. You wouldn't say that a
>> curry is not well composed unless the roof of your mouth melted, a
>> "design" which would favor one specific element of the composition
>> over others.
>>
>> The taco test is just another macho-feather-spreading myth, not a
>> reliable index. I have never heard that taking something _over_ the
>> limit to achieve the limit is a sensible approach. When a
>> manufacturer specifies a limit, and one regularly exceeds it, it's
>> hard to understand how the design would have been at fault.
>
> Strange that the engineers who have to design things that work in real
> life are on one side of this arguments, with the non-engineers on the
> other. What can we learn from this?
>

we can learn that "engineers" that won't eat their own dog food are just
so much hot air. and bored.

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Sandy Leurre wrote:
>>> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
>>> Ben C <[email protected]> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>>>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose
>>>> spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>>>> sub-optimally engineered.
>>>
>>> It could be expressed differently. A rim meeting the taco test
>>> satisfies the taco test, yet that is not necessarily an optimum
>>> design, save for meeting that test's criteria. Your idea, harmony
>>> and equilibrium makes more sense.
>>>
>>> The taco test favors spoke design over rim design. Favoring either
>>> one separately fails to properly measure wheel design. After all,
>>> you wouldn't fault spokes, necessarily, should they explode while
>>> tightening them. Each material has limits. You wouldn't say that a
>>> curry is not well composed unless the roof of your mouth melted, a
>>> "design" which would favor one specific element of the composition
>>> over others.
>>>
>>> The taco test is just another macho-feather-spreading myth, not a
>>> reliable index. I have never heard that taking something _over_ the
>>> limit to achieve the limit is a sensible approach. When a
>>> manufacturer specifies a limit, and one regularly exceeds it, it's
>>> hard to understand how the design would have been at fault.
>>
>> Strange that the engineers who have to design things that work in real
>> life are on one side of this arguments, with the non-engineers on the
>> other. What can we learn from this?
>>
>
> we can learn that "engineers" that won't eat their own dog food are just
> so much hot air. and bored.

What is your purpose here, Bourbon Man?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Sandy Leurre wrote:
>>> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
>>> Ben C <[email protected]> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>>> On 2007-11-04, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do you have data showing that higher spoke tensions lead to more
>>>>> flat-spotting of rims?
>>>> No. But all I'm doing here is disputing the claim that a rim whose
>>>> spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is necessarily
>>>> sub-optimally engineered.
>>>
>>> It could be expressed differently. A rim meeting the taco test
>>> satisfies the taco test, yet that is not necessarily an optimum
>>> design, save for meeting that test's criteria. Your idea, harmony
>>> and equilibrium makes more sense.
>>>
>>> The taco test favors spoke design over rim design. Favoring either
>>> one separately fails to properly measure wheel design. After all,
>>> you wouldn't fault spokes, necessarily, should they explode while
>>> tightening them. Each material has limits. You wouldn't say that a
>>> curry is not well composed unless the roof of your mouth melted, a
>>> "design" which would favor one specific element of the composition
>>> over others.
>>>
>>> The taco test is just another macho-feather-spreading myth, not a
>>> reliable index. I have never heard that taking something _over_ the
>>> limit to achieve the limit is a sensible approach. When a
>>> manufacturer specifies a limit, and one regularly exceeds it, it's
>>> hard to understand how the design would have been at fault.
>>
>> Strange that the engineers who have to design things that work in real
>> life are on one side of this arguments, with the non-engineers on the
>> other. What can we learn from this?
>>
>
> we can learn that "engineers" that won't eat their own dog food are just
> so much hot air. and bored.

What is your purpose here, Bourbon Man?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

 

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>
>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit. bye.
>
> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can support a
> static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>

in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and do your
own research big guy. you have the components. put your money where
your [bored and useless] mouth is.

 

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> <snip obstinate ****>
>>
>> tom, you have the itch. you go scratch it. i've done my bit. bye.
>
> "jim beam" has proved that a wheel missing a few spokes can support a
> static load in one (1) orientation. Very useful.
>

in the *worst* orientation. any other is easier. go ahead and do your
own research big guy. you have the components. put your money where
your [bored and useless] mouth is.