Spoke tension Question

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> 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.

Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!

--
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:
>>> 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.

Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!

--
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:
>>> 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?
>

backatcha - lightweight.

 

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "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?
>

backatcha - lightweight.

 

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
> contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>

ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me
wrong.

 

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
> contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>

ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me
wrong.

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "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?
>>
>
> backatcha - lightweight.

I am bowled over by that response. [end sarcasm]

--
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:
>>> 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?
>>
>
> backatcha - lightweight.

I am bowled over by that response. [end sarcasm]

--
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:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
>> contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>
>
> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me wrong.

Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous missing
spokes is fully functional. Duh.

--
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:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
>> contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>
>
> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me wrong.

Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous missing
spokes is fully functional. Duh.

--
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:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
>>> contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>
>>
>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me
>> wrong.
>
> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous missing
> spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>

but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do your
own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for you
civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own product.]

 

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
>>> contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>
>>
>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me
>> wrong.
>
> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous missing
> spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>

but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do your
own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for you
civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own product.]

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
jim beam <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> 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.

Perhaps Sherman thought he was not in my kill-file, or perhaps he does know.

Anyway, it proves the following: engineers who are trusted by the industry
to contribute to the success of product manufacture can find satisfactory
employment there. Those who have just made it to the late 20th century are
not welcome. And that non-eingineers can sort logic from dross.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
jim beam <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> 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.

Perhaps Sherman thought he was not in my kill-file, or perhaps he does know.

Anyway, it proves the following: engineers who are trusted by the industry
to contribute to the success of product manufacture can find satisfactory
employment there. Those who have just made it to the late 20th century are
not welcome. And that non-eingineers can sort logic from dross.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
>>>> contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>
>>>
>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous missing
>> spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>
>
> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do your
> own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for you
> civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own product.]

Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An engineer
would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make such an assumption.

--
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:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Why won't "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" do the work to prove his own
>>>> contentions? Inquiring minds want to know!
>>>>
>>>
>>> ok, now you're being stupid. instead of sitting behind that screen
>>> where it's safe, /you/ put some skin in the game and try to prove me
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Why? I am not the one claiming a wheel with several contiguous missing
>> spokes is fully functional. Duh.
>>
>
> but you're claiming that my results don't stand so you need to do your
> own testing!!! [maybe this is a conceptual problem concept for you
> civil engineering types - you don't destruction test your own product.]

Should we extrapolate from a single static loading that a wheel with
missing spokes will function under the loads of normal use? An engineer
would be negligent (in a moral and legal sense) to make such an assumption.

--
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],
> jim beam <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps Sherman thought he was not in my kill-file, or perhaps he does know.

Oh damn, my heart is broken. [end sarcasm]

I was posting my message to the group, not to Sandy Leurre personally.
If I wanted to address him personally (I do not) I would use email, not
Usenet. Duh!

> Anyway, it proves the following: engineers who are trusted by the industry
> to contribute to the success of product manufacture can find satisfactory
> employment there. Those who have just made it to the late 20th century are
> not welcome.

What is the above supposed to mean? Leave it to a lawyer to obfuscate.

> And that non-eingineers can sort logic from dross.

What is an "eingineer" (sic)?

Several non-engineers on rec.bicycles.tech are not doing to well at
sorting dross from logic, however.

--
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],
> jim beam <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps Sherman thought he was not in my kill-file, or perhaps he does know.

Oh damn, my heart is broken. [end sarcasm]

I was posting my message to the group, not to Sandy Leurre personally.
If I wanted to address him personally (I do not) I would use email, not
Usenet. Duh!

> Anyway, it proves the following: engineers who are trusted by the industry
> to contribute to the success of product manufacture can find satisfactory
> employment there. Those who have just made it to the late 20th century are
> not welcome.

What is the above supposed to mean? Leave it to a lawyer to obfuscate.

> And that non-eingineers can sort logic from dross.

What is an "eingineer" (sic)?

Several non-engineers on rec.bicycles.tech are not doing to well at
sorting dross from logic, however.

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

 

[Tim McNamara]

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.

"jim" can't be bothered to push his "proof" further because he knows
riding that wheel could disprove. It's as simple as that. He's not
interested in actually being right, only in "winning" the argument.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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.

"jim" can't be bothered to push his "proof" further because he knows
riding that wheel could disprove. It's as simple as that. He's not
interested in actually being right, only in "winning" the argument.