Spoke tension Question

[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:
>>>>>>>> "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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No, prove yourself right.
>>>>
>>> i did. your contention is that i'm wrong. prove it.
>>
>> Where did you prove the wheel will handle the normal dynamic loads
>> produced when riding?
>>
> where did you prove it didn't? lightweight. do your own testing.

The burden of proof is on the individual claiming that it is a
functional wheel.

--
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:
>>>>>>>> "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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> do your own testing tom. prove me wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No, prove yourself right.
>>>>
>>> i did. your contention is that i'm wrong. prove it.
>>
>> Where did you prove the wheel will handle the normal dynamic loads
>> produced when riding?
>>
> where did you prove it didn't? lightweight. do your own testing.

The burden of proof is on the individual claiming that it is a
functional wheel.

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

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sandy" <[email protected]> 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.

It is not a test. When attempted on the type of rim
for which it is explicitly meant, it shows the builder
what a fully tensioned wheel is like. It need be done
at most once. After that, the builder knows what
a fully tensioned wheel is and brings subsequent
wheels to that tension level.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sandy" <[email protected]> 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.

It is not a test. When attempted on the type of rim
for which it is explicitly meant, it shows the builder
what a fully tensioned wheel is like. It need be done
at most once. After that, the builder knows what
a fully tensioned wheel is and brings subsequent
wheels to that tension level.

--
Michael Press

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Nov 4, 3:09 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dans le message denews:[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 makesmore
> > 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.
>
> It is not a test.

No, it is suggested as methodology. That's worse, IMO.


> When attempted on the type of rim
> for which it is explicitly meant, it shows the builder
> what a fully tensioned wheel is like. It need be done
> at most once. After that, the builder knows what
> a fully tensioned wheel is and brings subsequent
> wheels to that tension level.

And just how is a casual, home-mechanic wheelbuilder (the vast
majority of Brandt's 'faithful') supposed to repeat this sans a
tensionmeter or another *identical* wheel (if you already have one,
why build another?). Does drinking the Jobstian Kool-Aid imbue one
with calibrated fingers?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Nov 4, 3:09 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dans le message denews:[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 makesmore
> > 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.
>
> It is not a test.

No, it is suggested as methodology. That's worse, IMO.


> When attempted on the type of rim
> for which it is explicitly meant, it shows the builder
> what a fully tensioned wheel is like. It need be done
> at most once. After that, the builder knows what
> a fully tensioned wheel is and brings subsequent
> wheels to that tension level.

And just how is a casual, home-mechanic wheelbuilder (the vast
majority of Brandt's 'faithful') supposed to repeat this sans a
tensionmeter or another *identical* wheel (if you already have one,
why build another?). Does drinking the Jobstian Kool-Aid imbue one
with calibrated fingers?

 

[Joe Riel]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> For as many times as I need to post it, the one making the contention
> should provide the proof.

That sword has two edges. However, considering that the
straightforward test requires a certain amount of risk, I'd think that
the burden is on the party who claims it safe.

Make it appear sufficiently dangerous, and involve some incendaries
(these posts don't count), and maybe we could outsource the work
to MythBusters.

--
Joe Riel

 

[Joe Riel]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> For as many times as I need to post it, the one making the contention
> should provide the proof.

That sword has two edges. However, considering that the
straightforward test requires a certain amount of risk, I'd think that
the burden is on the party who claims it safe.

Make it appear sufficiently dangerous, and involve some incendaries
(these posts don't count), and maybe we could outsource the work
to MythBusters.

--
Joe Riel

 

[Tom Sherman]

Joe Riel wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> For as many times as I need to post it, the one making the contention
>> should provide the proof.
>
> That sword has two edges. However, considering that the
> straightforward test requires a certain amount of risk, I'd think that
> the burden is on the party who claims it safe....

Yes, going over the bars of an upright bicycle onto pavement is
something I have done twice in my life and do not wish to repeat.

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Joe Riel wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> For as many times as I need to post it, the one making the contention
>> should provide the proof.
>
> That sword has two edges. However, considering that the
> straightforward test requires a certain amount of risk, I'd think that
> the burden is on the party who claims it safe....

Yes, going over the bars of an upright bicycle onto pavement is
something I have done twice in my life and do not wish to repeat.

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

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> 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.
>
> It is not a test. When attempted on the type of rim
> for which it is explicitly meant, it shows the builder
> what a fully tensioned wheel is like. It need be done
> at most once. After that, the builder knows what
> a fully tensioned wheel is and brings subsequent
> wheels to that tension level.

I guess you prefer literal to alliterative. Oh, well.

It's also no surprise. Could it just be that rim manufacturers try some
repetitions in a similar vein to provide the recommended tensions? Would it
not occur to them? I just think it may do.

So, rather than dealing with subsequent events (after all, front and rear
aren't the same, and ideally one does not repeat this monthly for new wheel
sets for a home builder), the likely application is to build a single wheel
set, one off, and be done. Much easier to achieve, following the published
tensions than going beyond them and backing off. I don't think the average
amateur wheelbuilder expects to pay for more than one set of rims per
exercise.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> 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.
>
> It is not a test. When attempted on the type of rim
> for which it is explicitly meant, it shows the builder
> what a fully tensioned wheel is like. It need be done
> at most once. After that, the builder knows what
> a fully tensioned wheel is and brings subsequent
> wheels to that tension level.

I guess you prefer literal to alliterative. Oh, well.

It's also no surprise. Could it just be that rim manufacturers try some
repetitions in a similar vein to provide the recommended tensions? Would it
not occur to them? I just think it may do.

So, rather than dealing with subsequent events (after all, front and rear
aren't the same, and ideally one does not repeat this monthly for new wheel
sets for a home builder), the likely application is to build a single wheel
set, one off, and be done. Much easier to achieve, following the published
tensions than going beyond them and backing off. I don't think the average
amateur wheelbuilder expects to pay for more than one set of rims per
exercise.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:

> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
> go slack.

But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers. There's a reason that
low spoke count wheels spec higher spoke tensions.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:

> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
> go slack.

But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers. There's a reason that
low spoke count wheels spec higher spoke tensions.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-05, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
>> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
>> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
>> go slack.
>
> But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers.

Maybe you can see that, but I don't find it so easy to work out.

I don't know how to work out how many spokes go slack and by how much
for a given load except with an FEA, or, better still, trying it on an
actual wheel.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-05, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
>> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
>> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
>> go slack.
>
> But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers.

Maybe you can see that, but I don't find it so easy to work out.

I don't know how to work out how many spokes go slack and by how much
for a given load except with an FEA, or, better still, trying it on an
actual wheel.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-05, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>
>>> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
>>> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
>>> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
>>> go slack.
>> But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers.
>
> Maybe you can see that, but I don't find it so easy to work out.
>
> I don't know how to work out how many spokes go slack and by how much
> for a given load except with an FEA, or, better still, trying it on an
> actual wheel.

Well, then perhaps you shouldn't be making such claims.

 

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-05, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>
>>> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
>>> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
>>> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
>>> go slack.
>> But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers.
>
> Maybe you can see that, but I don't find it so easy to work out.
>
> I don't know how to work out how many spokes go slack and by how much
> for a given load except with an FEA, or, better still, trying it on an
> actual wheel.

Well, then perhaps you shouldn't be making such claims.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-05, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-05, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>
>>>> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
>>>> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
>>>> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
>>>> go slack.
>>> But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers.
>>
>> Maybe you can see that, but I don't find it so easy to work out.
>>
>> I don't know how to work out how many spokes go slack and by how much
>> for a given load except with an FEA, or, better still, trying it on an
>> actual wheel.
>
> Well, then perhaps you shouldn't be making such claims.

What claims exactly did I make?

I was trying to discuss with Tom Sherman his proposal that a rim whose
spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is sub-optimally
designed.

I thought perhaps he hadn't thought of the possibility of rim yield, or
that, if he had, perhaps he had some more light to shed on the subject
of why it might not be a factor.

I got the impression from the next few posts that he hadn't thought of
it, so I think I was right to bring it up.

I suspect that it is a factor until I see evidence or a convincing
explanation why it is likely not to be.

You have quoted me out of context above. Tom asked something like "a rim
can yield in many ways, which one are you thinking of?". I replied
"probably flat-spotting" meaning that that was the failure mode related
to rim yield that I considered most likely (and easiest to explain) out
of all failure modes to be promoted by excessive spoke tension.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-11-05, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-11-05, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>
>>>> Probably flat-spotting. We had a thread recently where we discussed how
>>>> tension might affect propensity to flat-spot. With high tensions the rim
>>>> will flat spot more easily if it reaches yield stress before the spokes
>>>> go slack.
>>> But it won't, as you can see if you use numbers.
>>
>> Maybe you can see that, but I don't find it so easy to work out.
>>
>> I don't know how to work out how many spokes go slack and by how much
>> for a given load except with an FEA, or, better still, trying it on an
>> actual wheel.
>
> Well, then perhaps you shouldn't be making such claims.

What claims exactly did I make?

I was trying to discuss with Tom Sherman his proposal that a rim whose
spoke bed cracks when built to just-sub-taco tension is sub-optimally
designed.

I thought perhaps he hadn't thought of the possibility of rim yield, or
that, if he had, perhaps he had some more light to shed on the subject
of why it might not be a factor.

I got the impression from the next few posts that he hadn't thought of
it, so I think I was right to bring it up.

I suspect that it is a factor until I see evidence or a convincing
explanation why it is likely not to be.

You have quoted me out of context above. Tom asked something like "a rim
can yield in many ways, which one are you thinking of?". I replied
"probably flat-spotting" meaning that that was the failure mode related
to rim yield that I considered most likely (and easiest to explain) out
of all failure modes to be promoted by excessive spoke tension.