Tensioning spokes by "tone"

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:11:11 +0100, "Trevor Jeffrey"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote in message ...
>>Trevor Jeffrey writes:
>>> Open your eyes and use the method I use, that of shaping the spoke
>>> at the crossing point so as it does not act as a spring, but a
>>> restraining member of the wheel.
>>
>>Would you be kind enough to expand on that. I don't understand how
>>you do that. The torsional strength of a 1.5mm diameter spoke is too
>>weak to withstand tightening torque at any length. Tightening torque
>>from the spoke nipple is uniform throughout the spoke, length has no
>>bearing on that. It is not windup as such that is the problem but
>>spoke rupture from the combination of tension and torque.
>>
>>However, please explain your technique of "shaping the spoke",
>>"restraining" and "acting as a spring". This is entirely new to me.
>>
>
>You should pay more attention, back of the dinner queue for you.
>
>My build method involves shaping the spoke at the crossing point so that it
>takes a direct line from hub to crossing point and from crossing point to
>rim whether it is loose or infinitely tight. This ensures that the
>differential loading between a pair of spokes keeps the lateral movement at
>the crossing to a minimum (within the graphs that have been produced notice
>the narrow angle over which a spoke has to move as it varies between high
>and low values, much less than the angle between a spoke and its partner).
>This then reduces angular displacement of the spoke where it joins with the
>hub (caused by the differential loading between a pair of spokes) and so
>minimises its affect on fatigue failure at the hub juncture. It is the side
>to side bending of the spokes which are the primary cause of fatigue failure
>of spokes not shaped during construction of a wheel.
>
>A wheel built without shaping at the x-ing require an infinite amount of
>tension in the spokes to enable them to come close to being straight. This
>is why you have found high tension in spokes reduces fatigue failure of
>those spokes. The over tensioning also helps in the respect of shaping the
>x-ing so will also help. I have gone one step further and specifically
>shaped the spokes at the x-ing point so that spokes are straight from hub to
>x-ing and from x-ing to rim. They deviate little whether extremely tight or
>just tight enough to prevent loose spokes under service conditions.
>
>Lace wheel in standard manner. tension so spokes assume final angle. Mark
>x-ing point on pair of spokes. Remove nipples on this pair. Bend spokes
>across each other so there angular displacement is equal and appropriate for
>their final resting position. Install nipples with driver, checking that
>the spokes are touching each other and the nipples are centred and slack in
>the rim holes. Check the angles with a straight edge and a gauge, little
>finger nail may do. Tighten back to initial tension. Work round wheel
>doing all the other pairs. When the wheel is tightened up for service it
>will be seen upon inspection that movement at the crossing points is
>minimal. It will be found that truing up becomes very easy, with each
>nipple movement placing an obvious related movement at the rim.
>
>Without shaping, the spoke curves around its partner and so maintains this
>curve unless infinite spoke tension is used. Steel is always curved to make
>springs. Hence you have a spring. This is what makes a wheel sloppy. Take
>a spoke out of one of your wheels and examine how straight it is. You will
>find it to be curved, and so it is acting as a spring, maintaining similar
>tension on contraction and expansion. a straight spoke will increasingly
>resist expansion as the strain increases. Only minimal tension is required,
>not maximal because the spoke is already straight.
>
>So here we have a wheel which does not require exceedingly high tensions to
>make it function and so it is unlikely to snap a spoke or pop a nipple. I
>use linseed oil to prevent the nipple rattling out of adjustment with
>vibration during gross overload of the wheel.
>
>Trevor
>

Dear Trevor,

I'd be glad to host a picture or diagram showing how you
bend or shape crossing spokes. If you're interested, just
email the images to me at [email protected] and I'll
reply with the address where anyone can download them.

Carl Fogel

 

[Sheldon Brown]

I hesitate to get involved in this thread which has become acrimonious
all out of proportion to the trivial nature of the subject matter, but I
can't resist...

Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

> My build method involves shaping the spoke at the crossing point so that it
> takes a direct line from hub to crossing point and from crossing point to
> rim whether it is loose or infinitely tight. This ensures that the
> differential loading between a pair of spokes keeps the lateral movement at
> the crossing to a minimum (within the graphs that have been produced notice
> the narrow angle over which a spoke has to move as it varies between high
> and low values, much less than the angle between a spoke and its partner).
> This then reduces angular displacement of the spoke where it joins with the
> hub (caused by the differential loading between a pair of spokes) and so
> minimises its affect on fatigue failure at the hub juncture. It is the side
> to side bending of the spokes which are the primary cause of fatigue failure
> of spokes not shaped during construction of a wheel.
>
> A wheel built without shaping at the x-ing require an infinite amount of
> tension in the spokes to enable them to come close to being straight. This
> is why you have found high tension in spokes reduces fatigue failure of
> those spokes. The over tensioning also helps in the respect of shaping the
> x-ing so will also help. I have gone one step further and specifically
> shaped the spokes at the x-ing point so that spokes are straight from hub to
> x-ing and from x-ing to rim. They deviate little whether extremely tight or
> just tight enough to prevent loose spokes under service conditions.
>
> Lace wheel in standard manner. tension so spokes assume final angle. Mark
> x-ing point on pair of spokes. Remove nipples on this pair. Bend spokes
> across each other so there angular displacement is equal and appropriate for
> their final resting position. Install nipples with driver, checking that
> the spokes are touching each other and the nipples are centred and slack in
> the rim holes. Check the angles with a straight edge and a gauge, little
> finger nail may do. Tighten back to initial tension. Work round wheel
> doing all the other pairs. When the wheel is tightened up for service it
> will be seen upon inspection that movement at the crossing points is
> minimal. It will be found that truing up becomes very easy, with each
> nipple movement placing an obvious related movement at the rim.

That sounds like an _awful_ lot of trouble! I achieve the same result
with a lot less work when I stress relieve by bending the spokes with an
old crank. See: http://sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html#seating

> Without shaping, the spoke curves around its partner and so maintains this
> curve unless infinite spoke tension is used. Steel is always curved to make
> springs. Hence you have a spring. This is what makes a wheel sloppy. Take
> a spoke out of one of your wheels and examine how straight it is. You will
> find it to be curved, and so it is acting as a spring, maintaining similar
> tension on contraction and expansion. a straight spoke will increasingly
> resist expansion as the strain increases. Only minimal tension is required,
> not maximal because the spoke is already straight.

Although this is a serendipitous resulf of my stress relieving
technique, I remain unconvinced that it is of any real importance. If
it were, wheels built without interlaced spokes would likely be superior
to wheels built with laced spokes where the builder has not kinked
them at the crossing.

Sheldon "Scottish Verdict" Brown
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Arguing with a troll is like mud-wrestling with a pig: |
| You both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it. |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

David Damerell wrote in message ...
>Why is it not, then, found that truing radially spoked wheels is equally
>"very easy"? They have no crossing points.

You have poor dexterity.
you're using a rim whose ferrules are meant for tangential spoking.
you are overtensioning the spokes.
you have failed to oil the nipples.
you have failed to correct the spokeline at the hub.
your spokes are too thin for the quantity.
Any or all or any combination of the above.

I do not recommend the use uncrossed spokes.

Trevor

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote in message
<[email protected]>...
>
>Gee, I guess the 5000 or so wheels I have built have all been wrong.
>
>This method above is silly, not required.
>
>trevor-<< Without shaping, the spoke curves around its partner and so
maintains
>this
>curve unless infinite spoke tension is used. Steel is always curved to
make
>springs. Hence you have a spring. This is what makes a wheel sloppy
>>><BR><BR>
>
>
>'sloppy wheels.?? Ridiculous.
>

They could be stiffer, stronger and be buckle free. A buckled rim without a
dent has failed through poor build.

Fitting the spoke to the wheel is not silly, it is normal engineering
practice to fit a component.
It is not required to grossly tension the spokes and to then squeeze them
together with all your might. That's plain silly.
Have you tried my wheel test? Or are you afraid of destroying a wheel.

Trevor

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

[email protected] wrote in message <3w8Uc.7897>
>How does putting a kink in the spoke at the crossing change lateral
>motion at that point as spoke tension varies from radial loading.

You are being stubborn.
The wheel rotates under load and one spoke and its partner will be at
different tensions as they pass the ground. The varience in tension between
the two means that they will move. As one is extended more than the other
it will push against the shorter.

>Spokes do not fail at the crossing but rather in the thread and
>elbow... or at the threads and spoke head for elbowless spokes. I am
>sure that if you drew an exaggerated view of the crossing you would
>find that whether spokes cross with an angular bend rather than a
>radiused one, there is no difference in lateral displacement with
>load.

Yes there is, because the long curve of the more relaxed spoke will give
more than the angular shaped spoke for the same force.

>
>Besides this consideration, you should be aware that many bicycle do
>not interleave spokes at the crossing and still suffer spoke failures
>at the ends. Also as I mentioned, there are many spoke patterns today
>that have no spokes of one flange crossing each other.

The interleave reduces spoke failure at the hub when made in the manner I
present.
I have not seen fatigue failure at the threads, many failures at the hub
interface. I do not recommend the use of wheels without the interleave.

>
>> A wheel built without shaping at the x-ing require an infinite amount of
>> tension in the spokes to enable them to come close to being straight.
This
>> is why you have found high tension in spokes reduces fatigue failure of
>> those spokes.
>
>I made no such finding. That is a bit of myth and lore that gets
>retold in this forum from time to time. I suspect you have not read
>"the Bicycle Wheel" other than the cover and take your cues from
>hearsay or you wouldn't make the claims you do.

You made no such reasoning, however:
You have claimed you have used wheels with reduced spoke failure.
You have claimed you use high tension in your spokes.
Therefore the summation is correct. You have found high tension in the
spokes reduces fatigue failure of those spokes. Your reasons are incorrect
in that you attribute the long life to 'stress releiving'.

>
>> The over tensioning also helps in the respect of shaping the x-ing
>> so will also help. I have gone one step further and specifically
>> shaped the spokes at the x-ing point so that spokes are straight
>> from hub to x-ing and from x-ing to rim. They deviate little
>> whether extremely tight or just tight enough to prevent loose spokes
>> under service conditions.
>
>That is also untrue. Removing a spoke from a highly tensioned wheel
>after many thousand miles shows it to be straight and without more
>than a fretting mark at the point of interleaving with its neighbor.

You did not stress releive the spokes then. When I squeezed with all my
might it certainly did change the shape of the spoke. So you do not
practice what you preach and therefore the spoke life of that spoke you
refer to is due to material and not the construction of the wheel.

>
>> Lace wheel in standard manner. tension so spokes assume final
>> angle. Mark x-ing point on pair of spokes. Remove nipples on this
>> pair. Bend spokes across each other so there angular displacement
>> is equal and appropriate for their final resting position. Install
>> nipples with driver, checking that the spokes are touching each
>> other and the nipples are centred and slack in the rim holes. Check
>> the angles with a straight edge and a gauge, little finger nail may
>> do. Tighten back to initial tension. Work round wheel doing all
>> the other pairs. When the wheel is tightened up for service it will
>> be seen upon inspection that movement at the crossing points is
>> minimal. It will be found that truing up becomes very easy, with
>> each nipple movement placing an obvious related movement at the rim.
>
>Thanks for clarifying your method. Just the same I believe your are
>imagining the beneficial results because spoke crossing movement is
>not dependent on the shape of the intersection but rather where the
>contact resides between spoke ends and the change in tension under
>loading. I am certain that you did not measure the displacement
>because that measurement can be computed and it is not influenced by
>spoke shape. Shape is a parameter that doesn't appear in the
>calculation.

That is why the calculation will be wrong, I urge you to measure the
displacement of a crossing point of a wheel without the shaping to which I
refer as the spokes rotate the bottom half of the cycle. A dial guage will
show the variation. A firmer fixing will always show reduced movement.

>
>> Without shaping, the spoke curves around its partner and so
>> maintains this curve unless infinite spoke tension is used. Steel
>> is always curved to make springs. Hence you have a spring. This is
>> what makes a wheel sloppy. Take a spoke out of one of your wheels
>> and examine how straight it is. You will find it to be curved, and
>> so it is acting as a spring, maintaining similar tension on
>> contraction and expansion. a straight spoke will increasingly
>> resist expansion as the strain increases. Only minimal tension is
>> required, not maximal because the spoke is already straight.
>
>You are incorrect, the spokes are straight or at least do not reveal
>where they crossed other than a fretting witness mark.

You did not squeeze your spokes with all your might, unless your'e a namby
pamby. So therefore if you did not reshape the spoke during 'stress
releiving' you could not have releived residual stress within your spokes
and so cannot account that this method reduces spoke fatigue, and that it is
entirly within your imagination.

>
>> So here we have a wheel which does not require exceedingly high
>> tensions to make it function and so it is unlikely to snap a spoke
>> or pop a nipple. I use linseed oil to prevent the nipple rattling
>> out of adjustment with vibration during gross overload of the wheel.
>
>I think your perception of a wheel are inaccurate. Why tension the
>spokes at any more than to remove slack if tension is not a practical
>function in the tensioned wire wheel? In fact using an average wheel
>in a tandem generally does not work long because loads are
>systematically near twice as great as on a single.

My method of wheelbuilding follows standard engineering practice. I do not
perceive a wheel, I do not imagine it, I hold it in my hands and examine it
and observe its reactions under varying conditions. A wheel cannot be built
in the mind or with mathematics, it must be built with the hands and the
eyes.
I advise that tension within the spokes is required for the maximum expected
loading and no more.

It is you who thinks spokes carry their load by compression, not I.
You cannot complicate the matter with tandem use. The wheel works in the
same manner. In the UK, normal racing wheels are used for racing tandems.

You live in an imaginary world full of equations, you fail to see what is
before you because your judgement is clouded by mathematics. The
application of math's to a problem you do not understand is a ridiculous
manner in attempt to support a theory of no foundation.

Trevor

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

Sheldon Brown wrote in message <[email protected]>...
>I hesitate to get involved in this thread which has become acrimonious
>all out of proportion to the trivial nature of the subject matter, but I
>can't resist...
>
>Although this is a serendipitous resulf of my stress relieving
>technique, I remain unconvinced that it is of any real importance. If
>it were, wheels built without interlaced spokes would likely be superior
> to wheels built with laced spokes where the builder has not kinked
>them at the crossing.

Your method does seem to approach it, but the certainty of the 'kink'
requires examination with a straight edge with the spoke loose. Is your
method used with galvanised STEEL? Yes the radial spoked wheel will be
superior until spoke failure (if you don't apply any torque to it and don't
brake and the hub holds together). Which may be sooner because the crossing
point modifies the loading curve to extend fatigue life.

Here lies the proof.

Take an otherwise identical wheel except one built to Brandt spec. and the
other built to my spec. and apply the test. Mount in bike, stand on axle
nut and lean bike. The Brandt wheel will give whilst my wheel will not,
with lower spoke tension at the same angle.

Trevor

 

[B.B.]

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

>You did not squeeze your spokes with all your might, unless your'e a namby
>pamby.

[...]

>You live in an imaginary world full of equations....

Anyone else get the impression that Jeffrey wears a loincloth,
carries a club, and fears fire?
I know, I know--gas on a fire....

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net

 

[[email protected]]

Trevor Jeffrey writes:

>>> A wheel built without shaping at the x-ing require an infinite
>>> amount of tension in the spokes to enable them to come close to
>>> being straight. This is why you have found high tension in spokes
>>> reduces fatigue failure of those spokes.

>> I made no such finding. That is a bit of myth and lore that gets
>> retold in this forum from time to time. I suspect you have not
>> read "the Bicycle Wheel" other than the cover and take your cues
>> from hearsay or you wouldn't make the claims you do.

> You made no such reasoning, however:
> You have claimed you have used wheels with reduced spoke failure.
> You have claimed you use high tension in your spokes.
> Therefore the summation is correct. You have found high tension in the
> spokes reduces fatigue failure of those spokes. Your reasons are incorrect
> in that you attribute the long life to 'stress releiving'.

You'll have to show me where I said higher tension reduces spoke
fatigue failures. You then interject stress relieving with no9
explanation why that cannot be useful. You keep making up straw men
at which to shoot. Pick some real targets.

>>> The over tensioning also helps in the respect of shaping the x-ing
>>> so will also help. I have gone one step further and specifically
>>> shaped the spokes at the x-ing point so that spokes are straight
>>> from hub to x-ing and from x-ing to rim. They deviate little
>>> whether extremely tight or just tight enough to prevent loose
>>> spokes under service conditions.

>> That is also untrue. Removing a spoke from a highly tensioned
>> wheel after many thousand miles shows it to be straight and without
>> more than a fretting mark at the point of interleaving with its
>> neighbor.

> You did not stress releive the spokes then. When I squeezed with
> all my might it certainly did change the shape of the spoke. So you
> do not practice what you preach and therefore the spoke life of that
> spoke you refer to is due to material and not the construction of
> the wheel.

That is untrue. I have enough spokes removed from tight and stress
relieved wheels that show no angular bend at the crossing point after
long use. The crossing point can be found by running a fingernail
over the spoke to detect a fretting notch that is otherwise barely
visible.

>>> Lace wheel in standard manner. tension so spokes assume final
>>> angle. Mark x-ing point on pair of spokes. Remove nipples on
>>> this pair. Bend spokes across each other so there angular
>>> displacement is equal and appropriate for their final resting
>>> position. Install nipples with driver, checking that the spokes
>>> are touching each other and the nipples are centred and slack in
>>> the rim holes. Check the angles with a straight edge and a gauge,
>>> little finger nail may do. Tighten back to initial tension. Work
>>> round wheel doing all the other pairs. When the wheel is
>>> tightened up for service it will be seen upon inspection that
>>> movement at the crossing points is minimal. It will be found that
>>> truing up becomes very easy, with each nipple movement placing an
>>> obvious related movement at the rim.

>> Thanks for clarifying your method. Just the same I believe your
>> are imagining the beneficial results because spoke crossing
>> movement is not dependent on the shape of the intersection but
>> rather where the contact resides between spoke ends and the change
>> in tension under loading. I am certain that you did not measure
>> the displacement because that measurement can be computed and it is
>> not influenced by spoke shape. Shape is a parameter that doesn't
>> appear in the calculation.

> That is why the calculation will be wrong, I urge you to measure the
> displacement of a crossing point of a wheel without the shaping to
> which I refer as the spokes rotate the bottom half of the cycle. A
> dial guage will show the variation. A firmer fixing will always
> show reduced movement.

At what load should this measurement be made? You must realize that
if this were a significant motion, you would hear it in riding. To see
what the sound would be, push crossing spokes across their scissor
like joint and hear the distinct click. You will not find that when
riding under any load you choose.

>>> Without shaping, the spoke curves around its partner and so
>>> maintains this curve unless infinite spoke tension is used. Steel
>>> is always curved to make springs. Hence you have a spring. This
>>> is what makes a wheel sloppy. Take a spoke out of one of your
>>> wheels and examine how straight it is. You will find it to be
>>> curved, and so it is acting as a spring, maintaining similar
>>> tension on contraction and expansion. a straight spoke will
>>> increasingly resist expansion as the strain increases. Only
>>> minimal tension is required, not maximal because the spoke is
>>> already straight.

>> You are incorrect, the spokes are straight or at least do not
>> reveal where they crossed other than a fretting witness mark.

> You did not squeeze your spokes with all your might, unless your'e a
> namby pamby. So therefore if you did not reshape the spoke during
> 'stress releiving' you could not have releived residual stress
> within your spokes and so cannot account that this method reduces
> spoke fatigue, and that it is entirly within your imagination.

I disagree. How do you explain my touring/everyday wheels that have
about 200,000 miles on them (albeit with many rim replacements)? I
just finished another 3350km tour of the Alps with no wheel problems.
It has been many years on these hubs and spokes.

>>> So here we have a wheel which does not require exceedingly high
>>> tensions to make it function and so it is unlikely to snap a spoke
>>> or pop a nipple. I use linseed oil to prevent the nipple rattling
>>> out of adjustment with vibration during gross overload of the
>>> wheel.

>> I think your perception of a wheel are inaccurate. Why tension the
>> spokes at any more than to remove slack if tension is not a
>> practical function in the tensioned wire wheel? In fact using an
>> average wheel in a tandem generally does not work long because
>> loads are systematically near twice as great as on a single.

> My method of wheelbuilding follows standard engineering practice. I
> do not perceive a wheel, I do not imagine it, I hold it in my hands
> and examine it and observe its reactions under varying conditions.
> A wheel cannot be built in the mind or with mathematics, it must be
> built with the hands and the eyes.

> I advise that tension within the spokes is required for the maximum
> expected loading and no more.

Oh? What is the relationship between tension and "maximum expected
loading"?

> It is you who thinks spokes carry their load by compression, not I.
> You cannot complicate the matter with tandem use. The wheel works
> in the same manner. In the UK, normal racing wheels are used for
> racing tandems.

Pleas find where I stated that spokes operate in compression. That is
entirely your distortion of the mechanical model.

> You live in an imaginary world full of equations, you fail to see
> what is before you because your judgement is clouded by mathematics.
> The application of math's to a problem you do not understand is a
> ridiculous manner in attempt to support a theory of no foundation.

I take it you did not attend and engineering school and have an
aversion to analytical computation. That is unfortunate because it
bars much understanding of physical phenomena.

You remind me in a way of one of Einstein's colleagues in Zurich who
as an octogenarian complained in an interview that "He had no right to
publish (his theory of relativity) because he hadn't done the
research."

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[David Damerell]

Trevor Jeffrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell wrote in message ...
>>Why is it not, then, found that truing radially spoked wheels is equally
>>"very easy"? They have no crossing points.
>You have poor dexterity.

This is an attempt at a diversion; you're trying to talk about me, because
the general case exposes that you are wrong.

People do not, in general, find radially spoked wheels exceptionally easy
to true; but they would if you were correct. Why is that?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

[email protected] wrote in message ...
>
>> You made no such reasoning, however:
>> You have claimed you have used wheels with reduced spoke failure.
>> You have claimed you use high tension in your spokes.
>> Therefore the summation is correct. You have found high tension in the
>> spokes reduces fatigue failure of those spokes. Your reasons are
incorrect
>> in that you attribute the long life to 'stress releiving'.

>You'll have to show me where I said higher tension reduces spoke
>fatigue failures. You then interject stress relieving with no9
>explanation why that cannot be useful. You keep making up straw men
>at which to shoot. Pick some real targets.

The summation remains correct.
I did not say stress releif cannot be useful. I said that because no
reshaping of your spokes had taken place, that you therefore could not have
taken the spokes to a sufficient tension to remove internal streeses by
plastic deformation. If you had, the spokes would not be straight when
removed from the wheel.

>
>>>> The over tensioning also helps in the respect of shaping the x-ing
>>>> so will also help. I have gone one step further and specifically
>>>> shaped the spokes at the x-ing point so that spokes are straight
>>>> from hub to x-ing and from x-ing to rim. They deviate little
>>>> whether extremely tight or just tight enough to prevent loose
>>>> spokes under service conditions.
>
>>> That is also untrue. Removing a spoke from a highly tensioned
>>> wheel after many thousand miles shows it to be straight and without
>>> more than a fretting mark at the point of interleaving with its
>>> neighbor.
>
>> You did not stress releive the spokes then. When I squeezed with
>> all my might it certainly did change the shape of the spoke. So you
>> do not practice what you preach and therefore the spoke life of that
>> spoke you refer to is due to material and not the construction of
>> the wheel.
>
>That is untrue. I have enough spokes removed from tight and stress
>relieved wheels that show no angular bend at the crossing point after
>long use. The crossing point can be found by running a fingernail
>over the spoke to detect a fretting notch that is otherwise barely
>visible.
So you could not have taken the spoke into the plastic deformation zone to
remove internal stresses. So it is all folly, and it is the material
assists in fatigue failure reduction.

>
>>>> Lace wheel in standard manner. tension so spokes assume final
>>>> angle. Mark x-ing point on pair of spokes. Remove nipples on
>>>> this pair. Bend spokes across each other so there angular
>>>> displacement is equal and appropriate for their final resting
>>>> position. Install nipples with driver, checking that the spokes
>>>> are touching each other and the nipples are centred and slack in
>>>> the rim holes. Check the angles with a straight edge and a gauge,
>>>> little finger nail may do. Tighten back to initial tension. Work
>>>> round wheel doing all the other pairs. When the wheel is
>>>> tightened up for service it will be seen upon inspection that
>>>> movement at the crossing points is minimal. It will be found that
>>>> truing up becomes very easy, with each nipple movement placing an
>>>> obvious related movement at the rim.
>
>>> Thanks for clarifying your method. Just the same I believe your
>>> are imagining the beneficial results because spoke crossing
>>> movement is not dependent on the shape of the intersection but
>>> rather where the contact resides between spoke ends and the change
>>> in tension under loading. I am certain that you did not measure
>>> the displacement because that measurement can be computed and it is
>>> not influenced by spoke shape. Shape is a parameter that doesn't
>>> appear in the calculation.
>
>> That is why the calculation will be wrong, I urge you to measure the
>> displacement of a crossing point of a wheel without the shaping to
>> which I refer as the spokes rotate the bottom half of the cycle. A
>> dial guage will show the variation. A firmer fixing will always
>> show reduced movement.
>
>At what load should this measurement be made? You must realize that
>if this were a significant motion, you would hear it in riding. To see
>what the sound would be, push crossing spokes across their scissor
>like joint and hear the distinct click. You will not find that when
>riding under any load you choose.

You have just referred to fretting marks on your spokes and then say any
motion is insignificant and you would have heard it. The fact is, is that
you didn't and yet there was, as evident of the fretting marks. As nobody
pushes the scissor like joint whilst the vehicle is in use it is an
irrelevant statement to make, but then you frequenty pad out your posts with
irellevancies. What is relevant is that the joint moves laterally wrt the
wheel when the wheel is rotated under load. It is only in the region of
5thou of a good wheel but it is this tiny movement causing the rocking of
the spoke end which is the primary cause of spoke failure due to fatigue.
Examination of broken spokes will confirm that the fracture is consistent
with bending failure.

>
>>>> Without shaping, the spoke curves around its partner and so
>>>> maintains this curve unless infinite spoke tension is used. Steel
>>>> is always curved to make springs. Hence you have a spring. This
>>>> is what makes a wheel sloppy. Take a spoke out of one of your
>>>> wheels and examine how straight it is. You will find it to be
>>>> curved, and so it is acting as a spring, maintaining similar
>>>> tension on contraction and expansion. a straight spoke will
>>>> increasingly resist expansion as the strain increases. Only
>>>> minimal tension is required, not maximal because the spoke is
>>>> already straight.
>
>>> You are incorrect, the spokes are straight or at least do not
>>> reveal where they crossed other than a fretting witness mark.
>
>> You did not squeeze your spokes with all your might, unless your'e a
>> namby pamby. So therefore if you did not reshape the spoke during
>> 'stress releiving' you could not have releived residual stress
>> within your spokes and so cannot account that this method reduces
>> spoke fatigue, and that it is entirly within your imagination.
>
>I disagree. How do you explain my touring/everyday wheels that have
>about 200,000 miles on them (albeit with many rim replacements)? I
>just finished another 3350km tour of the Alps with no wheel problems.
>It has been many years on these hubs and spokes.

I've been through this in detail with you before. Could you explain what
happened to each rim that required it to be replaced?
>
>>>> So here we have a wheel which does not require exceedingly high
>>>> tensions to make it function and so it is unlikely to snap a spoke
>>>> or pop a nipple. I use linseed oil to prevent the nipple rattling
>>>> out of adjustment with vibration during gross overload of the
>>>> wheel.
>
>>> I think your perception of a wheel are inaccurate. Why tension the
>>> spokes at any more than to remove slack if tension is not a
>>> practical function in the tensioned wire wheel? In fact using an
>>> average wheel in a tandem generally does not work long because
>>> loads are systematically near twice as great as on a single.
>
>> My method of wheelbuilding follows standard engineering practice. I
>> do not perceive a wheel, I do not imagine it, I hold it in my hands
>> and examine it and observe its reactions under varying conditions.
>> A wheel cannot be built in the mind or with mathematics, it must be
>> built with the hands and the eyes.
>
>> I advise that tension within the spokes is required for the maximum
>> expected loading and no more.
>
>Oh? What is the relationship between tension and "maximum expected
>loading"?
I have explained in detail my test for ascertainig correct spoke tension, of
which you confirmed would normally 'fold' wheels of other construction. I
presume you mean buckle when you use the term fold.
>
>> It is you who thinks spokes carry their load by compression, not I.
>> You cannot complicate the matter with tandem use. The wheel works
>> in the same manner. In the UK, normal racing wheels are used for
>> racing tandems.
>
>Pleas find where I stated that spokes operate in compression. That is
>entirely your distortion of the mechanical model.
No it is what users of this newsgroup perceive you mean, I wouldn't like to
go against the flow.
IIRC you use the term 'commpressive force' when refering to the relaxation
of a spoke due to the bending force applied to the rim near to the ground.
>
>> You live in an imaginary world full of equations, you fail to see
>> what is before you because your judgement is clouded by mathematics.
>> The application of math's to a problem you do not understand is a
>> ridiculous manner in attempt to support a theory of no foundation.
>
>I take it you did not attend and engineering school and have an
>aversion to analytical computation. That is unfortunate because it
>bars much understanding of physical phenomena.
The analysis is incorrect when exclusions have to be made. You cannot
exclude evidence because it does not satisfy your analysis. You're not the
government. Where are the absolute spoke strain guage measurements for a
rotating wheel.

>
>You remind me in a way of one of Einstein's colleagues in Zurich who
>as an octogenarian complained in an interview that "He had no right to
>publish (his theory of relativity) because he hadn't done the
>research."
You're not XXXXXX Einstein, you heretic.
We use Newtonian physics in this area.
You could prove your case with some test results. Where are the absolute
spoke strain measurements for a rotating loaded wheel? Do they not exist at
all?

Trevor

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

David Damerell wrote in message ...
>People do not, in general, find radially spoked wheels exceptionally easy
>to true; but they would if you were correct. Why is that?

You got me, Idon't know why people do not, in general, find radially spoked
wheels exceptionally easy to true. I am not people, I was making
suggestions why other people may of course find this difficult. The most
likely explanation is through overtensioning. It is not a build pattern I
recommend.

Trevor

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Trevor Jeffrey" <[email protected]> writes:

> [email protected] wrote in message ...
>>
>>How do you explain my touring/everyday wheels that have about
>>200,000 miles on them (albeit with many rim replacements)? I just
>>finished another 3350km tour of the Alps with no wheel problems. It
>>has been many years on these hubs and spokes.
>
> I've been through this in detail with you before. Could you explain
> what happened to each rim that required it to be replaced?

Are you suffering from dementia or merely lazy, Trevor? Or are you
just continuing to pursue your weird stalking behavior, hoping that if
you can get Jobst to write 400 posts in explanation that he'll type
something you can pounce on and declare yet again "Job done. Jobst
done." Sheesh, what a pathetic little weasel you have become, Trev.

This has been discussed time and again. Hell, *I* can tell you how
most of those rims came to be replaced after reading these sorts of
inane challenges year in and year out- they wore out at the braking
surface. The rest were replaced after being damaged hitting potholes
and the like. Go look it up in frigging Google and atop being a twit.

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Trevor Jeffrey" <[email protected]> writes:

> David Damerell wrote in message ...
>>People do not, in general, find radially spoked wheels exceptionally
>>easy to true; but they would if you were correct. Why is that?
>
> You got me, Idon't know why people do not, in general, find radially
> spoked wheels exceptionally easy to true. I am not people,

Finally you're making some sense.

> I was making suggestions why other people may of course find this
> difficult.

Yes, we know you are superior to the mass of men leading lives of
quiet desperation. You've told us any number of times.

 

[[email protected]]

Trevor Jeffrey writes:

>> You'll have to show me where I said higher tension reduces spoke
>> fatigue failures. You then interject stress relieving with no
>> explanation why that cannot be useful. You keep making up straw men
>> at which to shoot. Pick some real targets.

> The summation remains correct.
> I did not say stress releif cannot be useful. I said that because no
> reshaping of your spokes had taken place, that you therefore could not have
> taken the spokes to a sufficient tension to remove internal streeses by
> plastic deformation. If you had, the spokes would not be straight when
> removed from the wheel.

You are only showing that you don't understand stress relief.
Stretching a spoke manually by the method I outline in the book is not
enough to bring the entire spoke cross section to yield. That much
force would damage the rim and possibly the spoke nipples, the force
being applied at an angle to the normal spoke line. Therefore, this
proves that stress at crossing points is so low that it is not brought
to yield by manual stress relief, nothing more.

>>>>> The over tensioning also helps in the respect of shaping the
>>>>> x-ing so will also help. I have gone one step further and
>>>>> specifically shaped the spokes at the x-ing point so that spokes
>>>>> are straight from hub to x-ing and from x-ing to rim. They
>>>>> deviate little whether extremely tight or just tight enough to
>>>>> prevent loose spokes under service conditions.

You never said how you do this, but by now that is immaterial, the
whole idea being to preposterous to take seriously.

>>>> That is also untrue. Removing a spoke from a highly tensioned
>>>> wheel after many thousand miles shows it to be straight and
>>>> without more than a fretting mark at the point of interleaving
>>>> with its neighbor.

>>> You did not stress releive the spokes then. When I squeezed with
>>> all my might it certainly did change the shape of the spoke. So
>>> you do not practice what you preach and therefore the spoke life
>>> of that spoke you refer to is due to material and not the
>>> construction of the wheel.

>> That is untrue. I have enough spokes removed from tight and stress
>> relieved wheels that show no angular bend at the crossing point
>> after long use. The crossing point can be found by running a
>> fingernail over the spoke to detect a fretting notch that is
>> otherwise barely visible.

> So you could not have taken the spoke into the plastic deformation
> zone to remove internal stresses. So it is all folly, and it is the
> material assists in fatigue failure reduction.

ibid.

>>>>> Lace wheel in standard manner. tension so spokes assume final
>>>>> angle. Mark x-ing point on pair of spokes. Remove nipples on
>>>>> this pair. Bend spokes across each other so there angular
>>>>> displacement is equal and appropriate for their final resting
>>>>> position. Install nipples with driver, checking that the spokes
>>>>> are touching each other and the nipples are centred and slack in
>>>>> the rim holes. Check the angles with a straight edge and a gauge,
>>>>> little finger nail may do. Tighten back to initial tension. Work
>>>>> round wheel doing all the other pairs. When the wheel is
>>>>> tightened up for service it will be seen upon inspection that
>>>>> movement at the crossing points is minimal. It will be found that
>>>>> truing up becomes very easy, with each nipple movement placing an
>>>>> obvious related movement at the rim.

>>>> Thanks for clarifying your method. Just the same I believe your
>>>> are imagining the beneficial results because spoke crossing
>>>> movement is not dependent on the shape of the intersection but
>>>> rather where the contact resides between spoke ends and the change
>>>> in tension under loading. I am certain that you did not measure
>>>> the displacement because that measurement can be computed and it is
>>>> not influenced by spoke shape. Shape is a parameter that doesn't
>>>> appear in the calculation.

You still did not describe how you impart this kink to the spokes.

>>> That is why the calculation will be wrong, I urge you to measure the
>>> displacement of a crossing point of a wheel without the shaping to
>>> which I refer as the spokes rotate the bottom half of the cycle. A
>>> dial guage will show the variation. A firmer fixing will always
>>> show reduced movement.

>> At what load should this measurement be made? You must realize
>> that if this were a significant motion, you would hear it in
>> riding. To see what the sound would be, push crossing spokes
>> across their scissor like joint and hear the distinct click. You
>> will not find that when riding under any load you choose.

> You have just referred to fretting marks on your spokes and then say
> any motion is insignificant and you would have heard it. The fact
> is, is that you didn't and yet there was, as evident of the fretting
> marks.

I think you don't understand fretting. These are motions too small to
be observed visually or acoustically without special high resolution
measuring methods. These are motions that damage rolling element
bearings subjected to microscopic rocking motions and are the cause
of, for instance, dimpled head bearings and noisy pinion bearings on
some (expensive) imported cars.

> As nobody pushes the scissor like joint whilst the vehicle is in use
> it is an irrelevant statement to make, but then you frequenty pad
> out your posts with irellevancies.

No one asked you to displace spokes laterally when riding. That is
your straw man once more. Fretting notches can be detected on wheels
without installing them in a bicycle or rotating them. Just move the
spoke crossing away from it's natural position and back again,
manually.

> What is relevant is that the joint moves laterally wrt the wheel
> when the wheel is rotated under load. It is only in the region of
> 5thou of a good wheel but it is this tiny movement causing the
> rocking of the spoke end which is the primary cause of spoke failure
> due to fatigue. Examination of broken spokes will confirm that the
> fracture is consistent with bending failure.

That's an unusual claim that requires some supporting evidence.
Please offer some.

>>>>> Without shaping, the spoke curves around its partner and so
>>>>> maintains this curve unless infinite spoke tension is used.
>>>>> Steel is always curved to make springs. Hence you have a
>>>>> spring. This is what makes a wheel sloppy. Take a spoke out of
>>>>> one of your wheels and examine how straight it is. You will
>>>>> find it to be curved, and so it is acting as a spring,
>>>>> maintaining similar tension on contraction and expansion. a
>>>>> straight spoke will increasingly resist expansion as the strain
>>>>> increases. Only minimal tension is required, not maximal
>>>>> because the spoke is already straight.

>>>> You are incorrect, the spokes are straight or at least do not
>>>> reveal where they crossed other than a fretting witness mark.

>>> You did not squeeze your spokes with all your might, unless your'e a
>>> namby pamby. So therefore if you did not reshape the spoke during
>>> 'stress releiving' you could not have releived residual stress
>>> within your spokes and so cannot account that this method reduces
>>> spoke fatigue, and that it is entirly within your imagination.

ibid.

>> I disagree. How do you explain my touring/everyday wheels that
>> have about 200,000 miles on them (albeit with many rim
>> replacements)? I just finished another 3350km tour of the Alps
>> with no wheel problems. It has been many years on these hubs and
>> spokes.

> I've been through this in detail with you before. Could you explain what
> happened to each rim that required it to be replaced?

They wore out from braking and some from dents too large to be
straightened. What does that have to do with spoke durability?

>>>>> So here we have a wheel which does not require exceedingly high
>>>>> tensions to make it function and so it is unlikely to snap a
>>>>> spoke or pop a nipple. I use linseed oil to prevent the nipple
>>>>> rattling out of adjustment with vibration during gross overload
>>>>> of the wheel.

>>>> I think your perception of a wheel are inaccurate. Why tension
>>>> the spokes at any more than to remove slack if tension is not a
>>>> practical function in the tensioned wire wheel? In fact using an
>>>> average wheel in a tandem generally does not work long because
>>>> loads are systematically near twice as great as on a single.

>>> My method of wheelbuilding follows standard engineering practice.
>>> I do not perceive a wheel, I do not imagine it, I hold it in my
>>> hands and examine it and observe its reactions under varying
>>> conditions. A wheel cannot be built in the mind or with
>>> mathematics, it must be built with the hands and the eyes.

>>> I advise that tension within the spokes is required for the
>>> maximum expected loading and no more.

>> Oh? What is the relationship between tension and "maximum expected
>> loading"?

> I have explained in detail my test for ascertainig correct spoke tension, of
> which you confirmed would normally 'fold' wheels of other construction. I
> presume you mean buckle when you use the term fold.

At what load and how applied and how measured... load, angle, and
deflection?

>>> It is you who thinks spokes carry their load by compression, not
>>> I. You cannot complicate the matter with tandem use. The wheel
>>> works in the same manner. In the UK, normal racing wheels are
>>> used for racing tandems.

>> Pleas find where I stated that spokes operate in compression. That
>> is entirely your distortion of the mechanical model.

> No it is what users of this newsgroup perceive you mean, I wouldn't like to
> go against the flow.

You may be surprised that you are the only one making that interpretation.
You will not find that anywhere in "the Bicycle Wheel".

> IIRC you use the term 'commpressive force' when refering to the relaxation
> of a spoke due to the bending force applied to the rim near to the ground.

ibid.

>>> You live in an imaginary world full of equations, you fail to see
>>> what is before you because your judgement is clouded by
>>> mathematics. The application of math's to a problem you do not
>>> understand is a ridiculous manner in attempt to support a theory
>>> of no foundation.

>> I take it you did not attend and engineering school and have an
>> aversion to analytical computation. That is unfortunate because it
>> bars much understanding of physical phenomena.

> The analysis is incorrect when exclusions have to be made. You
> cannot exclude evidence because it does not satisfy your analysis.
> You're not the government. Where are the absolute spoke strain
> guage measurements for a rotating wheel.

I have no idea what you mean by these exclusions.

>> You remind me in a way of one of Einstein's colleagues in Zurich who
>> as an octogenarian complained in an interview that "He had no right to
>> publish (his theory of relativity) because he hadn't done the
>> research."

> You're not XXXXXX Einstein, you heretic.

You are in the same camp as the professors in Zurich that were enraged
that Albert Einstein had the temerity to publish without groveling
around laboratories under their tutelage to develop his relativity
theory. His work was well documented and has since been verified by
many physicists following his theoretical methods.

> We use Newtonian physics in this area.

Who is "we"?

> You could prove your case with some test results. Where are the
> absolute spoke strain measurements for a rotating loaded wheel? Do
> they not exist at all?

What do you think the graphs and data in the book are if not stress
and strain? As I said, you keep trying to prove that you have never
opened the book.

May I suggest you submit your texts to a spell checker so we aren't
flooded with your peculiar words. I'm sure there must be one for UK
English.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[David Damerell]

Trevor Jeffrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell wrote in message ...
>>People do not, in general, find radially spoked wheels exceptionally easy
>>to true; but they would if you were correct. Why is that?
>You got me, Idon't know why people do not, in general, find radially spoked
>wheels exceptionally easy to true.

That is awkward, because they would if your theory was correct. So we
deduce what, exactly?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[David Damerell]

Trevor Jeffrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>irellevancies. What is relevant is that the joint moves laterally wrt the
>wheel when the wheel is rotated under load. It is only in the region of
>5thou of a good wheel but it is this tiny movement causing the rocking of
>the spoke end which is the primary cause of spoke failure due to fatigue.
>Examination of broken spokes will confirm that the fracture is consistent
>with bending failure.

That's odd; elsewhere you stated that radially spoked wheels and other
designs without spoke crossings were _more_ prone to fatigue failures.
However, if what you say here is accurate, they eliminate the primary
cause of such failures. How do you explain that discrepancy?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

[email protected] wrote in message
<[email protected]>...
>You are only showing that you don't understand stress relief.
>Stretching a spoke manually by the method I outline in the book is not
>enough to bring the entire spoke cross section to yield. That much
>force would damage the rim and possibly the spoke nipples, the force
>being applied at an angle to the normal spoke line. Therefore, this
>proves that stress at crossing points is so low that it is not brought
>to yield by manual stress relief, nothing more.

It would not only damge the rim , but also also damage the spokes, which is
why it is a rediculous proposition. The manufacturer has done all the work,
and the only reason you have difficulty is because you do not use proper
installation technique. If the stress induced at the crossing point is so
low as not to change the line of the spoke, it is also too low to affect
anywhere else, especially that which does not have the andvantage of 'a
force being applied at an angle to the normal spoke line.' Where are the
absolute spoke strain readings for a rotating wheel?

>
>You still did not describe how you impart this kink to the spokes.
I have,do not be so lazy an read the posts which I have replied to you.
Where are the absolute spoke strain readings for a rotating wheel?


>>> At what load should this measurement be made? You must realize
>>> that if this were a significant motion, you would hear it in
>>> riding. To see what the sound would be, push crossing spokes
>>> across their scissor like joint and hear the distinct click. You
>>> will not find that when riding under any load you choose.
>
>> You have just referred to fretting marks on your spokes and then say
>> any motion is insignificant and you would have heard it. The fact
>> is, is that you didn't and yet there was, as evident of the fretting
>> marks.
>
>I think you don't understand fretting. These are motions too small to
>be observed visually or acoustically without special high resolution
>measuring methods. These are motions that damage rolling element
>bearings subjected to microscopic rocking motions and are the cause
>of, for instance, dimpled head bearings and noisy pinion bearings on
>some (expensive) imported cars.

Your are lookig through your telescope up to Uranus. I will not be diverted
into brinelled hesdsets. Your continual reference to fretting means that
you do not understand that the crossing moves. Stick a dial guage on it.
Americacan carriages are good though eh?

>
>> As nobody pushes the scissor like joint whilst the vehicle is in use
>> it is an irrelevant statement to make, but then you frequenty pad
>> out your posts with irellevancies.
>
>No one asked you to displace spokes laterally when riding. That is
>your straw man once more. Fretting notches can be detected on wheels
>without installing them in a bicycle or rotating them. Just move the
>spoke crossing away from it's natural position and back again,
>manually.

Irrelevant because that does not happen in service. a good wheel will move
crossings laterally by 5thou. Where are the absolute spoke strain readings
for a rotating wheel?

>
>> What is relevant is that the joint moves laterally wrt the wheel
>> when the wheel is rotated under load. It is only in the region of
>> 5thou of a good wheel but it is this tiny movement causing the
>> rocking of the spoke end which is the primary cause of spoke failure
>> due to fatigue. Examination of broken spokes will confirm that the
>> fracture is consistent with bending failure.
>
>That's an unusual claim that requires some supporting evidence.
>Please offer some.

Comparison
Metals handbook, Vol 10, 8ed, American Society for Metals.
unidirectional bending with no stress concentration cicular cross section.
Examination with 20x magnification, displacements evident for 1/5 of
section.
It may be unusual because most will not examine. Your claims of 'stress
relieving are proposterous' And don't use an awk script on this post.

>> happened to each rim that required it to be replaced?
>
>They wore out from braking and some from dents too large to be
>straightened. What does that have to do with spoke durability?
>
Pudding? What dent is too large to be straightened? You mean a buckle!
Where are the absolute spoke strain readings for a rotating wheel?

>
>> I have explained in detail my test for ascertainig correct spoke tension,
of
>> which you confirmed would normally 'fold' wheels of other construction.
I
>> presume you mean buckle when you use the term fold.
>
>At what load and how applied and how measured... load, angle, and
>deflection?
One rider on one wheel angled at minimum 20deg, simple. Deflection is if it
can be seen, there is a problem. Where are the absolute spoke strain
readings for a rotating wheel?

>>>> It is you who thinks spokes carry their load by compression, not
>>>> I. You cannot complicate the matter with tandem use. The wheel
>>>> works in the same manner. In the UK, normal racing wheels are
>>>> used for racing tandems.
>
>>> Pleas find where I stated that spokes operate in compression. That
>>> is entirely your distortion of the mechanical model.
>
>> No it is what users of this newsgroup perceive you mean, I wouldn't like
to
>> go against the flow.
>
>You may be surprised that you are the only one making that interpretation.
>You will not find that anywhere in "the Bicycle Wheel".
>

you never 'correct' him. Where are the absolute spoke strain readings for a
rotating wheel?

>
>>>> You live in an imaginary world full of equations, you fail to see
>>>> what is before you because your judgement is clouded by
>>>> mathematics. The application of math's to a problem you do not
>>>> understand is a ridiculous manner in attempt to support a theory
>>>> of no foundation.
>
>>> I take it you did not attend and engineering school and have an
>>> aversion to analytical computation. That is unfortunate because it
>>> bars much understanding of physical phenomena.
>
>> The analysis is incorrect when exclusions have to be made. You
>> cannot exclude evidence because it does not satisfy your analysis.
>> You're not the government. Where are the absolute spoke strain
>> guage measurements for a rotating wheel.
>
>I have no idea what you mean by these exclusions.

Well you should after at least fifteen years within this newsgroup. Have a
look
back, why don't you? Exclusions are made because your theory does not
accept slack spokes can exist within a bicycle wheel. Where are the
absolute spoke strain readings for a rotating wheel? Answer it!


>
>>> You remind me in a way of one of Einstein's colleagues in Zurich who
>>> as an octogenarian complained in an interview that "He had no right to
>>> publish (his theory of relativity) because he hadn't done the
>>> research."
>
>> You're not XXXXXX Einstein, you heretic.
>
>You are in the same camp as the professors in Zurich that were enraged
>that Albert Einstein had the temerity to publish without groveling
>around laboratories under their tutelage to develop his relativity
>theory. His work was well documented and has since been verified by
>many physicists following his theoretical methods.
>
>> We use Newtonian physics in this area.
>
>Who is "we"?
All people with decent education.

>
>> You could prove your case with some test results. Where are the
>> absolute spoke strain measurements for a rotating loaded wheel? Do
>> they not exist at all?
>
>What do you think the graphs and data in the book are if not stress
>and strain? As I said, you keep trying to prove that you have never
>opened the book.
You do not publish the dwetails of absolute spoke strain as a wheel is
loaded. The figures are not in the book. Open it yourself and check what
you missed.

>
>May I suggest you submit your texts to a spell checker so we aren't
>flooded with your peculiar words. I'm sure there must be one for UK
>English.
>
Shove it you pseudo commi.

Trevor

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

David Damerell wrote in message ...
>
>That is awkward, because they would if your theory was correct. So we
>deduce what, exactly?

It applies to cross spoked wheels.

Trevor

 

[Trevor Jeffrey]

David Damerell wrote in message ...
>Trevor Jeffrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>irellevancies. What is relevant is that the joint moves laterally wrt the
>>wheel when the wheel is rotated under load. It is only in the region of
>>5thou of a good wheel but it is this tiny movement causing the rocking of
>>the spoke end which is the primary cause of spoke failure due to fatigue.
>>Examination of broken spokes will confirm that the fracture is consistent
>>with bending failure.
>
>That's odd; elsewhere you stated that radially spoked wheels and other
>designs without spoke crossings were _more_ prone to fatigue failures.
>However, if what you say here is accurate, they eliminate the primary
>cause of such failures. How do you explain that discrepancy?

It is not the crossing which causes shortened fatigue life, it is the
variation in tension, the speed of variance and the frequency of variance.
Crossing the spokes reduces this due to the shared load, as long as the
route of the spoke is direct from rim to crossing and crossing to hub. If
it is not, the rocking moments are such that fatigue failure due to bending
is the predominant factor.

Trevor

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:01:23 +0100, "Trevor Jeffrey"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote in message
><[email protected]>...
>>You are only showing that you don't understand stress relief.
>>Stretching a spoke manually by the method I outline in the book is not
>>enough to bring the entire spoke cross section to yield. That much
>>force would damage the rim and possibly the spoke nipples, the force
>>being applied at an angle to the normal spoke line. Therefore, this
>>proves that stress at crossing points is so low that it is not brought
>>to yield by manual stress relief, nothing more.
>
>It would not only damge the rim , but also also damage the spokes, which is
>why it is a rediculous proposition. The manufacturer has done all the work,
>and the only reason you have difficulty is because you do not use proper
>installation technique. If the stress induced at the crossing point is so
>low as not to change the line of the spoke, it is also too low to affect
>anywhere else, especially that which does not have the andvantage of 'a
>force being applied at an angle to the normal spoke line.' Where are the
>absolute spoke strain readings for a rotating wheel?
>
>>
>>You still did not describe how you impart this kink to the spokes.
>I have,do not be so lazy an read the posts which I have replied to you.
>Where are the absolute spoke strain readings for a rotating wheel?
>
>
>>>> At what load should this measurement be made? You must realize
>>>> that if this were a significant motion, you would hear it in
>>>> riding. To see what the sound would be, push crossing spokes
>>>> across their scissor like joint and hear the distinct click. You
>>>> will not find that when riding under any load you choose.
>>
>>> You have just referred to fretting marks on your spokes and then say
>>> any motion is insignificant and you would have heard it. The fact
>>> is, is that you didn't and yet there was, as evident of the fretting
>>> marks.
>>
>>I think you don't understand fretting. These are motions too small to
>>be observed visually or acoustically without special high resolution
>>measuring methods. These are motions that damage rolling element
>>bearings subjected to microscopic rocking motions and are the cause
>>of, for instance, dimpled head bearings and noisy pinion bearings on
>>some (expensive) imported cars.
>
>Your are lookig through your telescope up to Uranus. I will not be diverted
>into brinelled hesdsets. Your continual reference to fretting means that
>you do not understand that the crossing moves. Stick a dial guage on it.
>Americacan carriages are good though eh?
>
>>
>>> As nobody pushes the scissor like joint whilst the vehicle is in use
>>> it is an irrelevant statement to make, but then you frequenty pad
>>> out your posts with irellevancies.
>>
>>No one asked you to displace spokes laterally when riding. That is
>>your straw man once more. Fretting notches can be detected on wheels
>>without installing them in a bicycle or rotating them. Just move the
>>spoke crossing away from it's natural position and back again,
>>manually.
>
>Irrelevant because that does not happen in service. a good wheel will move
>crossings laterally by 5thou. Where are the absolute spoke strain readings
>for a rotating wheel?
>
>>
>>> What is relevant is that the joint moves laterally wrt the wheel
>>> when the wheel is rotated under load. It is only in the region of
>>> 5thou of a good wheel but it is this tiny movement causing the
>>> rocking of the spoke end which is the primary cause of spoke failure
>>> due to fatigue. Examination of broken spokes will confirm that the
>>> fracture is consistent with bending failure.
>>
>>That's an unusual claim that requires some supporting evidence.
>>Please offer some.
>
>Comparison
>Metals handbook, Vol 10, 8ed, American Society for Metals.
>unidirectional bending with no stress concentration cicular cross section.
>Examination with 20x magnification, displacements evident for 1/5 of
>section.
>It may be unusual because most will not examine. Your claims of 'stress
>relieving are proposterous' And don't use an awk script on this post.
>
>>> happened to each rim that required it to be replaced?
>>
>>They wore out from braking and some from dents too large to be
>>straightened. What does that have to do with spoke durability?
>>
>Pudding? What dent is too large to be straightened? You mean a buckle!
>Where are the absolute spoke strain readings for a rotating wheel?
>
>>
>>> I have explained in detail my test for ascertainig correct spoke tension,
>of
>>> which you confirmed would normally 'fold' wheels of other construction.
>I
>>> presume you mean buckle when you use the term fold.
>>
>>At what load and how applied and how measured... load, angle, and
>>deflection?
>One rider on one wheel angled at minimum 20deg, simple. Deflection is if it
>can be seen, there is a problem. Where are the absolute spoke strain
>readings for a rotating wheel?
>
>>>>> It is you who thinks spokes carry their load by compression, not
>>>>> I. You cannot complicate the matter with tandem use. The wheel
>>>>> works in the same manner. In the UK, normal racing wheels are
>>>>> used for racing tandems.
>>
>>>> Pleas find where I stated that spokes operate in compression. That
>>>> is entirely your distortion of the mechanical model.
>>
>>> No it is what users of this newsgroup perceive you mean, I wouldn't like
>to
>>> go against the flow.
>>
>>You may be surprised that you are the only one making that interpretation.
>>You will not find that anywhere in "the Bicycle Wheel".
>>
>
>you never 'correct' him. Where are the absolute spoke strain readings for a
>rotating wheel?
>
>>
>>>>> You live in an imaginary world full of equations, you fail to see
>>>>> what is before you because your judgement is clouded by
>>>>> mathematics. The application of math's to a problem you do not
>>>>> understand is a ridiculous manner in attempt to support a theory
>>>>> of no foundation.
>>
>>>> I take it you did not attend and engineering school and have an
>>>> aversion to analytical computation. That is unfortunate because it
>>>> bars much understanding of physical phenomena.
>>
>>> The analysis is incorrect when exclusions have to be made. You
>>> cannot exclude evidence because it does not satisfy your analysis.
>>> You're not the government. Where are the absolute spoke strain
>>> guage measurements for a rotating wheel.
>>
>>I have no idea what you mean by these exclusions.
>
>Well you should after at least fifteen years within this newsgroup. Have a
>look
>back, why don't you? Exclusions are made because your theory does not
>accept slack spokes can exist within a bicycle wheel. Where are the
>absolute spoke strain readings for a rotating wheel? Answer it!
>
>
>>
>>>> You remind me in a way of one of Einstein's colleagues in Zurich who
>>>> as an octogenarian complained in an interview that "He had no right to
>>>> publish (his theory of relativity) because he hadn't done the
>>>> research."
>>
>>> You're not XXXXXX Einstein, you heretic.
>>
>>You are in the same camp as the professors in Zurich that were enraged
>>that Albert Einstein had the temerity to publish without groveling
>>around laboratories under their tutelage to develop his relativity
>>theory. His work was well documented and has since been verified by
>>many physicists following his theoretical methods.
>>
>>> We use Newtonian physics in this area.
>>
>>Who is "we"?
>All people with decent education.
>
>>
>>> You could prove your case with some test results. Where are the
>>> absolute spoke strain measurements for a rotating loaded wheel? Do
>>> they not exist at all?
>>
>>What do you think the graphs and data in the book are if not stress
>>and strain? As I said, you keep trying to prove that you have never
>>opened the book.
>You do not publish the dwetails of absolute spoke strain as a wheel is
>loaded. The figures are not in the book. Open it yourself and check what
>you missed.
>
>>
>>May I suggest you submit your texts to a spell checker so we aren't
>>flooded with your peculiar words. I'm sure there must be one for UK
>>English.
>>
>Shove it you pseudo commi.
>
>Trevor

Dear Trevor,

Awk script? Pudding?

Carl Fogel