The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding



[email protected] wrote in message ...
>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>> Where can I find the abundant laboratory testing of spokes,
>> particularly of the stress relief theory popular here on
>> rec.bicycles.tech?

>

Answer the question.
Also where are the absolute strain measurements for a spoke within a
rotating wheel?

Trevor
 
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > Dear Trevor, that is yet another one of your red herrings. From
> > refusing to prove a positive proposition, which is the fundamental
> > requirement for demonstrating a theory, to a lame challenge for
> > someone to prove a negative- which hopefully you know enough about
> > logic to know is logically impossible.

>
> Er... perhaps you'd like to prove that you can NOT prove a negative?
> Didn't think so :)
>


I realize you are being facetious, but proving a negative isn't a
problem at all. Prove all good wheels are not square, for example.
No trouble at all. The problem arises when trying to prove statements
which are not falsifiable, a proposition has to be presented in such
a way that it is possible to prove it incorrect or it is not a logical
statement at all so we can not use logic to say anything about it.
For example, if I ask you to prove T is not an element of A, without
knowing any properties of the elements of A, it can not be done. But the
problem is not that I am asking you to prove a negative, it is that I
have asked a meaningless question.
 
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
>Dear Trevor, that is yet another one of your red herrings. From
>refusing to prove a positive proposition, which is the fundamental
>requirement for demonstrating a theory, to a lame challenge for
>someone to prove a negative- which hopefully you know enough about
>logic to know is logically impossible.
>
>So, after hundreds of posts, Trev, it's time for you to put up or shut
>up. You've never managed to do so before, and I have no faith that
>you'll do so now. But please, entertain us with the attempt.


You're an idiot. I cite an experience, I do not require proof. Do you have
somebody following you recording your every movement on video? Orwellian
culture is one I'd rather avoid, hence my reasons for making temporary
visits to this newsgroup. I was hoping in fourteen years this general
attitude that you present would have changed, I don't care what you think,
my presentation stands, whilst you just continue to criticise no matter how
well or detailed an explanation I give. Despite your constant irritation,
I still maintain my method to be correct and the best method I know to
construct a wheel. Why would you not want me to share this knowledge?
What theory have you believe I have presented? I have not presented
anything new, I have applied standard engineering practice, which results
in a more suitable wheel.


Trevor
 
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
>"Trevor Jeffrey" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>Nice palaver, but there is not a shred of evidence you offer to
>>>support your claim. And to think that you were the one stating that
>>>claims had to be proved.

>>
>> Simple. bend a paper clip back and forth. It work
>> hardens. continue. It snaps. Same thing.

>
>That's even more facetious than usual.


You're an ignorant and tiring.

Trevor
 
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
>
>Nice try, but not accurate. Same hubs, same spokes, different rims.
>Since spokes are under discussion here, if Jobst's method was as
>fatally flawed as you insist then one would expect that he would know
>by now, eh?
>

Yes, I think he does. Amazing how you cannot seem to accept the obvious.


Trevor
 
Jim Smith wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Trevor, that is yet another one of your red herrings. From
>>> refusing to prove a positive proposition, which is the fundamental
>>> requirement for demonstrating a theory, to a lame challenge for
>>> someone to prove a negative- which hopefully you know enough about
>>> logic to know is logically impossible.

>>
>> Er... perhaps you'd like to prove that you can NOT prove a negative?
>> Didn't think so :)

>
> I realize you are being facetious, but proving a negative isn't a
> problem at all.


Exactly. Science usually progresses by proving theories to be false.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 
On 21 Aug 2004 20:53:38 -0500, Jim Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Trevor, that is yet another one of your red herrings. From
>> > refusing to prove a positive proposition, which is the fundamental
>> > requirement for demonstrating a theory, to a lame challenge for
>> > someone to prove a negative- which hopefully you know enough about
>> > logic to know is logically impossible.

>>
>> Er... perhaps you'd like to prove that you can NOT prove a negative?
>> Didn't think so :)
>>

>
>I realize you are being facetious, but proving a negative isn't a
>problem at all. Prove all good wheels are not square, for example.
>No trouble at all. The problem arises when trying to prove statements
>which are not falsifiable, a proposition has to be presented in such
>a way that it is possible to prove it incorrect or it is not a logical
>statement at all so we can not use logic to say anything about it.
>For example, if I ask you to prove T is not an element of A, without
>knowing any properties of the elements of A, it can not be done. But the
>problem is not that I am asking you to prove a negative, it is that I
>have asked a meaningless question.


Dear Jim,

Here are some good square wheels, courtesy of Ted Bennett:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html

They give a much smoother ride over the surface than
outmoded round tires.

Carl Fogel
 
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:50:26 GMT,
[email protected] wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>> Where can I find the abundant laboratory testing of spokes,
>> particularly of the stress relief theory popular here on
>> rec.bicycles.tech?

>
>A bent spoke with wiggly curves stretched it in a tensile tester while
>monitoring tension will show a straightening and steepening of the
>tension versus strain curve. When the yield point is reached the test
>should be ended and the spoke removed.
>
>The spoke will then be as perfectly straight as one could wish. That
>indicates that all bending stresses are gone. It doesn't take
>"abundant" spokes samples to discover this. It takes only one.
>Designing the experiment is often more important than carefully
>collecting abundant data. This is one of those instances.
>
>Understanding what occurred enables seeing how over-stressing a spoke
>with residual stresses constitutes stress relief when it is relaxed.
>
>This is easily done in a tensile testing lab. I observed this while
>recording stress-strain curves for the book. Of course these results
>must be noticed to draw proper conclusions. It's like elliptical oil
>rings on the road. You have to see them first to assess their origin.
>You recall that one don't you.
>
>No one has ever seen such a ring although the are ubiquitous.
>
>Jobst Brandt
>[email protected]
>


Dear Jobst,

Could you elaborate on this? I'm pretty sure that I'm
missing your point.

I gather that this test involved taking a spoke that had
been bent enough to take a wiggly set (past its elastic
limit, if that's the right term) and then straining it by
stretching it until it took a set again and straightened
out (again past its elastic limit).

Are the two sets different?

And how does this stretching until the test bend is removed
compare to stretching a spoke by squeezing it, when neither
the bent spoke elbow nor the threaded end of the spoke
straighten?

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] writes:

> On 21 Aug 2004 20:53:38 -0500, Jim Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dear Trevor, that is yet another one of your red herrings. From
> >> > refusing to prove a positive proposition, which is the fundamental
> >> > requirement for demonstrating a theory, to a lame challenge for
> >> > someone to prove a negative- which hopefully you know enough about
> >> > logic to know is logically impossible.
> >>
> >> Er... perhaps you'd like to prove that you can NOT prove a negative?
> >> Didn't think so :)
> >>

> >
> >I realize you are being facetious, but proving a negative isn't a
> >problem at all. Prove all good wheels are not square, for example.
> >No trouble at all. The problem arises when trying to prove statements
> >which are not falsifiable, a proposition has to be presented in such
> >a way that it is possible to prove it incorrect or it is not a logical
> >statement at all so we can not use logic to say anything about it.
> >For example, if I ask you to prove T is not an element of A, without
> >knowing any properties of the elements of A, it can not be done. But the
> >problem is not that I am asking you to prove a negative, it is that I
> >have asked a meaningless question.

>
> Dear Jim,
>
> Here are some good square wheels, courtesy of Ted Bennett:
>
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html
>
> They give a much smoother ride over the surface than
> outmoded round tires.
>

Wonderful! It seems a further advantage of Dr. Wagon's wheels is that
they can not turn left or right. This property should eliminate unwanted
swerving while sprinting, making it a great improvement over older square
wheels such as this one:

http://jokubonis.20megsfree.com/custom2.html
 
[email protected] wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:36:05 +0100, "Trevor Jeffrey"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> No, you are wrong. The wheels and frame of a bicycle act like
>>>> springs when a lateral force is subjected onto them.
>>>
>>>True to an extent. The question is whether they can store enough
>>>energy and release it instantaneously enough to cause liftoff. You'll
>>>have to prove that this can happen with numbers or experiments.

>>
>>Springs give a progressive release of force , they do not explode. I

cited
>>my experience, I will not prove it. prove youre not an alien.
>>
>>Trevor

>
>Dear Trevor,
>
>You may have missed Tim's point.
>
>If the wheels and frame function as springs, but are
>released too slowly, nothing will be catapulted into the
>air.
>
>If some turning force, for example, is what compresses the
>spring-like parts, the question is how abruptly the
>compressing force is reduced.
>
>If somehow all the force compressing the spring vanishes
>instantaneously, then the spring expands violently and might
>hurl things into the air.
>
>But if the force compressing the spring slackens in a curve,
>the spring will expand in a similar curve without enough
>speed to accelerate a mass into the air against gravity or a
>the rider's inertia from a turn.
>
>As for your experience involving both tires lifting off the
>ground at the same time during sprinting . . .
>
>Well, it appears to be alien to what any other posters have
>experienced.


I wish I could say this is not relevant to wheelbuilding, but it is. The
springiness of the wheels does assist is lifting the wheels. It is
desirable not to have this lift, and so stiffen the wheels with appropriate
build technique, which involves spoke shaping at the crossing. I do not
wish to consider why my single plane action legs lifted the bike, suffice is
to say that they did. Round or rounder pedalling also reduces this effect.

Trevor
 
Carl Fogel writes:

>>> Where can I find the abundant laboratory testing of spokes,
>>> particularly of the stress relief theory popular here on
>>> rec.bicycles.tech?


>> A bent spoke with wiggly curves stretched it in a tensile tester
>> while monitoring tension will show a straightening and steepening
>> of the tension versus strain curve. When the yield point is
>> reached the test should be ended and the spoke removed.


>> The spoke will then be as perfectly straight as one could wish. That
>> indicates that all bending stresses are gone. It doesn't take
>> "abundant" spokes samples to discover this. It takes only one.
>> Designing the experiment is often more important than carefully
>> collecting abundant data. This is one of those instances.


>> Understanding what occurred enables seeing how over-stressing a
>> spoke with residual stresses constitutes stress relief when it is
>> relaxed.


>> This is easily done in a tensile testing lab. I observed this
>> while recording stress-strain curves for the book. Of course these
>> results must be noticed to draw proper conclusions.


> Could you elaborate on this? I'm pretty sure that I'm missing your
> point.


> I gather that this test involved taking a spoke that had been bent
> enough to take a wiggly set (past its elastic limit, if that's the
> right term) and then straining it by stretching it until it took a
> set again and straightened out (again past its elastic limit).


Yes.

If a new straight spoke is bent, it will spring back to its original
straight shape unless it is bent beyond its yield stress and then it
will spring back only partially... but it does spring back partially.
The cause is that only the surface fibers on the inside and outside of
the bend exceeded yield (in tension and compression) and found a new
rest position while the remainder, the fibers closer to the center of
the spoke, did not exceed yield and these want to return to the
original straight alignment when the bending force is removed. That a
stratification of stress through the cross section of a bend is
residual stress. This gradation can be visualized by bending a
magazine while pinching the edges of the covers together so that its
pages don't slide. They will buckle and show the differences in
length change (strain) a metal would experience, or conversely, if
allowed to slide, will by their motion make this apparent.

The partial spring-back shows that the bent spoke has residual stress
and if built into a wheel where it would receive enough tension to
pull it straight, would have even more residual stress. Typically, a
spoke elbow is bet to an obtuse angle in manufacture (with
spring-back), that for outbound spokes of a flange, is bent to an
acute angle and then tensioned. That is residual shaping stress
overlayed on manufacturing stress to which tensioning stress is added.
Stretching the spoke will exceed yield, there where stress is so high
that it would result in early fatigue failure.

> Are the two sets different?


I missed the "set" or was it your serve?

> And how does this stretching until the test bend is removed compare
> to stretching a spoke by squeezing it, when neither the bent spoke
> elbow nor the threaded end of the spoke straighten?


Regardless of shape, when the entire cross section is taken to yield
and relaxed, it will have uniform stress. This goes for a wire bent
back on itself through a U-bolt or a spoke elbow supported by a hub
flange. The point is that a spoke in whatever shape, taken to yield
and relaxed, will have no residual stress from prior bending or
forming and will support tension with uniform stress.

Manual stress relieving cannot fully stress relieve because that much
force would exceed the strength of the rim and hub, and possibly the
nipples. The ideal is to impart enough of an overload to relax the
highest points of residual stress, which is as much as can be done in
practical terms.

For control wires that must bend in use, "braided" (helically wound
strands) are used so that all fibers pass though the inside and
outside of bends. This is also how these cables remain constant
length when bending because all fibers pass through the inside and
outside of the bend. The strands are thin enough to not approach
yield in the operating range of bends encountered.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]
 
Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

> I believe the only reason hangs from it's spokes came about was to
> counter stands on its spokes. Both are wrong and it is only fair to say
> that the rim and hub are constrained by the spokes which carry the load
> by increases in tension. Those spokes decreasing in tension are not
> benefiting wheel support.


Picture a rim with spokes made of concrete, held in compression by a rim
with hinged joints between each spoke.

How would you say this wheel supports a load?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 03:16:20 +0100, "Trevor Jeffrey"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
>>"Trevor Jeffrey" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>Nice palaver, but there is not a shred of evidence you offer to
>>>>support your claim. And to think that you were the one stating that
>>>>claims had to be proved.
>>>
>>> Simple. bend a paper clip back and forth. It work
>>> hardens. continue. It snaps. Same thing.

>>
>>That's even more facetious than usual.

>
>You're an ignorant and tiring.
>
>Trevor


Dear Trevor,

Among other things,Tim may be expecting us to understand the
difference between repeatedly bending a paper clip beyond
its yield point and repeatedly straining a spoke to far less
than its yield point.

Carl Fogel
 
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:45:34 GMT,
[email protected] wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>>>> Where can I find the abundant laboratory testing of spokes,
>>>> particularly of the stress relief theory popular here on
>>>> rec.bicycles.tech?

>
>>> A bent spoke with wiggly curves stretched it in a tensile tester
>>> while monitoring tension will show a straightening and steepening
>>> of the tension versus strain curve. When the yield point is
>>> reached the test should be ended and the spoke removed.

>
>>> The spoke will then be as perfectly straight as one could wish. That
>>> indicates that all bending stresses are gone. It doesn't take
>>> "abundant" spokes samples to discover this. It takes only one.
>>> Designing the experiment is often more important than carefully
>>> collecting abundant data. This is one of those instances.

>
>>> Understanding what occurred enables seeing how over-stressing a
>>> spoke with residual stresses constitutes stress relief when it is
>>> relaxed.

>
>>> This is easily done in a tensile testing lab. I observed this
>>> while recording stress-strain curves for the book. Of course these
>>> results must be noticed to draw proper conclusions.

>
>> Could you elaborate on this? I'm pretty sure that I'm missing your
>> point.

>
>> I gather that this test involved taking a spoke that had been bent
>> enough to take a wiggly set (past its elastic limit, if that's the
>> right term) and then straining it by stretching it until it took a
>> set again and straightened out (again past its elastic limit).

>
>Yes.
>
>If a new straight spoke is bent, it will spring back to its original
>straight shape unless it is bent beyond its yield stress and then it
>will spring back only partially... but it does spring back partially.
>The cause is that only the surface fibers on the inside and outside of
>the bend exceeded yield (in tension and compression) and found a new
>rest position while the remainder, the fibers closer to the center of
>the spoke, did not exceed yield and these want to return to the
>original straight alignment when the bending force is removed. That a
>stratification of stress through the cross section of a bend is
>residual stress. This gradation can be visualized by bending a
>magazine while pinching the edges of the covers together so that its
>pages don't slide. They will buckle and show the differences in
>length change (strain) a metal would experience, or conversely, if
>allowed to slide, will by their motion make this apparent.
>
>The partial spring-back shows that the bent spoke has residual stress
>and if built into a wheel where it would receive enough tension to
>pull it straight, would have even more residual stress. Typically, a
>spoke elbow is bet to an obtuse angle in manufacture (with
>spring-back), that for outbound spokes of a flange, is bent to an
>acute angle and then tensioned. That is residual shaping stress
>overlayed on manufacturing stress to which tensioning stress is added.
>Stretching the spoke will exceed yield, there where stress is so high
>that it would result in early fatigue failure.
>
>> Are the two sets different?

>
>I missed the "set" or was it your serve?
>
>> And how does this stretching until the test bend is removed compare
>> to stretching a spoke by squeezing it, when neither the bent spoke
>> elbow nor the threaded end of the spoke straighten?

>
>Regardless of shape, when the entire cross section is taken to yield
>and relaxed, it will have uniform stress. This goes for a wire bent
>back on itself through a U-bolt or a spoke elbow supported by a hub
>flange. The point is that a spoke in whatever shape, taken to yield
>and relaxed, will have no residual stress from prior bending or
>forming and will support tension with uniform stress.
>
>Manual stress relieving cannot fully stress relieve because that much
>force would exceed the strength of the rim and hub, and possibly the
>nipples. The ideal is to impart enough of an overload to relax the
>highest points of residual stress, which is as much as can be done in
>practical terms.
>
>For control wires that must bend in use, "braided" (helically wound
>strands) are used so that all fibers pass though the inside and
>outside of bends. This is also how these cables remain constant
>length when bending because all fibers pass through the inside and
>outside of the bend. The strands are thin enough to not approach
>yield in the operating range of bends encountered.
>
>Jobst Brandt
>[email protected]


Dear Jobst,

While I'm pondering that, I'm also wondering why the
spoke-squeezing stress-relief process should cure the rarer
spoke-breaking-at-the-nipple problem.

My impression is that those who advocate manual stress
relief claim that the technique eliminates spoke fatigue
failures--at both ends of the spoke, both the 90-95% of
failures at the elbow and the 5-10% of failures at the
nipple.

Is this how you see manual stress relief working, and if so,
what's going on at the threaded end?

Thanks,

Carl Fogel
 
Carl Fogel writes:

> While I'm pondering that, I'm also wondering why the spoke-squeezing
> stress-relief process should cure the rarer
> spoke-breaking-at-the-nipple problem.


Spoke break at the nipples for the same reason they break elsewhere.
They break from high stress cause by residual stress of spoke forming,
a plastic yield process with spring-back.

> My impression is that those who advocate manual stress relief claim
> that the technique eliminates spoke fatigue failures--at both ends
> of the spoke, both the 90-95% of failures at the elbow and the 5-10%
> of failures at the nipple.


As I just explained, regardless of spoke shape, raising tension
substantially above operating tension brings high stress locations to
yield and when relaxed is by definition, stress relief because those
high stress location yielded and afterward have a lower stress than
before. Because spokes do not experience significant tension
increases in use, this reduces fatigue failures.

Please let me know if this is still unclear.

> Is this how you see manual stress relief working, and if so, what's
> going on at the threaded end?


Residual thread rolling stress is reduced.

Raising a spoke near its yield stress and relaxing it back to its
operating tension stress relieves all parts that carry load, but I'm
repeating myself (and the book) here.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]
 
Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

> ...
> I wish I could say this is not relevant to wheelbuilding, but it is. The
> springiness of the wheels does assist is lifting the wheels. It is
> desirable not to have this lift, and so stiffen the wheels with appropriate
> build technique, which involves spoke shaping at the crossing. I do not
> wish to consider why my single plane action legs lifted the bike, suffice is
> to say that they did. Round or rounder pedalling also reduces this effect.


Assuming for the sake of argument that the "spoke shaping at the
crossing" does indeed make the wheels stiffer, how would this change
anything? They would still store the same amount of energy when loaded
laterally, just at a lesser deflection. Therefore, they would impart the
same force towards lifting the bicycle as a less stiff wheel would,
unless the internal damping of the wheel is changed (and there appears
to be no mechanism that would have this effect).

--
Tom Sherman
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Carl Fogel writes:
>
>
>>While I'm pondering that, I'm also wondering why the spoke-squeezing
>>stress-relief process should cure the rarer
>>spoke-breaking-at-the-nipple problem.

>
>
> Spoke break at the nipples for the same reason they break elsewhere.
> They break from high stress cause by residual stress of spoke forming,
> a plastic yield process with spring-back.


so thread radius has nothing to do with it? you need to publish more of
your research on this - all my old texts are lacking your references.

>
>
>>My impression is that those who advocate manual stress relief claim
>>that the technique eliminates spoke fatigue failures--at both ends
>>of the spoke, both the 90-95% of failures at the elbow and the 5-10%
>>of failures at the nipple.

>
>
> As I just explained, regardless of spoke shape, raising tension
> substantially above operating tension brings high stress locations to
> yield and when relaxed is by definition, stress relief because those
> high stress location yielded and afterward have a lower stress than
> before. Because spokes do not experience significant tension
> increases in use, this reduces fatigue failures.
>
> Please let me know if this is still unclear.
>
>
>>Is this how you see manual stress relief working, and if so, what's
>>going on at the threaded end?

>
>
> Residual thread rolling stress is reduced.
>
> Raising a spoke near its yield stress and relaxing it back to its
> operating tension stress relieves all parts that carry load, but I'm
> repeating myself (and the book) here.


"near" it's yield stress??? no. for the metallurgical stress relief to
occur, it needs to reach yield and actually be subject to measurable
strain. but what happens to jobstian theory if the material work
hardens? what if it increases dislocation density? what if it
activates slip planes? what effect does it have if surface defects are
present? how about inclusions? what if it could /introduce/ residual
stress, such as the deformation you call "correcting the spoke line"?

please explain.

>
> Jobst Brandt
> [email protected]
 
Tom Sherman wrote in message <[email protected]>...
>Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I wish I could say this is not relevant to wheelbuilding, but it is. The
>> springiness of the wheels does assist is lifting the wheels. It is
>> desirable not to have this lift, and so stiffen the wheels with

appropriate
>> build technique, which involves spoke shaping at the crossing. I do not
>> wish to consider why my single plane action legs lifted the bike, suffice

is
>> to say that they did. Round or rounder pedalling also reduces this

effect.
>
>Assuming for the sake of argument that the "spoke shaping at the
>crossing" does indeed make the wheels stiffer, how would this change
>anything? They would still store the same amount of energy when loaded
>laterally, just at a lesser deflection. Therefore, they would impart the
>same force towards lifting the bicycle as a less stiff wheel would,
>unless the internal damping of the wheel is changed (and there appears
>to be no mechanism that would have this effect).
>


By reducing the initial displacement, the rebound is reduced. The stiffer
wheel means the rider himself acts as the damping, the muscles operating the
elbows and the knees work in this respect.

Trevor
 

Similar threads