wheels

[Tom Reingold]

I was a bike mechanic many years ago. Let's see. It was 1978 through
1984. For a few years after that, I was still an active cyclist, but I
haven't been into it much lately.

I'm still happy with my bike, which I built back in about 1984. I'm not
tempted to buy anything new, because while I can see the improvements,
to me, they don't justify the costs. My bike is comfortable and
reasonably efficient.

I remember reading Jobst Brandt's book on building wheels. I learned a
lot from it. I also learned a lot from reading his posts here. Hi,
Jobst, if you are reading. Back then, he pointed out that more spokes
make a better wheel than fewer spokes. Yet modern wheels have shockingly
few spokes. Is this because people tolerate weaker wheels than before,
or have there been advances in materials that allow the new wheels to be
as strong as the old 36-spoke wheels?

Another thing I notice is the silly spoking patterns. I think they are
for show. Some rear wheels are radially spoked on the left side. Many
front wheels are radially spoked. Maybe it doesn't hurt durability that
much, but it can't help.

Also, has the dishing problem been solved? Seven speed wheels were
coming in just as I was falling out of touch with the industry, and even
that seemed extreme. Now we have ten speed wheels. How wide are hubs
now? They were about 126 or 130 mm when I "left".

When I google my name, I see lots of messages I posted, some about
bicycle repair. A lot of that stuff is old and out of date. I wonder why
people to bother archiving such inconsequential stuff. Well, I suppose
the simple answer is that they do it simply because they can.

Tom Reingold
Noo Joizy

[daveornee]

Tom Reingold wrote:
> I was a bike mechanic many years ago. Let's see. It was 1978 through
> 1984. For a few years after that, I was still an active cyclist, but I
> haven't been into it much lately. <SNIP> more spokes make a better wheel
> than fewer spokes. Yet modern wheels have shockingly few spokes. Is this
> because people tolerate weaker wheels than before, or have there been
> advances in materials that allow the new wheels to be as strong as the
> old 36-spoke wheels? Another thing I notice is the silly spoking
> patterns. I think they are for show. Some rear wheels are radially
> spoked on the left side. Many front wheels are radially spoked. Maybe it
> doesn't hurt durability that much, but it can't help. Also, has the
> dishing problem been solved? Seven speed wheels were coming in just as I
> was falling out of touch with the industry, and even that seemed
> extreme. Now we have ten speed wheels. How wide are hubs now? They were
> about 126 or 130 mm when I "left". Tom Reingold Noo Joizy

There is a lot of marketing going on with: low spoke count wheels
silly spoking patterns, spoke shapes/materials, hub attachments, ri
shapes/attachments. I agree with your conclusion about durability..
and think of all the special replacement parts, tools, techniques, etc
The concept of left rear radial spoking,, with all the heads out i
directed at the rear dishing situation, but manufacturers of standar
rear hubs do NOT warranty such applications. Some rear rims are no
available to help with the dish situation... they offset the spokes t
the Non-Drive-Side. Some 6/7 speed 135 mm OLD mountain bicycle hub
also helped with the dish situation. If you combine a 6/7 speed 135 m
OLD hub with a rim like th Velocity Synergy, you can arrive at
minimally dished wheel. Velocity also makes the Aerohead 700C (and 650
I think) with Offset Spoke Bed. Most road hubs are still 130 mm an
most mountain 135 mm. The things you learned in "the Bicycle Wheel" b
Jobst Brandt still hold up. "Conventional wheels built exceptionall
well" is still a most worthy effort. Well, you may have opened a "ca
of worms", but this is the forum


-

[Bruce Jackson]

Tom Reingold > wrote in message >...

> I was a bike mechanic many years ago. Let's see. It was 1978 through
> 1984. For a few years after that, I was still an active cyclist, but I
> haven't been into it much lately.

My tenure in bike shops was '82 to '87.

> I remember reading Jobst Brandt's book on building wheels. I learned a
> lot from it. I also learned a lot from reading his posts here. Hi,
> Jobst, if you are reading. Back then, he pointed out that more spokes
> make a better wheel than fewer spokes. Yet modern wheels have shockingly
> few spokes. Is this because people tolerate weaker wheels than before,
> or have there been advances in materials that allow the new wheels to be
> as strong as the old 36-spoke wheels?

Most people simply don't ride very much so durability isn't much
of an issue. When I raced in the mid '80's I did buy a pair of
Roval wheels. At the time they were about as high tech as you could
get but I saved them for racing only. The rest of the time I rode
good old 36 spoke wheels. Now I see people riding expensive low
spoke count wheels all the time. I guess they have more money than
time to train.

> Also, has the dishing problem been solved? Seven speed wheels were
> coming in just as I was falling out of touch with the industry, and even
> that seemed extreme. Now we have ten speed wheels. How wide are hubs
> now? They were about 126 or 130 mm when I "left".

The dishing problem is worse than ever. A few years ago I built my
first 9 speed wheel. There is a much greater disparity in spoke
tension than when I worked in shops and narrow 7 speed was popular.

> When I google my name, I see lots of messages I posted, some about
> bicycle repair. A lot of that stuff is old and out of date. I wonder why
> people to bother archiving such inconsequential stuff. Well, I suppose
> the simple answer is that they do it simply because they can.

Yeah, I look back and say, "I can't believe I posted that!" a lot.
When I first started reading and posting stuff on the newsgroups
I was passing on a lot of incorrect "conventional wisdom" I
learned in my bike shop days. Live and learn eh?

Back when I was System Administrator at the University of North
Texas I cautioned students to be careful what they posted because
future employers could remember what you posted and hold it against
you. I had no idea that Dejanews would save all of our posts for
posterity though!

I remember reading your posts a dozen years ago.

Hasta,
--
Bruce Jackson - Sr. Systems Programmer - DMSP, a M/A/R/C Group company

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >, says...

>I remember reading Jobst Brandt's book on building wheels. I learned a
>lot from it. I also learned a lot from reading his posts here. Hi,
>Jobst, if you are reading. Back then, he pointed out that more spokes
>make a better wheel than fewer spokes. Yet modern wheels have shockingly
>few spokes. Is this because people tolerate weaker wheels than before,
>or have there been advances in materials that allow the new wheels to be
>as strong as the old 36-spoke wheels?

Wheel strength is directly related to the tension in the spokes. If you
go to a lower spoke count wheel, the spokes need to have a higher tension
for the wheel to have the same strength. This also means that the rim
has to be made strong enough to support this higher spoke tension. Having
to get the tension so high also makes it difficult to build wheels because
the friction between the spoke threads and the nipple threads increases and
you get a lot of spoke wind up. You need to temporarily unload some of the
tension on the spoke to make the adjustment.

>Another thing I notice is the silly spoking patterns. I think they are
>for show. Some rear wheels are radially spoked on the left side. Many
>front wheels are radially spoked. Maybe it doesn't hurt durability that
>much, but it can't help.

For show.

>Also, has the dishing problem been solved? Seven speed wheels were
>coming in just as I was falling out of touch with the industry, and even
>that seemed extreme. Now we have ten speed wheels. How wide are hubs
>now? They were about 126 or 130 mm when I "left".

8, 9, and 10 speed wheels are pretty much the same. They are making the
cassette cogs and spacers thinner to squeeze in extra gears into the same
space as before.

--------------
Alex

[Zog The Undeniable]

Tom Reingold wrote:

> I was a bike mechanic many years ago. Let's see. It was 1978 through
> 1984. For a few years after that, I was still an active cyclist, but I
> haven't been into it much lately.
>
> I'm still happy with my bike, which I built back in about 1984. I'm not
> tempted to buy anything new, because while I can see the improvements,
> to me, they don't justify the costs. My bike is comfortable and
> reasonably efficient.
>
> I remember reading Jobst Brandt's book on building wheels. I learned a
> lot from it. I also learned a lot from reading his posts here. Hi,
> Jobst, if you are reading. Back then, he pointed out that more spokes
> make a better wheel than fewer spokes. Yet modern wheels have shockingly
> few spokes. Is this because people tolerate weaker wheels than before,
> or have there been advances in materials that allow the new wheels to be
> as strong as the old 36-spoke wheels?
>
> Another thing I notice is the silly spoking patterns. I think they are
> for show. Some rear wheels are radially spoked on the left side. Many
> front wheels are radially spoked. Maybe it doesn't hurt durability that
> much, but it can't help.
>
> Also, has the dishing problem been solved? Seven speed wheels were
> coming in just as I was falling out of touch with the industry, and even
> that seemed extreme. Now we have ten speed wheels. How wide are hubs
> now? They were about 126 or 130 mm when I "left".
>
> When I google my name, I see lots of messages I posted, some about
> bicycle repair. A lot of that stuff is old and out of date. I wonder why
> people to bother archiving such inconsequential stuff. Well, I suppose
> the simple answer is that they do it simply because they can.

The low spoke counts are for aerodynamics - the rims are deeper and the
strength (and weight) is in the rim. This isn't the most efficient way
to do it, but for fast riding, especially time trialling, there are
benefits.

Radial spoking really isn't a problem if the hub is designed for it.

[[email protected]]

Tom Reingold writes:

> I was a bike mechanic many years ago. Let's see. It was 1978 through
> 1984. For a few years after that, I was still an active cyclist, but
> I haven't been into it much lately.

Man, that's ancient history!

> I'm still happy with my bike, which I built back in about 1984. I'm
> not tempted to buy anything new, because while I can see the
> improvements, to me, they don't justify the costs. My bike is
> comfortable and reasonably efficient.

Well I get along fine with my 6-speed SunTour New Winner Pro FW on my
1960's 120mm (rear) Campagnolo Record Hubs. They still have the best
QR ever made.

> I remember reading Jobst Brandt's book on building wheels. I
> learned a lot from it. I also learned a lot from reading his posts
> here. Hi, Jobst, if you are reading.

Thanks.

> Back then, he pointed out that more spokes make a better wheel than
> fewer spokes. Yet modern wheels have shockingly few spokes. Is
> this because people tolerate weaker wheels than before, or have
> there been advances in materials that allow the new wheels to be as
> strong as the old 36-spoke wheels?

They all claim to have gotten better but they haven't. We hear about
many rim cracks, something uncommon in olden times and they aren't
riding wheels as long at that.

> Another thing I notice is the silly spoking patterns. I think they
> are for show. Some rear wheels are radially spoked on the left
> side. Many front wheels are radially spoked. Maybe it doesn't hurt
> durability that much, but it can't help.

There are claims, none of which are significant and many are untrue.

> Also, has the dishing problem been solved? Seven speed wheels were
> coming in just as I was falling out of touch with the industry, and
> even that seemed extreme. Now we have ten speed wheels. How wide
> are hubs now? They were about 126 or 130 mm when I "left".

No, but asymmetric rear rims are made to respond to that problem. The
main thing is that rear flanges are closer together. As the gear
cluster infringes on the right flanges location, the answer has been
to move both flanges closer to the center of the hub. This causes
such laterally flexible wheels that they dragged on brake pads while
climbing standing because the higher mechanical advantage dual pivot
brakes must operate with less pad clearance to reach the rim before
the hand lever bottoms.

Professional riders responded by opening the brake QR on climbs and
often descended with only a front brake. In response, Campagnolo came
out with a standard 1:1 ratio sidepull caliper with wide clearance. I
find these contortions interesting, trying to appease the everyday
customer and the professionals who, by using this stuff, sell it.
There is still a thread of function in it because professional racers
demand equipment that does not interfere with their racing success.

> When I Google my name, I see lots of messages I posted, some about
> bicycle repair. A lot of that stuff is old and out of date. I
> wonder why people bother to archive such inconsequential stuff.
> Well, I suppose the simple answer is that they do it simply because
> they can.

I wish they started earlier. I cannot find my ride reports from 1961
to 1989 anywhere. If anyone has even one of them or knows where to
find one, please let me know. The guys I rode with would love to have
a copy.

Jobst Brandt

[ZeeExSixAre]

To respond to you all, if we didn't have boutique wheels, and everybody ran
36-hole Ultegra hubs laced to Open Pros with 14/15 DB DTs, then, honestly,
reliability would be too high, and a decent chunk out of repair income would
be taken out of our revenue.

Then again, everyone here is practical and non-flashy, so
36-U-OP-14/15-DB-DT is probably standard *personal* fare. I guess I'm just
saying don't bite the hand that feeds you...

I'd never guide anyone into a boutique wheel... just today a 250-lb rider
came in with ALX330 wheel from a Specialized Allez. He Dorito'ed it with
about an inch or two of wave throughout the whole wheel. I immediately
suggested a 36-spoke hand-built wheel for him.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

trn32-<< Yet modern wheels have shockingly
few spokes. Is this because people tolerate weaker wheels than before,
or have there been advances in materials that allow the new wheels to be
as strong as the old 36-spoke wheels? >><BR><BR>

No such thing as a free lunch. Low spoke count wheels, with the corresponding
heavy rim are all about marketing, not performance, like ohh so much about
bicycles these days(threadless, oversized handlebars, compact frames,
integrated HS, etc).

The best, most reliable, long term wheel solution is the proper choice of rims,
spokes and builder, to ensure the wheelset is proper for the rider and their
needs.

trn-<< Another thing I notice is the silly spoking patterns. I think they are
for show >><BR><BR>

bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!!!



Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Daveornee-<< "Conventional wheels built exceptionally
well" >><BR><BR>

yer welcome

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

phil-<< I'd never guide anyone into a boutique wheel... just today a 250-lb
rider
came in with ALX330 wheel from a Specialized Allez. He Dorito'ed it >><BR><BR>

Ditto-big gent with Zipp 303 on his Merckx. The guy that sold these to him
ought to be fired.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Tom Reingold]

Bruce Jackson wrote:


> Back when I was System Administrator at the University of North
> Texas I cautioned students to be careful what they posted because
> future employers could remember what you posted and hold it against
> you. I had no idea that Dejanews would save all of our posts for
> posterity though!
>
> I remember reading your posts a dozen years ago.
>


Hey, Bruce! I remember you, too. And you're a sysadmin, too! Wow!

As of Wednesday, I'm unemployed. My resume is at
http://whatexit.org/~tommy/resume-func-tlr.html. I live in NJ, near NYC.

Tom

[Tom Reingold]

wrote:

>>When I Google my name, I see lots of messages I posted, some about
>>bicycle repair. A lot of that stuff is old and out of date. I
>>wonder why people bother to archive such inconsequential stuff.
>>Well, I suppose the simple answer is that they do it simply because
>>they can.
>
>
> I wish they started earlier. I cannot find my ride reports from 1961
> to 1989 anywhere. If anyone has even one of them or knows where to
> find one, please let me know. The guys I rode with would love to have
> a copy.


There was no net in 1961. Did you post your rides of those years in
later years?

I might be able to help search for your old articles if you gave me
their titles or other keywords to search for. I'm sure using your name
alone as a search keyword would produce a lot of hay piled onto the
needles you wish to find. That's not a commentary on your writings; it
just means that you have been prolific.

Tom

[[email protected]]

Tom Reingold writes:

>>> When I Google my name, I see lots of messages I posted, some about
>>> bicycle repair. A lot of that stuff is old and out of date. I
>>> wonder why people bother to archive such inconsequential stuff.
>>> Well, I suppose the simple answer is that they do it simply
>>> because they can.

>> I wish they started earlier. I cannot find my ride reports from
>> 1961 to 1989 anywhere. If anyone has even one of them or knows
>> where to find one, please let me know. The guys I rode with would
>> love to have a copy.

As you see, I posted earlier results when rec.bicycle became
available. That is why you can read my 1959 and 1960 reports. I
posted others later and all the rides thereafter but did not save a
copy where I could retrieve them. They my be on 1/2" reel-to-reel
tapes that are in a file cabinet at HP where I left them years ago.

> There was no net in 1961. Did you post your rides of those years in
> later years?

> I might be able to help search for your old articles if you gave me
> their titles or other keywords to search for. I'm sure using your name
> alone as a search keyword would produce a lot of hay piled onto the
> needles you wish to find. That's not a commentary on your writings; it
> just means that you have been prolific.

I think they all look alike (like 1990-2003). In any case the author
is listed as and @hpl.com or @hp.hpl.com
"Tour of the Alps 1980" etc.

Jobst Brandt

[Tom Reingold]

wrote:

> I think they all look alike (like 1990-2003). In any case the author
> is listed as and @hpl.com or @hp.hpl.com
> "Tour of the Alps 1980" etc.


Have you tried http://groups.google.com ?

Tom

[Tom Reingold]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> trn32-<< Yet modern wheels have shockingly
> few spokes. Is this because people tolerate weaker wheels than before,
> or have there been advances in materials that allow the new wheels to be
> as strong as the old 36-spoke wheels? >><BR><BR>
>
> No such thing as a free lunch. Low spoke count wheels, with the corresponding
> heavy rim are all about marketing, not performance, like ohh so much about
> bicycles these days(threadless, oversized handlebars, compact frames,
> integrated HS, etc).
>
> The best, most reliable, long term wheel solution is the proper choice of rims,
> spokes and builder, to ensure the wheelset is proper for the rider and their
> needs.
>
> trn-<< Another thing I notice is the silly spoking patterns. I think they are
> for show >><BR><BR>
>
> bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!!!


Well, I wasn't just guessing. I just wondered if my experience has been
made moot by technological advances, and now all you folks have
confirmed that it has NOT.

My proudest wheel building experience was when I was a young bike
mechanic, and a tandem riding guy asked me to build a wheel for him. He
said he had nothing but bad experiences with his rear wheels. He was not
at all mechanically inclined, and he relied entirely on professionals.
This was in about 1982. Remember Weinmann concave rims? I chose that, as
it was heavy and strong, relative to everything else available. He had
an Atom hub with a built in drum brake. The flanges were huge. It had 48
spokes. I had never built a 48-spoke wheel before. The spaces between
the spoke nipples was very inconvenient. The wheel took me many hours
and lots of trial and error. In fact, it took so much time that my
employer lost money on it.

The customer took the wheel on a several-week tour. He came back just to
tell me that rather than the normal failures, it was as straight as the
day he picked it up. I was not only proud, I was surprised.

Tom

[G.T.]

"Tom Reingold" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > I think they all look alike (like 1990-2003). In any case the author
> > is listed as and @hpl.com or @hp.hpl.com
> > "Tour of the Alps 1980" etc.
>
>
> Have you tried http://groups.google.com ?
>

No, for some reason even though Jobst has been on the rec.bicycles
hieararchy since the dawn of time he's never heard of Google, in fact, he's
never heard of the World Wide Web, he's Usenet only.

Greg

[Benjamin Lewis]

G. T. wrote:

> "Tom Reingold" > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think they all look alike (like 1990-2003). In any case the author
>>> is listed as and @hpl.com or @hp.hpl.com
>>> "Tour of the Alps 1980" etc.
>>
>> Have you tried http://groups.google.com ?
>
> No, for some reason even though Jobst has been on the rec.bicycles
> hieararchy since the dawn of time he's never heard of Google, in fact,
> he's never heard of the World Wide Web, he's Usenet only.

From http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#archive:

,----
| How far back does Google's archive go?
|
| Google has fully integrated the past 20 years of Usenet archives into
| Google Groups, which now offers access to more than 845 million messages
| dating back to 1981. We believe this to be the most complete collection of
| Usenet articles ever assembled and a fascinating first-hand historical
| account.
`----

.... thus the problem of locating ride reports dating before this time.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover

[[email protected]]

I have engaged the Google search service to find links to my older
ride reports:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=352427

Jobst Brandt

[Tom Nakashima]

> wrote in message
...
> I have engaged the Google search service to find links to my older
> ride reports:
>
> http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=352427
>
> Jobst Brandt
>

I'm not sure if this is the correct link:
http://www-math.science.unitn.it/Bike/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/
-tom

[Weisse Luft]

Tom Reingold wrote:
> .. I remember reading Jobst Brandt's book on building wheels. I learned
> a lot from it. I also learned a lot from reading his posts here. Hi,
> Jobst, if you are reading. Back then, he pointed out that more spokes
> make a better wheel than fewer spokes. Yet modern wheels have shockingly
> few spokes. Is this because people tolerate weaker wheels than before,
> or have there been advances in materials that allow the new wheels to be
> as strong as the old 36-spoke wheels?
> Another thing I notice is the silly spoking patterns. I think they are
> for show. Some rear wheels are radially spoked on the left side. Many
> front wheels are radially spoked. Maybe it doesn't hurt durability that
> much, but it can't help.
> ...
> Tom Reingold Noo Joizy


Tom, along with the lower spoke counts, deeper rim sections are also
trend. Low counts REQUIRE a deeper rim section to distribute the loa
to the adjacent spokes. Break a spoke on these minimal count wheels an
there will be problems. Larger problems than an old 36 count rim. Yes
spoke materials have improved GREATLY especially with regards to th
raw alloys (primarily 18/8 stainless or 300 series) but also wit
respect to the wire drawing, swaging and heading. Spoke failure wit
quality spokes is rare but I have had one. I traced it to
longitudinal nick in the raw wire

"Silly spoking patterns" might include paired spoking? If so, I agree
But radial lacing the DRIVE side works to reduce dish AND make a mor
durable wheel if and only if the rear hub body is of sufficient diamete
and shell thickness. In the old days, the rear hub shell was thin an
small in diameter. Its torsional stiffness was nil and most all torqu
(90-98%)was transmitted to the drive side spokes. With radial non-driv
side, even less is carried because the left hub must "wind up" befor
any torque can be transmitted

Radial drive side lacing hubs require a hub body of at least 25mm OD an
2mm thickness. Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non
drive, my drive side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non-drive is 11
kgf. This is using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm
right offset of 17mm. After 8000+ miles, no truing has been required bu
then again, I'm a bit of a flyweight at 155 pounds


-

[Benjamin Lewis]

jobst brandt wrote:

> I have engaged the Google search service to find links to my older
> ride reports:
>
> http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=352427

I hope you will let us know if and when your query is successful.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover

[Tim McNamara]

"Tom Nakashima" > writes:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have engaged the Google search service to find links to my older
>> ride reports:
>>
>> http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=352427
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> I'm not sure if this is the correct link:
> http://www-math.science.unitn.it/Bike/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/

No, Jobst is aware of those reports and frequently points people to
them, usually using TinyURL to reduce the length of the URL, which
doesn't wrap well in many newsreaders. He's referring to the reports
he's posted to rec.bicycles over 10 years ago, but which never made it
onto the Trento Bike Pages Web site (which is the site you cite). His
copies of those reports were lost when he retired, unfortunately, and
it seems as though the old rec.bicycles newsgroup archives were not
maintained after the transition to Google.

rec.bicycles is of course defunct, having been split up in to
r.b.tech, r.b.marketplace, r.b.racing, etc. I can't find any posts on
Google's archives that predate the split-up of rec.bicycles into the
various subgroups.

[Matt O'Toole]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> He's referring to the reports
> he's posted to rec.bicycles over 10 years ago, but which never made it
> onto the Trento Bike Pages Web site (which is the site you cite). His
> copies of those reports were lost when he retired, unfortunately, and
> it seems as though the old rec.bicycles newsgroup archives were not
> maintained after the transition to Google.

> rec.bicycles is of course defunct, having been split up in to
> r.b.tech, r.b.marketplace, r.b.racing, etc. I can't find any posts on
> Google's archives that predate the split-up of rec.bicycles into the
> various subgroups.

I know there are/were other Usenet archives besides Google/DejaNews. But I
don't know anything about them, or who to contact about it. There's still a
good chance this stuff is sitting on a hard drive somewhere. I hope it can be
found.

Matt O.

[Benjamin Weiner]

Tim McNamara > wrote:

> No, Jobst is aware of those reports and frequently points people to
> them, usually using TinyURL to reduce the length of the URL, which
> doesn't wrap well in many newsreaders. He's referring to the reports
> he's posted to rec.bicycles over 10 years ago, but which never made it
> onto the Trento Bike Pages Web site (which is the site you cite). His
> copies of those reports were lost when he retired, unfortunately, and
> it seems as though the old rec.bicycles newsgroup archives were not
> maintained after the transition to Google.

> rec.bicycles is of course defunct, having been split up in to
> r.b.tech, r.b.marketplace, r.b.racing, etc. I can't find any posts on
> Google's archives that predate the split-up of rec.bicycles into the
> various subgroups.

Actually there are a couple of years' worth of posts to
rec.bicycles in the Google groups archives. The split happened
in 1992, and there are posts in rec.bicycles dating back to
late 1989. There are a few posts from before late 1989,
but coverage is clearly very incomplete.

IIRC, the Dejanews archive became available in 1995 and went back
to somewhere around 1994. Google inherited this when they bought
Dejanews. Then Google went out and dug up earlier Usenet
archives - there were some CD-ROMs distributed, perhaps through
Usenix, and some people had private archives. Unfortunately,
these were never complete, probably due to the fragmentary
nature of early Usenet propagation and people's limited mass
storage capacity.

We've gotten so used to being able to easily Google things that
it is hard to remember when there was no searchable archive,
or even the interregnum after Dejanews sank and before Google
resuscitated the archive - at that time, it looked as if the
Web was going to leave Usenet behind and the archive might
simply disappear.

Here are some articles on the history of the archive:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/staff/magi/personal/usenet.html

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/07/saving_usenet/index.html

http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=90cbefb1.0112211728.4cfe9bb%40posting. google.com

[Mark McMaster]

Weisse Luft wrote:

> But radial lacing the DRIVE side works to reduce dish ...

While this is widely reported, it is in fact a fallacy,
apparently based on an incomplete analysis of the spoke
angle changes.

The usual argument is that by using an all heads-out radial
spoking pattern on the left side, the effective left flange
offset is reduced by about half the flange thickness,
supposedly creating a smaller bracing angle of the left
spokes (and therefore less dish). Since the left flange of
a typical rear hub has a thickness of about 3.5mm and an
offset of about 35mm, the difference difference in the
relative spoke offset is about (3.5mm/2)/35mm, or about 5%.

However, this analysis is incomplete and overlooks other
consequences of radial lacing. On major difference is that
radial spokes are also shorter than crossed spokes. For a
typical small flange rear hub, the difference in spoke
length is about 15mm. Since the left spokes in a typical
rear wheel are about 300mm, the difference in length is
15mm/300mm, or about 5%.

So, while radial lacing moves the loading point on the
flange by about 5% closer to the center of the wheel (as
compared to cross lacing), it also moves the loading point
about 5% closer to the rim. The net effect is that there is
no change in the bracing angle of the left spokes, and
therefore no change in dish.

Since the idea that radially lacing the left spokes reduces
the wheel dish is so often asserted, I repeat:

Radially lacing the left spokes does not decrease dish!


> Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non-
> drive, my drive side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non-drive is 110
> kgf. This is using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm,
> right offset of 17mm.

This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset
nearly twice the right flange offset, the bracing angles of
the left spokes will be nearly twice the bracing angle of
the left spokes. Because spoke bracing angles are
relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension
will be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a
symmetric rim and equal number of spokes on each side of the
wheel described above, there is no possible way that the
ratio between the right and left spoke tensions on this
wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke pattern is
used).

Mark McMaster

[Tim McNamara]

"Matt O'Toole" > writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> rec.bicycles is of course defunct, having been split up in to
>> r.b.tech, r.b.marketplace, r.b.racing, etc. I can't find any posts
>> on Google's archives that predate the split-up of rec.bicycles into
>> the various subgroups.
>
> I know there are/were other Usenet archives besides Google/DejaNews.
> But I don't know anything about them, or who to contact about it.
> There's still a good chance this stuff is sitting on a hard drive
> somewhere. I hope it can be found.

Well, DejaNews was bought by Google and www.dejanews.com just dumps
you into the Google Groups page. Navigating to the rec.bicycles.*
hierarchy, one find notice that the group "rec.bicycles" is no longer
archived. *******s. The oldest report from Jobst I coul dfind is
1990; it's interesting to see some of the old names in the threads,
like Scot Nicols- from the days when well-known guys like that could
openly participate in newsgroups without attracting stalkers and
wierdos.

I don't remember any other Usenet archives other than DejaNews and
Google. It's had to imagine that this old stuff is gone forever, but
it may not be online anywhere- which is as good as gone. Somewhere
there's a warehouse full of tapes with all that stuff on it...

[Benjamin Weiner]

Tim McNamara > wrote:

> Well, DejaNews was bought by Google and www.dejanews.com just dumps
> you into the Google Groups page. Navigating to the rec.bicycles.*
> hierarchy, one find notice that the group "rec.bicycles" is no longer
> archived.

It's no longer archived, meaning no new posts are added, because
it doesn't exist anymore. If you use the Google groups advanced
search page to search rec.bicycles over a date range range of
interest (say 1990) it will find plenty of posts.

[Weisse Luft]

Mark McMaster wrote:
> ...
> > Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non- drive, my drive
> > side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non- drive is 110 kgf. This is
> > using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm, right
> > offset of 17mm.
> This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset nearly twice
> the right flange offset, the bracing angles of the left spokes will be
> nearly twice the bracing angle of the left spokes. Because spoke bracing
> angles are relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension will
> be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a symmetric rim and
> equal number of spokes on each side of the wheel described above, there
> is no possible way that the ratio between the right and left spoke
> tensions on this wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke
> pattern is used).
> Mark McMaster


Damon Rinard's SpokCalc gives bracing angles of 6.4 and 5.4 degrees fo
left and right sides respectively. This gives a ratio of 85% so th
measured tensions are close. Since the left and right spokes are not o
the same lot (they are different lengths but same DT Revolutio
brand/style), the variance could be explained as such. Tension wa
measured with a Wheelsmith tensionometer

The wheels are still in fine shape and I ride them daily. Because th
drive side spokes rotate slightly in the holes, there is a concern o
frettage. I frequently clean and lubricate this joint with dr
molybdenum disulfide when they start to make noise

Back when I was building this set, I modeled the components in Soli
Works and when I decided to go with the 2X ND, Radial D, I exported thi
model into Ansys finite element analysis. I had to estimate the ri
section from external measurements and weight but was able to ge
accurate measurements off the hub. I held the rim fixed about a sectio
of one span between spokes, loaded the structure with 150 pounds o
force and added 50 ft*lbs of torque to the drive side flange. A
expected, the bottom spokes reduced tension but all spokes remained i
tension and no lateral imbalance in reduction was noted

Yes, I was technically incorrect in stating radial lacing reduces dis
because the position of the flange and rim set dish, not the lacing. Bu
my wheels work and work well. And for a 700C clincher, they are feathe
light at 1290 grams, sans rubber and skewers


-

[daveornee]

Mark McMaster wrote:
> Weisse Luft wrote:
> > But radial lacing the DRIVE side works to reduce dish ...
> While this is widely reported, it is in fact a fallacy, apparently based
> on an incomplete analysis of the spoke angle changes.
> The usual argument is that by using an all heads-out radial spoking
> pattern on the left side, the effective left flange offset is reduced by
> about half the flange thickness, supposedly creating a smaller bracing
> angle of the left spokes (and therefore less dish). Since the left
> flange of a typical rear hub has a thickness of about 3.5mm and an
> offset of about 35mm, the difference difference in the relative spoke
> offset is about (3.5mm/2)/35mm, or about 5%.
> However, this analysis is incomplete and overlooks other consequences of
> radial lacing. On major difference is that radial spokes are also
> shorter than crossed spokes. For a typical small flange rear hub, the
> difference in spoke length is about 15mm. Since the left spokes in a
> typical rear wheel are about 300mm, the difference in length is
> 15mm/300mm, or about 5%.
> So, while radial lacing moves the loading point on the flange by about
> 5% closer to the center of the wheel (as compared to cross lacing), it
> also moves the loading point about 5% closer to the rim. The net effect
> is that there is no change in the bracing angle of the left spokes, and
> therefore no change in dish.
> Since the idea that radially lacing the left spokes reduces the wheel
> dish is so often asserted, I repeat:
> Radially lacing the left spokes does not decrease dish!
> > Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non- drive, my drive
> > side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non- drive is 110 kgf. This is
> > using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm, right
> > offset of 17mm.
> This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset nearly twice
> the right flange offset, the bracing angles of the left spokes will be
> nearly twice the bracing angle of the left spokes. Because spoke bracing
> angles are relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension will
> be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a symmetric rim and
> equal number of spokes on each side of the wheel described above, there
> is no possible way that the ratio between the right and left spoke
> tensions on this wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke
> pattern is used).
> Mark McMaster


I tried to follow your argument because I want to help others understan
that radial spoking on either side of the rear wheel just isn't a goo
idea. I follow your logic and some of your math, but I am lost in you
terminology of "load point" and maybe that is where I don't understan
that application of the math. I agree on the 3.5 mm flange thickness
the ~35 mm left offset, and the ~15 mm reduction in spoke length from
cross down to radial. My math gives me ~ 7.1 degrees of left bracin
angle with 3 cross and ~ 5.7 degrees of left bracing angle with head
out radial pattern. On the right: my math gives me ~ 4.1 degress o
right bracing angle with 3 cross, and ~6 degrees of bracing angle wit
heads in radial pattern. I know that you must be using a differen
method to arrive at your conclusions. Is there a write-up that you ca
point me to that includes diagrams? I understand trigonometry an
physics well enough to follow diagrams and theory. Since there are n
standard quality rear hubs that cover radial spoking on either side, an
my experience is tha durability is effected, I am only interested in th
methods to arrive at your results


-

[Tim McNamara]

Benjamin Weiner > writes:

> Tim McNamara > wrote:
>
>> Well, DejaNews was bought by Google and www.dejanews.com just dumps
>> you into the Google Groups page. Navigating to the rec.bicycles.*
>> hierarchy, one find notice that the group "rec.bicycles" is no
>> longer archived.
>
> It's no longer archived, meaning no new posts are added, because it
> doesn't exist anymore. If you use the Google groups advanced search
> page to search rec.bicycles over a date range range of interest (say
> 1990) it will find plenty of posts.

Tried that with very little success. Google's archive is far from
comprehensive.

[Benjamin Weiner]

Tim McNamara > wrote:
> Benjamin Weiner > writes:
> >
> > It's no longer archived, meaning no new posts are added, because it
> > doesn't exist anymore. If you use the Google groups advanced search
> > page to search rec.bicycles over a date range range of interest (say
> > 1990) it will find plenty of posts.

> Tried that with very little success. Google's archive is far from
> comprehensive.

Well, it isn't going to help Jobst any, but at the advanced
search page I typed rec.bicycles into the groups box and selected
date limits from 1 Jan 1990 to 31 Jun 1990 and it claimed to find
4620 threads.

It falls off sharply before December 1989 because there
the archive is basically non-existent, for reasons which
are discussed in articles about the archive preservation,
whose links I posted elsewhere in this thread (basically the
archivists preserved mostly technical groups). Most or all
of the pre-Dec 1989 articles in the archive are ones that
were cross-posted to a group somebody was archiving, like
a sci.* group.

My point is that it's not a decision by Google whether or not to
archive rec.bicycles that is responsible. It's decisions that
individual unofficial archivists made a long time ago about what
was worthy of preservation. Who knew then that posts to rec.bicycles
might be of more interest now than details in comp.* of operating
systems long since defunct? Archiving is always part attention
to detail and part sheer guesswork. It's just like the seemingly
mundane records that provide future historians with their
treasure troves of data.

Ben

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Weiner writes:

>>> It's no longer archived, meaning no new posts are added, because
>>> it doesn't exist anymore. If you use the Google groups advanced
>>> search page to search rec.bicycles over a date range range of
>>> interest (say w1990) it will find plenty of posts.

>> Tried that with very little success. Google's archive is far from
>> comprehensive.

> Well, it isn't going to help Jobst any, but at the advanced search
> page I typed rec.bicycles into the groups box and selected date
> limits from 1 Jan 1990 to 31 Jun 1990 and it claimed to find 4620
> threads.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am not looking for
technical or other postings but rather ride reports of tours from 1961
to 1989 that have titles containing the year as in:

http://tinyurl.com/ttp6

I know how to find all sorts of other reports and postings and know
about the Trento bike pages run by Andrea Caranti, who is my good
friend in the mathematics department there.

> It falls off sharply before December 1989 because there the archive
> is basically non-existent, for reasons which are discussed in
> articles about the archive preservation, whose links I posted
> elsewhere in this thread (basically the archivists preserved mostly
> technical groups). Most or all of the pre-Dec 1989 articles in the
> archive are ones that were cross-posted to a group somebody was
> archiving, like a sci.* group.

That is the problem. However, I continue to get advice on how to find
things I have posted since the start of 1990, as though I hadn't heard
of the various search facilities on the web.

> My point is that it's not a decision by Google whether or not to
> archive rec.bicycles that is responsible. It's decisions that
> individual unofficial archivists made a long time ago about what was
> worthy of preservation. Who knew then that posts to rec.bicycles
> might be of more interest now than details in comp.* of operating
> systems long since defunct? Archiving is always part attention to
> detail and part sheer guesswork. It's just like the seemingly
> mundane records that provide future historians with their treasure
> troves of data.

The best I got yet was from a reader overseas who said he had these
reports on his computer at home in the USA and would let me know when
he got back. He got back and found the directory empty. Too bad. I
have offered $20 reward on Google extended search, but I would
increase that if I could get more than one of these reports.

Jobst Brandt

[Mark McMaster]

Weisse Luft wrote:
> Mark McMaster wrote:
> > ...
> > > Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non- drive, my drive
> > > side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non- drive is 110 kgf. This is
> > > using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm, right
> > > offset of 17mm.
> > This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset nearly twice
> > the right flange offset, the bracing angles of the left spokes will be
> > nearly twice the bracing angle of the left spokes. Because spoke bracing
> > angles are relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension will
> > be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a symmetric rim and
> > equal number of spokes on each side of the wheel described above, there
> > is no possible way that the ratio between the right and left spoke
> > tensions on this wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke
> > pattern is used).
> > Mark McMaster
>
>
>
> Damon Rinard's SpokCalc gives bracing angles of 6.4 and 5.4 degrees for
> left and right sides respectively. This gives a ratio of 85% so the
> measured tensions are close. Since the left and right spokes are not of
> the same lot (they are different lengths but same DT Revolution
> brand/style), the variance could be explained as such. Tension was
> measured with a Wheelsmith tensionometer.

It still doesn't add up. The left side spoke angle of 6.4
degrees sounds about right, but the right side spokes should
not be anywhere close to 5.4 degrees. Even with very short
spokes, say 270mm, a spoke angle of 5.4 degrees requires a
flange offset of 25.4mm. With the reported right flange
offset of 17mm, the right spokes would be at an angle of 3.6
degrees (or less, if the spokes are longer). This still
puts the left spokes at only 56% of the tension of the left
spokes.

The original length of the spokes does not in itself
determine spoke angle, since the affective length of the
spoke varies as the nipples are adjusted up and down the
threads. Spokes typically have about 10mm of threading, so
the effective length of the spoke can vary by almost this much.


Mark McMaster

[Mark McMaster]

daveornee wrote:
> Mark McMaster wrote:
> > Weisse Luft wrote:
> > > But radial lacing the DRIVE side works to reduce dish ...
> > While this is widely reported, it is in fact a fallacy, apparently based
> > on an incomplete analysis of the spoke angle changes.
> > The usual argument is that by using an all heads-out radial spoking
> > pattern on the left side, the effective left flange offset is reduced by
> > about half the flange thickness, supposedly creating a smaller bracing
> > angle of the left spokes (and therefore less dish). Since the left
> > flange of a typical rear hub has a thickness of about 3.5mm and an
> > offset of about 35mm, the difference difference in the relative spoke
> > offset is about (3.5mm/2)/35mm, or about 5%.
> > However, this analysis is incomplete and overlooks other consequences of
> > radial lacing. On major difference is that radial spokes are also
> > shorter than crossed spokes. For a typical small flange rear hub, the
> > difference in spoke length is about 15mm. Since the left spokes in a
> > typical rear wheel are about 300mm, the difference in length is
> > 15mm/300mm, or about 5%.
> > So, while radial lacing moves the loading point on the flange by about
> > 5% closer to the center of the wheel (as compared to cross lacing), it
> > also moves the loading point about 5% closer to the rim. The net effect
> > is that there is no change in the bracing angle of the left spokes, and
> > therefore no change in dish.
> > Since the idea that radially lacing the left spokes reduces the wheel
> > dish is so often asserted, I repeat:
> > Radially lacing the left spokes does not decrease dish!
> > > Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non- drive, my drive
> > > side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non- drive is 110 kgf. This is
> > > using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm, right
> > > offset of 17mm.
> > This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset nearly twice
> > the right flange offset, the bracing angles of the left spokes will be
> > nearly twice the bracing angle of the left spokes. Because spoke bracing
> > angles are relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension will
> > be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a symmetric rim and
> > equal number of spokes on each side of the wheel described above, there
> > is no possible way that the ratio between the right and left spoke
> > tensions on this wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke
> > pattern is used).
> > Mark McMaster
>
>
>
> I tried to follow your argument because I want to help others understand
> that radial spoking on either side of the rear wheel just isn't a good
> idea. I follow your logic and some of your math, but I am lost in your
> terminology of "load point" and maybe that is where I don't understand
> that application of the math. I agree on the 3.5 mm flange thickness,
> the ~35 mm left offset, and the ~15 mm reduction in spoke length from 3
> cross down to radial. My math gives me ~ 7.1 degrees of left bracing
> angle with 3 cross and ~ 5.7 degrees of left bracing angle with heads
> out radial pattern. On the right: my math gives me ~ 4.1 degress of
> right bracing angle with 3 cross, and ~6 degrees of bracing angle with
> heads in radial pattern. I know that you must be using a different
> method to arrive at your conclusions. Is there a write-up that you can
> point me to that includes diagrams? I understand trigonometry and
> physics well enough to follow diagrams and theory. Since there are no
> standard quality rear hubs that cover radial spoking on either side, and
> my experience is tha durability is effected, I am only interested in the
> methods to arrive at your results.

When I referred to the spoke/flange "load point", I meant
the point where the spoke attached to the flange. A spoke
is what is referred to as a "one-force member", meaning it
can exerted only a single force, oriented directly on the
line from one end to the other. Therefore, the point at
which the spoke attaches (pulls) on the flange has a direct
affect on the angle at which the spoke pulls on the rim, and
therefore the lateral component (bracing force) contributed
by the spoke on the rim.

A typical spoke in a 32 spoke 700c wheel laced with a 3
cross pattern might be about 290mm. Because the spokes are
laced to both the inside and outside faces of the flange and
then interlaced on their way to the rim, they pull at an
angle as if they were attached to the flange at center of
its width. If the flange center is offset 35mm from the
wheel center, the effective bracing angle of the spokes is:

arcsine( 35mm/290mm ) = 6.93 degrees

For radial spoking, the spokes will be about 15mm shorter,
or about 275mm. If they are all laced heads out, then the
spokes will pull from the inner face of the flange, putting
the "load point" about 1.75mm closer to the center of the
wheel (half the flange thickness), or an effective flange
offset of 35mm - 1.75mm = 33.25mm. The effective spoke
bracing angle becomes:

arcsine( 33.25mm/275mm ) = 6.94 degrees

The two bracing angles are almost exactly the same with
either the crossed spoke pattern or the radial (heads out)
pattern. However, the radial pattern does not have some of
the advantages of the crossed pattern, the main one being
that they can not be interlaced. Interlacing allows spokes
that may become slackened in use to have some of their
tension taken up by their interlaced partner, thus slightly
decreasing their loading cycles by allowing their partner
spoke to take up some of the load.

Mark McMaster

[Tom Reingold]

Benjamin Weiner wrote:


> It falls off sharply before December 1989 because there
> the archive is basically non-existent, for reasons which
> are discussed in articles about the archive preservation,
> whose links I posted elsewhere in this thread (basically the
> archivists preserved mostly technical groups). Most or all
> of the pre-Dec 1989 articles in the archive are ones that
> were cross-posted to a group somebody was archiving, like
> a sci.* group.
>
> My point is that it's not a decision by Google whether or not to
> archive rec.bicycles that is responsible. It's decisions that
> individual unofficial archivists made a long time ago about what
> was worthy of preservation. Who knew then that posts to rec.bicycles
> might be of more interest now than details in comp.* of operating
> systems long since defunct? Archiving is always part attention
> to detail and part sheer guesswork. It's just like the seemingly
> mundane records that provide future historians with their
> treasure troves of data.
>
> Ben
>
>


There was a great renaming of newsgroups. I don't remember the year, but
it was around 1987 or 1988. Before the great renaming, all newsgroups
were net.* or mod.*. The mod groups were moderated. The old name for
rec.bicycles was net.bicycle (yes, singular). I just found articles I
posted to net.bicycle in 1986. I know I was reading it in 1985, too. I
don't know why they don't have what I wrote then.

I'm pretty sure Jobst didn't join rec.bicycles until after the great
renaming.

Tom

[Tom Reingold]

Weisse Luft wrote:


> Radial drive side lacing hubs require a hub body of at least 25mm OD and
> 2mm thickness. Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non-
> drive, my drive side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non-drive is 110
> kgf. This is using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm,
> right offset of 17mm. After 8000+ miles, no truing has been required but
> then again, I'm a bit of a flyweight at 155 pounds.


My guess is that your weight, more than your engineering and
measurements, account for your luck. Try building wheels like yours for
your heavier friends. At your weight, you could ride almost anything.

Tom

[[email protected]]

Mark McMaster writes:

> When I referred to the spoke/flange "load point", I meant the point
> where the spoke attached to the flange. A spoke is what is referred
> to as a "one-force member", meaning it can exerted only a single
> force, oriented directly on the line from one end to the other.
> Therefore, the point at which the spoke attaches (pulls) on the
> flange has a direct affect on the angle at which the spoke pulls on
> the rim, and therefore the lateral component (bracing force)
> contributed by the spoke on the rim.

Spokes do not exert any bending forces over their length, that is the
spoke axial centerline is a line of action of pure tensile force.
Therefore, "load point" is irrelevant. The effective origin of the
spoke at the hub is the straight line extension of its centerline
where it intersects the axle, Flange height and width only serve to
confuse the issue. For radial spoking this is simple while for
tangential spoking this intersection is effectively the projection of
the spoke line onto a plane defined by the axle centerline and spoke
nipple seat. This causes large and small flange hubs to make no
difference for truly tangent to the flange spoking (for flanges in the
sizes commonly used).

Jobst Brandt

[Weisse Luft]

Tom Reingold wrote:
> Weisse Luft wrote:
> > Radial drive side lacing hubs require a hub body of at least 25mm OD
> > and 2mm thickness. Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross
> > non- drive, my drive side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non-drive is
> > 110 kgf. This is using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of
> > 31mm, right offset of 17mm. After 8000+ miles, no truing has been
> > required but then again, I'm a bit of a flyweight at 155 pounds.
> My guess is that your weight, more than your engineering and
> measurements, account for your luck. Try building wheels like yours for
> your heavier friends. At your weight, you could ride almost anything.
> Tom


I have. He is 220 pounds and I used a 32 spoke, Velocity Aerohead ri
for the rear and a 28 spoke for the front. All too is well on his wheel
after 4000+ miles

The secret in radial drive side lacing is the hub body torsiona
stiffness. I used an iterative process which took into account the mino
portion of torque transered through the drive side flange but for th
most part, it can be ignored

The key is balancing the increase in tension from drive side windup wit
the torque induced tension change on the non-drive side. Keep in mind
bracing angles too if the difference in static tensions is greater tha
1.5:1 (less than 75%) to maintain lateral stability


-

[g.daniels]

ah, there's just not enough time withn this damn thing.

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Reingold > writes:

> There was a great renaming of newsgroups. I don't remember the year,
> but it was around 1987 or 1988. Before the great renaming, all
> newsgroups were net.* or mod.*. The mod groups were moderated. The
> old name for rec.bicycles was net.bicycle (yes, singular). I just
> found articles I posted to net.bicycle in 1986. I know I was reading
> it in 1985, too. I don't know why they don't have what I wrote then.
>
> I'm pretty sure Jobst didn't join rec.bicycles until after the great
> renaming.

When did rec.bicycles become rec.bicycles.tech, r.b.marketplace, etc?
I started very shortly after that, having finally got Usenet access-
Internet access in general was limited pretty much to universities
around here. Some of the same folks posting today were already here
in the rec.bikes.* groups by then, and a lot of them have gone away.

[[email protected]]

Tim McNamara writes:

>> There was a great renaming of newsgroups. I don't remember the
>> year, but it was around 1987 or 1988. Before the great renaming,
>> all newsgroups were net.* or mod.*. The mod groups were
>> moderated. The old name for rec.bicycles was net.bicycle (yes,
>> singular). I just found articles I posted to net.bicycle in 1986. I
>> know I was reading it in 1985, too. I don't know why they don't
>> have what I wrote then.

>> I'm pretty sure Jobst didn't join rec.bicycles until after the
>> great renaming.

> When did rec.bicycles become rec.bicycles.tech, r.b.marketplace,
> etc? I started very shortly after that, having finally got Usenet
> access- Internet access in general was limited pretty much to
> universities around here. Some of the same folks posting today were
> already here in the rec.bikes.* groups by then, and a lot of them
> have gone away.

I was in rec.bicycle long before it got split. I just recall that
Bruce Hildenbrand was an activist for the split. He may know when
that occurred.

Jobst Brandt

[Benjamin Weiner]

Tim McNamara > wrote:

> When did rec.bicycles become rec.bicycles.tech, r.b.marketplace, etc?
> I started very shortly after that, having finally got Usenet access-
> Internet access in general was limited pretty much to universities
> around here. Some of the same folks posting today were already here
> in the rec.bikes.* groups by then, and a lot of them have gone away.

August 1992. Here is the welcome post from Les Earnest:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1992Aug26.052349.15264%40CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>

I was reading Usenet back then, but not in rec.bicycles.*
Around that time it seemed like most users were at universities,
tech companies, and the occasional ISP like Netcom (anyone
remember Netcom?) And some horrific header-mangling BBS
gateways.

[Mark McMaster]

wrote:
> Mark McMaster writes:
>
>
>>When I referred to the spoke/flange "load point", I meant the point
>>where the spoke attached to the flange. A spoke is what is referred
>>to as a "one-force member", meaning it can exerted only a single
>>force, oriented directly on the line from one end to the other.
>>Therefore, the point at which the spoke attaches (pulls) on the
>>flange has a direct affect on the angle at which the spoke pulls on
>>the rim, and therefore the lateral component (bracing force)
>>contributed by the spoke on the rim.
>
>
> Spokes do not exert any bending forces over their length, that is the
> spoke axial centerline is a line of action of pure tensile force.
> Therefore, "load point" is irrelevant. The effective origin of the
> spoke at the hub is the straight line extension of its centerline
> where it intersects the axle, Flange height and width only serve to
> confuse the issue.

Semantics or pedantics? Of course, it is only the angle of
the spoke that matters. But the spoke is attached to the
flange, so the location of the flange (and the point on the
flange that the spoke attaches to) will determine what the
spoke angle will be. The main issue in this thread is that
whether the spokes are radial or crossed, or laced heads in
or heads out, is splitting hairs in regard to spoke angle.

Mark McMaster

[LioNiNoiL_a t_Ne t s c a pE_D 0 T_Ne T]

> Somewhere there's a warehouse full of tapes with all that stuff on it...

Yep, and it's at Langley.