Wheel building questions

[big Pete]

Wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
> > wrote:
>
> >
> Wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >David L. Johnson Wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted
> >> spokes.
> >> >> They make a more reliable wheel.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes
> >> make
> >> >that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the
> >> rim
> >> >and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with
> eyelets
> >> >that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge
> >> stainless
> >> >steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try
> to
> >> >make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the
> >> suggestions
> >> >you guys have given me.
> >> >
> >> >Thank you all
> >> >
> >> >Pete
> >>
> >> Dear Pete,
> >>
> >> Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
> >> gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
> >> to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
> >> middle.
> >>
> >> Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
> >> such breaks.
> >>
> >> Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
> >> length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
> >> lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.
> >>
> >> When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
> >> the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
> >> didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
> >> thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
> >> and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
> >> contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
> >> likely to last longer.
> >>
> >> Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
> >> of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
> >> which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
> >> greater range of motion.
> >>
> >> Carl Fogel
> >
> >Dear Carl,
> >
> >You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree
> with
> >your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion.
> But
> >that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the
> bigger
> >range of motion they are going though.
>
> Dear Pete,
>
> You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
> of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.
>
> That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
> crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
> The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
> spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.
>
> Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
> in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
> stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
> under the axle.
>
> As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
> what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
> recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
> mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
> because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
> because it is more than strong enough and its increased
> elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
> do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
> without going slack.
>
> The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
> (steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
> cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
> won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
> because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
> various details like the bending, the threading, and so
> forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
> last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
> low enough.
>
> Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
> not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
> fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
> to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
> stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
> they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.
>
> Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
> low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
> for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
> predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
> middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
> soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
> all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.
>
> For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
> thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
> many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
> who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
> pounds on delicate creatures like me.
>
> Carl Fogel


Dear Carl,

Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I
have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The
only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the
garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the
book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with
double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?

Pete


--
big Pete

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...

>I am also looking for the
>book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
>this book the "wheel builders bible"?

No.

>I have never had a wheel with
>double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?

No.
------------
Alex

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...

>I am also looking for the
>book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
>this book the "wheel builders bible"?

No.

>I have never had a wheel with
>double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?

No.
------------
Alex

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:53:04 +1000, big Pete
> wrote:

>
Wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> Wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >David L. Johnson Wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted
>> >> spokes.
>> >> >> They make a more reliable wheel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes
>> >> make
>> >> >that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the
>> >> rim
>> >> >and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with
>> eyelets
>> >> >that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge
>> >> stainless
>> >> >steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try
>> to
>> >> >make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the
>> >> suggestions
>> >> >you guys have given me.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thank you all
>> >> >
>> >> >Pete
>> >>
>> >> Dear Pete,
>> >>
>> >> Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
>> >> gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
>> >> to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
>> >> middle.
>> >>
>> >> Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
>> >> such breaks.
>> >>
>> >> Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
>> >> length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
>> >> lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.
>> >>
>> >> When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
>> >> the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
>> >> didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
>> >> thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
>> >> and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
>> >> contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
>> >> likely to last longer.
>> >>
>> >> Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
>> >> of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
>> >> which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
>> >> greater range of motion.
>> >>
>> >> Carl Fogel
>> >
>> >Dear Carl,
>> >
>> >You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree
>> with
>> >your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion.
>> But
>> >that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the
>> bigger
>> >range of motion they are going though.
>>
>> Dear Pete,
>>
>> You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
>> of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.
>>
>> That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
>> crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
>> The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
>> spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.
>>
>> Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
>> in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
>> stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
>> under the axle.
>>
>> As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
>> what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
>> recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
>> mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
>> because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
>> because it is more than strong enough and its increased
>> elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
>> do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
>> without going slack.
>>
>> The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
>> (steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
>> cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
>> won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
>> because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
>> various details like the bending, the threading, and so
>> forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
>> last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
>> low enough.
>>
>> Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
>> not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
>> fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
>> to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
>> stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
>> they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.
>>
>> Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
>> low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
>> for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
>> predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
>> middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
>> soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
>> all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.
>>
>> For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
>> thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
>> many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
>> who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
>> pounds on delicate creatures like me.
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>
>Dear Carl,
>
>Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I
>have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The
>only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the
>garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the
>book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
>this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with
>double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?
>
>Pete

Dear Pete,

Interlibrary loan should be able to get a copy of Jobst
Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel." If possible, specify the third
edition. Here on rec.bicycles.tech, it's often referred to
as the bible--and like any bible, it has passages that
inflame controversy.

For example, I remain agnostic about the spoke-squeezing
stress-relief theory that's supposed to make spokes
immortal, but even if turns out to be myth and lore, I can't
see how it can hurt anything.

Online, you can browse Sheldon Brown's detailed
wheel-building page here:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

It has colored diagrams, handy links to many terms, and a
reference to Jobst's book--with a link to let you buy it
online from Sheldon in Massachusetts, who can probably use
some cheering up after the Yankees trounced Boston last
night.

As for any difference in feel between butted and unbutted
spokes, I'd be astonished if anyone claimed to be able to
tell the difference. While the increased elasticity of the
thinner-middle-section spoke helps keep tension on the spoke
as it rolls under the hub, the actual amount of stretching
is tiny. The rubber of the tire deforms far more than the
spoke changes length. When you look at diagrams showing how
the rim flattens at the contact patch, there's usually a
comment that the amount of distortion is greatly
exaggerated--otherwise, you couldn't see the difference.)

However, there might be one situation in which you could
tell the difference in feel while riding double-butted
spokes. When a wheel hits something hard enough to cause a
spoke to lose all tension and go slack, there might be a
faint but unpleasant rattle and then a click as the wheel
continues rolling and tension is regained. (I've never
noticed this, but vaguely recall people mentioning it here.)

You'd get less of that with double-butted spokes. Otherwise,
the increased stretchiness would be undetectable by a rider.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:53:04 +1000, big Pete
> wrote:

>
Wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> Wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >David L. Johnson Wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted
>> >> spokes.
>> >> >> They make a more reliable wheel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes
>> >> make
>> >> >that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the
>> >> rim
>> >> >and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with
>> eyelets
>> >> >that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge
>> >> stainless
>> >> >steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try
>> to
>> >> >make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the
>> >> suggestions
>> >> >you guys have given me.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thank you all
>> >> >
>> >> >Pete
>> >>
>> >> Dear Pete,
>> >>
>> >> Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
>> >> gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
>> >> to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
>> >> middle.
>> >>
>> >> Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
>> >> such breaks.
>> >>
>> >> Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
>> >> length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
>> >> lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.
>> >>
>> >> When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
>> >> the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
>> >> didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
>> >> thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
>> >> and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
>> >> contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
>> >> likely to last longer.
>> >>
>> >> Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
>> >> of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
>> >> which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
>> >> greater range of motion.
>> >>
>> >> Carl Fogel
>> >
>> >Dear Carl,
>> >
>> >You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree
>> with
>> >your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion.
>> But
>> >that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the
>> bigger
>> >range of motion they are going though.
>>
>> Dear Pete,
>>
>> You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
>> of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.
>>
>> That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
>> crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
>> The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
>> spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.
>>
>> Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
>> in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
>> stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
>> under the axle.
>>
>> As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
>> what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
>> recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
>> mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
>> because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
>> because it is more than strong enough and its increased
>> elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
>> do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
>> without going slack.
>>
>> The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
>> (steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
>> cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
>> won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
>> because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
>> various details like the bending, the threading, and so
>> forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
>> last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
>> low enough.
>>
>> Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
>> not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
>> fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
>> to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
>> stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
>> they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.
>>
>> Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
>> low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
>> for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
>> predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
>> middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
>> soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
>> all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.
>>
>> For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
>> thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
>> many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
>> who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
>> pounds on delicate creatures like me.
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>
>Dear Carl,
>
>Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I
>have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The
>only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the
>garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the
>book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
>this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with
>double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?
>
>Pete

Dear Pete,

Interlibrary loan should be able to get a copy of Jobst
Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel." If possible, specify the third
edition. Here on rec.bicycles.tech, it's often referred to
as the bible--and like any bible, it has passages that
inflame controversy.

For example, I remain agnostic about the spoke-squeezing
stress-relief theory that's supposed to make spokes
immortal, but even if turns out to be myth and lore, I can't
see how it can hurt anything.

Online, you can browse Sheldon Brown's detailed
wheel-building page here:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

It has colored diagrams, handy links to many terms, and a
reference to Jobst's book--with a link to let you buy it
online from Sheldon in Massachusetts, who can probably use
some cheering up after the Yankees trounced Boston last
night.

As for any difference in feel between butted and unbutted
spokes, I'd be astonished if anyone claimed to be able to
tell the difference. While the increased elasticity of the
thinner-middle-section spoke helps keep tension on the spoke
as it rolls under the hub, the actual amount of stretching
is tiny. The rubber of the tire deforms far more than the
spoke changes length. When you look at diagrams showing how
the rim flattens at the contact patch, there's usually a
comment that the amount of distortion is greatly
exaggerated--otherwise, you couldn't see the difference.)

However, there might be one situation in which you could
tell the difference in feel while riding double-butted
spokes. When a wheel hits something hard enough to cause a
spoke to lose all tension and go slack, there might be a
faint but unpleasant rattle and then a click as the wheel
continues rolling and tension is regained. (I've never
noticed this, but vaguely recall people mentioning it here.)

You'd get less of that with double-butted spokes. Otherwise,
the increased stretchiness would be undetectable by a rider.

Carl Fogel

[Ronsonic]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:12:36 -0600, wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:53:04 +1000, big Pete
> wrote:
>
>>
Wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> Wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >David L. Johnson Wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted
>>> >> spokes.
>>> >> >> They make a more reliable wheel.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes
>>> >> make
>>> >> >that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the
>>> >> rim
>>> >> >and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with
>>> eyelets
>>> >> >that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge
>>> >> stainless
>>> >> >steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try
>>> to
>>> >> >make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the
>>> >> suggestions
>>> >> >you guys have given me.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Thank you all
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Pete
>>> >>
>>> >> Dear Pete,
>>> >>
>>> >> Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
>>> >> gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
>>> >> to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
>>> >> middle.
>>> >>
>>> >> Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
>>> >> such breaks.
>>> >>
>>> >> Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
>>> >> length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
>>> >> lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.
>>> >>
>>> >> When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
>>> >> the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
>>> >> didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
>>> >> thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
>>> >> and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
>>> >> contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
>>> >> likely to last longer.
>>> >>
>>> >> Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
>>> >> of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
>>> >> which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
>>> >> greater range of motion.
>>> >>
>>> >> Carl Fogel
>>> >
>>> >Dear Carl,
>>> >
>>> >You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree
>>> with
>>> >your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion.
>>> But
>>> >that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the
>>> bigger
>>> >range of motion they are going though.
>>>
>>> Dear Pete,
>>>
>>> You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
>>> of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.
>>>
>>> That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
>>> crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
>>> The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
>>> spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.
>>>
>>> Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
>>> in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
>>> stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
>>> under the axle.
>>>
>>> As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
>>> what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
>>> recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
>>> mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
>>> because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
>>> because it is more than strong enough and its increased
>>> elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
>>> do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
>>> without going slack.
>>>
>>> The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
>>> (steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
>>> cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
>>> won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
>>> because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
>>> various details like the bending, the threading, and so
>>> forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
>>> last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
>>> low enough.
>>>
>>> Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
>>> not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
>>> fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
>>> to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
>>> stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
>>> they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.
>>>
>>> Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
>>> low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
>>> for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
>>> predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
>>> middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
>>> soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
>>> all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.
>>>
>>> For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
>>> thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
>>> many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
>>> who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
>>> pounds on delicate creatures like me.
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>>
>>Dear Carl,
>>
>>Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I
>>have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The
>>only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the
>>garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the
>>book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
>>this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with
>>double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?
>>
>>Pete
>
>Dear Pete,
>
>Interlibrary loan should be able to get a copy of Jobst
>Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel." If possible, specify the third
>edition. Here on rec.bicycles.tech, it's often referred to
>as the bible--and like any bible, it has passages that
>inflame controversy.
>
>For example, I remain agnostic about the spoke-squeezing
>stress-relief theory that's supposed to make spokes
>immortal, but even if turns out to be myth and lore, I can't
>see how it can hurt anything.
>
>Online, you can browse Sheldon Brown's detailed
>wheel-building page here:
>
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>
>It has colored diagrams, handy links to many terms, and a
>reference to Jobst's book--with a link to let you buy it
>online from Sheldon in Massachusetts, who can probably use
>some cheering up after the Yankees trounced Boston last
>night.
>
>As for any difference in feel between butted and unbutted
>spokes, I'd be astonished if anyone claimed to be able to
>tell the difference. While the increased elasticity of the
>thinner-middle-section spoke helps keep tension on the spoke
>as it rolls under the hub, the actual amount of stretching
>is tiny. The rubber of the tire deforms far more than the
>spoke changes length. When you look at diagrams showing how
>the rim flattens at the contact patch, there's usually a
>comment that the amount of distortion is greatly
>exaggerated--otherwise, you couldn't see the difference.)

I'd be surprised if there weren't a difference in feel. A bike wheel's a pretty
resonant structure and resonances ARE easy to feel. Having said that I'll agree
that there won't be a discernable difference in deformation under load. But a
thinner spoke pulled to the same tension as a thicker one will resonate at a
higher pitch. All of the shock and vibration from the road is transmitted
through this resonant structure, I can't believe there won't be a difference in
feel.

Time for someone to buld up some matched wheelsets for testing and test ride
them with a focus on road buzz and vibration, etc.

Ron

[Ronsonic]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:12:36 -0600, wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:53:04 +1000, big Pete
> wrote:
>
>>
Wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> Wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >David L. Johnson Wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted
>>> >> spokes.
>>> >> >> They make a more reliable wheel.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes
>>> >> make
>>> >> >that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the
>>> >> rim
>>> >> >and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with
>>> eyelets
>>> >> >that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge
>>> >> stainless
>>> >> >steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try
>>> to
>>> >> >make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the
>>> >> suggestions
>>> >> >you guys have given me.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Thank you all
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Pete
>>> >>
>>> >> Dear Pete,
>>> >>
>>> >> Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
>>> >> gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
>>> >> to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
>>> >> middle.
>>> >>
>>> >> Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
>>> >> such breaks.
>>> >>
>>> >> Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
>>> >> length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
>>> >> lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.
>>> >>
>>> >> When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
>>> >> the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
>>> >> didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
>>> >> thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
>>> >> and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
>>> >> contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
>>> >> likely to last longer.
>>> >>
>>> >> Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
>>> >> of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
>>> >> which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
>>> >> greater range of motion.
>>> >>
>>> >> Carl Fogel
>>> >
>>> >Dear Carl,
>>> >
>>> >You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree
>>> with
>>> >your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion.
>>> But
>>> >that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the
>>> bigger
>>> >range of motion they are going though.
>>>
>>> Dear Pete,
>>>
>>> You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
>>> of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.
>>>
>>> That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
>>> crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
>>> The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
>>> spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.
>>>
>>> Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
>>> in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
>>> stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
>>> under the axle.
>>>
>>> As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
>>> what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
>>> recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
>>> mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
>>> because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
>>> because it is more than strong enough and its increased
>>> elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
>>> do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
>>> without going slack.
>>>
>>> The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
>>> (steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
>>> cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
>>> won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
>>> because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
>>> various details like the bending, the threading, and so
>>> forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
>>> last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
>>> low enough.
>>>
>>> Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
>>> not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
>>> fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
>>> to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
>>> stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
>>> they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.
>>>
>>> Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
>>> low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
>>> for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
>>> predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
>>> middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
>>> soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
>>> all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.
>>>
>>> For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
>>> thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
>>> many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
>>> who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
>>> pounds on delicate creatures like me.
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>>
>>Dear Carl,
>>
>>Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I
>>have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The
>>only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the
>>garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the
>>book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
>>this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with
>>double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?
>>
>>Pete
>
>Dear Pete,
>
>Interlibrary loan should be able to get a copy of Jobst
>Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel." If possible, specify the third
>edition. Here on rec.bicycles.tech, it's often referred to
>as the bible--and like any bible, it has passages that
>inflame controversy.
>
>For example, I remain agnostic about the spoke-squeezing
>stress-relief theory that's supposed to make spokes
>immortal, but even if turns out to be myth and lore, I can't
>see how it can hurt anything.
>
>Online, you can browse Sheldon Brown's detailed
>wheel-building page here:
>
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>
>It has colored diagrams, handy links to many terms, and a
>reference to Jobst's book--with a link to let you buy it
>online from Sheldon in Massachusetts, who can probably use
>some cheering up after the Yankees trounced Boston last
>night.
>
>As for any difference in feel between butted and unbutted
>spokes, I'd be astonished if anyone claimed to be able to
>tell the difference. While the increased elasticity of the
>thinner-middle-section spoke helps keep tension on the spoke
>as it rolls under the hub, the actual amount of stretching
>is tiny. The rubber of the tire deforms far more than the
>spoke changes length. When you look at diagrams showing how
>the rim flattens at the contact patch, there's usually a
>comment that the amount of distortion is greatly
>exaggerated--otherwise, you couldn't see the difference.)

I'd be surprised if there weren't a difference in feel. A bike wheel's a pretty
resonant structure and resonances ARE easy to feel. Having said that I'll agree
that there won't be a discernable difference in deformation under load. But a
thinner spoke pulled to the same tension as a thicker one will resonate at a
higher pitch. All of the shock and vibration from the road is transmitted
through this resonant structure, I can't believe there won't be a difference in
feel.

Time for someone to buld up some matched wheelsets for testing and test ride
them with a focus on road buzz and vibration, etc.

Ron

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:42:06 -0400, Ronsonic <> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:12:36 -0600, wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:53:04 +1000, big Pete
> wrote:
>>
>>>
Wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> Wrote:
>>>> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >David L. Johnson Wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted
>>>> >> spokes.
>>>> >> >> They make a more reliable wheel.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes
>>>> >> make
>>>> >> >that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the
>>>> >> rim
>>>> >> >and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with
>>>> eyelets
>>>> >> >that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge
>>>> >> stainless
>>>> >> >steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try
>>>> to
>>>> >> >make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the
>>>> >> suggestions
>>>> >> >you guys have given me.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Thank you all
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Pete
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Dear Pete,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
>>>> >> gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
>>>> >> to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
>>>> >> middle.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
>>>> >> such breaks.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
>>>> >> length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
>>>> >> lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
>>>> >> the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
>>>> >> didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
>>>> >> thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
>>>> >> and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
>>>> >> contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
>>>> >> likely to last longer.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
>>>> >> of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
>>>> >> which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
>>>> >> greater range of motion.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Carl Fogel
>>>> >
>>>> >Dear Carl,
>>>> >
>>>> >You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree
>>>> with
>>>> >your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion.
>>>> But
>>>> >that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the
>>>> bigger
>>>> >range of motion they are going though.
>>>>
>>>> Dear Pete,
>>>>
>>>> You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
>>>> of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.
>>>>
>>>> That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
>>>> crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
>>>> The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
>>>> spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.
>>>>
>>>> Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
>>>> in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
>>>> stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
>>>> under the axle.
>>>>
>>>> As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
>>>> what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
>>>> recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
>>>> mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
>>>> because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
>>>> because it is more than strong enough and its increased
>>>> elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
>>>> do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
>>>> without going slack.
>>>>
>>>> The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
>>>> (steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
>>>> cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
>>>> won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
>>>> because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
>>>> various details like the bending, the threading, and so
>>>> forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
>>>> last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
>>>> low enough.
>>>>
>>>> Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
>>>> not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
>>>> fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
>>>> to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
>>>> stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
>>>> they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.
>>>>
>>>> Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
>>>> low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
>>>> for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
>>>> predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
>>>> middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
>>>> soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
>>>> all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.
>>>>
>>>> For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
>>>> thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
>>>> many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
>>>> who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
>>>> pounds on delicate creatures like me.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Fogel
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Carl,
>>>
>>>Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I
>>>have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The
>>>only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the
>>>garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the
>>>book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
>>>this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with
>>>double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?
>>>
>>>Pete
>>
>>Dear Pete,
>>
>>Interlibrary loan should be able to get a copy of Jobst
>>Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel." If possible, specify the third
>>edition. Here on rec.bicycles.tech, it's often referred to
>>as the bible--and like any bible, it has passages that
>>inflame controversy.
>>
>>For example, I remain agnostic about the spoke-squeezing
>>stress-relief theory that's supposed to make spokes
>>immortal, but even if turns out to be myth and lore, I can't
>>see how it can hurt anything.
>>
>>Online, you can browse Sheldon Brown's detailed
>>wheel-building page here:
>>
>>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>>
>>It has colored diagrams, handy links to many terms, and a
>>reference to Jobst's book--with a link to let you buy it
>>online from Sheldon in Massachusetts, who can probably use
>>some cheering up after the Yankees trounced Boston last
>>night.
>>
>>As for any difference in feel between butted and unbutted
>>spokes, I'd be astonished if anyone claimed to be able to
>>tell the difference. While the increased elasticity of the
>>thinner-middle-section spoke helps keep tension on the spoke
>>as it rolls under the hub, the actual amount of stretching
>>is tiny. The rubber of the tire deforms far more than the
>>spoke changes length. When you look at diagrams showing how
>>the rim flattens at the contact patch, there's usually a
>>comment that the amount of distortion is greatly
>>exaggerated--otherwise, you couldn't see the difference.)
>
>I'd be surprised if there weren't a difference in feel. A bike wheel's a pretty
>resonant structure and resonances ARE easy to feel. Having said that I'll agree
>that there won't be a discernable difference in deformation under load. But a
>thinner spoke pulled to the same tension as a thicker one will resonate at a
>higher pitch. All of the shock and vibration from the road is transmitted
>through this resonant structure, I can't believe there won't be a difference in
>feel.
>
>Time for someone to buld up some matched wheelsets for testing and test ride
>them with a focus on road buzz and vibration, etc.
>
>Ron

Dear Ron,

I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
the inflated rubber tire.

But you could be right. A faintly similar test would be to
try to tell the difference between hitting a tire while
blindfolded with the same hammer heads mounted on different
rubber-covered shafts--wood, fiberglass, and steel. I know
that carpenters believe in differences between the feel of
such materials, but I don't know about whether they would
claim to feel the difference with a resilient rubber tire on
one end and a rubber grip on the other.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:42:06 -0400, Ronsonic <> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:12:36 -0600, wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:53:04 +1000, big Pete
> wrote:
>>
>>>
Wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> Wrote:
>>>> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >David L. Johnson Wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted
>>>> >> spokes.
>>>> >> >> They make a more reliable wheel.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes
>>>> >> make
>>>> >> >that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the
>>>> >> rim
>>>> >> >and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with
>>>> eyelets
>>>> >> >that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge
>>>> >> stainless
>>>> >> >steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try
>>>> to
>>>> >> >make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the
>>>> >> suggestions
>>>> >> >you guys have given me.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Thank you all
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Pete
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Dear Pete,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
>>>> >> gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
>>>> >> to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
>>>> >> middle.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
>>>> >> such breaks.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
>>>> >> length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
>>>> >> lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
>>>> >> the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
>>>> >> didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
>>>> >> thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
>>>> >> and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
>>>> >> contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
>>>> >> likely to last longer.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
>>>> >> of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
>>>> >> which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
>>>> >> greater range of motion.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Carl Fogel
>>>> >
>>>> >Dear Carl,
>>>> >
>>>> >You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree
>>>> with
>>>> >your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion.
>>>> But
>>>> >that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the
>>>> bigger
>>>> >range of motion they are going though.
>>>>
>>>> Dear Pete,
>>>>
>>>> You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
>>>> of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.
>>>>
>>>> That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
>>>> crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
>>>> The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
>>>> spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.
>>>>
>>>> Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
>>>> in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
>>>> stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
>>>> under the axle.
>>>>
>>>> As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
>>>> what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
>>>> recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
>>>> mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
>>>> because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
>>>> because it is more than strong enough and its increased
>>>> elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
>>>> do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
>>>> without going slack.
>>>>
>>>> The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
>>>> (steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
>>>> cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
>>>> won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
>>>> because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
>>>> various details like the bending, the threading, and so
>>>> forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
>>>> last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
>>>> low enough.
>>>>
>>>> Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
>>>> not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
>>>> fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
>>>> to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
>>>> stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
>>>> they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.
>>>>
>>>> Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
>>>> low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
>>>> for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
>>>> predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
>>>> middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
>>>> soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
>>>> all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.
>>>>
>>>> For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
>>>> thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
>>>> many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
>>>> who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
>>>> pounds on delicate creatures like me.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Fogel
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Carl,
>>>
>>>Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I
>>>have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The
>>>only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the
>>>garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the
>>>book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
>>>this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with
>>>double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?
>>>
>>>Pete
>>
>>Dear Pete,
>>
>>Interlibrary loan should be able to get a copy of Jobst
>>Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel." If possible, specify the third
>>edition. Here on rec.bicycles.tech, it's often referred to
>>as the bible--and like any bible, it has passages that
>>inflame controversy.
>>
>>For example, I remain agnostic about the spoke-squeezing
>>stress-relief theory that's supposed to make spokes
>>immortal, but even if turns out to be myth and lore, I can't
>>see how it can hurt anything.
>>
>>Online, you can browse Sheldon Brown's detailed
>>wheel-building page here:
>>
>>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>>
>>It has colored diagrams, handy links to many terms, and a
>>reference to Jobst's book--with a link to let you buy it
>>online from Sheldon in Massachusetts, who can probably use
>>some cheering up after the Yankees trounced Boston last
>>night.
>>
>>As for any difference in feel between butted and unbutted
>>spokes, I'd be astonished if anyone claimed to be able to
>>tell the difference. While the increased elasticity of the
>>thinner-middle-section spoke helps keep tension on the spoke
>>as it rolls under the hub, the actual amount of stretching
>>is tiny. The rubber of the tire deforms far more than the
>>spoke changes length. When you look at diagrams showing how
>>the rim flattens at the contact patch, there's usually a
>>comment that the amount of distortion is greatly
>>exaggerated--otherwise, you couldn't see the difference.)
>
>I'd be surprised if there weren't a difference in feel. A bike wheel's a pretty
>resonant structure and resonances ARE easy to feel. Having said that I'll agree
>that there won't be a discernable difference in deformation under load. But a
>thinner spoke pulled to the same tension as a thicker one will resonate at a
>higher pitch. All of the shock and vibration from the road is transmitted
>through this resonant structure, I can't believe there won't be a difference in
>feel.
>
>Time for someone to buld up some matched wheelsets for testing and test ride
>them with a focus on road buzz and vibration, etc.
>
>Ron

Dear Ron,

I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
the inflated rubber tire.

But you could be right. A faintly similar test would be to
try to tell the difference between hitting a tire while
blindfolded with the same hammer heads mounted on different
rubber-covered shafts--wood, fiberglass, and steel. I know
that carpenters believe in differences between the feel of
such materials, but I don't know about whether they would
claim to feel the difference with a resilient rubber tire on
one end and a rubber grip on the other.

Carl Fogel

[jim beam]

wrote:
<snip>
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
> hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
> the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
> the inflated rubber tire.

if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?

>
> But you could be right. A faintly similar test would be to
> try to tell the difference between hitting a tire while
> blindfolded with the same hammer heads mounted on different
> rubber-covered shafts--wood, fiberglass, and steel. I know
> that carpenters believe in differences between the feel of
> such materials, but I don't know about whether they would
> claim to feel the difference with a resilient rubber tire on
> one end and a rubber grip on the other.
>
> Carl Fogel

[jim beam]

wrote:
<snip>
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
> hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
> the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
> the inflated rubber tire.

if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?

>
> But you could be right. A faintly similar test would be to
> try to tell the difference between hitting a tire while
> blindfolded with the same hammer heads mounted on different
> rubber-covered shafts--wood, fiberglass, and steel. I know
> that carpenters believe in differences between the feel of
> such materials, but I don't know about whether they would
> claim to feel the difference with a resilient rubber tire on
> one end and a rubber grip on the other.
>
> Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:37:47 -0700, jim beam
> wrote:

wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Dear Ron,
>>
>> I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
>> hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
>> the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
>> the inflated rubber tire.
>
>if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
>rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
>the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?
>
>>
>> But you could be right. A faintly similar test would be to
>> try to tell the difference between hitting a tire while
>> blindfolded with the same hammer heads mounted on different
>> rubber-covered shafts--wood, fiberglass, and steel. I know
>> that carpenters believe in differences between the feel of
>> such materials, but I don't know about whether they would
>> claim to feel the difference with a resilient rubber tire on
>> one end and a rubber grip on the other.
>>
>> Carl Fogel

Dear Jim,

I instantly assumed that you were insane, began scribbling a
reply that would expose your evil claims as the work of the
devil, and then remembered that I have a bicycle sitting in
the garage--a bicycle that I trust to back me up faithfully
whenever questions are raised.

I flicked a confident fingernail against the rear tire as my
bicycle slept peacefully on its back, wheels in the air. It
produced a dull, satisfying thunk, indicating that Jim Beam
is deluded. I flicked it several more times to confirm that
it was about as bell-like as a rubber ducky.

But then I grew over-confident and flicked my fingernail
against the front tire. Same tire model, same rim, 36
spokes, roughly the same tension, same inflation--and a
faint but undeniably bell-like vibration was painfully
evident.

The traitorous bicycle was rudely flipped right side up and
both tires were mercilessly flicked with a standard
fingernail. I leaned on the handlebars and on the seat. I
rolled it back and forth. But things remained stubbornly the
same. The rear tire sounded like someone kicking a car tire.
The front tire still gave a faint vibration.

Maybe the chain and gear cluster and freehub mechanism
deaden things on the rear wheel? Or the rigid triangle damps
things better than the fork? I checked that the brake pads
weren't binding.

I loosened both quick-releases. Same thing--front rings,
back doesn't.

I pulled the rear wheel out of the rigid frame and free from
the chain and began flicking it cruelly with my fingernail,
trying to make it cry as it stood helpless and alone on the
garage floor. It still emitted nothing more than a dull
thunk.

So maybe the weight of just the gears and freehub is enough
to deaden the vibration?

Or just the damping of a plastic spoke protector?

If you're familiar with violins, you know how tiny and yet
effective a wooden, rubber, or plastic mute is when pressed
against or clipped onto the bridge:

http://www.sharmusic.com/itemdy00Violin.asp?T1=1304+GLD&Cat=

I hope that others will take a few moments and flick their
front and rear tires in the back of the head with a
fingernail--they can't fight back, so you can bully them as
much as you like.

Whether slight differences in such faint vibration can be
noticed while rolling along on the pavement is another
matter, but I want to know why my front wheel aspires to
Stradivarian heights, while my rear wheel seems to have a
cold.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:37:47 -0700, jim beam
> wrote:

wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Dear Ron,
>>
>> I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
>> hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
>> the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
>> the inflated rubber tire.
>
>if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
>rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
>the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?
>
>>
>> But you could be right. A faintly similar test would be to
>> try to tell the difference between hitting a tire while
>> blindfolded with the same hammer heads mounted on different
>> rubber-covered shafts--wood, fiberglass, and steel. I know
>> that carpenters believe in differences between the feel of
>> such materials, but I don't know about whether they would
>> claim to feel the difference with a resilient rubber tire on
>> one end and a rubber grip on the other.
>>
>> Carl Fogel

Dear Jim,

I instantly assumed that you were insane, began scribbling a
reply that would expose your evil claims as the work of the
devil, and then remembered that I have a bicycle sitting in
the garage--a bicycle that I trust to back me up faithfully
whenever questions are raised.

I flicked a confident fingernail against the rear tire as my
bicycle slept peacefully on its back, wheels in the air. It
produced a dull, satisfying thunk, indicating that Jim Beam
is deluded. I flicked it several more times to confirm that
it was about as bell-like as a rubber ducky.

But then I grew over-confident and flicked my fingernail
against the front tire. Same tire model, same rim, 36
spokes, roughly the same tension, same inflation--and a
faint but undeniably bell-like vibration was painfully
evident.

The traitorous bicycle was rudely flipped right side up and
both tires were mercilessly flicked with a standard
fingernail. I leaned on the handlebars and on the seat. I
rolled it back and forth. But things remained stubbornly the
same. The rear tire sounded like someone kicking a car tire.
The front tire still gave a faint vibration.

Maybe the chain and gear cluster and freehub mechanism
deaden things on the rear wheel? Or the rigid triangle damps
things better than the fork? I checked that the brake pads
weren't binding.

I loosened both quick-releases. Same thing--front rings,
back doesn't.

I pulled the rear wheel out of the rigid frame and free from
the chain and began flicking it cruelly with my fingernail,
trying to make it cry as it stood helpless and alone on the
garage floor. It still emitted nothing more than a dull
thunk.

So maybe the weight of just the gears and freehub is enough
to deaden the vibration?

Or just the damping of a plastic spoke protector?

If you're familiar with violins, you know how tiny and yet
effective a wooden, rubber, or plastic mute is when pressed
against or clipped onto the bridge:

http://www.sharmusic.com/itemdy00Violin.asp?T1=1304+GLD&Cat=

I hope that others will take a few moments and flick their
front and rear tires in the back of the head with a
fingernail--they can't fight back, so you can bully them as
much as you like.

Whether slight differences in such faint vibration can be
noticed while rolling along on the pavement is another
matter, but I want to know why my front wheel aspires to
Stradivarian heights, while my rear wheel seems to have a
cold.

Carl Fogel

[dianne_1234]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:37:47 -0700, jim beam >
wrote:

wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Dear Ron,
>>
>> I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
>> hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
>> the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
>> the inflated rubber tire.
>
>if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
>rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
>the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?

Is the wheel suspended in the air, or on the ground with the rider on
the bike?

[dianne_1234]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:37:47 -0700, jim beam >
wrote:

wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Dear Ron,
>>
>> I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
>> hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
>> the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
>> the inflated rubber tire.
>
>if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
>rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
>the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?

Is the wheel suspended in the air, or on the ground with the rider on
the bike?

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:47:54 -0500, dianne_1234
> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:37:47 -0700, jim beam >
>wrote:
>
wrote:
>><snip>
>>>
>>> Dear Ron,
>>>
>>> I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
>>> hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
>>> the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
>>> the inflated rubber tire.
>>
>>if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
>>rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
>>the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?
>
>Is the wheel suspended in the air, or on the ground with the rider on
>the bike?

Dear Dianne,

Bell-like ringing from fingernail-flicking of tire . . .

My 36-spoke clunker front wheel 700c x 26 with slime tube at
about 120 psi did it with the quick release secured and
unsecured while the bike was upside down; did it again with
the bike right side up and the tire on the ground; yeat and
again with me leaning hard on the handlebars with an
outraged look on my face.

It isn't the chime of the bells that let me find my dogs
amidst the junipers, but it's undeniably a ringing from the
spokes.

My rear wheel refused to do it, even when removed from the
frame. I suspect either the weight of the rear hub mechanism
and gears, or the damping of the plastic spoke protector.

I'm quite indignant about it, which probably amuses Jim Beam
no end.

It being daylight now, I just went out, flipped the Fury
RoadMaster on its back, and began flicking its enormous,
soggy, 60 psi tires with a brutal fingertip. Same thing. The
front wheel rings, the back emits a sullen thud.

Then I tried flicking the spokes--even clearer ringing tones
on the front, and the back began to ring a bit, too. You'd
think that the Fury's massively treaded 2-inch tires would
have enough rubber to mute a tuba, but the stiffness from
inflation and the spoke tension seems to overcome most of
it.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:47:54 -0500, dianne_1234
> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:37:47 -0700, jim beam >
>wrote:
>
wrote:
>><snip>
>>>
>>> Dear Ron,
>>>
>>> I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
>>> hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
>>> the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
>>> the inflated rubber tire.
>>
>>if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
>>rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
>>the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?
>
>Is the wheel suspended in the air, or on the ground with the rider on
>the bike?

Dear Dianne,

Bell-like ringing from fingernail-flicking of tire . . .

My 36-spoke clunker front wheel 700c x 26 with slime tube at
about 120 psi did it with the quick release secured and
unsecured while the bike was upside down; did it again with
the bike right side up and the tire on the ground; yeat and
again with me leaning hard on the handlebars with an
outraged look on my face.

It isn't the chime of the bells that let me find my dogs
amidst the junipers, but it's undeniably a ringing from the
spokes.

My rear wheel refused to do it, even when removed from the
frame. I suspect either the weight of the rear hub mechanism
and gears, or the damping of the plastic spoke protector.

I'm quite indignant about it, which probably amuses Jim Beam
no end.

It being daylight now, I just went out, flipped the Fury
RoadMaster on its back, and began flicking its enormous,
soggy, 60 psi tires with a brutal fingertip. Same thing. The
front wheel rings, the back emits a sullen thud.

Then I tried flicking the spokes--even clearer ringing tones
on the front, and the back began to ring a bit, too. You'd
think that the Fury's massively treaded 2-inch tires would
have enough rubber to mute a tuba, but the stiffness from
inflation and the spoke tension seems to overcome most of
it.

Carl Fogel

[jim beam]

dianne_1234 wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:37:47 -0700, jim beam >
> wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Dear Ron,
>>>
>>>I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
>>>hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
>>>the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
>>>the inflated rubber tire.
>>
>>if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
>>rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
>>the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?
>
>
> Is the wheel suspended in the air, or on the ground with the rider on
> the bike?

does it matter? the point is, just like jobst is at pains to point out
about wheels, in a tire you have a tightly tensioned set of casing
cords, which when momentarily relaxed by the flick of a finger, transmit
an impulse of shock to the rest of the wheel.

[jim beam]

dianne_1234 wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:37:47 -0700, jim beam >
> wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Dear Ron,
>>>
>>>I think that the usual problem of claims about "feel" is
>>>hard to overcome. No matter how resonant the structure of
>>>the metal spokes, hub, and rim may be, it's all damped by
>>>the inflated rubber tire.
>>
>>if i flick a highly inflated tire with my finger, and the whole wheel
>>rings like a bell, has the shock of that minor impact been all damped by
>>the rubber or has it been transmitted to the wheels structure?
>
>
> Is the wheel suspended in the air, or on the ground with the rider on
> the bike?

does it matter? the point is, just like jobst is at pains to point out
about wheels, in a tire you have a tightly tensioned set of casing
cords, which when momentarily relaxed by the flick of a finger, transmit
an impulse of shock to the rest of the wheel.