response to Ben C Thread deleted from urcm Asymetric load

On 8 Nov, 22:00, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-03, thirty-six wrote: ^^^^ 0:54 9th 11 09 ^^^^^



On 3 Nov, 17:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,

thirty-six wrote:
[...] The shock a wheel receives from the road is displaced into the
rim. It is spread around the rim so that it acts upon the hub in all
directions thus cancelling itself out at the hub.

I've found most of "thirty-six"'s posts quite impenetrable. But this
claim jumped out at me as obviously nonsensical.

Are we really being told that when the wheel hits a bump in the road,
no net bumping impulses are imparted to the frame via the hub ?

I put it there to wake you. Cancelled is too strong a word, but I
could't be bothered trying to work out precisely how much the shock
may be reduced by using a typical bicycle wheel made from a shallow
rim and wire spokes in comparison to a solid disc made from say
laminboard. It may be too complex for me to work out and I dont
intend to test a solid disc and tyre over cobbles. If you consider
that the spokes strain pretty much equally for around 5/6 of the
wheel, then there is a significant proportion of shock energy which
can be absorbed by the horizontal components of the spokes which would
otherwise go into moving the hub up and down. This absorbtion of
shock energy is the advantage a tension wheel has over a compression
spoked or solid disc wheel.

The spokes absorb very little energy-- they are like undamped springs,

They stretch, which means they gain energy, as does the rim which
compresses. This is a temporary store.

so even if they stretch and relax, or lose tension and gain it again,
most of the energy comes back out again.

Precisely. Correctly constructed there is little damping due to heat
disipation.


They can however reduce force at the hub in the same way the tyre can,
by spreading an impulse over time: a lower force for a longer time
transfers the same momentum as a higher force for a shorter time. Note
that a tyre is more like a damped spring, so also absorbs a useful
amount of energy.

Yes you can make comparisons between a pnuematic tyre and a spoke/rim
assembly. I dont follow what you say about spreading the shock over
time. That has to do with the way the bump is traversed by the long
tyre contact patch. It is not a direct function of the spokes,
neither the spokes or the rim contain any damping material.


There certainly isn't any cancelling out effect because of the spokes
being in a circle. You can't make either energy or momentum just
disappear like that.

No, the energy is returned when the spokes contract as the load is
relieved and the 'flattened' lower section of rim recovers to a
tighter bend.

Looks the the self-appointed ******* will be left on their own soon in
the new group :-)

In message
,
thirty-six writes

snip lots of stuff rambling about his ideas re wheelbuilding

1. Threads cannot be deleted from urcm, a post can be rejected.

2. Dumping disconnected posts rejected from urcm onto urc seems a stupid
thing to do
--
Chris French

In article , chris French wrote:
2. Dumping disconnected posts rejected from urcm onto urc seems a stupid
thing to do

Using urc if you don't like the urcm moderation policy seems a reasonable
thing. Trying to use urcm and using urc only if the post is rejected does
seem like trying to have your cake and eat it though.

On 9 Nov, 23:28, chris French
wrote:

1. Threads cannot be deleted from urcm, a post can be rejected.

So what happened to his posting which I replied to?
"On 8 Nov, 22:00, Ben C wrote: "

"Alan Braggins" wrote in message
...
In article , chris French
wrote:
2. Dumping disconnected posts rejected from urcm onto urc seems a stupid
thing to do

Using urc if you don't like the urcm moderation policy seems a reasonable
thing. Trying to use urcm and using urc only if the post is rejected does
seem like trying to have your cake and eat it though.

Then I suggest that you do likewise and post your comments on urcm. Or isn't
that allowed

--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

"Trevor A Panther" wrote in message
...
"Alan Braggins" wrote in message
...
In article , chris French
wrote:
2. Dumping disconnected posts rejected from urcm onto urc seems a stupid
thing to do

Using urc if you don't like the urcm moderation policy seems a reasonable
thing. Trying to use urcm and using urc only if the post is rejected does
seem like trying to have your cake and eat it though.

Then I suggest that you do likewise and post your comments on urcm. Or
isn't that allowed



No it isn't allowed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Although it seems to me that is it is about talking about cycling in all its
aspects.

Just goes to show that the moderators dump as well!

But of course I can take raise the whole matter on unnm --- where it will
be totally out of context and nobody on urcm will see it!

The dirt brushed under the carpet, by urcm, seems to getting to the stage
where the door will be unable to open any more!

--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
On 9 Nov, 23:28, chris French
wrote:

1. Threads cannot be deleted from urcm, a post can be rejected.

So what happened to his posting which I replied to?
"On 8 Nov, 22:00, Ben C wrote: "

Message-ID:

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/se...r.ma rioworld

Is that the one you mean?

Looks to be there to me.

In article , Trevor A Panther wrote:

Then I suggest that you do likewise and post your comments on urcm.

And I suggest you get a ****ing clue. I was replying to a post made in urc.
urc is the right place to do that.

"Alan Braggins" wrote in message
...
In article , Trevor A Panther wrote:

Then I suggest that you do likewise and post your comments on urcm.

And I suggest you get a ****ing clue. I was replying to a post made in
urc.
urc is the right place to do that.

uk.rec.cycling, the newsgroup so unusable that a moderated group had to be
urgently formed!

I knew they'd be back.