|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
Tim McNamara wrote:
jim beam writes: wrote: snip Spoke-squeezing is an intriguingly mysterious subject to research. I remain agnostic, wavering one way and the other, but haven't seen any experimental data or analyses involving bicycle spokes. If you have the 3rd edition, perhaps you could peek at the Wiedemer stuff and give me your thoughts on it? you may also want to consider this question: q: elevator safety certification requires loading the cab to double it's "safe working load". this is to test the wire ropes that suspend it. the reason is that fracture mechanics predict that this process will typically reveal by failure any latent flaws. but, if we extend spoke squeezing theory, wouldn't this overload procedure also prevent fatigue of elevator cables? a: no. elevator cables still fatigue and need regular testing, inspection & replacement. Of course they fatique. They are constantly being wound around a drum and unwound with a large weight dangling on the end. This doesn't happen with spokes. Spokes are one fairly thick wire under a fairly small load, elevator cables are thin-stranded cables with internal friction, corrosion challenges, etc. Additionally, a spoke supports a load much differently than an elevator cable, as has been discussed and verified- independently of Brandt, BTW- by finite element analysis. I see you're keeping the fine art of red herrings alive. the bottom line is that there is no quantification or testing of this spoke squeeze theory. squeezing "as hard as you can" is no more scientific than building with spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear". i would suggest to you that the reason academics "change the subject and get back to "serious" work" is because this theory is mere speculation - it's author has shown no basis in statistical fact, and most definitely not by metallurgical analysis. And it's easy to take cheap shots when he's out of town and not able, therefore, to respond. I don't quite know why it sticks in your craw so much to admit even the possibility that Jobst is right, and it's an interesting psychological problem especially when combined with your anonymity behind a boozy screen name. But if you're going to seriously critique his work and not just take potshots, come up with a quantified and testable alternative analysis. Prove him wrong. Put up or shut up. Frankly, jim beam old buddy old pal, I don't think you have the stuff. tim, you're like a drunken finnean looking for a bit of bare-knucked sport on his way home from a bar. read what i said when you're sober, then show me one single piece of metallurgical evidence to support brandts bullying assertions. or your allusions to superior mental health come to that. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
jim beam wrote:
wrote: Second, do spokes in well-built (by whatever means) wheels require constant inspection and replacement? if you read the instructions that come with all these expensive pre-built wheels yes! but, that's only a cursory visual inspection. it's just like the contrasts between the safety & inspection regimes for cars vs planes, wheel spokes are not usually considered a high fatality risk, so there's no reason to subject them to a rigorous expensive certification procedure. How do you inspect your spokes? I can't imagine that it is very easy to see signs of imminent failure. Well-built wheels don't require "constant" spoke replacement. Carl, did you see in the discussion at http://yarchive.net/bike/stress_relieve.html the article containing this quote and link "For some results of some actual residual stress measurements I did on 7050 aluminum plate before and after stretching see: http://www.lanl.gov/residual/alplate.pdf The residual stress was reduced by about a factor of 10 by the stress relief process." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
After hundreds of exchanges previously in this newsgroup the questions
originally about tied and soldered wheels, what difference they made and how a wheel is loaded/supported/hangs/stands on or from its tyre/rim/spoke(s) was reduced mostly to the semantics of the English language and whether appropriate engineering terms were being used/abused. I fear the same may happen again. So here it is, how to build a wheel. Ignore JBs "stress releiving" it is not required. When the spoke is relaxed, form the bend at the crossing, oil the nipples with linseed and tighten to a point where the riders full weight does not releive the bottom spoke. This is using a method of minimal tension not only provides a wheel which will fail safe but also maintains a ridable wheel in the event of impact damage resulting in spoke loss. Severre buckling is eliminated. Spoke quality is not an issue. The pre-forming of the spoke reduces the side to side bending which occurs at the hub interface to a minimum thus allowing maximum life. If I want to ride a rock strewn bridleway I will, with 20mm wide rims. This is not asking for the impossible. I've done it safe in the knowledge that my wheels will not buckle due to incorrect build. It was only through cycling that road improvements came about in England with a smooth sealed surface. If you look at early high-wheelers they had 20mm wide rims, so for reliability there is no reason why a 27" wheel would require anything of larger section. Those wheels where built for rough roads. This is a change of my belief of 5+ years ago, when I thought a wider rim was required to prevent buckling. Experience has since demonstrated that wheels built with pre-formed spokes grossly outperform those built with ignorance. So all in all rim width is dependant only on tyre choice. Perhaps some 7oz rims may eventually become available again. Try using JB's method on that and you may as well burn your money, followed by the book. TJ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
jim beam:
First, how much do elevator cables resemble spokes? obviously, rope is multistrand, a spoke is single strand, but the materials & applications are the same. Materials may be the same but "applications" are not. That "rope" is subjected to turns and loads on pulleys, as you admit below. it's only the practical issues of price, of needing a spoke that resists torque sufficiently to be able to tighten a nipple and indeed, ability to thread a nipple in the first place that lead to the use of single strand. This made-up story doesn't even look nor sound good. Spokes still do twist, and a threaded nipple is not the only way to have an adjustable tightening mechanism on a rim. Does it matter that they bend around pulleys in a constant side-to-side flexing different than spokes? yes, and those pulleys cause wear and bending stresses, but that's why you use multi-strand in the first place. Hence spokes and cable are not the same "application". also, one strand breaking in a rope of 100 leaves 99 others - pretty comforting. Nonsense. If a cable is loaded such that a strand breaks, the effective cross section of the cable is reduced and hence the load results in a higher stress for the remaining strands, which will rapidly lead to failure of the cable. If a strand was broken by other than a load (eg cut), the same effect on cross section will be observed. You can't cut a strand on a solid spoke. and there's a small degree of freedom to move between strands which reduces cross sectional stress considerably. Again, nonsense. What can move between strands? The only way to move loads between strands is if the strands are able to move along the cable's length. This is a bad event since the strands will not take up the load evenly amongst themselves. Second, do spokes in well-built (by whatever means) wheels require constant inspection and replacement? if you read the instructions that come with all these expensive pre-built wheels yes! but, that's only a cursory visual inspection. it's just like the contrasts between the safety & inspection regimes for cars vs planes, wheel spokes are not usually considered a high fatality risk, so there's no reason to subject them to a rigorous expensive certification procedure. In other words, no. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
Trevor Jeffrey:
After hundreds of exchanges previously in this newsgroup the questions originally about tied and soldered wheels, what difference they made and how a wheel is loaded/supported/hangs/stands on or from its tyre/rim/spoke(s) was reduced mostly to the semantics of the English language and whether appropriate engineering terms were being used/abused. I fear the same may happen again. You've just started it by your poor writing skill. So here it is, how to build a wheel. Ignore JBs "stress releiving" it is not required. When the spoke is relaxed, form the bend at the crossing, oil the nipples with linseed and tighten to a point where the riders full weight does not releive the bottom spoke. Just how do you do this, and how do you account for the dynamic loads put on the wheel which exceed the static rider/bike weight? This is using a method of minimal tension not only provides a wheel which will fail safe What the hell is "a wheel which will fail safe"? but also maintains a ridable wheel in the event of impact damage resulting in spoke loss. Uhhhh, headache..... Severre buckling is eliminated. Since buckling is also load magnitude dependent, "severre" buckling cannot be avoided if the load is high enough, and especially since you only tensioned the spokes enough to take up your static weight. Spoke quality is not an issue. Plastic spokes will be fine then. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
So here it is, how to build a wheel. Ignore JBs "stress releiving" it is not required. When the spoke is relaxed, form the bend at the crossing, oil the nipples with linseed and tighten to a point where the riders full weight does not releive the bottom spoke. This is using a method of minimal tension not only provides a wheel which will fail safe but also maintains a ridable wheel in the event of impact damage resulting in spoke loss. Severre buckling is eliminated. Spoke quality is not an issue. So, how do I determine when the rider's full weight will not unload a spoke? Do I measure that at rest? Or perhaps while dropping the laden bike off a 2 foot high ledge? The point is that wheels are subject to dynamic loads and you cannot predict whether those loads will unload bottom spokes. So you tension spokes as highly as possible to handle the highest radial load possible. I'm looking forward to your alternative rigorous analysis of spoked wheels, preferably published in book form. You and 'Jim Beam' might collaborate on that work. -- Todd Bryan Santa Barbara, CA bryan at cs dot utk dot edu |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
Jose Rizal wrote:
jim beam: First, how much do elevator cables resemble spokes? obviously, rope is multistrand, a spoke is single strand, but the materials & applications are the same. Materials may be the same but "applications" are not. That "rope" is subjected to turns and loads on pulleys, as you admit below. it's only the practical issues of price, of needing a spoke that resists torque sufficiently to be able to tighten a nipple and indeed, ability to thread a nipple in the first place that lead to the use of single strand. This made-up story doesn't even look nor sound good. Spokes still do twist, and a threaded nipple is not the only way to have an adjustable tightening mechanism on a rim. what method do you propose? the threaded nipple method is cheap, reliable and has stood the test of time. and of course spokes still twist, but not as much as the equivalent multi-strand. brake cable's about the same as a spoke, try the comparision. Does it matter that they bend around pulleys in a constant side-to-side flexing different than spokes? yes, and those pulleys cause wear and bending stresses, but that's why you use multi-strand in the first place. Hence spokes and cable are not the same "application". maybe your definiton of tension is different to mine. also, one strand breaking in a rope of 100 leaves 99 others - pretty comforting. Nonsense. If a cable is loaded such that a strand breaks, the effective cross section of the cable is reduced and hence the load results in a higher stress for the remaining strands, which will rapidly lead to failure of the cable. If a strand was broken by other than a load (eg cut), the same effect on cross section will be observed. You can't cut a strand on a solid spoke. read some fracture mechanics. crack propagation in a single piece leads to failure of the whole. fracture of a single strand does not. next time you fly, check out the skin of the plane and notice that it's made of many parts riveted together. is this because manufacturers can't weld? no, it's because crack proagation in one piece does not propagate to the whole - it's a policy of fracture containment. and there's a small degree of freedom to move between strands which reduces cross sectional stress considerably. Again, nonsense. What can move between strands? The only way to move loads between strands is if the strands are able to move along the cable's length. This is a bad event since the strands will not take up the load evenly amongst themselves. take a cable and cut the end exactly square. then bend it about some kind of mandrel. notice how the end is no longer square and the strands are staggered? they move relative one to another. this is why rope is flexible. Second, do spokes in well-built (by whatever means) wheels require constant inspection and replacement? if you read the instructions that come with all these expensive pre-built wheels yes! but, that's only a cursory visual inspection. it's just like the contrasts between the safety & inspection regimes for cars vs planes, wheel spokes are not usually considered a high fatality risk, so there's no reason to subject them to a rigorous expensive certification procedure. In other words, no. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
Benjamin Weiner wrote:
jim beam wrote: wrote: Second, do spokes in well-built (by whatever means) wheels require constant inspection and replacement? if you read the instructions that come with all these expensive pre-built wheels yes! but, that's only a cursory visual inspection. it's just like the contrasts between the safety & inspection regimes for cars vs planes, wheel spokes are not usually considered a high fatality risk, so there's no reason to subject them to a rigorous expensive certification procedure. How do you inspect your spokes? I can't imagine that it is very easy to see signs of imminent failure. absolutely correct, the chances of you getting a visual on a spoke fatigue crack are slim to zero. but pre-built wheels come with an ass-covering "regular inspection" warning just the same. about the only thing you can do for spokes short of spending a huge amount of money, is just do a visual inspection for nicks & dents which could be fatigue initators, and do a "ping" test for anything loosening up. Well-built wheels don't require "constant" spoke replacement. Carl, did you see in the discussion at http://yarchive.net/bike/stress_relieve.html the article containing this quote and link "For some results of some actual residual stress measurements I did on 7050 aluminum plate before and after stretching see: http://www.lanl.gov/residual/alplate.pdf The residual stress was reduced by about a factor of 10 by the stress relief process." sure, metallurgical stress relief is very important, particularly when trying to mitigate distortion of components machined out of 70mm chunks of aluminum like that described above, but that material is entirely different from a piece of high tensile wire. how often do you go about comparing church bells to bicycles? they both have about as much in common. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
jim beam writes:
Tim McNamara wrote: jim beam writes: wrote: snip Spoke-squeezing is an intriguingly mysterious subject to research. I remain agnostic, wavering one way and the other, but haven't seen any experimental data or analyses involving bicycle spokes. If you have the 3rd edition, perhaps you could peek at the Wiedemer stuff and give me your thoughts on it? you may also want to consider this question: q: elevator safety certification requires loading the cab to double it's "safe working load". this is to test the wire ropes that suspend it. the reason is that fracture mechanics predict that this process will typically reveal by failure any latent flaws. but, if we extend spoke squeezing theory, wouldn't this overload procedure also prevent fatigue of elevator cables? a: no. elevator cables still fatigue and need regular testing, inspection & replacement. Of course they fatique. They are constantly being wound around a drum and unwound with a large weight dangling on the end. This doesn't happen with spokes. Spokes are one fairly thick wire under a fairly small load, elevator cables are thin-stranded cables with internal friction, corrosion challenges, etc. Additionally, a spoke supports a load much differently than an elevator cable, as has been discussed and verified- independently of Brandt, BTW- by finite element analysis. I see you're keeping the fine art of red herrings alive. the bottom line is that there is no quantification or testing of this spoke squeeze theory. squeezing "as hard as you can" is no more scientific than building with spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear". i would suggest to you that the reason academics "change the subject and get back to "serious" work" is because this theory is mere speculation - it's author has shown no basis in statistical fact, and most definitely not by metallurgical analysis. And it's easy to take cheap shots when he's out of town and not able, therefore, to respond. I don't quite know why it sticks in your craw so much to admit even the possibility that Jobst is right, and it's an interesting psychological problem especially when combined with your anonymity behind a boozy screen name. But if you're going to seriously critique his work and not just take potshots, come up with a quantified and testable alternative analysis. Prove him wrong. Put up or shut up. Frankly, jim beam old buddy old pal, I don't think you have the stuff. tim, you're like a drunken finnean looking for a bit of bare-knucked sport on his way home from a bar. "Finnean?" Did you mean "Fenian"? Nice reference though. read what i said when you're sober, then show me one single piece of metallurgical evidence to support brandts bullying assertions. or your allusions to superior mental health come to that. You'd have to take that up with the author of the book, eh? But as usual you're ducking and weaving, casting rocks and aspersions and then crying foul when you get treated the way you treat others. Stop being a whiner and step up to the plate. If you can disprove Brandt's theory, then do so. Put up or shut up. If you can't disprove his ideas, then accept that he may in fact be right. I'll say it again- I don't think you have the stuff. If you did, you would have actually disproven Brandt a long time ago. All I can say, not being an engineer, is that the wheels I've built with his method have performed admirably, better than wheels I've bought built according to the Wheelsmith specs and much better than wheels I have bought built to who knows what specs (e.g., OEM wheels). I'll settle for my 50,000 to 60,000 miles without a spoke breakage and rarely having to true a wheel- even 9 speed wheels built with MA2 rims. At my weight (215 lbs, give or take 10), I'm pleased with the results. The type of guttersniping you indulge in does not advance the discussion one whit. Over the years we've had recurrent posters with the gunslinger mentality who come into town aiming to knock off the big guy. You seem to be just another one of this species. I suspect that many of those posters have been the same person hiding behind different personae, due to consistencies in writing style and conceptual framework. You don't raise chickens, by any chance? As far as comparative mental health, not having met you I can't say for sure. However, at least I don't have an obsessive hatred of someone on the Internet with a need to continue to attack that person over and over and over- even when I can't prove that person wrong. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding
Todd Bryan wrote in message ... So, how do I determine when the rider's full weight will not unload a spoke? Do I measure that at rest? Or perhaps while dropping the laden bike off a 2 foot high ledge? The point is that wheels are subject to dynamic loads and you cannot predict whether those loads will unload bottom spokes. So you tension spokes as highly as possible to handle the highest radial load possible. The fear of loose spokes is unfounded. As long as lateral stability is maintained the spokes are tight enough. The requirement to measure the tension in the spokes by plucking or gauge is not required using the method of wheel building I have described. If it is found that the wheel becomes wobbly it is a simple matter to turn each nipple 1/4 turn to shorten their effective length. The use of a drying oil assists in the tensioning of spokes and the prevention of the nipples unwinding in use. No I do not tension spokes as high as possible. I presume therefore that you do and so pre-load the rim so there is a tendency to buckle. There is no advantage in pre-loading spokes and rims, it only lessens the load capacity of the wheel before buckling. A rigorous analysis is not required, all has been presented. I could tidy it up, add some detail, some pictures and some waffle here and there, but I doubt that I'd really want to do it. Why don't you do it? Give it a hardback cover and overprice it. With a bit of luck you may just cover the publication costs after a few years. Call it "The Bicycle Wheel Revealed" TJ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wheelbuilding issues | Nate Knutson | Techniques | 13 | May 9th 04 03:29 PM |