|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote: Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"? Nice try, but it won't work. Just because you've rambled on for three paragraphs before asking the same question again, doesn't stop it being the same question. Funnily enough, my answer remains the same too. Actually, although I have asked that question before, you haven't actually answered it. I asked it simply, and you obfuscated. Since I was actually interested in the answer, I asked it again with more explanation, detail, and background reasoning, and you have obfuscated. I consider it reasonable, having asked a simple question, to ask it again if the person I ask doesn't answer. However, having asked it twice, and having seen you dance around both times rather than actually give a straight answer to the straight question, I recognise that there is little point persevering. As it stands, I _think_ you agree with 36 that there is no need for spokes to stay tight under load, but since you won't answer the question I'm still not completely sure. in order to convince the rest of us that 36 had no understanding of the subject, you quoted a part of his argument that actually does show some understanding. No, I quoted a bit that shows how bad his understanding is. If you think what I quoted shows some understanding, you are just as misguided (or out of your depth) as he is. That your understanding is just as bad as his, does not demonstrate his understanding to be any better. It does not surprise me that more than one person is so badly wrong about how a tensioned spoked wheel works. Just as for him, there is no point discussing it further with you. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Ian Smith wrote:
Just as for him, there is no point discussing it further with you. And I thought it was just me that thought the 33.4 was a moron! |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On 20 Nov, 02:30, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
thirty-six considered Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:10:17 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On 19 Nov, 10:01, Ian Smith wrote: Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"? What reason could there be? I would have thought that the lower portion of the rim would be a bad place to remove all lateral stability. It seems to me that losing lateral stability in any other part of the rim would be preferable to losing it the bit that is your only interface with the road. Experience seems to hint at that only if you consider wheels which have not had their interlace stabilized. Once this has been done by either elbowing the interlace or tying and soldering the wheel, responds in a more predictable manner. Just as a hump backed bridge has an unsupported arch which functions well, so does the wheel. It is the bridge abutments which ensure stability of ots arch, and it is similar with the tension wheel. There are of cause no abutments, so the rest of the wheel has to play this role. So stiffening up the rest of the wheel, with interlacing and locking of the interlace, allows the supporting arch at the base of the wheel to flex, assisting the tyre in tracking the road surface, while still retaining overall wheel stability. What seems to be particularly important is the way the locking of the interlace assists in maintaining the height of the hub when the spokes are more horizontal. The crossed spokes when locked together present a more rigid structure because the spokes may not slide past each other and this results in less sagging of the hub in the wheel. It seems possible, although I have yet to verify it, that the very top spokes will also lose some tension as do the lowest when the wheel is loaded. I faintly recall this being told to me when I was a child but am unable to recollect who or exactly what was said. There were some good lightweight shops near to where I lived who made excellent wheels and frames, thes places were an Aladdins cave to me and I got into many conversations with the proprieters. So anyway, losing stability in the other 3/4 of the wheel is like building your hump backed bridge on a sand foundation. Not the way to go. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On 21 Nov, 01:48, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
thirty-six considered Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:07:58 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On 20 Nov, 02:30, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: thirty-six considered Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:10:17 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On 19 Nov, 10:01, Ian Smith wrote: Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"? What reason could there be? I would have thought that the lower portion of the rim would be a bad place to remove all lateral stability. It seems to me that losing lateral stability in any other part of the rim would be preferable to losing it the bit that is your only interface with the road. Experience seems to hint at that only if you consider wheels which have not had their interlace stabilized. * Once this has been done by either elbowing the interlace or tying and soldering the wheel, responds in a more predictable manner. Just as a hump backed bridge has an unsupported arch which functions well, so does the wheel. *It is the bridge abutments which ensure stability of ots arch, and it is similar with the tension wheel. There are of cause no abutments, so the rest of the wheel has to play this role. So stiffening up the rest of the wheel, with interlacing and locking of the interlace, allows the supporting arch at the base of the wheel to flex, assisting the tyre in tracking the road surface, while still retaining overall wheel stability. What seems to be particularly important is the way the locking of the interlace assists in maintaining the height of the hub when the spokes are more horizontal. *The crossed spokes when locked together present a more rigid structure because the spokes may not slide past each other and this results in less sagging of the hub in the wheel. *It seems possible, although I have yet to verify it, that the very top spokes will also lose some tension as do the lowest when the wheel is loaded. * I faintly recall this being told to me when I was a child but am unable to recollect who or exactly what was said. *There were some good lightweight shops near to where I lived who made excellent wheels and frames, thes places were an Aladdins cave to me and I got into many conversations with the proprieters. So anyway, losing stability in the other 3/4 of the wheel is like building your hump backed bridge on a sand foundation. *Not the way to go. How stable would a 19mm wide hump backed bridge be if you shoved it from the side? You seem to be confusing lateral with radial stability. I'm not. I've forgotton what I've said now so i may repeat myself.. Friday night after all. The lateral stability of the arch is rem.. erm. totally dependent upon the abutments to the arch. The radial compression of the arch is dependant upon the relative rigidity of the abutments to the rigidity of the arch. The rigidity of the abutments is increased by attention to the spoking arrangement.. the lateral stability of the arch is increased by the lateral rigidity of the abutments. Again attention to the spoking arrangement pays divideneds. Ignore the bottom of the wheel where the tyre is in contact with the ground, this bit doesn't matter, its the bits either side that matter. There is probably an ideal balance between rim suspension and tyre contact area/length with quite wide margin for error. But the upshot of it is, is that it is the arch as it leaves contactt with the ground which is most important , the bit where the tyre contact patch tapers off, the parralell portion of tread can be an area under s- pokes without tensionacross the whole area without ill affect, unless you flat suddenly for which you revert to a point contact and buckle a super light wheel. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Ian Smith wrote:
Since I was actually interested in the answer, I said I wouldn't but, if you really are interested in the answer... There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as long as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the wheel[2] as a whole. In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that the spoke tension can be infinitesimal without compromising the rigidity of the wheel. Since the original question was expressed in terms that would not be unambiguous to the determined nit-picker [4], I leave you to decide whether that sums up as "yes" or "no". [1] There are other reasons for it to need a certain amount of tension - to provide enough friction to stop the nipples unscrewing, for instance. [2] A normal [3] bicycle wheel is not constructed in a way that allows spokes to act in compression so, when the tension drops to zero, the spoke ceases to act as an elastic part of the wheel. [3] Some children's cycles have wheels where the spokes can - and do - act in compression. [4] What qualifies as "tight", for example. -- Andrew |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote: Since I was actually interested in the answer, I said I wouldn't but, if you really are interested in the answer... There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as long as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the wheel[2] as a whole. In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that the spoke tension can be infinitesimal without compromising the rigidity of the wheel. So, there is no structural reason for the spokes to remain tight, as long as they remain tight (since only by remaining tight will they continue to behave elastically - if they are not tight they buckle). [2] A normal [3] bicycle wheel is not constructed in a way that allows spokes to act in compression so, when the tension drops to zero, the spoke ceases to act as an elastic part of the wheel. Exactly. So, you don't believe that what 36 said was basically correct. That leaves me with a degree of confusion since I don't understand why you said that what he said was basically correct, but at least we agree about the need to, maintain tension in spoked bicycle wheels. Thank you for the clarification of what you understand about wheels. I am not sufficiently curious about your state of mind to pursue why you said something you don't believe regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On Nov 21, 7:31*pm, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote: *Ian Smith wrote: Since I was actually interested in the answer, *I said I wouldn't but, if you really are interested in the answer... *There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as *long as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the *wheel[2] as a whole. *In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that *the spoke tension can be infinitesimal without compromising the *rigidity of the wheel. So, there is no structural reason for the spokes to remain tight, as long as they remain tight (since only by remaining tight will they continue to behave elastically - if they are not tight they buckle). *[2] A normal [3] bicycle wheel is not constructed in a way that *allows spokes to act in compression so, when the tension drops to *zero, the spoke ceases to act as an elastic part of the wheel. Exactly. So, you don't believe that what 36 said was basically correct. *That leaves me with a degree of confusion since I don't understand why you said that what he said was basically correct, but at least we agree about the need to, maintain tension in spoked bicycle wheels. Thank you for the clarification of what you understand about wheels. * I am not sufficiently curious about your state of mind to pursue why you said something you don't believe regards, * Ian SMith -- * |\ /| * * *no .sig * |o o| * |/ \| You been on the whacky baccy? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandonedurcm
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:15:16 +0000
Naqerj wrote: [4] What qualifies as "tight", for example. tight = under tension, slack = not under tension. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:15:16 +0000, Naqerj
wrote: There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as long as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the wheel[2] as a whole. In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that the spoke tension can be infinitesimal without compromising the rigidity of the wheel. If you are building cart wheels then I guess that's true, but for a bicycle wheel with pneumatic tyres the spokes need to remain under at least some residual tension at all times. Ian's finite element analysis is pretty conclusive. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On 22 Nov, 09:14, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:15:16 +0000, Naqerj wrote: There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as long as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the wheel[2] as a whole. *In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that the spoke tension can be infinitesimal without compromising the rigidity of the wheel. If you are building cart wheels then I guess that's true, but for a bicycle wheel with pneumatic tyres the spokes need to remain under at least some residual tension at all times. *Ian's finite element analysis is pretty conclusive. Guy --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc GPG public key athttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt It concludes you're a dumbass. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wire spoked car wheels? | [email protected] | Techniques | 23 | December 11th 08 03:19 AM |
RBT opinions on fancy-spoked wheels? | Paul Myron Hobson | Techniques | 28 | March 30th 07 09:06 PM |
Development of the the wire-spoked wheel | [email protected] | Techniques | 14 | July 23rd 05 06:57 PM |
OT-ish: BIG spoked wheels | B.B. | Techniques | 3 | December 7th 04 05:41 AM |
How to true bladed spoked wheels | John Baughman | Techniques | 51 | October 25th 03 02:16 AM |