|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
"thirty-six" wrote in message
... On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote: "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight" That's a true statement, is it? Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such. And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message ... On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote: "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight" That's a true statement, is it? Absolute fact. * It is preferable that *a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. *The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such. And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish. Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question.. What is 'that'? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
"thirty-six" wrote in message
... On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote: "thirty-six" wrote in message ... On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote: "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight" That's a true statement, is it? Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such. And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish. Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question.. What is 'that'? It's what your statement refers to. "It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such." I included it in the quoted text so it would be obvious that it was that I was referring to. Now, having cleared up that bizarre confusion, how about answering my question? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On 18 Nov, 16:28, "Clive George" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message ... On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote: "thirty-six" wrote in message ... On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote: "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight" That's a true statement, is it? Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such. And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish. Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question.. What is 'that'? It's what your statement refers to. "It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such." I included it in the quoted text so it would be obvious that it was that I was referring to. Now, having cleared up that bizarre confusion, how about answering my question? Which is what precisely? Use a single sentence, do not refer to earlier posts. I'm tring to avoid a tangled web which you seem to delight in constructing. It would be easier to ask the question simply rather than play this charade. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Clive George wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message ... On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote: "thirty-six" wrote in message ... On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote: "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight" That's a true statement, is it? Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such. And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish. Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question.. What is 'that'? It's what your statement refers to. "It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such." I included it in the quoted text so it would be obvious that it was that I was referring to. Now, having cleared up that bizarre confusion, how about answering my question? Can't we save time and just cut to the bit where 33.3 leaves in a huff and doesn't bother posting for a few weeks/months, until he thinks of a new nym and comes out with new ********? At least that way the time when he's not spewing bull**** comes around quicker! |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
thirty-six wrote:
On 18 Nov, 16:28, "Clive George" wrote: "thirty-six" wrote in message ... On 18 Nov, 14:25, "Clive George" wrote: "thirty-six" wrote in message ... On 18 Nov, 07:36, Ian Smith wrote: "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight" That's a true statement, is it? Absolute fact. It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such. And how would increasing spoke tension affect that? You may refer to Ian Smith's FEA to help you with your answer if you wish. Be specific, I dont follow your meaning, it is an ambiguous question.. What is 'that'? It's what your statement refers to. "It is preferable that a sixth of the rim is permitted to deform towards the hub under load. The rim is not rigid and should not be treated as such." I included it in the quoted text so it would be obvious that it was that I was referring to. Now, having cleared up that bizarre confusion, how about answering my question? Which is what precisely? Use a single sentence, do not refer to earlier posts. I'm tring to avoid a tangled web which you seem to delight in constructing. As usual you are trying to avoid answering questions . It would be easier to ask the question simply rather than play this charade. It would be easier if you admitted that that you talk ******** all the time whether it's magic pixie dust on your wheels that make them go faster , or descending at 60 mph regularly, or your dogmatic ideas of clothing, nonstop, blinkered, slitted perspective , ********! |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:44:22 +0000, Naqerj wrote: Ian Smith wrote: On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 (PST), thirty-six wrote: There is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight, they do not and can not contribute to the support of the wheel for their force is in the same direction as the load upon the wheel and therefore contributing to its load rather than working in opposition to the load. At which point I hope it is obvious to all that 36 is either trolling, or (more likely, I think) actually does not understand that which he professes to be expert in. Not from the bit you've quoted, that seems more-or-less right *taken in isolation*. "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight" That's a true statement, is it? Now, now. I said that "the bit you've quoted" (ie: the whole paragraph) was "more-or-less right". So, no more running round with the goalposts, please. -- Andrew |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote: On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote: Ian Smith wrote: On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 (PST), thirty-six wrote: There is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight, they do not and can not contribute to the support of the wheel for their force is in the same direction as the load upon the wheel and therefore contributing to its load rather than working in opposition to the load. At which point I hope it is obvious to all that 36 is either trolling, or (more likely, I think) actually does not understand that which he professes to be expert in. Not from the bit you've quoted, that seems more-or-less right *taken in isolation*. "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight" That's a true statement, is it? I said that "the bit you've quoted" (ie: the whole paragraph) was "more-or-less right". So, no more running round with the goalposts, please. That was the key observation of the paragraph I quoted - the rest was his explanation of why he believes that statement. The first, fundamental, primary, key major point of what he said is "there is no reason for the lower spokes to stay tight". That is his assertion, the rest was justification. You said that what he said is "more or less right". Do you still claim that what he said is more or less right? You look like you're now trying to build to a claim that the principal assertion is wrong but the reasoning / justification is right. I don't think that's a coherent view to hold (the opposite may be - you can get a right answer with wrong reasoning, but you can't get the wrong answer with correct reasoning). Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight"? regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
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? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote: Ian Smith wrote: On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote: Ian Smith wrote: On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 (PST), thirty-six wrote: There is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight, they do not and can not contribute to the support of the wheel for their force is in the same direction as the load upon the wheel and therefore contributing to its load rather than working in opposition to the load. At which point I hope it is obvious to all that 36 is either trolling, or (more likely, I think) actually does not understand that which he professes to be expert in. Not from the bit you've quoted, that seems more-or-less right *taken in isolation*. "there is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight" That's a true statement, is it? I said that "the bit you've quoted" (ie: the whole paragraph) was "more-or-less right". So, no more running round with the goalposts, please. That was the key observation of the paragraph I quoted - the rest was his explanation of why he believes that statement. The first, fundamental, primary, key major point of what he said is "there is no reason for the lower spokes to stay tight". That is his assertion, the rest was justification. You said that what he said is "more or less right". Do you still claim that what he said is more or less right? You look like you're now trying to build to a claim that the principal assertion is wrong but the reasoning / justification is right. I don't think that's a coherent view to hold (the opposite may be - you can get a right answer with wrong reasoning, but you can't get the wrong answer with correct reasoning). 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. Clearly, you just enjoy picking an argument just for the sake of it, but you'll have to do it with somebody else. I was merely making the point that, 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. You can try as much you like to push the argument in a completely different direction, but I won't be following you there. -- Andrew |
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 |