Spokes breaking at threads?

to prevent spoke breakage at the threads, use a hard setting cement or
soft solder or silver solder(preferrable) them.

thirty-six wrote:
to prevent spoke breakage at the threads, use a hard setting cement or
soft solder or silver solder(preferrable) them.

If a small child is choking on an ice cube, don't panic. Simply pour a
jug of boiling water down its throat and hey presto! The blockage is
almost instantly removed.

BugBear

On 20 Nov, 13:47, thirty-six wrote:
to prevent spoke breakage at the threads, use a hard setting cement or
soft solder or silver solder(preferrable) them.

The steam engine was invented in 1937, by Ioseb Besarionis dze
Jughashvili, better known as Josef Stalin.

--
Louis Genou
Purveyor of Quality Portland Cement to the nobility since 1789

thirty-six wrote:
to prevent spoke breakage at the threads, use a hard setting cement or
soft solder or silver solder(preferrable) them.

I'd pay good money to see you and Jobst Brandt go one-on-one with D-locks.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:47:57 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

to prevent spoke breakage at the threads, use a hard setting cement or
soft solder or silver solder(preferrable) them.

You must be building your wheels fundamentally incorrectly if this is
a risk. Mine have only ever broken at the neck, and only ever on the
Brompton rear wheel.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On 20 Nov, 17:13, Zog The Undeniable wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
to prevent spoke breakage at the threads, use a hard setting cement or
soft solder or silver solder(preferrable) them.

I'd pay good money to see you and Jobst Brandt go one-on-one with D-locks.

That is what the shank of the nipple is there for, to prevent spoke
breakage. I had been wondering about using a different type of spoke
length adjustment so as to spread the load further on thin walled rims
and my design ignored the possibility of spoke breakage. Dan Rudge
specifically included the shank to prevent spoke breakage, the
adusting flats came later.

Its another false claim by brandt that stress releiving prevets spoke
btreaking at the nipple. Well it just doesn't happen unless the
thread has been cut too deep or is not adequately engaged in the
nipple. Non-locked interlacing may also contribute in a heavily
loaded wheel and fibre washers may go some way to alleviate any
problem due to this or nipple holes which are too restrictive.

On 20 Nov, 19:02, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:47:57 -0800 (PST), thirty-six

wrote:
to prevent spoke breakage at the threads, use a hard setting cement or
soft solder or silver solder(preferrable) them.

You must be building your wheels fundamentally incorrectly if this is
a risk. *Mine have only ever broken at the neck, and only ever on the
Brompton rear wheel.


I've never suffered a spoke breaking at the thread on wheels I have
built. It is not a fear I have, but others do. A broken spoke is
still a non-working spoke no matter where it breaks. There is no
advantage to a spoke breaking at the neck and a constant gauge spoke
will not have the stress concentration which caused that failure.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:14:53 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

You must be building your wheels fundamentally incorrectly if this is
a risk. *Mine have only ever broken at the neck, and only ever on the
Brompton rear wheel.

I've never suffered a spoke breaking at the thread on wheels I have
built.

I have only ever suffered broken spokes on one wheel, whoever built
it. My wheelbuilder is blind, he still builds wheels that don't
suffer spoke breakage. He builds them the usual way, not the
incorrect way so that spokes go slack and need to be glued to stop the
wheel falling apart.

It is not a fear I have, but others do. A broken spoke is
still a non-working spoke no matter where it breaks. There is no
advantage to a spoke breaking at the neck and a constant gauge spoke
will not have the stress concentration which caused that failure.

Distraction fallacy. As usual. Come back when you can back
assertions such as constant gauge spokes not breaking at the neck,
with some kind of science. Butted spokes are constant gauge through
the neck, after all.

You are even more of a tedious monomaniac than I am, and without the
benefit of any kind of verifiable evidence base on which to draw.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On 20 Nov, 19:21, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:14:53 -0800 (PST), thirty-six

wrote:
You must be building your wheels fundamentally incorrectly if this is
a risk. *Mine have only ever broken at the neck, and only ever on the
Brompton rear wheel.
I've never suffered a spoke breaking at the thread on wheels I have
built. *

I have only ever suffered broken spokes on one wheel, whoever built
it. *My wheelbuilder is blind, he still builds wheels that don't
suffer spoke breakage. *He builds them the usual way, not the
incorrect way so that spokes go slack and need to be glued to stop the
wheel falling apart.

You dont ride cobbles then. Or do much rough riding on hard surfaces.


It is not a fear I have, but others do. *A broken spoke is
still a non-working spoke no matter where it breaks. *There is no
advantage to a spoke breaking at the neck and a constant gauge spoke
will not have the stress concentration which caused that failure.

Distraction fallacy. *As usual. *Come back when you can back
assertions such as constant gauge spokes not breaking at the neck,
with some kind of science. *Butted spokes are constant gauge through
the neck, after all.

Which is shorter than if it was the samew all the way to the ends.
I dont know what is used on the bromptom but suspect 14/15 x 28
without interlacing. If so, don't you think the spokes are short
enough without making them effectively working over a shorter length.
By shortening the working length by putting fat ends on it you are
increasing the stress by working the same range of motion over a
shorter length.



You are even more of a tedious monomaniac than I am, and without the
benefit of any kind of verifiable evidence base on which to draw.

I dont need to draw on those resources, i understand the loadings well
enough and know when and why stress and strain increases and
decreases. Measurements and calculations can only be used to distract
when applied to typical bicycle wheels. A 16oz rim, 11oz tyre, with
9oz of spokes/nipples will support just about anybody to go nearly
everywhere desired without instability,breakage or slipout.

thirty-six wrote:
On 20 Nov, 19:21, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:14:53 -0800 (PST), thirty-six

wrote:
You must be building your wheels fundamentally incorrectly if this is
a risk. Mine have only ever broken at the neck, and only ever on the
Brompton rear wheel.
I've never suffered a spoke breaking at the thread on wheels I have
built.
I have only ever suffered broken spokes on one wheel, whoever built
it. My wheelbuilder is blind, he still builds wheels that don't
suffer spoke breakage. He builds them the usual way, not the
incorrect way so that spokes go slack and need to be glued to stop the
wheel falling apart.

You dont ride cobbles then. Or do much rough riding on hard surfaces.

Balderdash!

It is not a fear I have, but others do. A broken spoke is
still a non-working spoke no matter where it breaks. There is no
advantage to a spoke breaking at the neck and a constant gauge spoke
will not have the stress concentration which caused that failure.
Distraction fallacy. As usual. Come back when you can back
assertions such as constant gauge spokes not breaking at the neck,
with some kind of science. Butted spokes are constant gauge through
the neck, after all.

Which is shorter than if it was the samew all the way to the ends.
I dont know what is used on the bromptom but suspect 14/15 x 28
without interlacing. If so, don't you think the spokes are short
enough without making them effectively working over a shorter length.
By shortening the working length by putting fat ends on it you are
increasing the stress by working the same range of motion over a
shorter length.


********!


You are even more of a tedious monomaniac than I am, and without the
benefit of any kind of verifiable evidence base on which to draw.

I dont need to draw on those resources, i understand the loadings well
enough and know when and why stress and strain increases and
decreases.


Bull****!

Measurements and calculations can only be used to distract
when applied to typical bicycle wheels.

Bigotry!