#1
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke Breakage
Sorry if this has been already discussed.
But I am somewhat interested in why spokes are not hollow? Is it the bending moment that breaks the spokes most often (J bend region) and if so a larger diameter hollow spoke would increased polar moment of inertia considerably without any increased weight. However if it is fatigue related what type of implications would a hollow spoke have with the same cross sectional area, but with a hollow center and a larger diameter? Would this greatly reduce aerodynamics of the wheel? Just wondering and Jobst... yeah yeah I'm a moron- I'm not a mechanical engineer, just a lowly biomedical engineering student. Thanks for your time- David |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"david" wrote:
Just wondering and Jobst... yeah yeah I'm a moron- I'm not a mechanical engineer, just a lowly biomedical engineering student. Beautiful attempt at a preemptive strike. I'll be interested to see how effective it is! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
david wrote:
Sorry if this has been already discussed. But I am somewhat interested in why spokes are not hollow? Is it the bending moment that breaks the spokes most often (J bend region) and if so a larger diameter hollow spoke would increased polar moment of inertia considerably without any increased weight. However if it is fatigue related what type of implications would a hollow spoke have with the same cross sectional area, but with a hollow center and a larger diameter? Would this greatly reduce aerodynamics of the wheel? Just wondering and Jobst... yeah yeah I'm a moron- I'm not a mechanical engineer, just a lowly biomedical engineering student. Hey, if someone crashes badly you could remove a spoke and use it as a stent for a stint! (Or a /catheter/...) Shudder Bill |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
good work. That's beautiful.
david |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:46:33 -0500, "david"
wrote: Sorry if this has been already discussed. But I am somewhat interested in why spokes are not hollow? Is it the bending moment that breaks the spokes most often (J bend region) and if so a larger diameter hollow spoke would increased polar moment of inertia considerably without any increased weight. However if it is fatigue related what type of implications would a hollow spoke have with the same cross sectional area, but with a hollow center and a larger diameter? Would this greatly reduce aerodynamics of the wheel? Just wondering and Jobst... yeah yeah I'm a moron- I'm not a mechanical engineer, just a lowly biomedical engineering student. Thanks for your time- David Dear David, A) That idea is for the birds, bonehead. B) Or maybe featherbrain? C) Sorry, but those two puns were irresistible, even if they shaft an innocent inquiry. D) The previous answer sounded hollow. The next answer is forced. E) Spokes are cheaply and easily made by drawing wire through smaller and smaller holes. The sides of hollow wire would squish together, defeating the purpose. F) Running stainless steel tubes through the process above would deplete our precious stocks of frame tubing. G) No, that was no joke, it Raleigh would! The 531 tubing is now available only by special order: https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/steel531.html H) The greatest stress is on the outside of the shaft as it bends into a J, so removing the interior wouldn't address that concern. (The inner curve compresses, the outer curve stretches, and the center changes least of all. Look at your forefinger from the side and curve it--the big skin fold on the inside allows compression, the wrinkly knuckle allows stretching, and the skin is almost smooth in the middle of the side of the joint, where little happens.) I) Fatter spokes would increase drag a bit, but the interesting question would be whether to replace hollow nipples with tiny bolts. J) Here's a brief account of how actual seamed and seamless tubing is made: https://vault2.secured-url.com/reyno...tedtubing.html This would be rather more expensive than drawn wire spokes, most of which actually work just fine and last a long time outside the hypercritical atmosphere of rec.bicycles.tech Carl Fogel |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
david wrote:
Sorry if this has been already discussed. But I am somewhat interested in why spokes are not hollow? To maintain strength and make manufacture possible you'd need a pretty big spoke diameter. For many riders aerodynamics are more important than mass when it comes to wheels, and big fat spokes would be really bad in this context. You could make long chord aero versions but then you'd need a fancy way of attaching them to the hub and the rim. Anyway, your average trispoke or pentaspoke carbon aero wheel does have hollow (foam-filled) spokes; it's just that they work like cartwheels rather than tension-spoked wheels and they are not very efficient in terms of weight. Good for time trialling or pursuiting though. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Tubing in tension has no more strength than solid rod. The best way to
eliminate the bending stresses at the hub end of the spoke would be to make them "straight pull" by redesigning the hub. I think it has been done on wheelchairs, but why isn't it done on bikes? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Leo Lichtman wrote:
Tubing in tension has no more strength than solid rod. Less strength, surely? Tubing is more efficient when you have bending or torsional stresses; there should be no significant torsional stresses in a spoke once the wheel is built, so that just leaves bending. The best way to eliminate the bending stresses at the hub end of the spoke would be to make them "straight pull" by redesigning the hub. I think it has been done on wheelchairs, but why isn't it done on bikes? And therefore this is the real point. Most spokes break at the elbow. However, straight-pull spokes (it *has* been done for bikes) have a few problems: 1) they create a new standard for spokes, and new standards are resisted by the industry 2) the hub will probably be heavier; the parts of the flange where the spoke attached had better be strong, otherwise you have the radial wheel issue where spokes can rip straight out. With a conventional flange and tangential spoking, the spoke has around half an inch of metal between it and freedom. 3) straight-pull spokes rotate when you're trying to tighten them. Not helpful. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:23:58 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote: Tubing in tension has no more strength than solid rod. The best way to eliminate the bending stresses at the hub end of the spoke would be to make them "straight pull" by redesigning the hub. I think it has been done on wheelchairs, but why isn't it done on bikes? Dear Leo, Some bicycles do use straight-pull spokes, and so do many motorcycles. In all likelihood, the manufacturers see no reason to change the J-bend spoke design that's cheap, simple, easy to work with, and incredibly reliable, despite our fuss here on rec.bicycles.tech. For example, it took years for the old motorycle frame design with twin exposed rear suspension units to be replaced by the modern monoshock tucked inside the frame. Bicycles came to rear suspension late, so they pretty much started out with modern rear monoshocks. Carl Fogel |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:46:33 -0500, "david"
may have said: Sorry if this has been already discussed. But I am somewhat interested in why spokes are not hollow? A tubular spoke with the same tensile strength as the ordinary solid ones would have a much larger diameter, and thereby higher wind resistance. This would be viewed as a Bad Thing. Is it the bending moment that breaks the spokes most often (J bend region) That's just one place where they break, and the problem is commonly addressed by appropriate stress-relief procedures during wheel prep. and if so a larger diameter hollow spoke would increased polar moment of inertia considerably without any increased weight. However if it is fatigue related what type of implications would a hollow spoke have with the same cross sectional area, but with a hollow center and a larger diameter? It would need to have a solid end for the J; a tube would simply deform at the bend unless some fairly fragile manufacturing techniques were used, and even then, the larger-OD spoke would mandate a larger flange diameter...no, this would not be a good thing. Would this greatly reduce aerodynamics of the wheel? The perception would be that it would impact wheel aerodynamics, whether that was a significant factor or not. Tubes are good for resisting twist and bend forces, but a spoke's load is almost purely tensile; there is no advantage in using a tube. Just wondering and Jobst... yeah yeah I'm a moron- I'm not a mechanical engineer, just a lowly biomedical engineering student. I'm not an engineer either, but this one's not rocket science. (Or brain surgery, if you prefer.) -- My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Spoke breakage at thread/nipple junction | John Black | Techniques | 30 | October 11th 04 09:28 PM |
Spoke breakage problem? | Mark Wolff | Techniques | 17 | January 25th 04 08:30 PM |
Wheel Rebuilding | TheObieOne3226 | Unicycling | 16 | January 1st 04 10:55 AM |
Weird spoke breakage | Rado bladteth Rzeznicki | Techniques | 8 | September 8th 03 04:29 AM |