Tying and soldering explained 1898

"The Modern Bicycle and its accessories" of 1898 has oodles of weird
mechanical details. Look at the chain section carefully, starting on
page 58, and you'll see some chains that were too weird for Sharp.

Anyway, there's a comment on the tie-and-sodler debate on page 69:

"The majority of them [tangent-spoke wheel makers] tie their spokes to
each other where they cross. There are a great many of the makers who
do not tie them at all, there being some difference of opinion as to
the benefit derived from this treatment."

"Those in favor of tying spokes say that tying two or more [!] spokes
together at the crossing some distance above the hub shortens the
leverage from the rim and practically gives the wheel an additional
hub; that they are also stiffer against side or lateral strain, and
that the only good tangent spoke is one that is tied at the crossing
with its mates. Those who are opposed to tying spokes say that tying
them together makes them too rigid and inflexible [!], and that the
process of wiring them and soldering them together has a tendency to
crystallize the spokes at this point owing to the heat required to
solder them. This part of the argument, however, has been met by by
not wiring and soldering the spokes at the crossing, but by pinching
on them at this point a metal clamp such as is used on the Humber
wheel. The opponents of tying the spokes assert that the very
stiffness and rigidness which the wheel possesses when the spokes are
tied has a tendency to also crystallize them at the hub flanges as
well as cause them to break [!]."

http://books.google.com/books?id=1CR...0eSuCQ#PPP5,M1

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase, and I
don't think that any modern tie-and-solder enthusiasts ever mention
radial, larger "hub" strength as a benefit. I'm just curious about the
origins of tying and soldering.)

I can't find the no-solder pinch things for the Humber wheel. Maybe
they're a version of the odd solder-fittings seen on this 1897 Pope
Columbia chainless bicycle:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/p...=EK&size=large

Here's the beginning of an old thread about the murky origins of tying
and soldering:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...4cd40105dbe082

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

wrote:
"The Modern Bicycle and its accessories" of 1898 has oodles of weird
mechanical details. Look at the chain section carefully, starting on
page 58, and you'll see some chains that were too weird for Sharp.

Anyway, there's a comment on the tie-and-sodler debate on page 69:

"The majority of them [tangent-spoke wheel makers] tie their spokes to
each other where they cross. There are a great many of the makers who
do not tie them at all, there being some difference of opinion as to
the benefit derived from this treatment."

"Those in favor of tying spokes say that tying two or more [!] spokes
together at the crossing some distance above the hub shortens the
leverage from the rim and practically gives the wheel an additional
hub; that they are also stiffer against side or lateral strain, and
that the only good tangent spoke is one that is tied at the crossing
with its mates. Those who are opposed to tying spokes say that tying
them together makes them too rigid and inflexible [!], and that the
process of wiring them and soldering them together has a tendency to
crystallize the spokes at this point owing to the heat required to
solder them. This part of the argument, however, has been met by by
not wiring and soldering the spokes at the crossing, but by pinching
on them at this point a metal clamp such as is used on the Humber
wheel. The opponents of tying the spokes assert that the very
stiffness and rigidness which the wheel possesses when the spokes are
tied has a tendency to also crystallize them at the hub flanges as
well as cause them to break [!]."

http://books.google.com/books?id=1CR...0eSuCQ#PPP5,M1

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase,

do they? he describes his test process, then his conclusions. he
doesn't present actual data or analyze it - he simply dismisses
differences he confesses to measuring as "noise".


and I
don't think that any modern tie-and-solder enthusiasts ever mention
radial, larger "hub" strength as a benefit. I'm just curious about the
origins of tying and soldering.)

I can't find the no-solder pinch things for the Humber wheel. Maybe
they're a version of the odd solder-fittings seen on this 1897 Pope
Columbia chainless bicycle:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/p...=EK&size=large

Here's the beginning of an old thread about the murky origins of tying
and soldering:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...4cd40105dbe082

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:43:16 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

[snip]

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase,

do they? he describes his test process, then his conclusions. he
doesn't present actual data or analyze it - he simply dismisses
differences he confesses to measuring as "noise".

Dear Jim,

Yes, that's exactly what Jobst's testing showed--no lateral (or
torsional, which I carelessly forgot) strength increase.

Here's his admirably detailed actual data, which clearly supports his
analysis and conclusion, since the measured changes in rim deflection
due to tying and soldering with practical loads were less than the
variation of an extremely accurate dial gauge:

"Tying and Soldering"

"A small- and large-flange rear wheel were each tested for lateral and
torsional elasticity. The hub of the wheel being tested was securely
held in a machine tool vise by means of a modified freewheel core. A
dial gauge was mounted on the machine table to observe displacements.
Lateral deflection caused by a 160 N vertical force applied repeatedly
at four different locations remained unchanged within 0.05 mm before
and after tying the spokes. The same arrangement was used to measure
torsional deflection."

"For the torsional test a steel cable was wrapped around the rim and
anchored to the valve stem hole. A pull of 300 N on the wire produced
a rotational movement of 1.65 mm on a large-flange wheel with 36
swaged spokes, and 3.43 mm on a similar small-flange wheel. The
measurements were repeated several times and averaged, both before and
after tying. The results in each case showed a change of about 2%.
This was also the variance of the measurements that were averaged. For
the small-flange wheel the deflection decreased when tied, and for the
large-flange wheel it increased. It is apparent from these results
that tying and soldering of spokes has so little effect - if any -
that it is difficult to detect even by precision measurement."

--"Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:43:16 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

[snip]

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase,
do they? he describes his test process, then his conclusions. he
doesn't present actual data or analyze it - he simply dismisses
differences he confesses to measuring as "noise".

Dear Jim,

Yes, that's exactly what Jobst's testing showed--no lateral (or
torsional, which I carelessly forgot) strength increase.

Here's his admirably detailed actual data, which clearly supports his
analysis and conclusion, since the measured changes in rim deflection
due to tying and soldering with practical loads were less than the
variation of an extremely accurate dial gauge:

"Tying and Soldering"

"A small- and large-flange rear wheel were each tested for lateral and
torsional elasticity. The hub of the wheel being tested was securely
held in a machine tool vise by means of a modified freewheel core. A
dial gauge was mounted on the machine table to observe displacements.
Lateral deflection caused by a 160 N vertical force applied repeatedly
at four different locations remained unchanged within 0.05 mm before
and after tying the spokes. The same arrangement was used to measure
torsional deflection."

"For the torsional test a steel cable was wrapped around the rim and
anchored to the valve stem hole. A pull of 300 N on the wire produced
a rotational movement of 1.65 mm on a large-flange wheel with 36
swaged spokes, and 3.43 mm on a similar small-flange wheel. The
measurements were repeated several times and averaged, both before and
after tying. The results in each case showed a change of about 2%.
This was also the variance of the measurements that were averaged. For
the small-flange wheel the deflection decreased when tied, and for the
large-flange wheel it increased. It is apparent from these results
that tying and soldering of spokes has so little effect - if any -
that it is difficult to detect even by precision measurement."

but that's not data, merely what he says is the result. and presumptive
conclusion. if he wanted to be serious and credible, he'd include his
data table so the reader can judge for themselves.

and 300N pure torque is unrealistic. the true test is torque + lateral
loading, just like you'd get on a hill when honking.

bottom line - i'll take an "about 2%" advantage over lance armstrong any
day.

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:13:58 -0800, Joe Riel wrote:

writes:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:43:16 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

[snip]

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase,

do they? he describes his test process, then his conclusions. he
doesn't present actual data or analyze it - he simply dismisses
differences he confesses to measuring as "noise".

Dear Jim,

Yes, that's exactly what Jobst's testing showed--no lateral (or
torsional, which I carelessly forgot) strength increase.

Picking a nit, Brandt's tests measured stiffness, not strength.

Joe

Dear Joe,

You're right, but I made that mistake, not Jobst.

In fact, Jobst used a much better description:

"It is apparent from these results that tying and soldering of spokes
has so little effect - if any - that it is difficult to detect even by
precision measurement."

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:33:45 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:43:16 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

[snip]

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase,
do they? he describes his test process, then his conclusions. he
doesn't present actual data or analyze it - he simply dismisses
differences he confesses to measuring as "noise".

Dear Jim,

Yes, that's exactly what Jobst's testing showed--no lateral (or
torsional, which I carelessly forgot) strength increase.

Here's his admirably detailed actual data, which clearly supports his
analysis and conclusion, since the measured changes in rim deflection
due to tying and soldering with practical loads were less than the
variation of an extremely accurate dial gauge:

"Tying and Soldering"

"A small- and large-flange rear wheel were each tested for lateral and
torsional elasticity. The hub of the wheel being tested was securely
held in a machine tool vise by means of a modified freewheel core. A
dial gauge was mounted on the machine table to observe displacements.
Lateral deflection caused by a 160 N vertical force applied repeatedly
at four different locations remained unchanged within 0.05 mm before
and after tying the spokes. The same arrangement was used to measure
torsional deflection."

"For the torsional test a steel cable was wrapped around the rim and
anchored to the valve stem hole. A pull of 300 N on the wire produced
a rotational movement of 1.65 mm on a large-flange wheel with 36
swaged spokes, and 3.43 mm on a similar small-flange wheel. The
measurements were repeated several times and averaged, both before and
after tying. The results in each case showed a change of about 2%.
This was also the variance of the measurements that were averaged. For
the small-flange wheel the deflection decreased when tied, and for the
large-flange wheel it increased. It is apparent from these results
that tying and soldering of spokes has so little effect - if any -
that it is difficult to detect even by precision measurement."

but that's not data, merely what he says is the result. and presumptive
conclusion. if he wanted to be serious and credible, he'd include his
data table so the reader can judge for themselves.

and 300N pure torque is unrealistic. the true test is torque + lateral
loading, just like you'd get on a hill when honking.

bottom line - i'll take an "about 2%" advantage over lance armstrong any
day.

Dear Jim,

You're so determined to disagree with Jobst that you're unwilling to
read the detailed measurements and make your own table from his
numbers.

Bottom line, you're pretending that there's some significant advantage
that you've never demonstrated by testing when Jobst's tests show that
any effect is less than can be measured with a dial indicator.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:43:16 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

[snip]

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.
(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase,
do they? he describes his test process, then his conclusions. he
doesn't present actual data or analyze it - he simply dismisses
differences he confesses to measuring as "noise".

Dear Jim,

Yes, that's exactly what Jobst's testing showed--no lateral (or
torsional, which I carelessly forgot) strength increase.

Here's his admirably detailed actual data, which clearly supports his
analysis and conclusion, since the measured changes in rim deflection
due to tying and soldering with practical loads were less than the
variation of an extremely accurate dial gauge:

"Tying and Soldering"

"A small- and large-flange rear wheel were each tested for lateral and
torsional elasticity. The hub of the wheel being tested was securely
held in a machine tool vise by means of a modified freewheel core. A
dial gauge was mounted on the machine table to observe displacements.
Lateral deflection caused by a 160 N vertical force applied repeatedly
at four different locations remained unchanged within 0.05 mm before
and after tying the spokes. The same arrangement was used to measure
torsional deflection."

"For the torsional test a steel cable was wrapped around the rim and
anchored to the valve stem hole. A pull of 300 N on the wire produced
a rotational movement of 1.65 mm on a large-flange wheel with 36
swaged spokes, and 3.43 mm on a similar small-flange wheel. The
measurements were repeated several times and averaged, both before and
after tying. The results in each case showed a change of about 2%.
This was also the variance of the measurements that were averaged. For
the small-flange wheel the deflection decreased when tied, and for the
large-flange wheel it increased. It is apparent from these results
that tying and soldering of spokes has so little effect - if any -
that it is difficult to detect even by precision measurement."

but that's not data, merely what he says is the result. and presumptive
conclusion. if he wanted to be serious and credible, he'd include his
data table so the reader can judge for themselves.

and 300N pure torque is unrealistic. the true test is torque + lateral
loading, just like you'd get on a hill when honking....

Er "jim", torque is force times the moment arm it acts through. "300N"
is a measure of force, not torque. The correct SI unit for torque is
"N-m" or "newton-meter".

Since Jobst Brandt applied a 300N FORCE to the valve hole, if we assume
an ISO 622-mm wheel, the resulting TORQUE would have been approximately
90 to 95 N-m.

HTH,

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:33:45 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:43:16 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

[snip]

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase,
do they? he describes his test process, then his conclusions. he
doesn't present actual data or analyze it - he simply dismisses
differences he confesses to measuring as "noise".
Dear Jim,

Yes, that's exactly what Jobst's testing showed--no lateral (or
torsional, which I carelessly forgot) strength increase.

Here's his admirably detailed actual data, which clearly supports his
analysis and conclusion, since the measured changes in rim deflection
due to tying and soldering with practical loads were less than the
variation of an extremely accurate dial gauge:

"Tying and Soldering"

"A small- and large-flange rear wheel were each tested for lateral and
torsional elasticity. The hub of the wheel being tested was securely
held in a machine tool vise by means of a modified freewheel core. A
dial gauge was mounted on the machine table to observe displacements.
Lateral deflection caused by a 160 N vertical force applied repeatedly
at four different locations remained unchanged within 0.05 mm before
and after tying the spokes. The same arrangement was used to measure
torsional deflection."

"For the torsional test a steel cable was wrapped around the rim and
anchored to the valve stem hole. A pull of 300 N on the wire produced
a rotational movement of 1.65 mm on a large-flange wheel with 36
swaged spokes, and 3.43 mm on a similar small-flange wheel. The
measurements were repeated several times and averaged, both before and
after tying. The results in each case showed a change of about 2%.
This was also the variance of the measurements that were averaged. For
the small-flange wheel the deflection decreased when tied, and for the
large-flange wheel it increased. It is apparent from these results
that tying and soldering of spokes has so little effect - if any -
that it is difficult to detect even by precision measurement."
but that's not data, merely what he says is the result. and presumptive
conclusion. if he wanted to be serious and credible, he'd include his
data table so the reader can judge for themselves.

and 300N pure torque is unrealistic. the true test is torque + lateral
loading, just like you'd get on a hill when honking.

bottom line - i'll take an "about 2%" advantage over lance armstrong any
day.

Dear Jim,

You're so determined to disagree with Jobst that you're unwilling to
read the detailed measurements and make your own table from his
numbers.

what detailed numbers? "a change of about 2%" is not detailed. it
doesn't even give the sign, + or -.



Bottom line, you're pretending that there's some significant advantage

no, i'm saying that absent actual data, this is supposition.


that you've never demonstrated by testing when Jobst's tests show that
any effect is less than can be measured with a dial indicator.

indeed, i have not replicated these tests. but i don't need to to note,
and state, that jobst has not revealed "results", merely conclusion.
this is not scientific method.

Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:43:16 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

[snip]

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.
(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase,
do they? he describes his test process, then his conclusions. he
doesn't present actual data or analyze it - he simply dismisses
differences he confesses to measuring as "noise".

Dear Jim,

Yes, that's exactly what Jobst's testing showed--no lateral (or
torsional, which I carelessly forgot) strength increase.

Here's his admirably detailed actual data, which clearly supports his
analysis and conclusion, since the measured changes in rim deflection
due to tying and soldering with practical loads were less than the
variation of an extremely accurate dial gauge:

"Tying and Soldering"

"A small- and large-flange rear wheel were each tested for lateral and
torsional elasticity. The hub of the wheel being tested was securely
held in a machine tool vise by means of a modified freewheel core. A
dial gauge was mounted on the machine table to observe displacements.
Lateral deflection caused by a 160 N vertical force applied repeatedly
at four different locations remained unchanged within 0.05 mm before
and after tying the spokes. The same arrangement was used to measure
torsional deflection."

"For the torsional test a steel cable was wrapped around the rim and
anchored to the valve stem hole. A pull of 300 N on the wire produced
a rotational movement of 1.65 mm on a large-flange wheel with 36
swaged spokes, and 3.43 mm on a similar small-flange wheel. The
measurements were repeated several times and averaged, both before and
after tying. The results in each case showed a change of about 2%.
This was also the variance of the measurements that were averaged. For
the small-flange wheel the deflection decreased when tied, and for the
large-flange wheel it increased. It is apparent from these results
that tying and soldering of spokes has so little effect - if any -
that it is difficult to detect even by precision measurement."

but that's not data, merely what he says is the result. and
presumptive conclusion. if he wanted to be serious and credible, he'd
include his data table so the reader can judge for themselves.

and 300N pure torque is unrealistic. the true test is torque +
lateral loading, just like you'd get on a hill when honking....

Er "jim", torque is force times the moment arm it acts through. "300N"
is a measure of force, not torque. The correct SI unit for torque is
"N-m" or "newton-meter".

you don't say. so, let me correct just to keep you from ****ing and
moaning further:
"and 300N applied as pure torque loading is unrealistic."

but you knew that anyway.



Since Jobst Brandt applied a 300N FORCE to the valve hole,

no, he applied it to a cable that was wrapped around the rim and
/anchored/ at the valve hole. force is actually imparted by
circumferential friction.


if we assume
an ISO 622-mm wheel, the resulting TORQUE would have been approximately
90 to 95 N-m.

HTH,


it would help if you paid better attention to detail where it mattered,
and didn't **** and moan where it didn't.

"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:43:16 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

[snip]

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a
common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a
"hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.
(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase,
do they? he describes his test process, then his conclusions. he
doesn't present actual data or analyze it - he simply dismisses
differences he confesses to measuring as "noise".

Dear Jim,

Yes, that's exactly what Jobst's testing showed--no lateral (or
torsional, which I carelessly forgot) strength increase.

Here's his admirably detailed actual data, which clearly supports his
analysis and conclusion, since the measured changes in rim deflection
due to tying and soldering with practical loads were less than the
variation of an extremely accurate dial gauge:

"Tying and Soldering"

"A small- and large-flange rear wheel were each tested for lateral and
torsional elasticity. The hub of the wheel being tested was securely
held in a machine tool vise by means of a modified freewheel core. A
dial gauge was mounted on the machine table to observe displacements.
Lateral deflection caused by a 160 N vertical force applied repeatedly
at four different locations remained unchanged within 0.05 mm before
and after tying the spokes. The same arrangement was used to measure
torsional deflection."

"For the torsional test a steel cable was wrapped around the rim and
anchored to the valve stem hole. A pull of 300 N on the wire produced
a rotational movement of 1.65 mm on a large-flange wheel with 36
swaged spokes, and 3.43 mm on a similar small-flange wheel. The
measurements were repeated several times and averaged, both before and
after tying. The results in each case showed a change of about 2%.
This was also the variance of the measurements that were averaged. For
the small-flange wheel the deflection decreased when tied, and for the
large-flange wheel it increased. It is apparent from these results
that tying and soldering of spokes has so little effect - if any -
that it is difficult to detect even by precision measurement."

but that's not data, merely what he says is the result. and
presumptive conclusion. if he wanted to be serious and credible,
he'd include his data table so the reader can judge for themselves.

and 300N pure torque is unrealistic. the true test is torque +
lateral loading, just like you'd get on a hill when honking....

Er "jim", torque is force times the moment arm it acts through. "300N"
is a measure of force, not torque. The correct SI unit for torque is
"N-m" or "newton-meter".

you don't say. so, let me correct just to keep you from ****ing and
moaning further:
"and 300N applied as pure torque loading is unrealistic."

but you knew that anyway.

Yes, it is unrealistic, since a newton is a force (or a cookie) and not
a torque. By the way, what is "impure torque", the existence of which is
implied by the term "pure torque"?

If Jobst has a mass of 90kg, stands on a 0.18m long crank, and applies
some additional force by pulling on the handlebars, a torque of 180 N-m
at the crank is not unreasonable. Using a 50% reduction (about the
lowest gear on Jobst's bicycle), we end up (ignoring drive-train losses,
which are small) with 90 N-m at the rear wheel, or about what Jobst used
in his test. Unrealistic, eh?

Since Jobst Brandt applied a 300N FORCE to the valve hole,

no, he applied it to a cable that was wrapped around the rim and
/anchored/ at the valve hole. force is actually imparted by
circumferential friction.

Is it? What if the wheel had a smooth rim strip, slightly contaminated
with lubricant? How much of force end up being transmitted to the anchor
at the valve hole?

if we assume an ISO 622-mm wheel, the resulting TORQUE would have been
approximately 90 to 95 N-m.

HTH,


it would help if you paid better attention to detail where it mattered,
and didn't **** and moan where it didn't.

Confusing the units of force and torque is NOT a small matter.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?