|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:46:54 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote: I have 20" wheels with deep V rims on my bike, and on another bike I have relatively shallow section 700c rims. If the former were not at least twice as rigid as the latter I would be most surprised. So what? The hub still predominantly stands on teh lower spokes. You need to vary stiffness by 10 or 100 times to render the statement invalid, and if you do that you don't have a bicycle wheel. Or, the biggest change in tension is exhibited in the lower spokes due to rim deformation, but since the change in tension is reduced by using a more rigid rim, the amount of hangingness / standingness changes. In other words, it's not hanging or standing, it's supported by the spokes in their entirety and there is a secondary effect due to rim deformation, which is that the tension in the lower spokes changes by much more than in any other spokes. Still, I don't have a copy of Matlab, so why not run the FEA again using a deep-V rim and see what happens? The suport action remains concentrated in teh lower spokes. Or rather, the change in tension resultant from rim deformation remains concentrated in the lower spokes. You haven't addressed this point, Ian. I am suggesting that the large change in tension in the lower spokes is resultant from rim deformation. To say that the hub "stands" is to imply that rim deformation is the mechanism by which the hub is supported, rather than being a secondary effect. None of this disputes the FEA, or the large change in tension of the lower spokes. The difference is and always has been semantic, to wit: is it reasonable to say that the hub stands on spokes which cannot carry a compressive load, and if their tension drops below zero the wheel becomes unstable. The term "stand" isolates consideration of the bottom spokes when it is perfectly clear that the wheel is unstable unless it is complete, that all the spokes must be present in order for the wheel to work. I say the hub is held up by the spoke nipples pushing on the rim. Guy === ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:44:24 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote: No, the spoke in highest tension is near the bottom of the wheel. Not according to the FEA. What that shows is that the spoke with the biggest /change/ in tension is at the bottom, which is a completely different matter. Yes according to the FEA. Have you really reviewed it in as much detail as you claim? The most tensile spoke, the spoke with the greatest value of tension, is in the bottom part of teh wheel - within 45 degrees of bottom dead centre (ie _well_ within "the lower half of the wheel", actually within the bottom quarter of teh wheel). 45 degrees is not "near the bottom" - it's well outside the zone of huge tensile changes. The spokes in teh contact patch reduce in tension, most of the bottom spokes (12 of the 17 or 18 in teh lower half) undergo an increase in tension, as you'd know if you'd looked at the results. Which I have. I maintain that this is a secondary effect. I'm not being absurd, I'm being accurate. What are you being? Pedantic, because that's what the whole stupid argument is about. Is it reasonable to use words like "stand" when the degree of standingness is dependent on rim deformation, not the mass applied. Guy === ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
In article ,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:07:46 GMT, wrote: I saw no response to the question. I assume those who quibble about the function of spokes did not see the following or were unable to access the URL. Please consider the question. I don't think there is any dispute over the changes in tension and which spokes exhibit the greatest change. The argument - which appears to be a perennial one - is over whether it is reasonable to use the specific term "standing" to describe the mechanism by which the hub is supported. As the lightning rod who initially used the term "stands" in this particular thread- a descriptive term, developed from FEA analysis of the bicycle wheel, that has been used for a long time and occasionally arouses this oddly intense semantic quibbling, invective and ad hominem- I "stand" by my use of the term. It's a simple and clear description intended to combat the misconception that the hub "hangs" from the upper spokes. That latter description is far, far more semantically and phenomenologically inaccurate. Because the of the pretensioning resulting from building the wheel, the hub "hangs" equally from all the spokes in all directions. The only spokes that change tension under load are those between the hub and the ground- ergo, the wheel is standing on those spokes. The rest of the spokes continue to do exactly what they were doing. The spokes carrying the load, as evidenced by the change in tension, are those between the hub and the ground and therefore it is correct to say that the wheel is standing on those spokes. The word "stand" implies to me at least that the change in tension is the primary mechanism by which the hub is supported, rather than being what would appear to me to be a secondary effect due to deformation of the rim at he contact point. You're not thinking of the wheel as an integrated system, apparently. That seems to be what "hangs" up the understanding of a number of objectors to the terminology of the wheel standing on its lower spokes. I remember a previous thread where one of the dissenters vociferously demanded that we accept that the wheel stands on the ground and nothing else. I'm surprised that didn't come up in this thread, too. I once argued against this idea, having "known" for years that a hub hangs from the upper spokes. Once I understood how a wheel supports a load, the fallacy of my prior beliefs became obvious. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
On Sun, 21 Sep, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
deformation. To say that the hub "stands" is to imply that rim deformation is the mechanism by which the hub is supported, rather than being a secondary effect. It says no such thing. How does saying 'spoke x carries the load' mean that rim deformation carries the load? If anything, your argument has more imploication of teh rim carrying the laod, since you're requiring teh rim to conduct significant proportions of teh load all around the wheel. Consider teh trusty compressive-spoked cartwheel. I say that the lower spoke carries the load. Aha, you say (you do above) saying teh lower spoke carries the load implies that rim deformation is the mechanism by which the hub is supported. Except, in this case, teh load remains supported if you take away all teh other spokes and teh rim, so the logic that says "saying a wheel stands must mnean rim deformation is teh mechanism" must be horribly horribly broken. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:05:02 GMT, Simon Brooke wrote:
Jobst, I respect, and as far as I can see Guy respects, your technical knowledge of what happens in spokes in a wheel. But you _cannot_ abuse the English language in this way. You can 'hang from' a structural element which is in tension, but you cannot - you absolutely _cannot_ 'stand on' it. Nor can you 'stand on' something which has no mechanism other than tension to keep it in column. But it's an ever greater abuse of teh english language to say something 'hangs from' an object below it. Do you hanbg from a chair when you sit on it? Do you hang from teh floor when you stand up? If so, I'd lay off whatever it is you're smoking. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
Simon Brooke wrote:
What you are _saying_ - not what you intend to say, but what your abuse of English conveys - is the Indian Rope Trick, and it cannot be done. If you want to say the hub 'hangs from' all the spokes, do so; it does. If you want to say it hangs slightly less from the bottom spokes, I have no argument. If you want to say that the terms 'hangs from' and 'stands on' are just unuseful with respect to bicycle wheels, that would seem to me very sensible. But angels do not in the real world dance on the heads of pins, and hubs in the real world do not stand on spokes. Even if you still think you're right and we're wrong, you still should not use this terminology because it obviously miscommunicates with a substantial subset of you audience. The whole point of language in this discussion is to describe the situation in a way that conveys the best understanding of the situation in the listener. To say that a hub hangs from the top spokes suggests that the top spokes undergo more strain than the bottom ones, this is untrue. To say that a hub stands on the bottom spokes suggests that the bottom spokes undergo more strain than the bottom ones, this is true. The words 'hangs' and 'stands' are very old and originated before the existence of prestressed structure's. Our understanding of prestressed structure means that we have to have a more subtle definition of those terms. -- Andy Morris AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
Simon Brooke wrote:
What you are _saying_ - not what you intend to say, but what your abuse of English conveys - is the Indian Rope Trick, and it cannot be done. If you want to say the hub 'hangs from' all the spokes, do so; it does. If you want to say it hangs slightly less from the bottom spokes, I have no argument. If you want to say that the terms 'hangs from' and 'stands on' are just unuseful with respect to bicycle wheels, that would seem to me very sensible. But angels do not in the real world dance on the heads of pins, and hubs in the real world do not stand on spokes. Even if you still think you're right and we're wrong, you still should not use this terminology because it obviously miscommunicates with a substantial subset of you audience. The whole point of language in this discussion is to describe the situation in a way that conveys the best understanding of the situation in the listener. To say that a hub hangs from the top spokes suggests that the top spokes undergo more strain than the bottom ones, this is untrue. To say that a hub stands on the bottom spokes suggests that the bottom spokes undergo more strain than the bottom ones, this is true. The words 'hangs' and 'stands' are very old and originated before the existence of prestressed structure's. Our understanding of prestressed structure means that we have to have a more subtle definition of those terms. -- Andy Morris AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
In article ,
"AndyMorris" wrote: The whole point of language in this discussion is to describe the situation in a way that conveys the best understanding of the situation in the listener. Excellent! Much more elegantly put than my efforts at explaining my use of the word "stands." To say that a hub hangs from the top spokes suggests that the top spokes undergo more strain than the bottom ones, this is untrue. To say that a hub stands on the bottom spokes suggests that the bottom spokes undergo more strain than the bottom ones, this is true. Not quite true, as the tension on those spokes is *reduced* when loaded the wheel is loaded. It would be more accurate to say that the tension of the spoke sat the top is unaffected by the load, whereas the tension of the spokes below the hub is affected. The words 'hangs' and 'stands' are very old and originated before the existence of prestressed structure's. Our understanding of prestressed structure means that we have to have a more subtle definition of those terms. Some people cannot tolerate a language adapting to new shades of meaning. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
In article ,
"AndyMorris" wrote: The whole point of language in this discussion is to describe the situation in a way that conveys the best understanding of the situation in the listener. Excellent! Much more elegantly put than my efforts at explaining my use of the word "stands." To say that a hub hangs from the top spokes suggests that the top spokes undergo more strain than the bottom ones, this is untrue. To say that a hub stands on the bottom spokes suggests that the bottom spokes undergo more strain than the bottom ones, this is true. Not quite true, as the tension on those spokes is *reduced* when loaded the wheel is loaded. It would be more accurate to say that the tension of the spoke sat the top is unaffected by the load, whereas the tension of the spokes below the hub is affected. The words 'hangs' and 'stands' are very old and originated before the existence of prestressed structure's. Our understanding of prestressed structure means that we have to have a more subtle definition of those terms. Some people cannot tolerate a language adapting to new shades of meaning. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tire Failure | AGRIBOB | Techniques | 13 | January 13th 04 10:46 PM |
Tyre failure example (with an aside on tyre liners) | Andrew Webster | Techniques | 16 | December 12th 03 04:59 AM |
Tyre failure and tyre liners | Andrew Webster | Techniques | 5 | December 4th 03 09:26 PM |
Rad-loc hinge failure | Paul Dalen | Recumbent Biking | 2 | August 4th 03 12:14 AM |