A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wheel building questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 13th 04, 01:05 AM
big Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wheel building questions


Wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


David L. Johnson Wrote:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butte

spokes.
They make a more reliable wheel.


I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spoke

make
that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy th

rim
and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gaug

stainless
steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from th

suggestions
you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete


Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel


Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree wit
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. Bu
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigge
range of motion they are going though

--
big Pete

Ads
  #2  
Old October 13th 04, 05:58 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


Wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


David L. Johnson Wrote:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted

spokes.
They make a more reliable wheel.


I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes

make
that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the

rim
and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge

stainless
steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the

suggestions
you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete


Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel


Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger
range of motion they are going though.


Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.

Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.

Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.

Carl Fogel
  #3  
Old October 13th 04, 05:58 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


Wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


David L. Johnson Wrote:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted

spokes.
They make a more reliable wheel.


I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes

make
that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the

rim
and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge

stainless
steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the

suggestions
you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete


Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel


Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger
range of motion they are going though.


Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.

Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.

Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.

Carl Fogel
  #4  
Old October 14th 04, 05:12 AM
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


Wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


David L. Johnson Wrote:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted

spokes.

They make a more reliable wheel.


I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes

make

that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the

rim

and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge

stainless

steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the

suggestions

you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel


Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger
range of motion they are going though.



Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.


need more precision here carl. if by "ferrous metals" you mean mild
steel, then yes, it has an endurance limit below which it won't fatigue.
but if by "ferrous metals" you're including stainless steels, then
that's an incorrect statement. endurance limits are a function of
carbon content, and carbon is usually kept to a minimum in most
stainless steels to prevent harmful formation of chromium carbide.


Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.


see above.


Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.


i'm down to 200, & i'm still riding 16 spoke wheels to no detriment.


Carl Fogel


  #5  
Old October 14th 04, 05:12 AM
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


Wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


David L. Johnson Wrote:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted

spokes.

They make a more reliable wheel.


I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes

make

that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the

rim

and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge

stainless

steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the

suggestions

you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel


Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger
range of motion they are going though.



Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.


need more precision here carl. if by "ferrous metals" you mean mild
steel, then yes, it has an endurance limit below which it won't fatigue.
but if by "ferrous metals" you're including stainless steels, then
that's an incorrect statement. endurance limits are a function of
carbon content, and carbon is usually kept to a minimum in most
stainless steels to prevent harmful formation of chromium carbide.


Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.


see above.


Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.


i'm down to 200, & i'm still riding 16 spoke wheels to no detriment.


Carl Fogel


  #6  
Old October 14th 04, 08:17 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:12:54 -0700, jim beam
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


Wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


David L. Johnson Wrote:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted

spokes.

They make a more reliable wheel.


I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes

make

that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the

rim

and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge

stainless

steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the

suggestions

you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger
range of motion they are going though.



Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.


need more precision here carl. if by "ferrous metals" you mean mild
steel, then yes, it has an endurance limit below which it won't fatigue.
but if by "ferrous metals" you're including stainless steels, then
that's an incorrect statement. endurance limits are a function of
carbon content, and carbon is usually kept to a minimum in most
stainless steels to prevent harmful formation of chromium carbide.


Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.


see above.


Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.


i'm down to 200, & i'm still riding 16 spoke wheels to no detriment.


Carl Fogel


Dear Jim and Pete,

I expect that Jim's correction about the low-carbon
stainless steel used in spokes being more prone to fatigue
than other steels is quite right, since materials are Jim's
field.

But I steel (irresistible) wouldn't worry about the thinner
mid-sections of butted spokes wearing out. Again, for Pete's
sake (again, irresistible), spokes fatigue and break at the
ends, not in the middle.

Carl Fogel
  #7  
Old October 14th 04, 08:17 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:12:54 -0700, jim beam
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


Wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
wrote:


David L. Johnson Wrote:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted

spokes.

They make a more reliable wheel.


I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes

make

that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the

rim

and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge

stainless

steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the

suggestions

you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger
range of motion they are going though.



Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.


need more precision here carl. if by "ferrous metals" you mean mild
steel, then yes, it has an endurance limit below which it won't fatigue.
but if by "ferrous metals" you're including stainless steels, then
that's an incorrect statement. endurance limits are a function of
carbon content, and carbon is usually kept to a minimum in most
stainless steels to prevent harmful formation of chromium carbide.


Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.


see above.


Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.


i'm down to 200, & i'm still riding 16 spoke wheels to no detriment.


Carl Fogel


Dear Jim and Pete,

I expect that Jim's correction about the low-carbon
stainless steel used in spokes being more prone to fatigue
than other steels is quite right, since materials are Jim's
field.

But I steel (irresistible) wouldn't worry about the thinner
mid-sections of butted spokes wearing out. Again, for Pete's
sake (again, irresistible), spokes fatigue and break at the
ends, not in the middle.

Carl Fogel
  #8  
Old October 15th 04, 12:04 AM
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jim beam wrote

i'm down to 200, & i'm still riding 16 spoke wheels to no detriment.


That depends on what you consider a detriment. Low spoke count wheels
are, at best, no stronger than wheels of equal weight with
conventional spoke counts. They are also more flexible and a lot more
difficult to true and service. They become unrideable from damage
that is tolerable to a conventional wheel.

--All this in exchange for benefits that lie in the range between
unmeasurable and insignificant.

Chalo Colina
  #9  
Old October 15th 04, 12:04 AM
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jim beam wrote

i'm down to 200, & i'm still riding 16 spoke wheels to no detriment.


That depends on what you consider a detriment. Low spoke count wheels
are, at best, no stronger than wheels of equal weight with
conventional spoke counts. They are also more flexible and a lot more
difficult to true and service. They become unrideable from damage
that is tolerable to a conventional wheel.

--All this in exchange for benefits that lie in the range between
unmeasurable and insignificant.

Chalo Colina
  #10  
Old October 15th 04, 04:21 AM
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chalo wrote:
jim beam wrote

i'm down to 200, & i'm still riding 16 spoke wheels to no detriment.



That depends on what you consider a detriment. Low spoke count wheels
are, at best, no stronger than wheels of equal weight with
conventional spoke counts. They are also more flexible and a lot more
difficult to true and service. They become unrideable from damage
that is tolerable to a conventional wheel.

--All this in exchange for benefits that lie in the range between
unmeasurable and insignificant.

Chalo Colina


well, there's one huge advantage of low spoke count wheels - that of
wind resistance. let's ignore the arguments about "makes no difference
to speed" a moment and look at a much more tangible example. i commute
by bike most days by bike across the golden gate bridge to san
francisco. it's almost always subject to significant cross wind on both
the approaches and on the bridge itself. riding a normal 32 spoke
wheelset, my bike is somewhat squirrely when the wind is bad. riding 16
spoke wheels however, the effect of cross winds is substantially less.
my low spoke wheels are shimano r540's and they have much deeper rims
than my ma3 32 spokers, so if rim alone were the factor, the ma3's would
be the less susceptible ride. given the fact that the r540's are
better, it can only be that the lower wind resistance /is/ a result of
lower spoke count, yes? and i'm not talking a little gust of wind here
- i'm talking gnarly stuff that blows the glasses off your face - as has
happened. trust me, in those conditions, you want wheels which you
/don't/ have to wrestle with the whole way home.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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
Wheel building questions big Pete Techniques 0 October 12th 04 02:41 PM
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding Jeff Napier Techniques 338 August 23rd 04 09:17 PM
Wheelbuilding issues Nate Knutson Techniques 13 May 9th 04 03:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.