MA3 rim failure, where to now

In article ,
says...
Absolutely. Once again, it is only you that maintains that the fact
that the load in the spokes is a function of spoke and rim relative
stiffness means that uit's unreasonable to classify this as standing.


Not only him.

Try this: The wheel stands on its bottom spokes, which are in tension.

Make sense? I think it gets confusing, because the word "stands" is a
misleading metaphor.

Rick

In article ,
says...
Absolutely. Once again, it is only you that maintains that the fact
that the load in the spokes is a function of spoke and rim relative
stiffness means that uit's unreasonable to classify this as standing.


Not only him.

Try this: The wheel stands on its bottom spokes, which are in tension.

Make sense? I think it gets confusing, because the word "stands" is a
misleading metaphor.

Rick

"AndyMorris" typed


Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

most snipped

But I'm probably bluffing...

Spot on helly, I did listen a little at the mech eng.

Did it make you a better grease monkey? Or did that come from your
practical experience?

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

"AndyMorris" typed


Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

most snipped

But I'm probably bluffing...

Spot on helly, I did listen a little at the mech eng.

Did it make you a better grease monkey? Or did that come from your
practical experience?

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

"AndyMorris" writes:

Simon Brooke wrote:

I think you probably meant to say 'the bottom spokes undergo more
strain than the top ones'; if so, it's _not_ true, and is just
precisely the misunderstanding this 'stands on' nonsense leads to. The
bottom spokes at any given moment - those immediately above the
contact patch - experience the _least_ strain of all the spokes -
they're doing _least_ work. But they do, dynamically, experience the
greatest _change_ of strain as they move from being normally loaded at
about half-past-four to relatively highly loaded at five o'clock to
relatively unloaded at 6 o'clock to relatively highly loaded at 7
o'clock to normal again by half-past-seven.


No, I meant what I said.

What you said was:

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.

If you meant this, there's no help for you.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

Ted Bennett writes:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Look, I have this nice pair of stilts you might want to buy. They're
made of boiled spaghetti, so they're sure to support your weight. Just
stand on them and try.

Hmm. That sentence demonstrates that Simon has failed to understand the
many lines of lucid explanation of the bicycle wheel that have been
offered to him.

For the thirteen millionth time, no-one is arguing about the physics
or the engineering. We all agree about the physics and the
engineering. We're arguing about the abuse of English.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

"AndyMorris" writes:

Simon Brooke wrote:

I think you probably meant to say 'the bottom spokes undergo more
strain than the top ones'; if so, it's _not_ true, and is just
precisely the misunderstanding this 'stands on' nonsense leads to. The
bottom spokes at any given moment - those immediately above the
contact patch - experience the _least_ strain of all the spokes -
they're doing _least_ work. But they do, dynamically, experience the
greatest _change_ of strain as they move from being normally loaded at
about half-past-four to relatively highly loaded at five o'clock to
relatively unloaded at 6 o'clock to relatively highly loaded at 7
o'clock to normal again by half-past-seven.


No, I meant what I said.

What you said was:

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.

If you meant this, there's no help for you.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

Ted Bennett writes:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Look, I have this nice pair of stilts you might want to buy. They're
made of boiled spaghetti, so they're sure to support your weight. Just
stand on them and try.

Hmm. That sentence demonstrates that Simon has failed to understand the
many lines of lucid explanation of the bicycle wheel that have been
offered to him.

For the thirteen millionth time, no-one is arguing about the physics
or the engineering. We all agree about the physics and the
engineering. We're arguing about the abuse of English.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

Simon Brooke wrote:
Ted Bennett writes:
Simon Brooke wrote:

Look, I have this nice pair of stilts you might want to buy. They're
made of boiled spaghetti, so they're sure to support your weight. Just
stand on them and try.

Hmm. That sentence demonstrates that Simon has failed to understand the
many lines of lucid explanation of the bicycle wheel that have been
offered to him.

For the thirteen millionth time, no-one is arguing about the physics
or the engineering. We all agree about the physics and the
engineering. We're arguing about the abuse of English.

Claiming that boiled spaghetti stilts have any relevence to a discussion
of prestressed structures is an abuse of the language not an introduction
of irrelevent physics? Hmmm.
I think you should all just agree to disagree and give up.

Simon Brooke wrote:
Ted Bennett writes:
Simon Brooke wrote:

Look, I have this nice pair of stilts you might want to buy. They're
made of boiled spaghetti, so they're sure to support your weight. Just
stand on them and try.

Hmm. That sentence demonstrates that Simon has failed to understand the
many lines of lucid explanation of the bicycle wheel that have been
offered to him.

For the thirteen millionth time, no-one is arguing about the physics
or the engineering. We all agree about the physics and the
engineering. We're arguing about the abuse of English.

Claiming that boiled spaghetti stilts have any relevence to a discussion
of prestressed structures is an abuse of the language not an introduction
of irrelevent physics? Hmmm.
I think you should all just agree to disagree and give up.