|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
On Tue, 9 Sep, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message ... A bicycle wheel does not support a load by elongation of the spokes- exactly the opposite, in fact. The wheel "stands" on the spokes between the hub and the ground, rather than hanging from the top of the rim as your model would require. Whoop! Whoop! Flamewar Alert! Having reviewed a finite element analysis of a bicycle wheel under load, what happens is that the bottom of the rim deflects, reducing the tension in the bottom spokes, but to describe this as "standing" on the bottom spokes is misleading because if their tension ever below zero during the load cycle the wheel becomes unstable and rapidly fails. But to describe it as standing on the bottom spokes is like saying you can stand on a piece of string provided it's kept under tension by some other structure. Whereas your proposal is that the hub hangs from something below it? That's like saying you hang from the seat you're sitting on, which is even greater nonsense. Incidently, if anyone else wants to review an FEA of a wheel, you can find one at http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/ (something like that, anyhow, certainly it's on my site somewhere). regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
In article ,
Simon Brooke wrote: "Just zis Guy, you know?" writes: "Tim McNamara" wrote in message ... A bicycle wheel does not support a load by elongation of the spokes- exactly the opposite, in fact. The wheel "stands" on the spokes between the hub and the ground, rather than hanging from the top of the rim as your model would require. Whoop! Whoop! Flamewar Alert! Yeah, yeah, spotted it. Certainly no flames on my part. If you choose to descend to that, that's your call. This must be why spokes have that significant shoulder for the rim to sit on - otherwise when the wheel 'stood' on the spoke the nipple would just slide into the rim tape. It also explains why spokes have to be thicker in the middle than at the ends, as on cart wheels, so they won't distort out of column under compression loads. Umm, "no" on all counts. I'll again mention that book I referenced previously- which includes several finite element analyses of bicycle wheels to quantify how the wheel supports a load. Given that the size of the compression is on the order of the thickness of a sheet or two of typewriter paper, the phenomenon you describe can't happen unless the wheel is so overloaded that it collapses. And of course if you care to peruse some of the many previous threads on this topic, which occurs about every 3 to 4 months, you can save yourself and us a lot of time and tedium. Just go to Google, click on "groups" and navigate to rec.bicycles.tech and type in "wheel Mitke Brandt" as the search terms. I'm always impressed by the levels of mathematics, physics and engineering taught in US colleges. They're so, uhhhmmm, _differently_ educated over there. You'll have to take that up with the engineer who did the FEA of bicycle wheels. He posts to this newsgroup sometimes. He can also give you an idea of what training a mechanical engineer receives in the US. It was good enough for Porsche to hire him to design suspension for race cars... But you raise an interesting point, as over the years a number of British bicyclists in this newsgroup have most vehemently and even rudely refused to tolerate the notion that the bicycle wheel stands on its lower spokes. I don't quite know why this notion seems to be so hard for some to grasp Across The Pond, especially when it's so simple and so demonstrable. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
Ted Bennett writes:
Simon Brooke wrote: A bicycle wheel does not support a load by elongation of the spokes- exactly the opposite, in fact. The wheel "stands" on the spokes between the hub and the ground, rather than hanging from the top of the rim as your model would require. Whoop! Whoop! Flamewar Alert! Yeah, yeah, spotted it. This must be why spokes have that significant shoulder for the rim to sit on - otherwise when the wheel 'stood' on the spoke the nipple would just slide into the rim tape. It also explains why spokes have to be thicker in the middle than at the ends, as on cart wheels, so they won't distort out of column under compression loads. What Simon has missed is that in a spoked wheel there is no compression in absolute terms. Just a reduction in tension provides the upward force on the hub. In other words, it's hanging from the top, not standing on the bottom. Yup, we all knew that already. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
Tim McNamara writes:
But you raise an interesting point, as over the years a number of British bicyclists in this newsgroup have most vehemently and even rudely refused to tolerate the notion that the bicycle wheel stands on its lower spokes. I don't quite know why this notion seems to be so hard for some to grasp Across The Pond, especially when it's so simple and so demonstrable. Simple and demonstrable, yes. Stand the wheel on the spoke, and the nipple falls out, because the only thing that holds it in is tension. What you're saying is that _less_ tension somehow translates into load bearing. It does not and it can not, and, in particular, the design of spoke nipples would not allow them to take compression loads even if the design of the wheel allowed them to. The hub is supported by the tension in the top spokes, which hang from the rim. This, of course, tends to distort the rim out of true, and this distortion is resisted by tension in other spokes. The only spokes which are doing no work at all is the spokes which _can_ do no work - because they've gone (relatively) slack. To suggest that the wheel is standing on these spokes is a semantic perversion of the most peculiar nature. But then we are, as others have pointed out before me, two nations separated by a single language - and, it often seems, a single education system. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
On Tue, 09 Sep, Simon Brooke wrote:
tension. What you're saying is that _less_ tension somehow translates into load bearing. It does not and it can not, It can and does, and frequently does in all sorts of prestressed structures. The hub is supported by the tension in the top spokes, which hang from the rim. Nonsense. The chnage in tension in teh top spokes accounts for a vanishingly tiny degree of uplift to the hub. Do teh analysis if you don't believe it. resisted by tension in other spokes. The only spokes which are doing no work at all is the spokes which _can_ do no work - because they've gone (relatively) slack. To suggest that the wheel is standing on these spokes is a semantic perversion of the most peculiar nature. Actually, many of the spokes act to pull the hub down. In fact, the spoke that shows the greatest change in tension effect is one towards the bottom of the wheel (just to the side of the contact patch). That is, not only do some spokes do no work at all, many of them are working in the oppositte direction, ie doing 'harm' to the overall uplift force applied to the hub. Do the analysis if you don't believe it. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:35:02 GMT, Simon Brooke wrote:
Ted Bennett writes: What Simon has missed is that in a spoked wheel there is no compression in absolute terms. Just a reduction in tension provides the upward force on the hub. In other words, it's hanging from the top, not standing on the bottom. Yup, we all knew that already. So, the spokes that have the same stress state whether loaded or unloaded are doing all teh work, and the spokes in which the stress changes dramatically are doing nothing at all. Curious. It seems not only bicycle wheel hubs, but also causality is suspended in your universe. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
Simon Brooke wrote in message .uk...
I'm always impressed by the levels of mathematics, physics and engineering taught in US colleges. They're so, uhhhmmm, _differently_ educated over there. It's the standard BA (Bachelor of Art, loosely translated from the Latin some of the degrees are still written in) from a liberal arts college that prepares students to become lawyers and such. No math requirement, and one science course (if any) that can be satisfied with the non-mathematical course work of Physics for Poets 101, or Geology or Archeology 101. Even some science graduates from these schools who become doctors, psychologists, et al., do not know the definitions of basic engineering terms. Graduates of bona fide U.S. engineering schools have no such problems. Bike shop wrenches either learn on the job, or from trade schools. On-the-job and vocational training of this sort is not a substitute for an education in basic engineering terms and principles. There are exceptions; the smartest bike mechanic I knew went on to get an advanced degree in math and is a now professor at a major university. But he also became a motor cycle mechanic along the way, because it paid more. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
Simon Brooke wrote in message .uk...
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes: "Tim McNamara" wrote in message ... A bicycle wheel does not support a load by elongation of the spokes- exactly the opposite, in fact. The wheel "stands" on the spokes between the hub and the ground, rather than hanging from the top of the rim as your model would require. Whoop! Whoop! Flamewar Alert! Yeah, yeah, spotted it. This must be why spokes have that significant shoulder for the rim to sit on - otherwise when the wheel 'stood' on the spoke the nipple would just slide into the rim tape. It also explains why spokes have to be thicker in the middle than at the ends, as on cart wheels, so they won't distort out of column under compression loads. I'm always impressed by the levels of mathematics, physics and engineering taught in US colleges. They're so, uhhhmmm, _differently_ educated over there. WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Traces, yes, but not enough, surely, to undermine the wholesome and holy righteousness of American True Knowledge. Far be it from me to describe anyone as 'wrong'. I'm not sure I understand why you take comfort in Just zis Guy's posting. Your explanation of why some wheels are "flippier" depended on the elongation of spokes. Regardless of whether you want to call what happens "standing on the bottom spokes," Just zis Guy's posting seemed to confirm that the bottom spokes shorten. Is your analysis still valid if the spokes don't elongate to an appreciable degree, and if so, why? By the way, can you expand on what you mean by "flippier"? It's an idiom I've never heard applied to wheels. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
Simon Brooke wrote:
... The hub is supported by the tension in the top spokes, which hang from the rim. This, of course, tends to distort the rim out of true, and this distortion is resisted by tension in other spokes. This explanation would suggest that the deformation of the rim from a circle occurs at the top of the wheel. Jobst Brandt's finite element analysis shows that the rim deforms at the bottom of the wheel. Testing the spoke tension in a loaded wheel by plucking spokes also shows that it is the lower spokes whose tension changes most significantly. This is a really simple experiment which anyone interested in the issue should try. This, by the way, is a FAQ in rec.bicycles.tech, and you may search Google for previous debates on the subject. It is, however, declasse to bring it up before the end of Daylight Savings Time. But then we are, as others have pointed out before me, two nations separated by a single language - and, it often seems, a single education system. I sometimes wonder if the minority of Britons who resort to these snobbish digs at American education realize how they are playing into a stereotype, or how insufferable they sound. I've also noticed that the cross-pond jabs at education or culture tend to come out when one's argument is on thin ice on the merits. BTW, one of my PhD advisors was British and he didn't see the need to lay on this kind of attitude. But then, he preferred the lack of Oxbridge attitude at a US university. Ben |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
MA3 rim failure, where to now
In article ,
Simon Brooke wrote: In other words, it's hanging from the top, not standing on the bottom. Yup, we all knew that already. Nope. But at this point methinks you are just trolling. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tire Failure | AGRIBOB | Techniques | 13 | January 13th 04 09:46 PM |
Tyre failure example (with an aside on tyre liners) | Andrew Webster | Techniques | 16 | December 12th 03 03:59 AM |
Tyre failure and tyre liners | Andrew Webster | Techniques | 5 | December 4th 03 08:26 PM |
Rad-loc hinge failure | Paul Dalen | Recumbent Biking | 2 | August 4th 03 12:14 AM |