for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandonedurcm

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes
to stay tight"?

Nice try, but it won't work. Just because you've rambled on for
three paragraphs before asking the same question again, doesn't
stop it being the same question. Funnily enough, my answer remains
the same too.

Actually, although I have asked that question before, you haven't
actually answered it.

I asked it simply, and you obfuscated.

Since I was actually interested in the answer, I asked it again with
more explanation, detail, and background reasoning, and you have
obfuscated.

I consider it reasonable, having asked a simple question, to ask it
again if the person I ask doesn't answer. However, having asked
it twice, and having seen you dance around both times rather than
actually give a straight answer to the straight question, I recognise
that there is little point persevering.

As it stands, I _think_ you agree with 36 that there is no need for
spokes to stay tight under load, but since you won't answer the
question I'm still not completely sure.

in order to convince the rest of us that 36 had no understanding of
the subject, you quoted a part of his argument that actually does
show some understanding.

No, I quoted a bit that shows how bad his understanding is.

If you think what I quoted shows some understanding, you are just as
misguided (or out of your depth) as he is. That your understanding is
just as bad as his, does not demonstrate his understanding to be any
better. It does not surprise me that more than one person is so
badly wrong about how a tensioned spoked wheel works.

Just as for him, there is no point discussing it further with you.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote:


Just as for him, there is no point discussing it further with you.



And I thought it was just me that thought the 33.4 was a moron!

On 20 Nov, 02:30, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
thirty-six considered Thu, 19 Nov 2009
06:10:17 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On 19 Nov, 10:01, Ian Smith wrote:

Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes
to stay tight"?

What reason could there be?

I would have thought that the lower portion of the rim would be a bad
place to remove all lateral stability.
It seems to me that losing lateral stability in any other part of the
rim would be preferable to losing it the bit that is your only
interface with the road.

Experience seems to hint at that only if you consider wheels which
have not had their interlace stabilized. Once this has been done by
either elbowing the interlace or tying and soldering the wheel,
responds in a more predictable manner.

Just as a hump backed bridge has an unsupported arch which functions
well, so does the wheel. It is the bridge abutments which ensure
stability of ots arch, and it is similar with the tension wheel.
There are of cause no abutments, so the rest of the wheel has to play
this role.

So stiffening up the rest of the wheel, with interlacing and locking
of the interlace, allows the supporting arch at the base of the wheel
to flex, assisting the tyre in tracking the road surface, while still
retaining overall wheel stability.

What seems to be particularly important is the way the locking of the
interlace assists in maintaining the height of the hub when the spokes
are more horizontal. The crossed spokes when locked together present
a more rigid structure because the spokes may not slide past each
other and this results in less sagging of the hub in the wheel. It
seems possible, although I have yet to verify it, that the very top
spokes will also lose some tension as do the lowest when the wheel is
loaded. I faintly recall this being told to me when I was a child
but am unable to recollect who or exactly what was said. There were
some good lightweight shops near to where I lived who made excellent
wheels and frames, thes places were an Aladdins cave to me and I got
into many conversations with the proprieters.

So anyway, losing stability in the other 3/4 of the wheel is like
building your hump backed bridge on a sand foundation. Not the way to
go.

On 21 Nov, 01:48, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
thirty-six considered Fri, 20 Nov 2009
04:07:58 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:



On 20 Nov, 02:30, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
thirty-six considered Thu, 19 Nov 2009
06:10:17 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On 19 Nov, 10:01, Ian Smith wrote:

Do you think it is true that "there is no reason for the lowest spokes
to stay tight"?

What reason could there be?

I would have thought that the lower portion of the rim would be a bad
place to remove all lateral stability.
It seems to me that losing lateral stability in any other part of the
rim would be preferable to losing it the bit that is your only
interface with the road.

Experience seems to hint at that only if you consider wheels which
have not had their interlace stabilized. * Once this has been done by
either elbowing the interlace or tying and soldering the wheel,
responds in a more predictable manner.

Just as a hump backed bridge has an unsupported arch which functions
well, so does the wheel. *It is the bridge abutments which ensure
stability of ots arch, and it is similar with the tension wheel.
There are of cause no abutments, so the rest of the wheel has to play
this role.

So stiffening up the rest of the wheel, with interlacing and locking
of the interlace, allows the supporting arch at the base of the wheel
to flex, assisting the tyre in tracking the road surface, while still
retaining overall wheel stability.

What seems to be particularly important is the way the locking of the
interlace assists in maintaining the height of the hub when the spokes
are more horizontal. *The crossed spokes when locked together present
a more rigid structure because the spokes may not slide past each
other and this results in less sagging of the hub in the wheel. *It
seems possible, although I have yet to verify it, that the very top
spokes will also lose some tension as do the lowest when the wheel is
loaded. * I faintly recall this being told to me when I was a child
but am unable to recollect who or exactly what was said. *There were
some good lightweight shops near to where I lived who made excellent
wheels and frames, thes places were an Aladdins cave to me and I got
into many conversations with the proprieters.

So anyway, losing stability in the other 3/4 of the wheel is like
building your hump backed bridge on a sand foundation. *Not the way to
go.

How stable would a 19mm wide hump backed bridge be if you shoved it
from the side?

You seem to be confusing lateral with radial stability.

I'm not. I've forgotton what I've said now so i may repeat myself..
Friday night after all. The lateral stability of the arch is rem..
erm. totally dependent upon the abutments to the arch. The radial
compression of the arch is dependant upon the relative rigidity of the
abutments to the rigidity of the arch. The rigidity of the abutments
is increased by attention to the spoking arrangement.. the lateral
stability of the arch is increased by the lateral rigidity of the
abutments. Again attention to the spoking arrangement pays
divideneds.

Ignore the bottom of the wheel where the tyre is in contact with the
ground, this bit doesn't matter, its the bits either side that
matter. There is probably an ideal balance between rim suspension and
tyre contact area/length with quite wide margin for error. But the
upshot of it is, is that it is the arch as it leaves contactt with the
ground which is most important , the bit where the tyre contact patch
tapers off, the parralell portion of tread can be an area under s-
pokes without tensionacross the whole area without ill affect, unless
you flat suddenly for which you revert to a point contact and buckle a
super light wheel.

Ian Smith wrote:


Since I was actually interested in the answer,

I said I wouldn't but, if you really are interested in the answer...

There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as long
as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the wheel[2] as a
whole. In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that the spoke tension
can be infinitesimal without compromising the rigidity of the wheel.

Since the original question was expressed in terms that would not be
unambiguous to the determined nit-picker [4], I leave you to decide
whether that sums up as "yes" or "no".

[1] There are other reasons for it to need a certain amount of tension -
to provide enough friction to stop the nipples unscrewing, for instance.

[2] A normal [3] bicycle wheel is not constructed in a way that allows
spokes to act in compression so, when the tension drops to zero, the
spoke ceases to act as an elastic part of the wheel.

[3] Some children's cycles have wheels where the spokes can - and do -
act in compression.

[4] What qualifies as "tight", for example.

--
Andrew

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

Since I was actually interested in the answer,

I said I wouldn't but, if you really are interested in the answer...

There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as
long as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the
wheel[2] as a whole. In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that
the spoke tension can be infinitesimal without compromising the
rigidity of the wheel.

So, there is no structural reason for the spokes to remain tight, as
long as they remain tight (since only by remaining tight will they
continue to behave elastically - if they are not tight they buckle).

[2] A normal [3] bicycle wheel is not constructed in a way that
allows spokes to act in compression so, when the tension drops to
zero, the spoke ceases to act as an elastic part of the wheel.

Exactly.

So, you don't believe that what 36 said was basically correct. That
leaves me with a degree of confusion since I don't understand why you
said that what he said was basically correct, but at least we agree
about the need to, maintain tension in spoked bicycle wheels.

Thank you for the clarification of what you understand about wheels.
I am not sufficiently curious about your state of mind to pursue why
you said something you don't believe

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Nov 21, 7:31*pm, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Naqerj wrote:
*Ian Smith wrote:

Since I was actually interested in the answer,

*I said I wouldn't but, if you really are interested in the answer...

*There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as
*long as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the
*wheel[2] as a whole. *In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that
*the spoke tension can be infinitesimal without compromising the
*rigidity of the wheel.

So, there is no structural reason for the spokes to remain tight, as
long as they remain tight (since only by remaining tight will they
continue to behave elastically - if they are not tight they buckle).

*[2] A normal [3] bicycle wheel is not constructed in a way that
*allows spokes to act in compression so, when the tension drops to
*zero, the spoke ceases to act as an elastic part of the wheel.

Exactly.

So, you don't believe that what 36 said was basically correct. *That
leaves me with a degree of confusion since I don't understand why you
said that what he said was basically correct, but at least we agree
about the need to, maintain tension in spoked bicycle wheels.

Thank you for the clarification of what you understand about wheels. *
I am not sufficiently curious about your state of mind to pursue why
you said something you don't believe

regards, * Ian SMith
--
* |\ /| * * *no .sig
* |o o|
* |/ \|

You been on the whacky baccy?

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:15:16 +0000
Naqerj wrote:


[4] What qualifies as "tight", for example.

tight = under tension, slack = not under tension.

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:15:16 +0000, Naqerj
wrote:

There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as long
as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the wheel[2] as a
whole. In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that the spoke tension
can be infinitesimal without compromising the rigidity of the wheel.

If you are building cart wheels then I guess that's true, but for a
bicycle wheel with pneumatic tyres the spokes need to remain under at
least some residual tension at all times. Ian's finite element
analysis is pretty conclusive.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On 22 Nov, 09:14, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:15:16 +0000, Naqerj

wrote:
There is no structural [1] reason for the spokes to remain tight as long
as they continue to behave elastically as a part of the wheel[2] as a
whole. *In a normal [3] bicycle wheel this means that the spoke tension
can be infinitesimal without compromising the rigidity of the wheel.

If you are building cart wheels then I guess that's true, but for a
bicycle wheel with pneumatic tyres the spokes need to remain under at
least some residual tension at all times. *Ian's finite element
analysis is pretty conclusive.

Guy
--http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key athttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

It concludes you're a dumbass.