Recycling Bicycle Spokes

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 10 Sep 2006 10:25:58
From: The Dougster
Subject: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research
Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

Date: 17 Sep 2006 23:02:52
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

[snip]

> The measured results are that wheels using elbow spokes are all stress
> relieved by the major manufacturers. Spoke failure has been reduced to
> poorly built wheels.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Please list the "major manufacturers" who stress-relieve their wheels
and when they began doing so.

As far as I know, none of them have ever released any fatigue test
data.

Do you consider this more important than the "better spokes" that you
credited with vast improvements between 1981 and 1993?

"It appears that the better spokes now available would have made the
discovery of many of the concepts of this book more difficult for lack
of failure data. I am grateful in retrospect for the poor durability of
earlier spokes. They operated so near their limits that durability was
significantly altered by the techniques that I have outlined."
--Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition, 1993,
p.124

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 18 Sep 2006 18:28:13
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Carl Fogel writes:

> [snip]

>> The measured results are that wheels using elbow spokes are all
>> stress relieved by the major manufacturers. Spoke failure has been
>> reduced to poorly built wheels.

> Please list the "major manufacturers" who stress-relieve their
> wheels and when they began doing so.

I mentioned TREK as one who support whees on a rim support and
hydraulically push the hub laterally out of center with a designed
load. The wheel is then turned over and the operation repeated. This
method works ideally because it does not overload the rim in hoop
stress, one set of spokes becoming looser while the other, tighter.
It also does not cause any local rim distortion.

> As far as I know, none of them have ever released any fatigue test
> data.

Why should they? You haven't seen any such data for spokes, chains,
bar stems, cranks, seat posts...

> Do you consider this more important than the "better spokes" that
> you credited with vast improvements between 1981 and 1993?

You keep repeating this jim beam mantra. It has been answered often.
Where did I write "vast improvement"?

> "It appears that the better spokes now available would have made the
> discovery of many of the concepts of this book more difficult for
> lack of failure data. I am grateful in retrospect for the poor
> durability of earlier spokes. They operated so near their limits
> that durability was significantly altered by the techniques that I
> have outlined." --Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition,
> 1993, p.124

As you may have noticed, we still get reports from people with wheels
whose spokes break; wheels not purchased from TREK for instance. At
TREK, Damon Rinard oversees this process. You may recall reading his
contributions here on wreck.bike before he went to TREK.

Also, some wheels now use straight pull spokes (no elbow) that can
be stress relieved during manufacture after head and threads have been
formed, the spoke form not being altered in wheel building.

You must have given the straight pull spoke some thought. It is not
without reason that manufacturers went to that design in spite of
better steel spoke materials. Many did not realized the cause of
spoke failures and took the obvious route of eliminating the elbow,
while at the same time making a more complicated and expensive hub.
Since today's bicyclists seem to be rich enough to afford these
wheels, we hear few complaints. The $50 wheel is long gone and so are
simple sturdy rims that aren't welded, anodized, and machined; ones
that worked perfectly with thousands of miles use.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 18 Sep 2006 12:51:35
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On 18 Sep 2006 18:28:13 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>> [snip]
>
>>> The measured results are that wheels using elbow spokes are all
>>> stress relieved by the major manufacturers. Spoke failure has been
>>> reduced to poorly built wheels.
>
>> Please list the "major manufacturers" who stress-relieve their
>> wheels and when they began doing so.
>
>I mentioned TREK as one who support whees on a rim support and
>hydraulically push the hub laterally out of center with a designed
>load. The wheel is then turned over and the operation repeated. This
>method works ideally because it does not overload the rim in hoop
>stress, one set of spokes becoming looser while the other, tighter.
>It also does not cause any local rim distortion.
>
>> As far as I know, none of them have ever released any fatigue test
>> data.
>
>Why should they? You haven't seen any such data for spokes, chains,
>bar stems, cranks, seat posts...
>
>> Do you consider this more important than the "better spokes" that
>> you credited with vast improvements between 1981 and 1993?
>
>You keep repeating this jim beam mantra. It has been answered often.
>Where did I write "vast improvement"?
>
>> "It appears that the better spokes now available would have made the
>> discovery of many of the concepts of this book more difficult for
>> lack of failure data. I am grateful in retrospect for the poor
>> durability of earlier spokes. They operated so near their limits
>> that durability was significantly altered by the techniques that I
>> have outlined." --Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition,
>> 1993, p.124
>
>As you may have noticed, we still get reports from people with wheels
>whose spokes break; wheels not purchased from TREK for instance. At
>TREK, Damon Rinard oversees this process. You may recall reading his
>contributions here on wreck.bike before he went to TREK.
>
>Also, some wheels now use straight pull spokes (no elbow) that can
>be stress relieved during manufacture after head and threads have been
>formed, the spoke form not being altered in wheel building.
>
>You must have given the straight pull spoke some thought. It is not
>without reason that manufacturers went to that design in spite of
>better steel spoke materials. Many did not realized the cause of
>spoke failures and took the obvious route of eliminating the elbow,
>while at the same time making a more complicated and expensive hub.
>Since today's bicyclists seem to be rich enough to afford these
>wheels, we hear few complaints. The $50 wheel is long gone and so are
>simple sturdy rims that aren't welded, anodized, and machined; ones
>that worked perfectly with thousands of miles use.
>
>Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

So your list of major manufacturers and the dates when they began
stress relieving reads like this:

date manufacturer
1. ???? Trek

As for the vast improvements, that's a reasonable description of the
quote from your 3rd edition, the one that you ignored while claiming
that it was somehow Jim Beam.

You don't seem to distinguish between the spoke improvements that you
wrote about in 1993, the ones that would have made it difficult
discover your "concepts," and your new theory that "major
manufacturers" are stress-relieving their wheels.

Are you saying that Trek wheels need no stress-relief, but that all
other wheels do? The question is serious, since you seem to have come
up with a new approach.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 18 Sep 2006 18:59:39
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:51:35 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>On 18 Sep 2006 18:28:13 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>>Carl Fogel writes:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>>> The measured results are that wheels using elbow spokes are all
>>>> stress relieved by the major manufacturers. Spoke failure has been
>>>> reduced to poorly built wheels.
>>
>>> Please list the "major manufacturers" who stress-relieve their
>>> wheels and when they began doing so.
>>
>>I mentioned TREK as one who support whees on a rim support and
>>hydraulically push the hub laterally out of center with a designed
>>load. The wheel is then turned over and the operation repeated. This
>>method works ideally because it does not overload the rim in hoop
>>stress, one set of spokes becoming looser while the other, tighter.
>>It also does not cause any local rim distortion.
>>
>>> As far as I know, none of them have ever released any fatigue test
>>> data.
>>
>>Why should they? You haven't seen any such data for spokes, chains,
>>bar stems, cranks, seat posts...
>>
>>> Do you consider this more important than the "better spokes" that
>>> you credited with vast improvements between 1981 and 1993?
>>
>>You keep repeating this jim beam mantra. It has been answered often.
>>Where did I write "vast improvement"?
>>
>>> "It appears that the better spokes now available would have made the
>>> discovery of many of the concepts of this book more difficult for
>>> lack of failure data. I am grateful in retrospect for the poor
>>> durability of earlier spokes. They operated so near their limits
>>> that durability was significantly altered by the techniques that I
>>> have outlined." --Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition,
>>> 1993, p.124
>>
>>As you may have noticed, we still get reports from people with wheels
>>whose spokes break; wheels not purchased from TREK for instance. At
>>TREK, Damon Rinard oversees this process. You may recall reading his
>>contributions here on wreck.bike before he went to TREK.
>>
>>Also, some wheels now use straight pull spokes (no elbow) that can
>>be stress relieved during manufacture after head and threads have been
>>formed, the spoke form not being altered in wheel building.
>>
>>You must have given the straight pull spoke some thought. It is not
>>without reason that manufacturers went to that design in spite of
>>better steel spoke materials. Many did not realized the cause of
>>spoke failures and took the obvious route of eliminating the elbow,
>>while at the same time making a more complicated and expensive hub.
>>Since today's bicyclists seem to be rich enough to afford these
>>wheels, we hear few complaints. The $50 wheel is long gone and so are
>>simple sturdy rims that aren't welded, anodized, and machined; ones
>>that worked perfectly with thousands of miles use.
>>
>>Jobst Brandt
>
>Dear Jobst,
>
>So your list of major manufacturers and the dates when they began
>stress relieving reads like this:
>
> date manufacturer
>1. ???? Trek
>
>As for the vast improvements, that's a reasonable description of the
>quote from your 3rd edition, the one that you ignored while claiming
>that it was somehow Jim Beam.
>
>You don't seem to distinguish between the spoke improvements that you
>wrote about in 1993, the ones that would have made it difficult
>discover your "concepts," and your new theory that "major
>manufacturers" are stress-relieving their wheels.
>
>Are you saying that Trek wheels need no stress-relief, but that all
>other wheels do? The question is serious, since you seem to have come
>up with a new approach.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

Someone piss in your wheaties?

Ron

Date: 18 Sep 2006 18:26:41
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:59:39 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:51:35 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>On 18 Sep 2006 18:28:13 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>
>>>Carl Fogel writes:
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> The measured results are that wheels using elbow spokes are all
>>>>> stress relieved by the major manufacturers. Spoke failure has been
>>>>> reduced to poorly built wheels.
>>>
>>>> Please list the "major manufacturers" who stress-relieve their
>>>> wheels and when they began doing so.
>>>
>>>I mentioned TREK as one who support whees on a rim support and
>>>hydraulically push the hub laterally out of center with a designed
>>>load. The wheel is then turned over and the operation repeated. This
>>>method works ideally because it does not overload the rim in hoop
>>>stress, one set of spokes becoming looser while the other, tighter.
>>>It also does not cause any local rim distortion.
>>>
>>>> As far as I know, none of them have ever released any fatigue test
>>>> data.
>>>
>>>Why should they? You haven't seen any such data for spokes, chains,
>>>bar stems, cranks, seat posts...
>>>
>>>> Do you consider this more important than the "better spokes" that
>>>> you credited with vast improvements between 1981 and 1993?
>>>
>>>You keep repeating this jim beam mantra. It has been answered often.
>>>Where did I write "vast improvement"?
>>>
>>>> "It appears that the better spokes now available would have made the
>>>> discovery of many of the concepts of this book more difficult for
>>>> lack of failure data. I am grateful in retrospect for the poor
>>>> durability of earlier spokes. They operated so near their limits
>>>> that durability was significantly altered by the techniques that I
>>>> have outlined." --Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition,
>>>> 1993, p.124
>>>
>>>As you may have noticed, we still get reports from people with wheels
>>>whose spokes break; wheels not purchased from TREK for instance. At
>>>TREK, Damon Rinard oversees this process. You may recall reading his
>>>contributions here on wreck.bike before he went to TREK.
>>>
>>>Also, some wheels now use straight pull spokes (no elbow) that can
>>>be stress relieved during manufacture after head and threads have been
>>>formed, the spoke form not being altered in wheel building.
>>>
>>>You must have given the straight pull spoke some thought. It is not
>>>without reason that manufacturers went to that design in spite of
>>>better steel spoke materials. Many did not realized the cause of
>>>spoke failures and took the obvious route of eliminating the elbow,
>>>while at the same time making a more complicated and expensive hub.
>>>Since today's bicyclists seem to be rich enough to afford these
>>>wheels, we hear few complaints. The $50 wheel is long gone and so are
>>>simple sturdy rims that aren't welded, anodized, and machined; ones
>>>that worked perfectly with thousands of miles use.
>>>
>>>Jobst Brandt
>>
>>Dear Jobst,
>>
>>So your list of major manufacturers and the dates when they began
>>stress relieving reads like this:
>>
>> date manufacturer
>>1. ???? Trek
>>
>>As for the vast improvements, that's a reasonable description of the
>>quote from your 3rd edition, the one that you ignored while claiming
>>that it was somehow Jim Beam.
>>
>>You don't seem to distinguish between the spoke improvements that you
>>wrote about in 1993, the ones that would have made it difficult
>>discover your "concepts," and your new theory that "major
>>manufacturers" are stress-relieving their wheels.
>>
>>Are you saying that Trek wheels need no stress-relief, but that all
>>other wheels do? The question is serious, since you seem to have come
>>up with a new approach.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>
>Someone piss in your wheaties?
>
>Ron

Dear Ron,

No.

But someone did write that major manufacturers do something.

So I asked who they are and when they started doing it.

A long answer tended to obscure the lack any dates and a list
consisting of only one manufacturer.

If anyone has a list of major manufacturers that do what Jobst claimst
they do, that would be interesting.

Even more interesting would be when they began doing it.

Did they begin doing it before or after 1993?

That's when Jobst added a note to his 3rd edition that improvements in
spoke quality (presumably since his first edition in 1981) would have
made it much harder for him to come up with his theory.

So is the improvement in spoke durability due priily to better
spoke quality, to what unnamed major wheel manufacturers do after they
build the wheels, both, or what?

What would you expect the response would be if I were to write that
major manufacturers are doing something and that what they do proves
some favorite point of mine (whether it does is another matter) . . .

But I failed to name more than one manufactuer or give any dates when
they'd begun doing it after I was asked to please list them?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 18 Sep 2006 21:30:21
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:26:41 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:59:39 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:51:35 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>On 18 Sep 2006 18:28:13 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>Carl Fogel writes:
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> The measured results are that wheels using elbow spokes are all
>>>>>> stress relieved by the major manufacturers. Spoke failure has been
>>>>>> reduced to poorly built wheels.
>>>>
>>>>> Please list the "major manufacturers" who stress-relieve their
>>>>> wheels and when they began doing so.
>>>>
>>>>I mentioned TREK as one who support whees on a rim support and
>>>>hydraulically push the hub laterally out of center with a designed
>>>>load. The wheel is then turned over and the operation repeated. This
>>>>method works ideally because it does not overload the rim in hoop
>>>>stress, one set of spokes becoming looser while the other, tighter.
>>>>It also does not cause any local rim distortion.
>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, none of them have ever released any fatigue test
>>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>>Why should they? You haven't seen any such data for spokes, chains,
>>>>bar stems, cranks, seat posts...
>>>>
>>>>> Do you consider this more important than the "better spokes" that
>>>>> you credited with vast improvements between 1981 and 1993?
>>>>
>>>>You keep repeating this jim beam mantra. It has been answered often.
>>>>Where did I write "vast improvement"?
>>>>
>>>>> "It appears that the better spokes now available would have made the
>>>>> discovery of many of the concepts of this book more difficult for
>>>>> lack of failure data. I am grateful in retrospect for the poor
>>>>> durability of earlier spokes. They operated so near their limits
>>>>> that durability was significantly altered by the techniques that I
>>>>> have outlined." --Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition,
>>>>> 1993, p.124
>>>>
>>>>As you may have noticed, we still get reports from people with wheels
>>>>whose spokes break; wheels not purchased from TREK for instance. At
>>>>TREK, Damon Rinard oversees this process. You may recall reading his
>>>>contributions here on wreck.bike before he went to TREK.
>>>>
>>>>Also, some wheels now use straight pull spokes (no elbow) that can
>>>>be stress relieved during manufacture after head and threads have been
>>>>formed, the spoke form not being altered in wheel building.
>>>>
>>>>You must have given the straight pull spoke some thought. It is not
>>>>without reason that manufacturers went to that design in spite of
>>>>better steel spoke materials. Many did not realized the cause of
>>>>spoke failures and took the obvious route of eliminating the elbow,
>>>>while at the same time making a more complicated and expensive hub.
>>>>Since today's bicyclists seem to be rich enough to afford these
>>>>wheels, we hear few complaints. The $50 wheel is long gone and so are
>>>>simple sturdy rims that aren't welded, anodized, and machined; ones
>>>>that worked perfectly with thousands of miles use.
>>>>
>>>>Jobst Brandt
>>>
>>>Dear Jobst,
>>>
>>>So your list of major manufacturers and the dates when they began
>>>stress relieving reads like this:
>>>
>>> date manufacturer
>>>1. ???? Trek
>>>
>>>As for the vast improvements, that's a reasonable description of the
>>>quote from your 3rd edition, the one that you ignored while claiming
>>>that it was somehow Jim Beam.
>>>
>>>You don't seem to distinguish between the spoke improvements that you
>>>wrote about in 1993, the ones that would have made it difficult
>>>discover your "concepts," and your new theory that "major
>>>manufacturers" are stress-relieving their wheels.
>>>
>>>Are you saying that Trek wheels need no stress-relief, but that all
>>>other wheels do? The question is serious, since you seem to have come
>>>up with a new approach.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Carl Fogel
>>
>>Someone piss in your wheaties?
>>
>>Ron
>
>Dear Ron,
>
>No.
>
>But someone did write that major manufacturers do something.
>
>So I asked who they are and when they started doing it.
>
>A long answer tended to obscure the lack any dates and a list
>consisting of only one manufacturer.
>
>If anyone has a list of major manufacturers that do what Jobst claimst
>they do, that would be interesting.
>
>Even more interesting would be when they began doing it.
>
>Did they begin doing it before or after 1993?
>
>That's when Jobst added a note to his 3rd edition that improvements in
>spoke quality (presumably since his first edition in 1981) would have
>made it much harder for him to come up with his theory.
>
>So is the improvement in spoke durability due priily to better
>spoke quality, to what unnamed major wheel manufacturers do after they
>build the wheels, both, or what?
>
>What would you expect the response would be if I were to write that
>major manufacturers are doing something and that what they do proves
>some favorite point of mine (whether it does is another matter) . . .
>
>But I failed to name more than one manufactuer or give any dates when
>they'd begun doing it after I was asked to please list them?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

That a thing is a favorite point of yours, whether proven by the actions of
manufacturers or not, does not mean that it must be important to me. He does
seem to not go on about the subject quite as much as you.

Trek / Bontrager - a fairly successful outfit - known to be pretty solid in the
engineering department - seems to agree that this is a necessary step in wheel
production. Is that sufficient to prove that Jobst isn't just some crank with an
Art Bell theory? Probably. Was there any other major question in play?

Here's a guy who has this empirical data on building wheels, he's developed
procedures from this that lots of people use to build wheels that make them
happy. And ... what? Okay, he's an ass, and rude besides. And ... ? Spokes are
better than previously. So ... ? Yeah, he thinks he knows more about
puncturevine than you ... ?

If it makes you happy, don't squeeze your spokes. That'll show him.

Ron

Date: 18 Sep 2006 20:45:11
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:30:21 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:26:41 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:59:39 -0400, RonSonic
>><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:51:35 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 18 Sep 2006 18:28:13 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Carl Fogel writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The measured results are that wheels using elbow spokes are all
>>>>>>> stress relieved by the major manufacturers. Spoke failure has been
>>>>>>> reduced to poorly built wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please list the "major manufacturers" who stress-relieve their
>>>>>> wheels and when they began doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>>I mentioned TREK as one who support whees on a rim support and
>>>>>hydraulically push the hub laterally out of center with a designed
>>>>>load. The wheel is then turned over and the operation repeated. This
>>>>>method works ideally because it does not overload the rim in hoop
>>>>>stress, one set of spokes becoming looser while the other, tighter.
>>>>>It also does not cause any local rim distortion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I know, none of them have ever released any fatigue test
>>>>>> data.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why should they? You haven't seen any such data for spokes, chains,
>>>>>bar stems, cranks, seat posts...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you consider this more important than the "better spokes" that
>>>>>> you credited with vast improvements between 1981 and 1993?
>>>>>
>>>>>You keep repeating this jim beam mantra. It has been answered often.
>>>>>Where did I write "vast improvement"?
>>>>>
>>>>>> "It appears that the better spokes now available would have made the
>>>>>> discovery of many of the concepts of this book more difficult for
>>>>>> lack of failure data. I am grateful in retrospect for the poor
>>>>>> durability of earlier spokes. They operated so near their limits
>>>>>> that durability was significantly altered by the techniques that I
>>>>>> have outlined." --Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition,
>>>>>> 1993, p.124
>>>>>
>>>>>As you may have noticed, we still get reports from people with wheels
>>>>>whose spokes break; wheels not purchased from TREK for instance. At
>>>>>TREK, Damon Rinard oversees this process. You may recall reading his
>>>>>contributions here on wreck.bike before he went to TREK.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, some wheels now use straight pull spokes (no elbow) that can
>>>>>be stress relieved during manufacture after head and threads have been
>>>>>formed, the spoke form not being altered in wheel building.
>>>>>
>>>>>You must have given the straight pull spoke some thought. It is not
>>>>>without reason that manufacturers went to that design in spite of
>>>>>better steel spoke materials. Many did not realized the cause of
>>>>>spoke failures and took the obvious route of eliminating the elbow,
>>>>>while at the same time making a more complicated and expensive hub.
>>>>>Since today's bicyclists seem to be rich enough to afford these
>>>>>wheels, we hear few complaints. The $50 wheel is long gone and so are
>>>>>simple sturdy rims that aren't welded, anodized, and machined; ones
>>>>>that worked perfectly with thousands of miles use.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jobst Brandt
>>>>
>>>>Dear Jobst,
>>>>
>>>>So your list of major manufacturers and the dates when they began
>>>>stress relieving reads like this:
>>>>
>>>> date manufacturer
>>>>1. ???? Trek
>>>>
>>>>As for the vast improvements, that's a reasonable description of the
>>>>quote from your 3rd edition, the one that you ignored while claiming
>>>>that it was somehow Jim Beam.
>>>>
>>>>You don't seem to distinguish between the spoke improvements that you
>>>>wrote about in 1993, the ones that would have made it difficult
>>>>discover your "concepts," and your new theory that "major
>>>>manufacturers" are stress-relieving their wheels.
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying that Trek wheels need no stress-relief, but that all
>>>>other wheels do? The question is serious, since you seem to have come
>>>>up with a new approach.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>Carl Fogel
>>>
>>>Someone piss in your wheaties?
>>>
>>>Ron
>>
>>Dear Ron,
>>
>>No.
>>
>>But someone did write that major manufacturers do something.
>>
>>So I asked who they are and when they started doing it.
>>
>>A long answer tended to obscure the lack any dates and a list
>>consisting of only one manufacturer.
>>
>>If anyone has a list of major manufacturers that do what Jobst claimst
>>they do, that would be interesting.
>>
>>Even more interesting would be when they began doing it.
>>
>>Did they begin doing it before or after 1993?
>>
>>That's when Jobst added a note to his 3rd edition that improvements in
>>spoke quality (presumably since his first edition in 1981) would have
>>made it much harder for him to come up with his theory.
>>
>>So is the improvement in spoke durability due priily to better
>>spoke quality, to what unnamed major wheel manufacturers do after they
>>build the wheels, both, or what?
>>
>>What would you expect the response would be if I were to write that
>>major manufacturers are doing something and that what they do proves
>>some favorite point of mine (whether it does is another matter) . . .
>>
>>But I failed to name more than one manufactuer or give any dates when
>>they'd begun doing it after I was asked to please list them?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>
>That a thing is a favorite point of yours, whether proven by the actions of
>manufacturers or not, does not mean that it must be important to me. He does
>seem to not go on about the subject quite as much as you.
>
>Trek / Bontrager - a fairly successful outfit - known to be pretty solid in the
>engineering department - seems to agree that this is a necessary step in wheel
>production. Is that sufficient to prove that Jobst isn't just some crank with an
>Art Bell theory? Probably. Was there any other major question in play?
>
>Here's a guy who has this empirical data on building wheels, he's developed
>procedures from this that lots of people use to build wheels that make them
>happy. And ... what? Okay, he's an ass, and rude besides. And ... ? Spokes are
>better than previously. So ... ? Yeah, he thinks he knows more about
>puncturevine than you ... ?
>
>If it makes you happy, don't squeeze your spokes. That'll show him.
>
>Ron

Dear Ron,

Actually, we take turns provoking each other about our (not just mine)
favorite subject.

No, it's not sufficient to say that someone else does it--everyone
used to tie and solder spokes.

And no, even if Trek does squeeze spokes with a press, it doesn't show
whether it does any good unless there's some data, as opposed to
alleged data.

And no, even if spoke-pressing did produce greater durability, it
still wouldn't show whether it was due to microscopic stress relief or
to better seating.

In any case, my question still stands. Jobst now claims that "major
manufacturers" are squashing spokes, but when asked who they are and
when they started, he came came up with four letters and no numerals
in a long and evasive post:

date manufacturer
1. ???? Trek

If you or Jobst or anyone else knows of other manufacturers, that
would be welcome and interesting news. But until then, the lack of
names and dates makes the claim look a bit like myth and--

Well, you get the idea.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 19 Sep 2006 10:20:41
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:45:11 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:30:21 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:26:41 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:59:39 -0400, RonSonic
>>><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:51:35 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 18 Sep 2006 18:28:13 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Carl Fogel writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The measured results are that wheels using elbow spokes are all
>>>>>>>> stress relieved by the major manufacturers. Spoke failure has been
>>>>>>>> reduced to poorly built wheels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please list the "major manufacturers" who stress-relieve their
>>>>>>> wheels and when they began doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I mentioned TREK as one who support whees on a rim support and
>>>>>>hydraulically push the hub laterally out of center with a designed
>>>>>>load. The wheel is then turned over and the operation repeated. This
>>>>>>method works ideally because it does not overload the rim in hoop
>>>>>>stress, one set of spokes becoming looser while the other, tighter.
>>>>>>It also does not cause any local rim distortion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as I know, none of them have ever released any fatigue test
>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why should they? You haven't seen any such data for spokes, chains,
>>>>>>bar stems, cranks, seat posts...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you consider this more important than the "better spokes" that
>>>>>>> you credited with vast improvements between 1981 and 1993?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You keep repeating this jim beam mantra. It has been answered often.
>>>>>>Where did I write "vast improvement"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It appears that the better spokes now available would have made the
>>>>>>> discovery of many of the concepts of this book more difficult for
>>>>>>> lack of failure data. I am grateful in retrospect for the poor
>>>>>>> durability of earlier spokes. They operated so near their limits
>>>>>>> that durability was significantly altered by the techniques that I
>>>>>>> have outlined." --Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition,
>>>>>>> 1993, p.124
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As you may have noticed, we still get reports from people with wheels
>>>>>>whose spokes break; wheels not purchased from TREK for instance. At
>>>>>>TREK, Damon Rinard oversees this process. You may recall reading his
>>>>>>contributions here on wreck.bike before he went to TREK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also, some wheels now use straight pull spokes (no elbow) that can
>>>>>>be stress relieved during manufacture after head and threads have been
>>>>>>formed, the spoke form not being altered in wheel building.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You must have given the straight pull spoke some thought. It is not
>>>>>>without reason that manufacturers went to that design in spite of
>>>>>>better steel spoke materials. Many did not realized the cause of
>>>>>>spoke failures and took the obvious route of eliminating the elbow,
>>>>>>while at the same time making a more complicated and expensive hub.
>>>>>>Since today's bicyclists seem to be rich enough to afford these
>>>>>>wheels, we hear few complaints. The $50 wheel is long gone and so are
>>>>>>simple sturdy rims that aren't welded, anodized, and machined; ones
>>>>>>that worked perfectly with thousands of miles use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jobst Brandt
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear Jobst,
>>>>>
>>>>>So your list of major manufacturers and the dates when they began
>>>>>stress relieving reads like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> date manufacturer
>>>>>1. ???? Trek
>>>>>
>>>>>As for the vast improvements, that's a reasonable description of the
>>>>>quote from your 3rd edition, the one that you ignored while claiming
>>>>>that it was somehow Jim Beam.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't seem to distinguish between the spoke improvements that you
>>>>>wrote about in 1993, the ones that would have made it difficult
>>>>>discover your "concepts," and your new theory that "major
>>>>>manufacturers" are stress-relieving their wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you saying that Trek wheels need no stress-relief, but that all
>>>>>other wheels do? The question is serious, since you seem to have come
>>>>>up with a new approach.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>Carl Fogel
>>>>
>>>>Someone piss in your wheaties?
>>>>
>>>>Ron
>>>
>>>Dear Ron,
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>But someone did write that major manufacturers do something.
>>>
>>>So I asked who they are and when they started doing it.
>>>
>>>A long answer tended to obscure the lack any dates and a list
>>>consisting of only one manufacturer.
>>>
>>>If anyone has a list of major manufacturers that do what Jobst claimst
>>>they do, that would be interesting.
>>>
>>>Even more interesting would be when they began doing it.
>>>
>>>Did they begin doing it before or after 1993?
>>>
>>>That's when Jobst added a note to his 3rd edition that improvements in
>>>spoke quality (presumably since his first edition in 1981) would have
>>>made it much harder for him to come up with his theory.
>>>
>>>So is the improvement in spoke durability due priily to better
>>>spoke quality, to what unnamed major wheel manufacturers do after they
>>>build the wheels, both, or what?
>>>
>>>What would you expect the response would be if I were to write that
>>>major manufacturers are doing something and that what they do proves
>>>some favorite point of mine (whether it does is another matter) . . .
>>>
>>>But I failed to name more than one manufactuer or give any dates when
>>>they'd begun doing it after I was asked to please list them?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Carl Fogel
>>
>>That a thing is a favorite point of yours, whether proven by the actions of
>>manufacturers or not, does not mean that it must be important to me. He does
>>seem to not go on about the subject quite as much as you.
>>
>>Trek / Bontrager - a fairly successful outfit - known to be pretty solid in the
>>engineering department - seems to agree that this is a necessary step in wheel
>>production. Is that sufficient to prove that Jobst isn't just some crank with an
>>Art Bell theory? Probably. Was there any other major question in play?
>>
>>Here's a guy who has this empirical data on building wheels, he's developed
>>procedures from this that lots of people use to build wheels that make them
>>happy. And ... what? Okay, he's an ass, and rude besides. And ... ? Spokes are
>>better than previously. So ... ? Yeah, he thinks he knows more about
>>puncturevine than you ... ?
>>
>>If it makes you happy, don't squeeze your spokes. That'll show him.
>>
>>Ron
>
>Dear Ron,
>
>Actually, we take turns provoking each other about our (not just mine)
>favorite subject.
>
>No, it's not sufficient to say that someone else does it--everyone
>used to tie and solder spokes.
>
>And no, even if Trek does squeeze spokes with a press, it doesn't show
>whether it does any good unless there's some data, as opposed to
>alleged data.
>
>And no, even if spoke-pressing did produce greater durability, it
>still wouldn't show whether it was due to microscopic stress relief or
>to better seating.
>
>In any case, my question still stands. Jobst now claims that "major
>manufacturers" are squashing spokes, but when asked who they are and
>when they started, he came came up with four letters and no numerals
>in a long and evasive post:
>
> date manufacturer
>1. ???? Trek
>
>If you or Jobst or anyone else knows of other manufacturers, that
>would be welcome and interesting news. But until then, the lack of
>names and dates makes the claim look a bit like myth and--
>
>Well, you get the idea.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

They tell me that if you move one more ring inward you get to literally gnaw on
each other's limbs.

I'll bugger off now.

Ron

Date: 19 Sep 2006 11:07:38
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:20:41 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

[snip]

>They tell me that if you move one more ring inward you get to literally gnaw on
>each other's limbs.
>
>I'll bugger off now.
>
>Ron

Dear Dante,

S�io credesse che mia risposta fosse
A persona che mai tornasse al mondo,
Questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse.
Ma perciocche giammai di questo fondo
Non torno vivo alcun, s�i�odo il vero,
Senza tema d�infamia ti rispondo.

Technically, it's another ring downward.

Say hi to Beatrice for me.

Cheers,

Guido M.

Date: 19 Sep 2006 17:51:53
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:07:38 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:20:41 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>They tell me that if you move one more ring inward you get to literally gnaw on
>>each other's limbs.
>>
>>I'll bugger off now.
>>
>>Ron
>
>Dear Dante,
>
>S�io credesse che mia risposta fosse
> A persona che mai tornasse al mondo,
> Questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse.
> Ma perciocche giammai di questo fondo
> Non torno vivo alcun, s�i�odo il vero,
> Senza tema d�infamia ti rispondo.
>
>Technically, it's another ring downward.
>
>Say hi to Beatrice for me.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Guido M.

I made it out once.

Ron

Date: 14 Sep 2006 21:12:16
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

werty@swissinfo.org wrote:
> threaded end , the nipple is cross threaded or the flats turn into
> rounds
> ......
> BTW
> I use old cassette bearing botom brackets that have the strate
> 15 mm ? shaft , put 6003 bearings on and taper the 6003 outer race
> and hog out the shell .....
> 20 years of "low" friction riding ! The friction is lower
> than a $200 Campy !
> Next i'll do bulk 15mm hard steel tubing and
> cut an old bike hub and push this tube
> into it .
> Next mod the fork to hold the outer race of a 6002 2rs
> and slip the bearings on the "shaft" , but the quick release
> is now 2 clamps that bind the 6002's into their beds on the fork .
>
> But rear hub is more exciting . It can be very rigid now ,as the
> bearings are no where near the hub ! Its one piece !
> can be made stronger ...
>
> Shifters must be general purpose spring return levers that return
> so you can pull again if it did not go far enough . Too much
> and you must pull the other lever next to it .
> was it 3 pulls or 4 for 7 th gear ??? No , just pull til noise stops
> ...
>
> Welded alum frames maybe worse than brazed ...
> why cant they heat treat the dbl butted alum tube and braze it into
> alum lugs , worked OK on steel for 100 years ....

If one combines the writing styles of Peter Chisholm and gene
daniels....

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
I am supporting cannibalism by eating more nuts.

Date: 14 Sep 2006 19:54:10
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

threaded end , the nipple is cross threaded or the flats turn into
rounds
......
BTW
I use old cassette bearing botom brackets that have the strate
15 mm ? shaft , put 6003 bearings on and taper the 6003 outer race
and hog out the shell .....
20 years of "low" friction riding ! The friction is lower
than a $200 Campy !
Next i'll do bulk 15mm hard steel tubing and
cut an old bike hub and push this tube
into it .
Next mod the fork to hold the outer race of a 6002 2rs
and slip the bearings on the "shaft" , but the quick release
is now 2 clamps that bind the 6002's into their beds on the fork .

But rear hub is more exciting . It can be very rigid now ,as the
bearings are no where near the hub ! Its one piece !
can be made stronger ...

Shifters must be general purpose spring return levers that return
so you can pull again if it did not go far enough . Too much
and you must pull the other lever next to it .
was it 3 pulls or 4 for 7 th gear ??? No , just pull til noise stops
...

Welded alum frames maybe worse than brazed ...
why cant they heat treat the dbl butted alum tube and braze it into
alum lugs , worked OK on steel for 100 years ....

dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> Nate Knutson wrote:
> >>
> > One of the questions I have about what Jobst says is whether it would
> > be an issue to remove spokes from their wheels and use them in new
> > wheels if you kept track of which were inbound and which were outbound.
> >
> >
> > It should be noted that Jobst is talking about quality, stainless steel
> > spokes that were stress relieved by the wheelbuilder to begin with.
> > Spokes that have never been stress relieved can be assumed to have
> > accumulated some amount of fatigue, weakening them and (by my
> > understanding) possibly putting at least some spokes beyond the point
> > where stress relieving them now will prevent breakage in the future.
> >
> > Re-using non-stainless spokes of any kind is probably not worth it -
> > you're likely to run into corrosion problems on most of the wheels
> > you'd be getting them from, and you can pretty much assume none of them
> > have ever been stress relieved.
>
> It is always interesting to read about things like high end electronics
> and high cost bicycle equipment.
>
> When one buys new spokes, do they come in two packs, one for inbound
> and one for outbound? My guess is that they do not. There is not a
> lot of difference in the angle.
> What would be an interesting experiment, would be to lace up a wheel
> with used spokes. And lace it with half of the wheel having spokes
> where the used inbound spokes are used for inbound and the used
> outbound spokes are used for outbound.
> But with the other half of the wheel laced where the used inbound
> spokes are used as outbound spokes, etc. One could use the valve hole
> to keep track of which side of the wheel had the position preserved.
>
> When bike spokes fail, do they normally fail at the hub end? Or do
> they fail at the threaded end?
>
> I am also interested in how the wheel builder stress relieves spokes.
> And does an additional stress relief after some use affect the fatique
> life. I would think that one could increase fatique life by stress
> relieving before ever using something, but question whether performing
> an additional stress relief after some amount of use, would add to the
> fatique life.
>
> Dan

Date: 14 Sep 2006 19:01:54
From: The Dougster
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

My thanks for a lively, educational thread.

Doug

Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:55:40
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

The Dougster wrote:
> Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?

Put the old spokes under the pillow and see what the spoke faerie
brings you in exchange.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
I am supporting cannibalism by eating more nuts.

Date: 12 Sep 2006 12:36:05
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> The Dougster wrote:
> > Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?
> >
> > Doug Goncz
> > Replikon Research
> > Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394
>
> Makes nice jewelry..If they are DT, I will reuse them if the rim is
> the same ERD, if I built the wheel orginally.

Only if it's the exact same ERD? (not challenging it, just a question.)

Date: 12 Sep 2006 06:15:07
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

The Dougster wrote:
> Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?
>
> Doug Goncz
> Replikon Research
> Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

Makes nice jewelry..If they are DT, I will reuse them if the rim is
the same ERD, if I built the wheel orginally.

Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:16:14
From: john
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

-Snip-
>
> I didn't recall any mention of eddy current testing, so I searched the
> archives with hope:
>
> "Broek p.375 refers to eddy current inspection, apparently 3 mm is the
> smallest detectible 50% of time... and I get the feeling these were
> surface flaws.... even 9mm cracks were not all reliably detected. On a
> handlebar, that's proof testing time!"
> --Jim Papadopoulos, 1994
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/30968153aa49eca3
>
> Alas, a spoke elbow is only 2mm wide, so any residual stresses that
> take thousands or tens of thousands of miles to cause spoke failure
> are unlikely to show up on an eddy current crack inspector, unless the
> resolution has increased several orders of magnitude in the last
> decade.
>
> Drat!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Hi Carl

I believe that eddy current testing can be used for more that crack
detection. Whether or not it can determine the state of the grain in
steel, I don't know. It seems that in my memory from the dim past that
it can. ET is one of the few NDT methods that I've never been certified
in. I have all of ~2 days experience with it :-)

John

Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:14:14
From: john
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:54:20
From: john
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Ed Huntress wrote:

-snip-

>
> OK, I read your post carefully tonight. I'm probably not following the whole
> explanation but I don't see any place where stress-relief could occur.
> You're changing tensions, probably, and there's probably some plastic
> deformation going on that changes the preloads and load angles -- in which
> directions, I can only guess.
>
> But the standard engineering definition of residual stress refers to
> internal tensions and compressions that are due to differential expansion or
> contraction within the material. For example, when you heat-treat a thick
> piece of carbon steel, you typically have tensite on the outside and
> ferrite on the inside. tensite is less dense than ferrite, which means
> the outside has expanded. Thus, the ferrite inside is loaded in sheer
> against the tensite on the outside. It may not bend the material if the
> heat treatment is uniform, but the skin and the core are both under stress,
> which is residual stress from the effects of heat treatment.
>
> Tempering (heating to a temperature somewhat below the critical temperature)
> will relieve some of the stresses by a couple of mechanisms; the one that's
> relevant here is allowing a slight slippage at grain boundaries due to the
> elevated temperature (purists will also note that tempering converts a small
> fraction of the tensite back into ferrite, thus lowering the differential
> expansion/contraction). Normalizing, which is conducted at higher
> temperatures, relieves still more stress. "Stress-relieving," done at still
> higher temperatures and for longer times, relieves still more. Heating above
> the critical (Curie) temperature and cooling the piece slowly will anneal
> it, which should eliminate all internal stress if it's done properly.
>
> That's the documented way to stress-relieve steel that has residual
> stresses. There is a cold method known as vibratory stress relief which
> remains somewhat controversial but which does seem to relieve at least the
> more severe stresses, as from welding.
>
> I've not heard of any cold-working method other than sustained
> high-frequency vibration that relieves internal stresses. But I've been away
> from the field for a few years and I may have missed something anyway. Just
> projecting from the standard theory and practice, though, I can't see any
> way that just squeezing spokes as you describe could actually relieve
> residual stresses in a spoke.
>
> I'm open to further education on the subject.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Hi Ed

I've always been under the impression that the stress left in, say, a
plate of steel or a spoke after cold bending was called residual
stress. Isn't that also residual stress?

Regards, John

Date: 11 Sep 2006 18:51:02
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Andrew VK3BFA wrote:
> ...
> 1. Cut in 6 inch lengths, stick in your herb pots, stops bloody cats
> sleeping on them. (having great trouble with my Italian Parsley at the
> moment..)....

Never forget that God may be a Siamese cat.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
I am supporting cannibalism by eating more nuts.

Date: 11 Sep 2006 12:32:19
From: john
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Ed Huntress wrote >

-snip-

> Sometime I have to look into this. As the former materials and heat-treating
> editor for metalworking magazines, I have to see how they claim that any
> kind of cold work is going to relieve stress in any grade of steel -- with
> the single exception of high-frequency vibratory stress relief.
>
> I don't doubt that it does something useful, but relieving internal stresses
> at a "microscopic level" by low-frequency cold work of any kind would be a
> new one in the world of metallurgical science.
>
> Artisans in a number of fields use the term "stress relieving" differently
> than engineers and scientists do. There's nothing wrong with that but it
> does lead to some confusion.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Dear Ed

If a 'stress relieved' spoke is truly stress relieved would standard
metallography techniques to show this difference? Or stated
differently, if there is no difference between a 'stress relieved'
spoke & an as manufactured one, would the non- difference shown in the
metallograph be proof that there is no difference?
('Stress relieved' in this case meaning 'squeezed spokes', only)

What about eddy current?

Thanks, John

Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:03:05
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

"john" <jdrew96@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158003139.915653.10670@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Ed Huntress wrote>
>
> -snip-
>
>> Sometime I have to look into this. As the former materials and
>> heat-treating
>> editor for metalworking magazines, I have to see how they claim that any
>> kind of cold work is going to relieve stress in any grade of steel --
>> with
>> the single exception of high-frequency vibratory stress relief.
>>
>> I don't doubt that it does something useful, but relieving internal
>> stresses
>> at a "microscopic level" by low-frequency cold work of any kind would be
>> a
>> new one in the world of metallurgical science.
>>
>> Artisans in a number of fields use the term "stress relieving"
>> differently
>> than engineers and scientists do. There's nothing wrong with that but it
>> does lead to some confusion.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> Dear Ed
>
> If a 'stress relieved' spoke is truly stress relieved would standard
> metallography techniques to show this difference? Or stated
> differently, if there is no difference between a 'stress relieved'
> spoke & an as manufactured one, would the non- difference shown in the
> metallograph be proof that there is no difference?
> ('Stress relieved' in this case meaning 'squeezed spokes', only)

If you followed that NIST paper that Carl linked to, you'll see what I think
is the last word in stress analysis. I don't know if it works on something
as thin as a bicycle spoke.

Now I'm reaching into dim areas of memory, but I think that metallographic
etching and microscopy will show only a qualitative state of stress, and
only to an expert. I don't think it will tell you anything about how much
stress there is, nor what effect it would have on performance of the part.

Beyond that, I know of no other methods used in production testing. Maybe
there's something in lab metallography.
>
> What about eddy current?

Again, I've never heard of it being used on something this skinny.

A call to the metallurgy department of a university that covers a lot of
mechanical engineering might get you a good answer -- Purdue, Mich. State,
Ohio State, etc. That's where I'd go with it now, if I had to write about
it.

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:32:17
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:03:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net > wrote:

>"john" <jdrew96@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1158003139.915653.10670@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote>
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>>> Sometime I have to look into this. As the former materials and
>>> heat-treating
>>> editor for metalworking magazines, I have to see how they claim that any
>>> kind of cold work is going to relieve stress in any grade of steel --
>>> with
>>> the single exception of high-frequency vibratory stress relief.
>>>
>>> I don't doubt that it does something useful, but relieving internal
>>> stresses
>>> at a "microscopic level" by low-frequency cold work of any kind would be
>>> a
>>> new one in the world of metallurgical science.
>>>
>>> Artisans in a number of fields use the term "stress relieving"
>>> differently
>>> than engineers and scientists do. There's nothing wrong with that but it
>>> does lead to some confusion.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>> Dear Ed
>>
>> If a 'stress relieved' spoke is truly stress relieved would standard
>> metallography techniques to show this difference? Or stated
>> differently, if there is no difference between a 'stress relieved'
>> spoke & an as manufactured one, would the non- difference shown in the
>> metallograph be proof that there is no difference?
>> ('Stress relieved' in this case meaning 'squeezed spokes', only)
>
>If you followed that NIST paper that Carl linked to, you'll see what I think
>is the last word in stress analysis. I don't know if it works on something
>as thin as a bicycle spoke.
>
>Now I'm reaching into dim areas of memory, but I think that metallographic
>etching and microscopy will show only a qualitative state of stress, and
>only to an expert. I don't think it will tell you anything about how much
>stress there is, nor what effect it would have on performance of the part.
>
>Beyond that, I know of no other methods used in production testing. Maybe
>there's something in lab metallography.
>>
>> What about eddy current?
>
>Again, I've never heard of it being used on something this skinny.
>
>A call to the metallurgy department of a university that covers a lot of
>mechanical engineering might get you a good answer -- Purdue, Mich. State,
>Ohio State, etc. That's where I'd go with it now, if I had to write about
>it.

Dear Ed,

I didn't recall any mention of eddy current testing, so I searched the
archives with hope:

"Broek p.375 refers to eddy current inspection, apparently 3 mm is the
smallest detectible 50% of time... and I get the feeling these were
surface flaws.... even 9mm cracks were not all reliably detected. On a
handlebar, that's proof testing time!"
--Jim Papadopoulos, 1994

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/30968153aa49eca3

Alas, a spoke elbow is only 2mm wide, so any residual stresses that
take thousands or tens of thousands of miles to cause spoke failure
are unlikely to show up on an eddy current crack inspector, unless the
resolution has increased several orders of magnitude in the last
decade.

Drat!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 17 Sep 2006 17:00:14
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:8n6cg21ph94hkgtn2t42v12pnre5tcrugu@4ax.com...

>>> What about eddy current?
>>
>>Again, I've never heard of it being used on something this skinny.
>>
>>A call to the metallurgy department of a university that covers a lot of
>>mechanical engineering might get you a good answer -- Purdue, Mich. State,
>>Ohio State, etc. That's where I'd go with it now, if I had to write about
>>it.
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> I didn't recall any mention of eddy current testing, so I searched the
> archives with hope:
>
> "Broek p.375 refers to eddy current inspection, apparently 3 mm is the
> smallest detectible 50% of time... and I get the feeling these were
> surface flaws.... even 9mm cracks were not all reliably detected. On a
> handlebar, that's proof testing time!"
> --Jim Papadopoulos, 1994
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/30968153aa49eca3
>
> Alas, a spoke elbow is only 2mm wide, so any residual stresses that
> take thousands or tens of thousands of miles to cause spoke failure
> are unlikely to show up on an eddy current crack inspector, unless the
> resolution has increased several orders of magnitude in the last
> decade.
>
> Drat!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Good luck in your pursuit of scientific measures of spoke stress. It is an
interesting question, but I think the experience of wheelbuilders probably
is more important.

I've wrestled with the question a bit over the past week and I think I have
narrowed it down to several questions, none of which I have either the
experience or the resources to answer. <g >

See my response to Jobst.

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 11 Sep 2006 12:17:01
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

The Dougster wrote:

> Would universal use of straight gage S-bend spokes instead of headed
> spokes be a change that would encourage recycling of spokes, rims,
> wheels, and bicycles? Recycling is big with bicyclists. Would it also
> provide a safety problem? Do such spokes eventually unbend or loosen?
> Would S-bend spokes work with automatic wheel builders? It seems that
> they would be easier to use with such equipment.

I have no idea what the in-use mechanical properties of an s-bent spoke
would be. I don't think existing wheelbuilding machines could handle
it, but that's pretty much besides the point since wheelbuilding
machines and machine-built wheels as they exist are all about making a
product built to sell, rather than appropriate use of resources.
Putting these bends in spokes and maintaining an accurate length,
necessary for wheelbuilding, would pretty much require a fixture of
some sort, and at that point it would probably make more sense just to
have a little machine that squashed new heads onto the spokes, as it's
done in the factory (as I understand it).

2 more issues with recycling spokes: they also should have gotten their
angle adjusted near the nipple in many cases, allowing them the
oppurtunity to have accumulated too much stress there to be useful in
the future if they weren't. However, even if the angle was adjusted,
what it gets set to is quite specific to the wheel, more so than at the
hub. Think in terms of the different ERD's and cross patterns a given
length of spoke might be used for. Also, stress relief probably also
affects built-in stresses in the threads themselves. Between these 2
other issues and the fact that it's only a minority of trashed wheels
out there with spokes you'd even want to consider any of this with, and
I don't think what you propose is very practical.

Focus on the fact that wheels with reasonable quality components,
including hubs that are well-designed and built for indefinite use such
as Campy, Shimano (arguable but I think so), Phil, King, etc, quality
spokes, and quality rims are amazingly efficient and durable when built
and maintained right. Hubs and spokes can last basically forever, if
the wheel is built right and the hub is maintained, and rims need only
be replaced due to violence, brake track wear in rim brake wheels, and
extreme fatigue in hub brake wheels. The hard part of this equation to
get right today is rims, because current rims kinda suck in terms of
being utiliitarian, economical, and as long-lived as possible, but
fairly suitable rims are out there. This approach, wheels that are
suitable for serious transportation indefinitely for a fairly low
overall cost in terms of resources, makes much more sense to me than
going to great lengths to try and turn wheels that were never even
meant to be ridden all that much into something they're not. Most of
the hubs will be damaged from not being set up and maintained right,
and many of the rims will have some damage as well.

> Some artists recycle spokes into craft productions like bracelets, key
> rings, etc.
>
> Do double-threaded spokes recycle well? Was that the intent for that
> variety, or was there another reason?
>
>
> The Dougster (I) wrote:
> > Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?
> >
> > Doug Goncz
> > Replikon Research
> > Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:44:30
From: Andrew VK3BFA
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

The Dougster wrote:
> Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?
>
> Doug Goncz
> Replikon Research
> Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

OK, someone has to do it......

Non Bicycle uses for Bicycle spokes

1. Cut in 6 inch lengths, stick in your herb pots, stops bloody cats
sleeping on them. (having great trouble with my Italian Parsley at the
moment..)

2. Stainless steel ones useful for cleaning out the centre pins of
PL259 connectors to re-use them. Ditto for cleaning solder sucker tips.

3. Bent a small hook on one end, useful to hook out swarf from the
lathe mill etc.

4. Again the hook idea - use to fish for dropped stringing lines behind
wall cavities.

5. Support for cables over gantries where some movement is required and
you dont want the cables drooping over the machine.

6. Can be cut down to make quarter wave mobile whips for 70cm band.

7. General poking things with.

They will never replace the wire coat hanger for utilitarian value, but
hey, their free - lots of bicycles left lying around in the
streets........

Any more suggestions?

Andrew VK3BFA.

Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:53:26
From: Jeff R.
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

"Andrew VK3BFA" <ablight@alphalink.com.au > wrote in message
news:1157978670.235654.12090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> OK, someone has to do it......
>
> Non Bicycle uses for Bicycle spokes
> <snip good ideas>

>
> Any more suggestions?
>
> Andrew VK3BFA.

Yup.
Teaching heat treatment of steel to young'uns.
Spokes are quick and easy to harden, and snap like dry spaghetti.
When annealed, you can tie knots in them. (Though annealing requires
pre-prepared samples. Normalised spokes still snap.)
Plus! You can do it all in a regular classroom with just a weeny blowtorch
and a tin of water.

Spokes - or hacksaw blades.
Spokes are more fun and quicker, but hacksaw blades show differential HT
(hard teeth, soft back).

Decisions, decisions. Sometimes I wonder why I don't get an ulcer.

--
Jeff R.

Date: 12 Sep 2006 13:03:18
From: Bioboffin
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Jeff R. wrote:
>
> Decisions, decisions. Sometimes I wonder why I don't get an ulcer.

Maybe because you are not infected with Helicobacter pylori?

http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hpylori/

Date: 13 Sep 2006 01:17:12
From: Jeff R.
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

"Bioboffin" <Reply_to_group@please.invalid > wrote in message
news:qeyNg.20188$7D6.6883@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Jeff R. wrote:
>>
>> Decisions, decisions. Sometimes I wonder why I don't get an ulcer.
>
> Maybe because you are not infected with Helicobacter pylori?
>
> http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hpylori/
>
>

Quite likely. On of the symptoms of infection is weight loss, and that
ain't me, brudder.

(When can one get some of this Helicopter pylon stuff?)

--
Jeff R.

Date: 13 Sep 2006 14:06:21
From: Bioboffin
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Jeff R. wrote:
> "Bioboffin" <Reply_to_group@please.invalid> wrote in message
> news:qeyNg.20188$7D6.6883@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>
>>> Decisions, decisions. Sometimes I wonder why I don't get an ulcer.
>>
>> Maybe because you are not infected with Helicobacter pylori?
>>
>> http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hpylori/
>>
>>
>
> Quite likely. On of the symptoms of infection is weight loss, and
> that ain't me, brudder.
>
> (When can one get some of this Helicopter pylon stuff?)

:-)

I think you catch it from your mother. To be honest, if you don't have it
you don't want it.

--

Take care,

John.

Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:51:42
From: Joshua Putnam
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

In article <1157978670.235654.12090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
ablight@alphalink.com.au says..
> Any more suggestions?
>
> Andrew VK3BFA.

When I broke both arms in a crash some years ago, I found an old spoke
was perfect for scratching an itch way down inside the cast. Stiff,
straight, long enough, flexible, and the threads would scratch an itch
without breaking the skin.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html >

Date: 11 Sep 2006 09:08:44
From: Pat Lamb
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Andrew VK3BFA wrote:
> OK, someone has to do it......
>
> Non Bicycle uses for Bicycle spokes
>
> 1. Cut in 6 inch lengths, stick in your herb pots, stops bloody cats
> sleeping on them. (having great trouble with my Italian Parsley at the
> moment..)
>
> 2. Stainless steel ones useful for cleaning out the centre pins of
> PL259 connectors to re-use them. Ditto for cleaning solder sucker tips.
>
> 3. Bent a small hook on one end, useful to hook out swarf from the
> lathe mill etc.
>
> 4. Again the hook idea - use to fish for dropped stringing lines behind
> wall cavities.
>
> 5. Support for cables over gantries where some movement is required and
> you dont want the cables drooping over the machine.
>
> 6. Can be cut down to make quarter wave mobile whips for 70cm band.
>
> 7. General poking things with.
>
> They will never replace the wire coat hanger for utilitarian value, but
> hey, their free - lots of bicycles left lying around in the
> streets........
>
> Any more suggestions?

You left out 8. Cleaning mud and dog poop out of shoes before coming
inside. I have one (spoke head broke off) stationed outside my back
door just for this.

Pat

Date: 11 Sep 2006 13:14:56
From: John Husvar
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

In article <1157978670.235654.12090@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Andrew VK3BFA" <ablight@alphalink.com.au > wrote:

> The Dougster wrote:
> > Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?
> >
> > Doug Goncz
> > Replikon Research
> > Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394
>
> OK, someone has to do it......
>
> Non Bicycle uses for Bicycle spokes
>
> 1. Cut in 6 inch lengths, stick in your herb pots, stops bloody cats
> sleeping on them. (having great trouble with my Italian Parsley at the
> moment..)
>
> 2. Stainless steel ones useful for cleaning out the centre pins of
> PL259 connectors to re-use them. Ditto for cleaning solder sucker tips.
>
> 3. Bent a small hook on one end, useful to hook out swarf from the
> lathe mill etc.
>
> 4. Again the hook idea - use to fish for dropped stringing lines behind
> wall cavities.
>
> 5. Support for cables over gantries where some movement is required and
> you dont want the cables drooping over the machine.
>
> 6. Can be cut down to make quarter wave mobile whips for 70cm band.
>
> 7. General poking things with.
>

8. Reverse the rim nut, thread partly onto spoke, fill the cavity with
match head material, stuff wooden match into cavity and break off
excess. Heat the head with another match. Enjoy the bang. Works best
with strike-anywhere matches.

BTW: Point away from self and others until the bang happens.

You won't have to ask: "Where's the Kaboom?"

Good firecracker substitute.

We kids in my neighborhood did that a lot when about 12-13 years old.

Of course, we also experimented with homemade explosives too. It was
good we had a big sand pit to play in, and understanding
parents/teachers who'd supervise our efforts to make big bangs and stop
us when we got into things too dangerous.

> They will never replace the wire coat hanger for utilitarian value, but
> hey, their free - lots of bicycles left lying around in the
> streets........
>

Truly!

All hail the humble wire coat hanger, temporary savior of many exhaust
systems, bent doors, shaky fenders -- and a whole lot of other things as
well! Its utility is surpassed only by duct tape. Maybe.

I make belt buckles and rings of three sets of three twisted coat hanger
wires. Looks like a ring of rope when done.

--
Bring back, Oh bring back
Oh, bring back that old continuity.
Bring back, oh, bring back
Oh, bring back Clerk Maxwell to me.

Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:46:41
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> Nate Knutson wrote:
>
> > There is considerable difference after the wheelbuilder deliberately
> > changes the angle of the outer spokes at the hub.
>
> In that case I would think one would not need to keep track of which
> were inbound and which were outbound. It would be obvious by merely
> glancing at the spoke.
>
>
> Dan

Perhaps, but seperating them initially is faster, and spokes with the
angle bent into them are harder to measure accurately.

Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:25:24
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Nate Knutson writes:

>>> There is considerable difference after the wheelbuilder
>>> deliberately changes the angle of the outer spokes at the hub.

>> In that case I would think one would not need to keep track of
>> which were inbound and which were outbound. It would be obvious by
>> merely glancing at the spoke.

> Perhaps, but separating them initially is faster, and spokes with
> the angle bent into them are harder to measure accurately.

It's worse than that. Depending on whether they are left or right
spokes from a rear wheel you have at least three elbow bend effects
from inside to outside spokes. This is not a good idea for the
reasons stated here often... and in "the Bicycle Wheel".

Jobst Brandt

Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:35:58
From: Chris Z The Wheelman
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

I recycle all the metal parts of my bicycle. Either by putting it in my
"parts bin" to be scavanged as needed, or in the appropriate metal bin
at a recycling center.

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:41:58
From: Earl Bollinger
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

"The Dougster" <DGoncz@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1157909157.996585.313200@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?
>
> Doug Goncz
> Replikon Research
> Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394
>

They work as handy parts for Radio Control Model linkage rods. You can put
in a Z-bend on one end too.
The 2x56 threading usually fits the nylon pushrod linkage too.
You can also put in a Z-bend on the unthreaded end and use it as an
emergency spoke replacement on those wheels with a shorter spoke too.
I have bent the unthreaded end, and put on a strong little magnet on it to
use to fish out parts deep inside something before.

Date: 10 Sep 2006 17:29:44
From: dcaster@krl.org
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>
> Dear Dan,
>
> Whew! Glad that you checked before experimenting.
>
> Despite the flames that accompany the topic, pairs of spokes are
> squeezed together to raise tension, not toasted.
>
> Posters who believe that squeezing spokes together raises tension and
> relieves residual stress might disagree with your description of the
> process as "cold forming."
>
> They do bend/cold-form the spokes to get the spokes to lie flatter
> against the hub flange and to change the entry angle at the rim. These
> bends are visible.
>
> But I think that they see this as entirely different from squeezing
> the spokes together to raise tension in hopes of relieving residual
> stresses. Spoke-squeezers often emphasize that this is a microscopic
> change, and they insist that it is not cold-forming.
>
> "Cold-forming" tends to suggest "strain hardening," which is sometimes
> a sub-topic in the debate. In general, spoke squeezers say that what
> they do involves stress-relief, not work or strain hardening, and is
> entirely different from bending things to improve the spoke line.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

I am pretty much of the " if it ain't broke, don't fix it " school so
there wasn't much chance that I would be getting out the torch. At
least not until I had multiple spokes break.

I used cold forming to mean changing the shape without cutting or
using heat. So it my mind if there is a visible bend made without
applying heat, it was cold formed and now almost surely has more not
less residual stresses.

Dan

Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:57:40
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:34:27 -0600, carlfogel wrote:

> Contrary to ad hoc theories that a modest squeeze force must produce a
> large tension increase, it appears that 32 and 36 spoke rims of
> ordinary construction deform in a faint M or W shape when squeezed in
> the traditional fashion because the top and bottom spokes of the
> A-B-C-D pattern are pulling largely unopposed in opposite directions.
>
> To boil the uselessly detailed statistics down, a one-handed 60-pound
> squeeze force on spokes A & C and a simultaneous one-handed 60-pound
> squeeze force on spokes B & D raises the tension of each spoke only
> about 55 to 65 pounds.
>
> Squeeze forces greater than 60 pounds tend to leave faint, permanent
> bends in the spokes. The dramatic bend angle fooled many people into
> thinking that the spoke tension increase must be enormous, with
> calculations estimating that a gentle 30-pound squeeze force would
> raise spoke tension an impressive 150 pounds, instead of the measured
> tension increase, which is actually often under 30 pounds.

Both physical measurements, and "ad hoc" calculations can produce
erroneous results. But certainly a force applied perpendicularly to the
spoke can increase the stress in the direction of the spoke considerably.
I tend to doubt the accuracy of your measurements more than the basic
physics.

--

David L. Johnson

__o

Date: 10 Sep 2006 19:14:07
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:57:40 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
<david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:34:27 -0600, carlfogel wrote:
>
>> Contrary to ad hoc theories that a modest squeeze force must produce a
>> large tension increase, it appears that 32 and 36 spoke rims of
>> ordinary construction deform in a faint M or W shape when squeezed in
>> the traditional fashion because the top and bottom spokes of the
>> A-B-C-D pattern are pulling largely unopposed in opposite directions.
>>
>> To boil the uselessly detailed statistics down, a one-handed 60-pound
>> squeeze force on spokes A & C and a simultaneous one-handed 60-pound
>> squeeze force on spokes B & D raises the tension of each spoke only
>> about 55 to 65 pounds.
>>
>> Squeeze forces greater than 60 pounds tend to leave faint, permanent
>> bends in the spokes. The dramatic bend angle fooled many people into
>> thinking that the spoke tension increase must be enormous, with
>> calculations estimating that a gentle 30-pound squeeze force would
>> raise spoke tension an impressive 150 pounds, instead of the measured
>> tension increase, which is actually often under 30 pounds.
>
>Both physical measurements, and "ad hoc" calculations can produce
>erroneous results. But certainly a force applied perpendicularly to the
>spoke can increase the stress in the direction of the spoke considerably.
>I tend to doubt the accuracy of your measurements more than the basic
>physics.

Dear David,

If you buy an inexpensive tension gauge, some weights, some rope, and
a ceiling hook, then you can easily duplicate my tests.

But first try this quick test:

The rim appears to deform quite noticeably in a zig-zag when four
spokes A-B-C-D are squeezed together as pairs A & C and B & D.

The "basic physics" mistakenly assumed that there must be impressive
tension increases to support the conclusion and the angle calculations
worked only if the rim and hub stayed fixed relative to each other.

Tape a spoke at a tangent to the rim on the brake surface. Sight along
the spoke, and squeeze a few spokes in that rim section.

Watch the spoke wave back and forth as the rim deforms.

As an analogy, the "basic physics" that calculated a 150-lb increase
in tension for a 250-lb initial tension spoke for a 30-lb squeeze
force was the "basic physics" for a hammock stretched taut between two
six-foot-thick oak trees--sitting in the hammock does not draw the two
trees appreciably closer.

The real physics, repeatedly measured on various wheels, suggested
that the situation is much more like slinging a hammock between two
saplings that bend toward each other when you sit on the hammock.
Calculations based on the alarming angle at the hammock will
mistakenly produce tension rises that would break the rope.

Consider that a 100-lb squeeze force bent spokes at such an impressive
angle that they retained a faint bend.

Consider that if a 30-lb squeeze force actually produced a 150-pound
tension increase in a 250-lb initial tension spoke, producing a 400-lb
tension, then a reasonably strong poster could easily squeeze a spoke
so hard that it exceeded its elastic limits. I know of no complaints
that posters have permanently stretched their spokes by squeezing them
and found that the spoke lost considerable tension when they let go.

Jobst's tests indicated that the popular 15-gauge stainless steel
spokes start yielding permanently at around 600 pounds of tension.

Here's a diagram of the setup for my testing:

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/squeeze1_setup.jpg

I never found a wheel whose spokes A & C rose more than 65 lbs in
tension when I squeezed them together with a 60-lb weight and clamped
spokes B & D on the other side to similiar and greater angles.

Again, the calculations that mistakenly assume a fixed distance
between the rim and hub predicted a 250% greater tension increase from
only half as much squeeze force.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 10 Sep 2006 14:21:15
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Nate Knutson wrote:

> There is considerable difference after the wheelbuilder deliberately
> changes the angle of the outer spokes at the hub.

In that case I would think one would not need to keep track of which
were inbound and which were outbound. It would be obvious by merely
glancing at the spoke.

Dan

Date: 10 Sep 2006 14:17:30
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Ed Huntress wrote:

> Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What is the
> process they use?
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

I looked at the rec.bicycles.tech use group briefly and found that
"Stress Relieving" in the bike world seems to mean cold forming to
improve alignment. My ideas of stress relieving aren't close to
theirs. I was picturing using a torch to heat the spokes and wondered
how they controled the process.

Dan

Date: 10 Sep 2006 19:45:03
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

<dcaster@krl.org > wrote in message
news:1157923050.365364.55040@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What is
>> the
>> process they use?
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> I looked at the rec.bicycles.tech use group briefly and found that
> "Stress Relieving" in the bike world seems to mean cold forming to
> improve alignment. My ideas of stress relieving aren't close to
> theirs. I was picturing using a torch to heat the spokes and wondered
> how they controled the process.
>
>
> Dan

I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for passing that on, Dan.

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 10 Sep 2006 15:51:15
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On 10 Sep 2006 14:17:30 -0700, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

>
>Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What is the
>> process they use?
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>I looked at the rec.bicycles.tech use group briefly and found that
>"Stress Relieving" in the bike world seems to mean cold forming to
>improve alignment. My ideas of stress relieving aren't close to
>theirs. I was picturing using a torch to heat the spokes and wondered
>how they controled the process.
>
>
>Dan

Dear Dan,

Whew! Glad that you checked before experimenting.

Despite the flames that accompany the topic, pairs of spokes are
squeezed together to raise tension, not toasted.

Posters who believe that squeezing spokes together raises tension and
relieves residual stress might disagree with your description of the
process as "cold forming."

They do bend/cold-form the spokes to get the spokes to lie flatter
against the hub flange and to change the entry angle at the rim. These
bends are visible.

But I think that they see this as entirely different from squeezing
the spokes together to raise tension in hopes of relieving residual
stresses. Spoke-squeezers often emphasize that this is a microscopic
change, and they insist that it is not cold-forming.

"Cold-forming" tends to suggest "strain hardening," which is sometimes
a sub-topic in the debate. In general, spoke squeezers say that what
they do involves stress-relief, not work or strain hardening, and is
entirely different from bending things to improve the spoke line.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 10 Sep 2006 19:50:59
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:dd19g2lia98del95r58gvmsjt1bs2k9e3a@4ax.com...
> On 10 Sep 2006 14:17:30 -0700, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
>
>>
>>Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What is
>>> the
>>> process they use?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>>I looked at the rec.bicycles.tech use group briefly and found that
>>"Stress Relieving" in the bike world seems to mean cold forming to
>>improve alignment. My ideas of stress relieving aren't close to
>>theirs. I was picturing using a torch to heat the spokes and wondered
>>how they controled the process.
>>
>>
>>Dan
>
> Dear Dan,
>
> Whew! Glad that you checked before experimenting.
>
> Despite the flames that accompany the topic, pairs of spokes are
> squeezed together to raise tension, not toasted.
>
> Posters who believe that squeezing spokes together raises tension and
> relieves residual stress might disagree with your description of the
> process as "cold forming."
>
> They do bend/cold-form the spokes to get the spokes to lie flatter
> against the hub flange and to change the entry angle at the rim. These
> bends are visible.
>
> But I think that they see this as entirely different from squeezing
> the spokes together to raise tension in hopes of relieving residual
> stresses. Spoke-squeezers often emphasize that this is a microscopic
> change, and they insist that it is not cold-forming.
>
> "Cold-forming" tends to suggest "strain hardening," which is sometimes
> a sub-topic in the debate. In general, spoke squeezers say that what
> they do involves stress-relief, not work or strain hardening, and is
> entirely different from bending things to improve the spoke line.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Sometime I have to look into this. As the former materials and heat-treating
editor for metalworking magazines, I have to see how they claim that any
kind of cold work is going to relieve stress in any grade of steel -- with
the single exception of high-frequency vibratory stress relief.

I don't doubt that it does something useful, but relieving internal stresses
at a "microscopic level" by low-frequency cold work of any kind would be a
new one in the world of metallurgical science.

Artisans in a number of fields use the term "stress relieving" differently
than engineers and scientists do. There's nothing wrong with that but it
does lead to some confusion.

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:48:56
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:50:59 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net > wrote:

><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:dd19g2lia98del95r58gvmsjt1bs2k9e3a@4ax.com...
>> On 10 Sep 2006 14:17:30 -0700, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What is
>>>> the
>>>> process they use?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>
>>>I looked at the rec.bicycles.tech use group briefly and found that
>>>"Stress Relieving" in the bike world seems to mean cold forming to
>>>improve alignment. My ideas of stress relieving aren't close to
>>>theirs. I was picturing using a torch to heat the spokes and wondered
>>>how they controled the process.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dan
>>
>> Dear Dan,
>>
>> Whew! Glad that you checked before experimenting.
>>
>> Despite the flames that accompany the topic, pairs of spokes are
>> squeezed together to raise tension, not toasted.
>>
>> Posters who believe that squeezing spokes together raises tension and
>> relieves residual stress might disagree with your description of the
>> process as "cold forming."
>>
>> They do bend/cold-form the spokes to get the spokes to lie flatter
>> against the hub flange and to change the entry angle at the rim. These
>> bends are visible.
>>
>> But I think that they see this as entirely different from squeezing
>> the spokes together to raise tension in hopes of relieving residual
>> stresses. Spoke-squeezers often emphasize that this is a microscopic
>> change, and they insist that it is not cold-forming.
>>
>> "Cold-forming" tends to suggest "strain hardening," which is sometimes
>> a sub-topic in the debate. In general, spoke squeezers say that what
>> they do involves stress-relief, not work or strain hardening, and is
>> entirely different from bending things to improve the spoke line.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Sometime I have to look into this. As the former materials and heat-treating
>editor for metalworking magazines, I have to see how they claim that any
>kind of cold work is going to relieve stress in any grade of steel -- with
>the single exception of high-frequency vibratory stress relief.
>
>I don't doubt that it does something useful, but relieving internal stresses
>at a "microscopic level" by low-frequency cold work of any kind would be a
>new one in the world of metallurgical science.
>
>Artisans in a number of fields use the term "stress relieving" differently
>than engineers and scientists do. There's nothing wrong with that but it
>does lead to some confusion.

Dear Ed,

A common analogy is to "scragging" or "bulldozing" coil
springs--squash 'em down hard, and see the stress relief:

http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf

One problem is that if you read the captions carefuly, you learn that
the data for the bulldozed springs is not actually given, though it's
said to be "essentially the same"--the pictures are for heat treated
springs.

Another problem is how much extra tension or compression is involved.
The coil springs are usually mashed flat.

General theory on RBT held that the impressive bend angle produced by
squeezing spoke pairs must indicate even more impressive tension
increases.

But when I measured the actual tension increases, it appeared that the
rim deformed far more than expected, rendering calculations based on
angles and an unchanging distance between the rim and hub useless.

That is, good-faith calculations based on the bend angle produced by a
30-lb squeeze force on a single spoke's midspan indicated that a
250-lb initial tension rose about 150 pounds, to 400 pounds. The
calculation assumed a basically fixed distance between the rim and
hub.

But when I measured various rear and front wheels, 32 and 36 spoke,
with and without box section, eyelets, and sockets, I found that a
60-lb squeeze force on each of two pairs produced tension rises of
only about 55~65 lbs.

With two spokes A & C pulling the rim to one side, and two spokes B &
D pulling the rim to the other side, the rim probably goes into a
faintly Z, S, N, M, or W zigzag shape:

B D_________
_________/\/
A C

The ASCII exaggeration above is huge. The shape could be more like
this:
D________
B__/
_________/ C
A

Given the extremely stiff materials and tiny range of elasticity, it's
understandable that the deformation wasn't noticed. If you tape a
spoke flat against a rim at a tangent, you can sight along the spoke,
squeeze a spoke or two near that rim section, and see the spoke swing
in or out as the rim starts to zigzag.

Discussion of spoke squeezing usually becomes quite vehement.

As far as I know, the theory is unknown in spoked motorcycle and
sports-car wheels, but they may use such massive spokes that
bicycle-style problems are masked.

Some wheel manufacturers use presses to seat spokes and may claim that
it's stress-relief akin to squeezing all the spokes at once, but as
far as I know, they release no data, and posters who cite such
practices as proof of stress-relief routinely scoff at other
manufacturing techniques as keting-driven superstition.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:30:49
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:90b9g2d44ebgof475tl2lltthn98dbg53m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:50:59 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
> <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:dd19g2lia98del95r58gvmsjt1bs2k9e3a@4ax.com...
>>> On 10 Sep 2006 14:17:30 -0700, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What
>>>>> is
>>>>> the
>>>>> process they use?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>
>>>>I looked at the rec.bicycles.tech use group briefly and found that
>>>>"Stress Relieving" in the bike world seems to mean cold forming to
>>>>improve alignment. My ideas of stress relieving aren't close to
>>>>theirs. I was picturing using a torch to heat the spokes and wondered
>>>>how they controled the process.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dan
>>>
>>> Dear Dan,
>>>
>>> Whew! Glad that you checked before experimenting.
>>>
>>> Despite the flames that accompany the topic, pairs of spokes are
>>> squeezed together to raise tension, not toasted.
>>>
>>> Posters who believe that squeezing spokes together raises tension and
>>> relieves residual stress might disagree with your description of the
>>> process as "cold forming."
>>>
>>> They do bend/cold-form the spokes to get the spokes to lie flatter
>>> against the hub flange and to change the entry angle at the rim. These
>>> bends are visible.
>>>
>>> But I think that they see this as entirely different from squeezing
>>> the spokes together to raise tension in hopes of relieving residual
>>> stresses. Spoke-squeezers often emphasize that this is a microscopic
>>> change, and they insist that it is not cold-forming.
>>>
>>> "Cold-forming" tends to suggest "strain hardening," which is sometimes
>>> a sub-topic in the debate. In general, spoke squeezers say that what
>>> they do involves stress-relief, not work or strain hardening, and is
>>> entirely different from bending things to improve the spoke line.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>>Sometime I have to look into this. As the former materials and
>>heat-treating
>>editor for metalworking magazines, I have to see how they claim that any
>>kind of cold work is going to relieve stress in any grade of steel -- with
>>the single exception of high-frequency vibratory stress relief.
>>
>>I don't doubt that it does something useful, but relieving internal
>>stresses
>>at a "microscopic level" by low-frequency cold work of any kind would be a
>>new one in the world of metallurgical science.
>>
>>Artisans in a number of fields use the term "stress relieving" differently
>>than engineers and scientists do. There's nothing wrong with that but it
>>does lead to some confusion.
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> A common analogy is to "scragging" or "bulldozing" coil
> springs--squash 'em down hard, and see the stress relief:
>
> http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf
>
> One problem is that if you read the captions carefuly, you learn that
> the data for the bulldozed springs is not actually given, though it's
> said to be "essentially the same"--the pictures are for heat treated
> springs.
>
> Another problem is how much extra tension or compression is involved.
> The coil springs are usually mashed flat.
>
> General theory on RBT held that the impressive bend angle produced by
> squeezing spoke pairs must indicate even more impressive tension
> increases.
>
> But when I measured the actual tension increases, it appeared that the
> rim deformed far more than expected, rendering calculations based on
> angles and an unchanging distance between the rim and hub useless.
>
> That is, good-faith calculations based on the bend angle produced by a
> 30-lb squeeze force on a single spoke's midspan indicated that a
> 250-lb initial tension rose about 150 pounds, to 400 pounds. The
> calculation assumed a basically fixed distance between the rim and
> hub.
>
> But when I measured various rear and front wheels, 32 and 36 spoke,
> with and without box section, eyelets, and sockets, I found that a
> 60-lb squeeze force on each of two pairs produced tension rises of
> only about 55~65 lbs.
>
> With two spokes A & C pulling the rim to one side, and two spokes B &
> D pulling the rim to the other side, the rim probably goes into a
> faintly Z, S, N, M, or W zigzag shape:
>
> B D_________
> _________/\/
> A C
>
> The ASCII exaggeration above is huge. The shape could be more like
> this:
> D________
> B__/
> _________/ C
> A
>
> Given the extremely stiff materials and tiny range of elasticity, it's
> understandable that the deformation wasn't noticed. If you tape a
> spoke flat against a rim at a tangent, you can sight along the spoke,
> squeeze a spoke or two near that rim section, and see the spoke swing
> in or out as the rim starts to zigzag.
>
> Discussion of spoke squeezing usually becomes quite vehement.
>
> As far as I know, the theory is unknown in spoked motorcycle and
> sports-car wheels, but they may use such massive spokes that
> bicycle-style problems are masked.
>
> Some wheel manufacturers use presses to seat spokes and may claim that
> it's stress-relief akin to squeezing all the spokes at once, but as
> far as I know, they release no data, and posters who cite such
> practices as proof of stress-relief routinely scoff at other
> manufacturing techniques as keting-driven superstition.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

OK, I read your post carefully tonight. I'm probably not following the whole
explanation but I don't see any place where stress-relief could occur.
You're changing tensions, probably, and there's probably some plastic
deformation going on that changes the preloads and load angles -- in which
directions, I can only guess.

But the standard engineering definition of residual stress refers to
internal tensions and compressions that are due to differential expansion or
contraction within the material. For example, when you heat-treat a thick
piece of carbon steel, you typically have tensite on the outside and
ferrite on the inside. tensite is less dense than ferrite, which means
the outside has expanded. Thus, the ferrite inside is loaded in sheer
against the tensite on the outside. It may not bend the material if the
heat treatment is uniform, but the skin and the core are both under stress,
which is residual stress from the effects of heat treatment.

Tempering (heating to a temperature somewhat below the critical temperature)
will relieve some of the stresses by a couple of mechanisms; the one that's
relevant here is allowing a slight slippage at grain boundaries due to the
elevated temperature (purists will also note that tempering converts a small
fraction of the tensite back into ferrite, thus lowering the differential
expansion/contraction). Normalizing, which is conducted at higher
temperatures, relieves still more stress. "Stress-relieving," done at still
higher temperatures and for longer times, relieves still more. Heating above
the critical (Curie) temperature and cooling the piece slowly will anneal
it, which should eliminate all internal stress if it's done properly.

That's the documented way to stress-relieve steel that has residual
stresses. There is a cold method known as vibratory stress relief which
remains somewhat controversial but which does seem to relieve at least the
more severe stresses, as from welding.

I've not heard of any cold-working method other than sustained
high-frequency vibration that relieves internal stresses. But I've been away
from the field for a few years and I may have missed something anyway. Just
projecting from the standard theory and practice, though, I can't see any
way that just squeezing spokes as you describe could actually relieve
residual stresses in a spoke.

I'm open to further education on the subject.

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:10:11
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Ed Huntress writes:

> OK, I read your post carefully tonight. I'm probably not following
> the whole explanation but I don't see any place where stress-relief
> could occur. You're changing tensions, probably, and there's
> probably some plastic deformation going on that changes the preloads
> and load angles -- in which directions, I can only guess.

If you tension a spoke to its yield stress, imagine what happens to
parts of the spoke that have residual tensile stress from cold forming
in manufacture and bending into place in a wheel. These locations
must have already yielded by then and when relaxed must have the same
stress as the remainder of the wire, typically that of the straight
sections.

This can be observed in a tensile tester when the spoke is taken to
yield stress. Regardless of prior shape, when relaxed the spoke is
perfectly straight, its stress memory having been erased because it
has plastically deformed (stretched) ever so slightly. I said TO the
yield stress, meaning any part that previously had tensile stress
exceeded that stress and stretched.

> But the standard engineering definition of residual stress refers to
> internal tensions and compressions that are due to differential
> expansion or contraction within the material. For example, when you
> heat-treat a thick piece of carbon steel, you typically have
> tensite on the outside and ferrite on the inside. tensite is
> less dense than ferrite, which means the outside has expanded. Thus,
> the ferrite inside is loaded in sheer against the tensite on the
> outside. It may not bend the material if the heat treatment is
> uniform, but the skin and the core are both under stress, which is
> residual stress from the effects of heat treatment.

Let's not try to hide behind semantics on this. If you watch spoke
wire coming of the spool for manufacturing spokes, it must be stress
relieved so that it can be worked. To do that, the wire must be
straight and on the reel with its residual stress it coils up when
unspooled. To straighten the wire, it is run through the equivalent
of degaussing by being run through a series of zigzag rollers with
ever decreasing amplitude, both in X and Y. Stretching spoke wire to
yield for manufacture would be ungainly while this method of rolling
spoke wire as it comes off the reel accomplishes the same thing.

> Tempering (heating to a temperature somewhat below the critical
> temperature) will relieve some of the stresses by a couple of
> mechanisms; the one that's relevant here is allowing a slight
> slippage at grain boundaries due to the elevated temperature
> (purists will also note that tempering converts a small fraction of
> the tensite back into ferrite, thus lowering the differential
> expansion/contraction). Normalizing, which is conducted at higher
> temperatures, relieves still more stress. "Stress-relieving," done
> at still higher temperatures and for longer times, relieves still
> more. Heating above the critical (Curie) temperature and cooling the
> piece slowly will anneal it, which should eliminate all internal
> stress if it's done properly.

That depends on the material. Spoke wire is about as work hardened as
it will get and does not want any heat treatment, especially when this
can be done cold. I have observed the method at DT spokes and tensile
tested their spokes to assure myself of the value of the process.

> That's the documented way to stress-relieve steel that has residual
> stresses. There is a cold method known as vibratory stress relief
> which remains somewhat controversial but which does seem to relieve
> at least the more severe stresses, as from welding.

I don't know what you mean by "documented process" but there are other
ways that do not change material properties and they are as mentioned.

> I've not heard of any cold-working method other than sustained
> high-frequency vibration that relieves internal stresses. But I've
> been away from the field for a few years and I may have missed
> something anyway. Just projecting from the standard theory and
> practice, though, I can't see any way that just squeezing spokes as
> you describe could actually relieve residual stresses in a spoke.

That's why I prefer not to use Carl's pejorative of "squeezing spokes"
but rather stretching them to a stress level that will cause yield in
the highest stress locations. Squeezing spokes suggests a picture of
someone hugging or pinching spokes. That there are high stress
locations, ones near or at yield, is certain because spoke elbows take
their final form upon tensioning. That forming is plastic and causes
yield. Any tensioning thereafter guarantees that the spoke remains at
yield at a portion of the bend. Not stress relieving was the main
cause of early failures before stress relieving was introduced to
wheel building. there were wheel builders who stress relieved without
realizing what that part of their process was doing.

Stretching spokes causes highest stress locations to yield and be
relieved. However, manually stretching spokes cannot remove all
residual stress because stress cannot be manually raised enough.

> I'm open to further education on the subject.

http://yarchive.net/bike/stress_relieve.html

Major wheel building operations stress relieve by supporting finished
wheels laterally on their rims while pushing the hub out of center,
first in one direction, then the other. This quick process does not
distort the rim because it unloads the near side spokes and does not
overload the rim in compression.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 17 Sep 2006 17:34:32
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:45063323$0$34515$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> If you tension a spoke to its yield stress, imagine what happens to
> parts of the spoke that have residual tensile stress from cold forming
> in manufacture and bending into place in a wheel. These locations
> must have already yielded by then and when relaxed must have the same
> stress as the remainder of the wire, typically that of the straight
> sections....

<snip >

Thanks for your detailed explanation, Jobst, and for the link. I think I
follow you and, as I said to Carl, what's important here is less the
analysis than the practice, and I defer to your experience with that.

You may be interested that back when the first edition of _The Bicycle
Wheel_ was published I showed it to my fellow editors at McGraw-Hill as an
example of what I thought was the new trend in how-to books, which I found
interesting and kind of exciting. Your book, a flood of new boatbuilding
books, a few car books, and the new publications from Taunton Press were the
key examples of a new generation of well-edited, precise, and expert
specialized publishing oriented toward personal, avocational interests. I
think your book still stands as a fine example of the breed. Oh, BTW, I
built two wheels for my wife's bike from your instructions back then (that's
why I bought the book), and they came out well for a rank amateur.

Back to the issue, I had some time to think about and research this subject,
and I see a few issues that I'd like to resolve before saying I really
understand it. I also think they would require some measurement and research
that I have neither the time nor the inclination to do. <g >

For example, it seems unlikely to me that your method for "stress relieving"
spokes would stress all parts of a bend into plastic deformation, although I
can see that it might be possible. Whether the outside AND the inside of a
bend were relieved would seem to depend on whether the final angle of the
bend, with the spoke in use, was greater or lesser than the angle it assumed
after initial forming, when the stress of the initial bending was removed.
As one of the engineers quoted in your link says, the plus- or minus-sign of
stress on such a bend reverses after the initial bending stress is removed
(the outside of a bend actually is loaded in compression, which is
counterintuitive unless one thinks through the process). If you don't change
the final bend angle when you "stress-relieve" the spoke after it's mounted
on the wheel, you may exceed the plastic limit on the inside of the bend but
you probably won't exceed it on the outside, unless you subject the whole
spoke to quite a lot of strain. As you know, you first have to take up the
compressive stress on the outside of the bend, at which point you've
strained the inside of the bend quite a lot -- unless, of course, the bend
angles change.

And they surely must change, but how much, and it which direction, I won't
guess.

I'd like to see some kind of measured results, but this obviously remains a
controversial issue among cyclists and I don't have the time or inclination
to dig deeper into it. For whatever practical use I may make of this
information, I'll defer to the experience of the experts and just follow
that...for the same reason I wouldn't perform a surgical operation on
myself. <g >

Regards,

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 18 Sep 2006 03:20:50
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Ed Huntress writes:

>> If you tension a spoke to its yield stress, imagine what happens to
>> parts of the spoke that have residual tensile stress from cold
>> forming in manufacture and bending into place in a wheel. These
>> locations must have already yielded by then and when relaxed must
>> have the same stress as the remainder of the wire, typically that
>> of the straight sections....

> <snip>

> Thanks for your detailed explanation, Jobst, and for the link. I
> think I follow you and, as I said to Carl, what's important here is
> less the analysis than the practice, and I defer to your experience
> with that.

> You may be interested that back when the first edition of _The
> Bicycle Wheel_ was published I showed it to my fellow editors at
> McGraw-Hill as an example of what I thought was the new trend in
> how-to books, which I found interesting and kind of exciting. Your
> book, a flood of new boatbuilding books, a few car books, and the
> new publications from Taunton Press were the key examples of a new
> generation of well-edited, precise, and expert specialized
> publishing oriented toward personal, avocational interests. I think
> your book still stands as a fine example of the breed. Oh, BTW, I
> built two wheels for my wife's bike from your instructions back then
> (that's why I bought the book), and they came out well for a rank
> amateur.

Thanks for the positive assessment.

> Back to the issue, I had some time to think about and research this
> subject, and I see a few issues that I'd like to resolve before
> saying I really understand it. I also think would require some
> measurement and research that I have neither the time nor the
> inclination to do.

> For example, it seems unlikely to me that your method for "stress
> relieving" spokes would stress all parts of a bend into plastic
> deformation, although I can see that it might be possible. Whether
> the outside AND the inside of a bend were relieved would seem to
> depend on whether the final angle of the bend, with the spoke in
> use, was greater or lesser than the angle it assumed after initial
> forming, when the stress of the initial bending was removed.

The intent is to reduce stress at those points where spoke tension has
been added to residual tensile stress. We don't care about compressive
loads because the must be lower just by the added tension and by
"improving the spoke line". As I mentioned, spoke elbows are at an
obtuse angle when manufactured. Bending them into an acute angle for
outbound spokes adds tensile stress to the elbow. This stress is
reduced by over stressing the spoke in tension.

> As one of the engineers quoted in your link says, the plus- or
> minus-sign of stress on such a bend reverses after the initial
> bending stress is removed (the outside of a bend actually is loaded
> in compression, which is counterintuitive unless one thinks through
> the process).

That goes under the assumption that the angle is opened to an even
greater obtuse angle. This does not occur in common hubs.

> If you don't change the final bend angle when you "stress-relieve"
> the spoke after it's mounted on the wheel, you may exceed the
> plastic limit on the inside of the bend but you probably won't
> exceed it on the outside, unless you subject the whole spoke to
> quite a lot of strain. As you know, you first have to take up the
> compressive stress on the outside of the bend, at which point you've
> strained the inside of the bend quite a lot -- unless, of course,
> the bend angles change.

The changes when stress relieving are microscopic and do not
measurably change elbow angle. What occurs is that tiny areas on
the skin of the spoke exceed yield if they were close to yield and are
thus stress relieved. That will not change the shape of the bend.
The same is true for threads.

> And they surely must change, but how much, and it which direction, I
> won't guess.

The best example I can give is the spoke in the tensile test that
comes out perfectly straight when its shaft reaches yield yet with
essentially no measurable elongation by not continuing when the stress
strain curve begins to flatten. That is because only the outer
surface of the spoke has residual stress and the rest of the spoke did
not reach yield.

> I'd like to see some kind of measured results, but this obviously
> remains a controversial issue among cyclists and I don't have the
> time or inclination to dig deeper into it. For whatever practical
> use I may make of this information, I'll defer to the experience of
> the experts and just follow that...for the same reason I wouldn't
> perform a surgical operation on myself.

The measured results are that wheels using elbow spokes are all stress
relieved by the major manufacturers. Spoke failure has been reduced to
poorly built wheels.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 11 Sep 2006 23:13:35
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On 12 Sep 2006 04:10:11 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

[snip]

>That's why I prefer not to use Carl's pejorative of "squeezing spokes"

[snip]

Dear Jobst,

"To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."

--"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106

"Spoke-squeezing" is a perfectly accurate description in plain English
of the process that you recommend in all three editions.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 12 Sep 2006 19:13:45
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Carl Fogel writes:

>> That's why I prefer not to use Carl's pejorative of "squeezing
>> spokes"

> [snip]

> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."

> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106

> "Spoke-squeezing" is a perfectly accurate description in plain
> English of the process that you recommend in all three editions.

The method of stretching spokes is to grab pairs of spokes and
squeeze them together. "Squeezing spokes", taken out of context,
distorts the meaning of the operation and leaves the reader with the
image of a spoke being pinched or hugged. The operation is to
over-stress spokes by stretching them, not by squeezing them.

Of course you know that. Those who read these pages regularly know
that you make an effort to distort what people write. You have a way
of putting the "em-FASS-is on the wrong "sil-LAB-le" so that selected
quotes can be made to sound trivial.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 12 Sep 2006 14:34:15
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On 12 Sep 2006 19:13:45 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>>> That's why I prefer not to use Carl's pejorative of "squeezing
>>> spokes"
>
>> [snip]
>
>> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
>> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
>> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."
>
>> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106
>
>> "Spoke-squeezing" is a perfectly accurate description in plain
>> English of the process that you recommend in all three editions.
>
>The method of stretching spokes is to grab pairs of spokes and
>squeeze them together. "Squeezing spokes", taken out of context,
>distorts the meaning of the operation and leaves the reader with the
>image of a spoke being pinched or hugged. The operation is to
>over-stress spokes by stretching them, not by squeezing them.
>
>Of course you know that. Those who read these pages regularly know
>that you make an effort to distort what people write. You have a way
>of putting the "em-FASS-is on the wrong "sil-LAB-le" so that selected
>quotes can be made to sound trivial.
>
>Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

The only person distorting things here needs to look in a mirror.

Spoke-squeezing describes Jobst Brandt's recommendation that we
squeeze spokes.

Save that quibbling nonsense for your 4th edition, if you ever get
around to it.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:46:56
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

In article <4b6eg2lfea2n976oi5sj7jjlde75j3kttj@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> On 12 Sep 2006 19:13:45 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> >Carl Fogel writes:
> >
> >>> That's why I prefer not to use Carl's pejorative of "squeezing
> >>> spokes"
> >
> >> [snip]
> >
> >> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
> >> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
> >> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."
> >
> >> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106
> >
> >> "Spoke-squeezing" is a perfectly accurate description in plain
> >> English of the process that you recommend in all three editions.
> >
> >The method of stretching spokes is to grab pairs of spokes and
> >squeeze them together. "Squeezing spokes", taken out of context,
> >distorts the meaning of the operation and leaves the reader with the
> >image of a spoke being pinched or hugged. The operation is to
> >over-stress spokes by stretching them, not by squeezing them.
> >
> >Of course you know that. Those who read these pages regularly know
> >that you make an effort to distort what people write. You have a way
> >of putting the "em-FASS-is on the wrong "sil-LAB-le" so that selected
> >quotes can be made to sound trivial.
> >
> >Jobst Brandt
>
> Dear Jobst,
>
> The only person distorting things here needs to look in a mirror.
>
> Spoke-squeezing describes Jobst Brandt's recommendation that we
> squeeze spokes.
>
> Save that quibbling nonsense for your 4th edition, if you ever get
> around to it.

You are busted. Your edition of the method for relieving
residual fabrication stress in spokes is misleading, just
as Jobst describes. The residual stresses from fabrication
are reduced by temporarily elongating the spoke in a
tensioned wheel so as to increase the stresses of
particular regions of the spoke into plastic deformation.

--
Michael Press

Date: 12 Sep 2006 16:50:38
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:46:56 GMT, Michael Press <jack@abc.net > wrote:

>In article <4b6eg2lfea2n976oi5sj7jjlde75j3kttj@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On 12 Sep 2006 19:13:45 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>
>> >Carl Fogel writes:
>> >
>> >>> That's why I prefer not to use Carl's pejorative of "squeezing
>> >>> spokes"
>> >
>> >> [snip]
>> >
>> >> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
>> >> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
>> >> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."
>> >
>> >> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106
>> >
>> >> "Spoke-squeezing" is a perfectly accurate description in plain
>> >> English of the process that you recommend in all three editions.
>> >
>> >The method of stretching spokes is to grab pairs of spokes and
>> >squeeze them together. "Squeezing spokes", taken out of context,
>> >distorts the meaning of the operation and leaves the reader with the
>> >image of a spoke being pinched or hugged. The operation is to
>> >over-stress spokes by stretching them, not by squeezing them.
>> >
>> >Of course you know that. Those who read these pages regularly know
>> >that you make an effort to distort what people write. You have a way
>> >of putting the "em-FASS-is on the wrong "sil-LAB-le" so that selected
>> >quotes can be made to sound trivial.
>> >
>> >Jobst Brandt
>>
>> Dear Jobst,
>>
>> The only person distorting things here needs to look in a mirror.
>>
>> Spoke-squeezing describes Jobst Brandt's recommendation that we
>> squeeze spokes.
>>
>> Save that quibbling nonsense for your 4th edition, if you ever get
>> around to it.
>
>You are busted. Your edition of the method for relieving
>residual fabrication stress in spokes is misleading, just
>as Jobst describes. The residual stresses from fabrication
>are reduced by temporarily elongating the spoke in a
>tensioned wheel so as to increase the stresses of
>particular regions of the spoke into plastic deformation.

You are incoherent.

It's Jobst's edition, not mine, and it's Jobst's explicit description
of the process:

"To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."

--"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106

Date: 13 Sep 2006 04:46:45
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

In article <2beeg2d60hbdc45ig9bv2ep7tulldh6dpd@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:46:56 GMT, Michael Press <jack@abc.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <4b6eg2lfea2n976oi5sj7jjlde75j3kttj@4ax.com>,
> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 Sep 2006 19:13:45 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >>
> >> >Carl Fogel writes:
> >> >
> >> >>> That's why I prefer not to use Carl's pejorative of "squeezing
> >> >>> spokes"
> >> >
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> >> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
> >> >> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
> >> >> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."
> >> >
> >> >> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106
> >> >
> >> >> "Spoke-squeezing" is a perfectly accurate description in plain
> >> >> English of the process that you recommend in all three editions.
> >> >
> >> >The method of stretching spokes is to grab pairs of spokes and
> >> >squeeze them together. "Squeezing spokes", taken out of context,
> >> >distorts the meaning of the operation and leaves the reader with the
> >> >image of a spoke being pinched or hugged. The operation is to
> >> >over-stress spokes by stretching them, not by squeezing them.
> >> >
> >> >Of course you know that. Those who read these pages regularly know
> >> >that you make an effort to distort what people write. You have a way
> >> >of putting the "em-FASS-is on the wrong "sil-LAB-le" so that selected
> >> >quotes can be made to sound trivial.
> >> >
> >> >Jobst Brandt
> >>
> >> Dear Jobst,
> >>
> >> The only person distorting things here needs to look in a mirror.
> >>
> >> Spoke-squeezing describes Jobst Brandt's recommendation that we
> >> squeeze spokes.
> >>
> >> Save that quibbling nonsense for your 4th edition, if you ever get
> >> around to it.
> >
> >You are busted. Your edition of the method for relieving
> >residual fabrication stress in spokes is misleading, just
> >as Jobst describes. The residual stresses from fabrication
> >are reduced by temporarily elongating the spoke in a
> >tensioned wheel so as to increase the stresses of
> >particular regions of the spoke into plastic deformation.
>
> You are incoherent.
>
> It's Jobst's edition, not mine, and it's Jobst's explicit description
> of the process:
>
> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."
>
> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106

That the home shop method for stress relieving spokes is
as described does not permit you to substitute `spoke
squeezing' for `stress relieving'. Automated machines for
building wheels stress relieve the spokes differently. By
substituting as you do, you make the process less clear.

--
Michael Press

Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:51:15
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:46:45 GMT, Michael Press <jack@abc.net > wrote:

>In article <2beeg2d60hbdc45ig9bv2ep7tulldh6dpd@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:46:56 GMT, Michael Press <jack@abc.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4b6eg2lfea2n976oi5sj7jjlde75j3kttj@4ax.com>,
>> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 12 Sep 2006 19:13:45 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Carl Fogel writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >>> That's why I prefer not to use Carl's pejorative of "squeezing
>> >> >>> spokes"
>> >> >
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
>> >> >> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
>> >> >> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."
>> >> >
>> >> >> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Spoke-squeezing" is a perfectly accurate description in plain
>> >> >> English of the process that you recommend in all three editions.
>> >> >
>> >> >The method of stretching spokes is to grab pairs of spokes and
>> >> >squeeze them together. "Squeezing spokes", taken out of context,
>> >> >distorts the meaning of the operation and leaves the reader with the
>> >> >image of a spoke being pinched or hugged. The operation is to
>> >> >over-stress spokes by stretching them, not by squeezing them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course you know that. Those who read these pages regularly know
>> >> >that you make an effort to distort what people write. You have a way
>> >> >of putting the "em-FASS-is on the wrong "sil-LAB-le" so that selected
>> >> >quotes can be made to sound trivial.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jobst Brandt
>> >>
>> >> Dear Jobst,
>> >>
>> >> The only person distorting things here needs to look in a mirror.
>> >>
>> >> Spoke-squeezing describes Jobst Brandt's recommendation that we
>> >> squeeze spokes.
>> >>
>> >> Save that quibbling nonsense for your 4th edition, if you ever get
>> >> around to it.
>> >
>> >You are busted. Your edition of the method for relieving
>> >residual fabrication stress in spokes is misleading, just
>> >as Jobst describes. The residual stresses from fabrication
>> >are reduced by temporarily elongating the spoke in a
>> >tensioned wheel so as to increase the stresses of
>> >particular regions of the spoke into plastic deformation.
>>
>> You are incoherent.
>>
>> It's Jobst's edition, not mine, and it's Jobst's explicit description
>> of the process:
>>
>> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
>> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
>> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."
>>
>> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106
>
>That the home shop method for stress relieving spokes is
>as described does not permit you to substitute `spoke
>squeezing' for `stress relieving'. Automated machines for
>building wheels stress relieve the spokes differently. By
>substituting as you do, you make the process less clear.

Since the question is whether squeezing spokes relieves stress, you're
begging the question.

But if you and Jobst insist on making fools of yourselves, I'll start
referring to those who believe in the efficacy of spoke squeezing as
spoke stretchers.

Meanwhile, go back to squeezing your spokes and writing lengthy
explanations of why we shouldn't call it that.

Date: 13 Sep 2006 07:08:02
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

In article <kc3fg2l3dmrj8k7ecbc97pit1nn2qm47v3@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:46:45 GMT, Michael Press <jack@abc.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <2beeg2d60hbdc45ig9bv2ep7tulldh6dpd@4ax.com>,
> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:46:56 GMT, Michael Press <jack@abc.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <4b6eg2lfea2n976oi5sj7jjlde75j3kttj@4ax.com>,
> >> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 12 Sep 2006 19:13:45 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Carl Fogel writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> That's why I prefer not to use Carl's pejorative of "squeezing
> >> >> >>> spokes"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
> >> >> >> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
> >> >> >> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Spoke-squeezing" is a perfectly accurate description in plain
> >> >> >> English of the process that you recommend in all three editions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The method of stretching spokes is to grab pairs of spokes and
> >> >> >squeeze them together. "Squeezing spokes", taken out of context,
> >> >> >distorts the meaning of the operation and leaves the reader with the
> >> >> >image of a spoke being pinched or hugged. The operation is to
> >> >> >over-stress spokes by stretching them, not by squeezing them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course you know that. Those who read these pages regularly know
> >> >> >that you make an effort to distort what people write. You have a way
> >> >> >of putting the "em-FASS-is on the wrong "sil-LAB-le" so that selected
> >> >> >quotes can be made to sound trivial.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Jobst Brandt
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Jobst,
> >> >>
> >> >> The only person distorting things here needs to look in a mirror.
> >> >>
> >> >> Spoke-squeezing describes Jobst Brandt's recommendation that we
> >> >> squeeze spokes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Save that quibbling nonsense for your 4th edition, if you ever get
> >> >> around to it.
> >> >
> >> >You are busted. Your edition of the method for relieving
> >> >residual fabrication stress in spokes is misleading, just
> >> >as Jobst describes. The residual stresses from fabrication
> >> >are reduced by temporarily elongating the spoke in a
> >> >tensioned wheel so as to increase the stresses of
> >> >particular regions of the spoke into plastic deformation.
> >>
> >> You are incoherent.
> >>
> >> It's Jobst's edition, not mine, and it's Jobst's explicit description
> >> of the process:
> >>
> >> "To stress relieve, grasp the most nearly parallel pairs of spokes at
> >> midspan on both sides of the wheel. Your hands should be nearly
> >> palm-to-palm. Squeeze the spokes hard."
> >>
> >> --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition, p. 106
> >
> >That the home shop method for stress relieving spokes is
> >as described does not permit you to substitute `spoke
> >squeezing' for `stress relieving'. Automated machines for
> >building wheels stress relieve the spokes differently. By
> >substituting as you do, you make the process less clear.
>
> Since the question is whether squeezing spokes relieves stress, you're
> begging the question.
>
> But if you and Jobst insist on making fools of yourselves, I'll start
> referring to those who believe in the efficacy of spoke squeezing as
> spoke stretchers.
>
> Meanwhile, go back to squeezing your spokes and writing lengthy
> explanations of why we shouldn't call it that.

The matter I address is the lengthy explanations you give
of `spoke squeezing'. Reassigning to me your indulgences
is yet more persiflage.

--
Michael Press

Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:50:04
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:30:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net > wrote:

><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:90b9g2d44ebgof475tl2lltthn98dbg53m@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:50:59 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
>> <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:dd19g2lia98del95r58gvmsjt1bs2k9e3a@4ax.com...
>>>> On 10 Sep 2006 14:17:30 -0700, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> process they use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>>
>>>>>I looked at the rec.bicycles.tech use group briefly and found that
>>>>>"Stress Relieving" in the bike world seems to mean cold forming to
>>>>>improve alignment. My ideas of stress relieving aren't close to
>>>>>theirs. I was picturing using a torch to heat the spokes and wondered
>>>>>how they controled the process.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dan
>>>>
>>>> Dear Dan,
>>>>
>>>> Whew! Glad that you checked before experimenting.
>>>>
>>>> Despite the flames that accompany the topic, pairs of spokes are
>>>> squeezed together to raise tension, not toasted.
>>>>
>>>> Posters who believe that squeezing spokes together raises tension and
>>>> relieves residual stress might disagree with your description of the
>>>> process as "cold forming."
>>>>
>>>> They do bend/cold-form the spokes to get the spokes to lie flatter
>>>> against the hub flange and to change the entry angle at the rim. These
>>>> bends are visible.
>>>>
>>>> But I think that they see this as entirely different from squeezing
>>>> the spokes together to raise tension in hopes of relieving residual
>>>> stresses. Spoke-squeezers often emphasize that this is a microscopic
>>>> change, and they insist that it is not cold-forming.
>>>>
>>>> "Cold-forming" tends to suggest "strain hardening," which is sometimes
>>>> a sub-topic in the debate. In general, spoke squeezers say that what
>>>> they do involves stress-relief, not work or strain hardening, and is
>>>> entirely different from bending things to improve the spoke line.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Carl Fogel
>>>
>>>Sometime I have to look into this. As the former materials and
>>>heat-treating
>>>editor for metalworking magazines, I have to see how they claim that any
>>>kind of cold work is going to relieve stress in any grade of steel -- with
>>>the single exception of high-frequency vibratory stress relief.
>>>
>>>I don't doubt that it does something useful, but relieving internal
>>>stresses
>>>at a "microscopic level" by low-frequency cold work of any kind would be a
>>>new one in the world of metallurgical science.
>>>
>>>Artisans in a number of fields use the term "stress relieving" differently
>>>than engineers and scientists do. There's nothing wrong with that but it
>>>does lead to some confusion.
>>
>> Dear Ed,
>>
>> A common analogy is to "scragging" or "bulldozing" coil
>> springs--squash 'em down hard, and see the stress relief:
>>
>> http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf
>>
>> One problem is that if you read the captions carefuly, you learn that
>> the data for the bulldozed springs is not actually given, though it's
>> said to be "essentially the same"--the pictures are for heat treated
>> springs.
>>
>> Another problem is how much extra tension or compression is involved.
>> The coil springs are usually mashed flat.
>>
>> General theory on RBT held that the impressive bend angle produced by
>> squeezing spoke pairs must indicate even more impressive tension
>> increases.
>>
>> But when I measured the actual tension increases, it appeared that the
>> rim deformed far more than expected, rendering calculations based on
>> angles and an unchanging distance between the rim and hub useless.
>>
>> That is, good-faith calculations based on the bend angle produced by a
>> 30-lb squeeze force on a single spoke's midspan indicated that a
>> 250-lb initial tension rose about 150 pounds, to 400 pounds. The
>> calculation assumed a basically fixed distance between the rim and
>> hub.
>>
>> But when I measured various rear and front wheels, 32 and 36 spoke,
>> with and without box section, eyelets, and sockets, I found that a
>> 60-lb squeeze force on each of two pairs produced tension rises of
>> only about 55~65 lbs.
>>
>> With two spokes A & C pulling the rim to one side, and two spokes B &
>> D pulling the rim to the other side, the rim probably goes into a
>> faintly Z, S, N, M, or W zigzag shape:
>>
>> B D_________
>> _________/\/
>> A C
>>
>> The ASCII exaggeration above is huge. The shape could be more like
>> this:
>> D________
>> B__/
>> _________/ C
>> A
>>
>> Given the extremely stiff materials and tiny range of elasticity, it's
>> understandable that the deformation wasn't noticed. If you tape a
>> spoke flat against a rim at a tangent, you can sight along the spoke,
>> squeeze a spoke or two near that rim section, and see the spoke swing
>> in or out as the rim starts to zigzag.
>>
>> Discussion of spoke squeezing usually becomes quite vehement.
>>
>> As far as I know, the theory is unknown in spoked motorcycle and
>> sports-car wheels, but they may use such massive spokes that
>> bicycle-style problems are masked.
>>
>> Some wheel manufacturers use presses to seat spokes and may claim that
>> it's stress-relief akin to squeezing all the spokes at once, but as
>> far as I know, they release no data, and posters who cite such
>> practices as proof of stress-relief routinely scoff at other
>> manufacturing techniques as keting-driven superstition.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>OK, I read your post carefully tonight. I'm probably not following the whole
>explanation but I don't see any place where stress-relief could occur.
>You're changing tensions, probably, and there's probably some plastic
>deformation going on that changes the preloads and load angles -- in which
>directions, I can only guess.
>
>But the standard engineering definition of residual stress refers to
>internal tensions and compressions that are due to differential expansion or
>contraction within the material. For example, when you heat-treat a thick
>piece of carbon steel, you typically have tensite on the outside and
>ferrite on the inside. tensite is less dense than ferrite, which means
>the outside has expanded. Thus, the ferrite inside is loaded in sheer
>against the tensite on the outside. It may not bend the material if the
>heat treatment is uniform, but the skin and the core are both under stress,
>which is residual stress from the effects of heat treatment.
>
>Tempering (heating to a temperature somewhat below the critical temperature)
>will relieve some of the stresses by a couple of mechanisms; the one that's
>relevant here is allowing a slight slippage at grain boundaries due to the
>elevated temperature (purists will also note that tempering converts a small
>fraction of the tensite back into ferrite, thus lowering the differential
>expansion/contraction). Normalizing, which is conducted at higher
>temperatures, relieves still more stress. "Stress-relieving," done at still
>higher temperatures and for longer times, relieves still more. Heating above
>the critical (Curie) temperature and cooling the piece slowly will anneal
>it, which should eliminate all internal stress if it's done properly.
>
>That's the documented way to stress-relieve steel that has residual
>stresses. There is a cold method known as vibratory stress relief which
>remains somewhat controversial but which does seem to relieve at least the
>more severe stresses, as from welding.
>
>I've not heard of any cold-working method other than sustained
>high-frequency vibration that relieves internal stresses. But I've been away
>from the field for a few years and I may have missed something anyway. Just
>projecting from the standard theory and practice, though, I can't see any
>way that just squeezing spokes as you describe could actually relieve
>residual stresses in a spoke.
>
>I'm open to further education on the subject.

Dear Ed,

It does seem to be a theory confined to RBT.

It dates from at least 1981.

Others have expressed skepticism.

I'm just trying to describe the theory and practice, not endorse them.

:)

As I understand it, the theory is that cold-bending the spoke elbow
and rolling the threads at the nipple end leave residual internal
stresses.

The spokes are then often bent a little bit more, in order to make the
elbow end lie flatter against the hub flange and to make the nipple
end bend at the nipple (if necessary) instead of a longer, gentler
bend.

The theory is that your squeeze all the spokes, two pairs at a time,
after the wheel is built and thus relieve the residual stresses.

Like you, I'm open to further education.

When I measured actual tension increases in spoke pairs squeezed with
known forces on various wheels, the results were greeted with comments
including "impossible," "must be cheesy wheels," and similar
incredulity. My measurements can be easily checked, but so far no one
has announced any different results.

The topic sometimes smacks more of faith than physics.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:53:13
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:iv3cg255i1qesb1eiorsop55dqrcskfj5m@4ax.com...

<snip >

> Dear Ed,
>
> It does seem to be a theory confined to RBT.
>
> It dates from at least 1981.
>
> Others have expressed skepticism.
>
> I'm just trying to describe the theory and practice, not endorse them.
>
> :)
>

Yes, I realize that. I didn't mean to imply that you did.

> As I understand it, the theory is that cold-bending the spoke elbow
> and rolling the threads at the nipple end leave residual internal
> stresses.

That's probably true.

>
> The spokes are then often bent a little bit more, in order to make the
> elbow end lie flatter against the hub flange and to make the nipple
> end bend at the nipple (if necessary) instead of a longer, gentler
> bend.
>
> The theory is that your squeeze all the spokes, two pairs at a time,
> after the wheel is built and thus relieve the residual stresses.

I suspect -- and I'm really only guessing -- that they're seating the elbow
end, thus reducing the specific stress (the stress per unit area) at that
end. If the nipple itself is bent, you'd be transferring a load on the spoke
to a load on the nipple, which could be better. But bending the spoke at
that end, if that's what they're doing, probably does not increase strength.

I'll hypothesize one other thing: The process may actually result in a more
gradual takeup and relief of tensile stress as the wheel rotates. Some
process relating to spoke life (which may, or may not, be "fatigue" in the
engineering sense of the word) probably benefits from that, because a lot of
life-determining events in steel mechanical parts involve the strain-rate
sensitivity of steel.

I'm not going to guess beyond that. I'm already over the top with that
guess. <g >

Whatever, it's interesting.

>
> Like you, I'm open to further education.
>
> When I measured actual tension increases in spoke pairs squeezed with
> known forces on various wheels, the results were greeted with comments
> including "impossible," "must be cheesy wheels," and similar
> incredulity. My measurements can be easily checked, but so far no one
> has announced any different results.
>
> The topic sometimes smacks more of faith than physics.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Have anybody tried boiling their spokes with wing of bat or eye of newt? You
never know. <g >

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 12 Sep 2006 20:39:33
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Ed Huntress wrote:
> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iv3cg255i1qesb1eiorsop55dqrcskfj5m@4ax.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Dear Ed,
>>
>> It does seem to be a theory confined to RBT.
>>
>> It dates from at least 1981.
>>
>> Others have expressed skepticism.
>>
>> I'm just trying to describe the theory and practice, not endorse them.
>>
>> :)
>>
>
> Yes, I realize that. I didn't mean to imply that you did.
>
>> As I understand it, the theory is that cold-bending the spoke elbow
>> and rolling the threads at the nipple end leave residual internal
>> stresses.
>
> That's probably true.
>
>> The spokes are then often bent a little bit more, in order to make the
>> elbow end lie flatter against the hub flange and to make the nipple
>> end bend at the nipple (if necessary) instead of a longer, gentler
>> bend.
>>
>> The theory is that your squeeze all the spokes, two pairs at a time,
>> after the wheel is built and thus relieve the residual stresses.
>
> I suspect -- and I'm really only guessing -- that they're seating the elbow
> end, thus reducing the specific stress (the stress per unit area) at that
> end. If the nipple itself is bent, you'd be transferring a load on the spoke
> to a load on the nipple, which could be better. But bending the spoke at
> that end, if that's what they're doing, probably does not increase strength.
>
> I'll hypothesize one other thing: The process may actually result in a more
> gradual takeup and relief of tensile stress as the wheel rotates. Some
> process relating to spoke life (which may, or may not, be "fatigue" in the
> engineering sense of the word) probably benefits from that, because a lot of
> life-determining events in steel mechanical parts involve the strain-rate
> sensitivity of steel.
>
> I'm not going to guess beyond that. I'm already over the top with that
> guess. <g>
>
> Whatever, it's interesting.
>
>> Like you, I'm open to further education.
>>
>> When I measured actual tension increases in spoke pairs squeezed with
>> known forces on various wheels, the results were greeted with comments
>> including "impossible," "must be cheesy wheels," and similar
>> incredulity. My measurements can be easily checked, but so far no one
>> has announced any different results.
>>
>> The topic sometimes smacks more of faith than physics.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
> Have anybody tried boiling their spokes with wing of bat or eye of newt?

why not indeed - it would be just as effective from a metallurgical
viewpoint.

"stress relief" theory as explained in "the book" has no basis in fact.
its author doesn't understand the process or the conditions under
which it can be achieved - it's merely supposition based on a series of
dissimilar and disconnected factoids roughly thrown together without
sufficient comprehension. it's only support is the convenient
coincidence that the mechanical process itself does actually produce a
stable wheel in which spokes remain evenly tensioned and therefor remain
much more reliable, but metallurgical "stress relief" as described?
pure witchcraft.

> You
> never know. <g>
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>

Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:25:28
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:90b9g2d44ebgof475tl2lltthn98dbg53m@4ax.com...
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> A common analogy is to "scragging" or "bulldozing" coil
> springs--squash 'em down hard, and see the stress relief:
>
> http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf

Wow, you've really made a study of this. I'm going to re-read your message
tomorrow when I have time. However, let me make one point now.

I don't know the term "scragging," but "bulldozing" a spring refers to
squashing it until you've driven it as far as you can into the plastic
range. Car customizers do it to lower ride height without increasing spring
rates (cutting a coil spring results in a surprising increase in stiffness).
Car manufacturers also sometimes do it, as in the case of the Ford springs
cited in the NIST paper, in order to prevent further plastic deformation in
service, which would result in premature sagging of a car's springs.

It isn't about stress relief. If I read the NIST paper correctly, their
point is that the tempering (low-temp heat treatment) does the
stress-relieving. What they're saying about the bulldozing is that it
doesn't *increase* the residual stress, because bulldozing results in a
nearly pure torsional strain on the spring material, which doesn't produce
antagonistic stresses within the bulk of the material. It's all plastically
deformed in one direction, which results in a strain gradient but no
residual stresses result from the operation.

Anyway, that's how I interpret the NIST results, based on what they say in
the paper and also on standard engineering understandings of stress and
strain. I'll look more carefully at your message tomorrow. It deserves a
careful reading.

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 10 Sep 2006 13:53:17
From: The Dougster
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Okay...the consensus is in 6 replies visible is that stainless is the
thing to recycle for sure, and we have some debate on whether inboard
and outboard spokes should be separated for reuse.

I am thinking S-bend spokes would be highly recyclable. Nip to length,
form new bends, and reuse. There'd be no need to own or operate a
threader. Just a pair of special pliers, quick and easy. Preserve the
threaded end.

The Eldi Emergency Spoke Tool, no longer available, comes to mind. I'm
looking around for a 14-15 gage S-bend plier tool. I have found a 15
gage tool used by model airfcraft hobbyists, and ordered it. There is a
Z-bend tool used by hobbyists for wire to 0.062. Spoke wire sizes are
0.072 and 0.081, I think.

Would universal use of straight gage S-bend spokes instead of headed
spokes be a change that would encourage recycling of spokes, rims,
wheels, and bicycles? Recycling is big with bicyclists. Would it also
provide a safety problem? Do such spokes eventually unbend or loosen?
Would S-bend spokes work with automatic wheel builders? It seems that
they would be easier to use with such equipment.

Some artists recycle spokes into craft productions like bracelets, key
rings, etc.

Do double-threaded spokes recycle well? Was that the intent for that
variety, or was there another reason?

The Dougster (I) wrote:
> Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?
>
> Doug Goncz
> Replikon Research
> Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

Date: 10 Sep 2006 13:50:49
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> Nate Knutson wrote:
> >>
> > One of the questions I have about what Jobst says is whether it would
> > be an issue to remove spokes from their wheels and use them in new
> > wheels if you kept track of which were inbound and which were outbound.
> >
> >
> > It should be noted that Jobst is talking about quality, stainless steel
> > spokes that were stress relieved by the wheelbuilder to begin with.
> > Spokes that have never been stress relieved can be assumed to have
> > accumulated some amount of fatigue, weakening them and (by my
> > understanding) possibly putting at least some spokes beyond the point
> > where stress relieving them now will prevent breakage in the future.
> >
> > Re-using non-stainless spokes of any kind is probably not worth it -
> > you're likely to run into corrosion problems on most of the wheels
> > you'd be getting them from, and you can pretty much assume none of them
> > have ever been stress relieved.
>
> It is always interesting to read about things like high end electronics
> and high cost bicycle equipment.
>
> When one buys new spokes, do they come in two packs, one for inbound
> and one for outbound? My guess is that they do not. There is not a
> lot of difference in the angle.

There is considerable difference after the wheelbuilder deliberately
changes the angle of the outer spokes at the hub.

Date: 10 Sep 2006 13:43:56
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Nate Knutson" <bikenate@riseup.net> wrote in message
> news:1157913754.021768.280240@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It should be noted that Jobst is talking about quality, stainless steel
> > spokes that were stress relieved by the wheelbuilder to begin with.
> > Spokes that have never been stress relieved can be assumed to have
> > accumulated some amount of fatigue, weakening them and (by my
> > understanding) possibly putting at least some spokes beyond the point
> > where stress relieving them now will prevent breakage in the future. So
> > if you start re-using lots of spokes from random wheels, some (perhaps
> > many) will break eventually even if they get stress relieved at the
> > start of their new life.
>
> Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What is the
> process they use?
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

There are many, many descriptions in the archives of this group.

Date: 10 Sep 2006 12:35:08
From: dcaster@krl.org
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Nate Knutson wrote:
>>
> One of the questions I have about what Jobst says is whether it would
> be an issue to remove spokes from their wheels and use them in new
> wheels if you kept track of which were inbound and which were outbound.
>
>
> It should be noted that Jobst is talking about quality, stainless steel
> spokes that were stress relieved by the wheelbuilder to begin with.
> Spokes that have never been stress relieved can be assumed to have
> accumulated some amount of fatigue, weakening them and (by my
> understanding) possibly putting at least some spokes beyond the point
> where stress relieving them now will prevent breakage in the future.
>
> Re-using non-stainless spokes of any kind is probably not worth it -
> you're likely to run into corrosion problems on most of the wheels
> you'd be getting them from, and you can pretty much assume none of them
> have ever been stress relieved.

It is always interesting to read about things like high end electronics
and high cost bicycle equipment.

When one buys new spokes, do they come in two packs, one for inbound
and one for outbound? My guess is that they do not. There is not a
lot of difference in the angle.
What would be an interesting experiment, would be to lace up a wheel
with used spokes. And lace it with half of the wheel having spokes
where the used inbound spokes are used for inbound and the used
outbound spokes are used for outbound.
But with the other half of the wheel laced where the used inbound
spokes are used as outbound spokes, etc. One could use the valve hole
to keep track of which side of the wheel had the position preserved.

When bike spokes fail, do they normally fail at the hub end? Or do
they fail at the threaded end?

I am also interested in how the wheel builder stress relieves spokes.
And does an additional stress relief after some use affect the fatique
life. I would think that one could increase fatique life by stress
relieving before ever using something, but question whether performing
an additional stress relief after some amount of use, would add to the
fatique life.

Dan

Date: 10 Sep 2006 11:59:28
From: Mister2u
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Funny I thought the guys at www.bikedump.com were being overly cheap
when they
recycled spokes,I know better now.

Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:48:36
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

The Dougster wrote:
> Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?

As puns go, not the worst one ever coined.

Date: 10 Sep 2006 11:42:34
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> The Dougster wrote:
> > Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?
>
> Er, <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/reusing-spokes.html>?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

One of the questions I have about what Jobst says is whether it would
be an issue to remove spokes from their wheels and use them in new
wheels if you kept track of which were inbound and which were outbound.
This would cause some change in what form they would optimally be set
to coming out of the hub, but usually not very much (although I could
think of some instances where it may be more considerable). I think one
would need to answer some questions here to take spoke re-use to
extremes. I have a bunch of spokes that have been in previous wheels of
mine that I've unlaced and put in bunches that says "296-outer", etc,
but I haven't started experimenting with this yet.

It should be noted that Jobst is talking about quality, stainless steel
spokes that were stress relieved by the wheelbuilder to begin with.
Spokes that have never been stress relieved can be assumed to have
accumulated some amount of fatigue, weakening them and (by my
understanding) possibly putting at least some spokes beyond the point
where stress relieving them now will prevent breakage in the future. So
if you start re-using lots of spokes from random wheels, some (perhaps
many) will break eventually even if they get stress relieved at the
start of their new life.

Re-using non-stainless spokes of any kind is probably not worth it -
you're likely to run into corrosion problems on most of the wheels
you'd be getting them from, and you can pretty much assume none of them
have ever been stress relieved.

Date: 10 Sep 2006 16:04:08
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

"Nate Knutson" <bikenate@riseup.net > wrote in message
news:1157913754.021768.280240@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> It should be noted that Jobst is talking about quality, stainless steel
> spokes that were stress relieved by the wheelbuilder to begin with.
> Spokes that have never been stress relieved can be assumed to have
> accumulated some amount of fatigue, weakening them and (by my
> understanding) possibly putting at least some spokes beyond the point
> where stress relieving them now will prevent breakage in the future. So
> if you start re-using lots of spokes from random wheels, some (perhaps
> many) will break eventually even if they get stress relieved at the
> start of their new life.

Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What is the
process they use?

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 10 Sep 2006 15:34:27
From:
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:04:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net > wrote:

>
>"Nate Knutson" <bikenate@riseup.net> wrote in message
>news:1157913754.021768.280240@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> It should be noted that Jobst is talking about quality, stainless steel
>> spokes that were stress relieved by the wheelbuilder to begin with.
>> Spokes that have never been stress relieved can be assumed to have
>> accumulated some amount of fatigue, weakening them and (by my
>> understanding) possibly putting at least some spokes beyond the point
>> where stress relieving them now will prevent breakage in the future. So
>> if you start re-using lots of spokes from random wheels, some (perhaps
>> many) will break eventually even if they get stress relieved at the
>> start of their new life.
>
>Nate, what do wheel builders mean by "stress-relieving" spokes? What is the
>process they use?

Dear Ed,

Sitting in front of a wheel in a truing stand, grab two pairs of
spokes, one pair with each hand, and squeeze mightily. Wearing gloves
is recommended.

A pair of spokes should be roughly parallel, not crossed.

The nipples of the four spokes should run down the rim A-B-C-D, with A
& C being squeezed with one hand, and B & D being squeezed in the
other hand.

The theory is that this raises the spoke tension enough to relieve
residual stresses from bending the spoke elbow during manufacture and
then the slight bending if the spokes are bent to lie against the hub
flange and to exit the rim at a slightly different angle.

Believers emphasize that this is not merely seating the spoke nipples
and elbows at the rim and hub.

Despite sincere belief and anecdotes, there are no reports of any
spoke testing that confirms or refutes the theory.

The lack of controlled testing (as opposed to anecdotes) leads to
frequent debates on RBT. Unfortunately, automated fatigue testing of
spokes is an incredibly tedious and lengthy business.

The only spoke fatigue tests that I know of were performed over 20
years ago at Stanford for WheelSmith, but did not compare squeezed to
unsqueezed spokes:

http://www.duke.edu/~hpgavin/papers/HPGavin-Wheel-Paper.pdf

Of the 76 spokes tested, 68 broke at the elbow, 8 at the threads.
Testing was stopped because it had taken two months, which gives you
some idea of how tedious it is, particularly since road test stress
ranged from 20 to only 150 MPa, while the test stresses started at
174 MPa and reached 501 MPa.

The first formal description of spoke-squeezing for stress-relief came
in 1981 in "The Bicycle Wheel," by Jobst Brandt, a frequent poster on
RBT.

Twelve years later, Jobst wrote in the third edition of his book:

"It appears that the better spokes now available would have made the
discovery of many of the concepts of this book more difficult for lack
of failure data. I am grateful in retrospect for the poor durability
of earlier spokes. They operated so near their limits that durability
was significantly altered by the techniques that I have outlined."
--Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition, 1993,
p.124

In other words, some improvement in spokes had made spokes so much
more durable within a decade that Jobst himself thought it would be
difficult to discover his theory "for lack of failure data"--not that
there is any data in the sense of results from controlled testing.

I waver between believing and doubting the theory that squeezing
spokes by hand relieves internal stresses.

Recently, I wasted a lot of time measuring the actual tension increase
in squeezed spokes.

Contrary to ad hoc theories that a modest squeeze force must produce a
large tension increase, it appears that 32 and 36 spoke rims of
ordinary construction deform in a faint M or W shape when squeezed in
the traditional fashion because the top and bottom spokes of the
A-B-C-D pattern are pulling largely unopposed in opposite directions.

To boil the uselessly detailed statistics down, a one-handed 60-pound
squeeze force on spokes A & C and a simultaneous one-handed 60-pound
squeeze force on spokes B & D raises the tension of each spoke only
about 55 to 65 pounds.

Squeeze forces greater than 60 pounds tend to leave faint, permanent
bends in the spokes. The dramatic bend angle fooled many people into
thinking that the spoke tension increase must be enormous, with
calculations estimating that a gentle 30-pound squeeze force would
raise spoke tension an impressive 150 pounds, instead of the measured
tension increase, which is actually often under 30 pounds.

From a practical point of view, no one claims that spoke-squeezing
hurts anything. Even those who doubt that it relieves residual
stresses emphasize that spoke-squeezing is necessary for seating and
bedding the spokes.

It's one of the regular topics for debate on RBT.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:59:42
From: Ed Huntress
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:3ru8g2hbqneon3phs8tmkl50qd9v802gab@4ax.com...

<detailed explanation of spoke squeezing snipped >

Thanks, Carl. That really is interesting, and I appreciate your taking the
time to explain it.

I have a first-edition copy of _The Bicycle Wheel_ that I bought over 20
years ago. I forgot about the squeezing business.

As I mentioned in another post, I wouldn't suggest that there isn't
something going on there. But relieving internal stresses is not it, at
least, not from the perspective of metallurgical engineering and
science...at least, not that I've ever read, over 20-some years of studying
and writing about the subject.

Nevertheless, the sophistication involved in wheelbuilding today is
impressive and interesting.

--
Ed Huntress

Date: 10 Sep 2006 10:35:09
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Recycling Bicycle Spokes

The Dougster wrote:
> Any thoughts, pro, con, or tech?

Er, <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/reusing-spokes.html >?

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain