bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 28 Sep 2007 21:05:58 From: Mark Subject: Maintenance Manuals Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book does for auto repair. I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol   Date: 03 Oct 2007 07:51:16 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 2, 12:27 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > > On Oct 2, 12:27 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote: > >> If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other > >> spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack > >> spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? > > > Since the rim has the same rigidity, it's likely > > that the flattened area at the bottom when loaded > > will be about the same. > > Nope. The rim is supported (stands on) the spokes. If you take out half, > you increase the unsupported span. Beam deflection goes as the cube of > span (beam theory -- no relation). Okay, but I think you are going to increase the forces from the bottom-most spokes (the tension reduction which supports the rim against load force from the ground). Just because there's only so much of the rim that actually deforms against the vertical load (Once you get to ~4 o'clock and 8 o'clock, the angle of the rim sections is not so favorable for deforming against that load, I suspect.) Increase in the spoke forces tend to counteract the increased deflection, although they won't cancel it. This is kind of a vacuous argument since I can't do the FEA, but I'm quite sure that an 18-spoke wheel will suffer higher cyclic loads on the spokes than a 36 spoke wheel. > > There's another issue from the fact that box rims are > > not as stiff radially as something like a Deep-V, > > and probably a bit less stiff side-to-side. > > I'm not so sure about the side-to-side. If the same amount of material > is used, it seems unlikely that moments on both axes will be greater -- > all other things being equal. Yes, I specifically mentioned a Deep V because it's a stout heavy rim that I suspect would in fact be harder to bend sideways, even though no wider than an MA-2. Ben     Date: 03 Oct 2007 10:56:32 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > On Oct 2, 12:27 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>> On Oct 2, 12:27 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote: >>>> If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other >>>> spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack >>>> spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? >>> Since the rim has the same rigidity, it's likely >>> that the flattened area at the bottom when loaded >>> will be about the same. >> Nope. The rim is supported (stands on) the spokes. If you take out half, >> you increase the unsupported span. Beam deflection goes as the cube of >> span (beam theory -- no relation). > > Okay, but I think you are going to increase the forces > from the bottom-most spokes (the tension reduction which > supports the rim against load force from the ground). > Just because there's only so much of the rim that actually > deforms against the vertical load (Once you get to ~4 o'clock > and 8 o'clock, the angle of the rim sections is not so > favorable for deforming against that load, I suspect.) > Increase in the spoke forces tend to counteract the > increased deflection, although they won't cancel it. This > is kind of a vacuous argument since I can't do the FEA, > but I'm quite sure that an 18-spoke wheel will suffer > higher cyclic loads on the spokes than a 36 spoke wheel. At this point I'm not exactly sure of who's saying what, so I'll try to state my view simply. If you consider a railroad track and take out every other tie, the track will deflect more, both between the ties and at the ties. You could, in the case of a wheel, increase spoke tension to compensate for the additional deflection (increasing the point where slacking occurs), that won't make the wheel stiffer, and there's (still) a limit due to buckling. Half the spokes should generate half the rim compression, so theoretically you could double the tension, but the rim is less well supported laterally against buckling, so the limit of compression will be lower (exactly how much I don't know). The net effect is that the wheel will be less stiff (higher cyclic stresses/strains) and probably won't achieve the same load capacity. >>> There's another issue from the fact that box rims are >>> not as stiff radially as something like a Deep-V, >>> and probably a bit less stiff side-to-side. >> I'm not so sure about the side-to-side. If the same amount of material >> is used, it seems unlikely that moments on both axes will be greater -- >> all other things being equal. > > Yes, I specifically mentioned a Deep V because it's > a stout heavy rim that I suspect would in fact be harder > to bend sideways, even though no wider than an MA-2. If you don't keep the mass the same, then it's apples to oranges. If you compare 2 "U" columns (for simplicity), the wide, squat "U" will bend more easily vertically and less easily horizontally than the tall, narrow "U". I think it's the horizontal bending that dominates in buckling. The specific profile comparison I had in mind was between the MA-2 Jobst references in his book and the similar, but taller and narrower, rims that immediately replaced them (Reflex, Open Pro).     Date: 03 Oct 2007 02:23:01 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:51:16 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote: [snip] > . . .I'm quite sure that an 18-spoke wheel will suffer >higher cyclic loads on the spokes than a 36 spoke wheel. [snip] Dear Ben, If the 18-spoke wheel has a significantly stronger rim than a traditional 36-spoke rim, it will deform less and the spokes may see the same (or even lower) cyclic loads. I _think_ that this is what Jim Beam has in mind. Certainly Jobst wrote that aero rims were stronger: "With large cross section mountain bike and deep section aero rims the tension of 36 spokes may not exceed the strength of the rim. For such heavy rims and conventional road rims using fewer than 32 spokes, tensioning is usually at the limit when the nipples can no longer be tightened easily." --3rd edition This is why Jobst's original method of finding the highest practical spoke tension no longer worked--the spokes would start to wind up excessively before the rim would go out of true when spoke pairs were squeezed. His best suggestion was that builders should tighten the spokes on such rims until the spokes began to wind up excessively and quit at that point. That was in 1993. Tension gauges soon more widely available, and rim manufacturers began publishing the spoke tension recommendations that would have been pointless without the measuring tools. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 03 Oct 2007 12:35:28 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:51:16 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" > <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote: > > [snip] > >> . . .I'm quite sure that an 18-spoke wheel will suffer >> higher cyclic loads on the spokes than a 36 spoke wheel. > > [snip] > > Dear Ben, > > If the 18-spoke wheel has a *significantly stronger rim* than a > traditional 36-spoke rim, it will deform less and the spokes may see > the same (or even lower) cyclic loads. > > I _think_ that this is what Jim Beam has in mind. [emphasis mine] Of course that's a separate question. If you look at the limit of a 4-spoke wheel with infinitely stiff rim, I calculate a ~2.5x greater* spoke cyclic loading. An 8-spoke wheel would have around the same* spoke loading. The loads would continue to diminish as you add spokes. To look at an actual reduced spoke aero wheel, like the Mavic Kyserium Equippe 08, the 20 spoke rear wheel is spec'ed at 130-145kg, as opposed to the 70-90 for their "classic" rims, so I guess the rim is rather far from being "infinitely stiff". An even more deep section rim on Mavic's COSMIC ELITE wheels, specs 135-165kg. Perhaps, given the spoke spacing and dish, the greater tension is merely to give more buckle resistance. I don't really know. But otherwise I don't know why they'd use such comparatively high spoke tensions if the "stronger" rim gave "lower cyclic loads". *Than nominal 36 spoke wheel.   Date: 02 Oct 2007 16:59:32 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 2, 12:27 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs > wrote: > On 2007-10-02, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > [...] > > > regarding spoke tension, jobst is incorrect when he says reducing spoke > > count should increase spoke tension. there is /no/ reason a rim should > > keep "constant" compression in this way. and tension does not increase > > the strength of a wheel. hence, if you check manufacturer tension > > figures for rims with different spoke counts, you'll find the same > > tension spec regardless of count. > > Is that basically because low-spoke-count rims are stiffer? > > If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other > spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack > spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? Since the rim has the same rigidity, it's likely that the flattened area at the bottom when loaded will be about the same. This is the zone of spoke tension reduction, which is about 4 spokes on a 36 hole wheel, so the load will be borne by tension reduction in only 2 spokes. IOW, each wheel revolution causes a load cycling in the spokes which is 2x the load cycling in a 36 hole wheel. Under perfect conditions, if you load with 50 kg, the tension reduction is only 25 kgf per spoke, but transient loads may be higher. The radial stiffness of a deep rim will distribute the load over more spokes at any given time. There's another issue from the fact that box rims are not as stiff radially as something like a Deep-V, and probably a bit less stiff side-to-side. With only 18 spokes, it will be harder to get the rim radially true and keep it that way. Also for side-to-side runout. So you might have both spoke lifetime and trueness issues. Practice shows rules of thumb which were generally built on experience. Box section rims like Open Pros (and maybe MA-40s, GEL 280s, etc) are/were available in 28 hole drillings. 28 hole box rim wheels are generally regarded as less reliable than 32, for both spoke breakage and taco reasons, I think. Less than 28 holes were rare, except for superlight hillclimb type wheels, and that's almost certainly for a good reason. Ben     Date: 02 Oct 2007 15:27:23 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > On Oct 2, 12:27 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote: >> If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other >> spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack >> spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? > > Since the rim has the same rigidity, it's likely > that the flattened area at the bottom when loaded > will be about the same. Nope. The rim is supported (stands on) the spokes. If you take out half, you increase the unsupported span. Beam deflection goes as the cube of span (beam theory -- no relation). > There's another issue from the fact that box rims are > not as stiff radially as something like a Deep-V, > and probably a bit less stiff side-to-side. I'm not so sure about the side-to-side. If the same amount of material is used, it seems unlikely that moments on both axes will be greater -- all other things being equal.       Date: 02 Oct 2007 20:56:28 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >> On Oct 2, 12:27 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote: > >>> If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other >>> spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack >>> spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? >> >> Since the rim has the same rigidity, it's likely >> that the flattened area at the bottom when loaded >> will be about the same. > > Nope. The rim is supported (stands on) the spokes. if that were the full story, then it would apply to an infinitely stiff rim. but it doesn't. "standing" theory is merely one part of a larger picture that still needs to account for rim deformation. > If you take out half, > you increase the unsupported span. Beam deflection goes as the cube of > span (beam theory -- no relation). indeed. but the result is? http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/ that rim you see will support my full body weight with no [ZERO] spokes. > > >> There's another issue from the fact that box rims are >> not as stiff radially as something like a Deep-V, >> and probably a bit less stiff side-to-side. > > I'm not so sure about the side-to-side. If the same amount of material > is used, it seems unlikely that moments on both axes will be greater -- > all other things being equal. except that the cross section area is bigger, hence they're stiffer.         Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:45:03 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>> On Oct 2, 12:27 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote: >> >>>> If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other >>>> spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack >>>> spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? >>> >>> Since the rim has the same rigidity, it's likely >>> that the flattened area at the bottom when loaded >>> will be about the same. >> >> Nope. The rim is supported (stands on) the spokes. > > if that were the full story, then it would apply to an infinitely stiff > rim. but it doesn't. "standing" theory is merely one part of a larger > picture that still needs to account for rim deformation. It's all in the FEA, completely in agreement with the analysis of several others. Your "infinitely stiff rim" is just beam smoke. >> If you take out half, you increase the unsupported span. Beam >> deflection goes as the cube of span (beam theory -- no relation). > > indeed. but the result is? > http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/ > > that rim you see will support my full body weight with no [ZERO] spokes. Proving what? What's the max G-loading your wheel sees? Since deflection from load is only critical around the contact area, the no spoke stunt is just that, only a stunt. You have to understand any of the (consistent) models to get that. >>> There's another issue from the fact that box rims are >>> not as stiff radially as something like a Deep-V, >>> and probably a bit less stiff side-to-side. >> >> I'm not so sure about the side-to-side. If the same amount of material >> is used, it seems unlikely that moments on both axes will be greater >> -- all other things being equal. > > except that the cross section area is bigger, hence they're stiffer. You need to understand second moments of inertia. This stuff has been around since the 18th century.           Date: 03 Oct 2007 16:47:40 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <c82dnSd-p-tME57anZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > It's all in the FEA, completely in agreement with the analysis of > several others. Your "infinitely stiff rim" is just beam smoke. Chuckle. Or beam fumes. -- Michael Press   Date: 01 Oct 2007 22:10:37 From: Mark Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 1, 3:33 pm, Anthony DeLorenzo <anthony.delore...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Sep 28, 9:05 pm, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I wondered if there is a book > > that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows > > pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book > > does for auto repair. > > Hi Mark, > > I noticed that (before the thread shifted to a discussion on > wheelbuilding) no one mentioned the four-volume Barnett's manual. It > uses detailed step-by-step procedures. I've been very happy with it. > > Regards, > Anthony Thanks I will look for that one. I sent an email to Schwinn today too, but so far no one has answered it to see what their recommendation happens to be. Ideally they have one that is for my specific bike, but frankly I doubt it. They did put their owners manuals online, but it was the same manual for almost every bike they make. Big help that is.   Date: 01 Oct 2007 17:48:26 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 1, 8:17 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. > > that's a personal issue for you spike. Actually, it's not a personal issue; it's a personal observation. The same observation made by many others who have read your posts. -- Spike     Date: 01 Oct 2007 21:09:06 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > On Oct 1, 8:17 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >>> I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. >> that's a personal issue for you spike. > > Actually, it's not a personal issue; it's a personal observation. The > same observation made by many others who have read your posts. > -- > Spike > > > you want to align yourself with jambo???       Date: 02 Oct 2007 22:20:31 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:TPmdnf6eFZT-WZzanZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@speakeasy.net... > spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >> On Oct 1, 8:17 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >>>> I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. >>> that's a personal issue for you spike. >> >> Actually, it's not a personal issue; it's a personal observation. The >> same observation made by many others who have read your posts. >> -- >> Spike >> > you want to align yourself with jambo??? And everybody else, except maybe Dougy Taylor, Bill S, you know, the "winners" here in r.b.t.         Date: 02 Oct 2007 20:59:35 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:TPmdnf6eFZT-WZzanZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >>> On Oct 1, 8:17 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>> I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. >>>> that's a personal issue for you spike. >>> Actually, it's not a personal issue; it's a personal observation. The >>> same observation made by many others who have read your posts. >>> -- >>> Spike >>> >> you want to align yourself with jambo??? > > And everybody else, except maybe Dougy Taylor, Bill S, you know, the > "winners" here in r.b.t. > > translation: "everybody's with me - except for those that aren't!" what a fucking moron!           Date: 03 Oct 2007 11:36:16 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:FoidnXQZ2pM1jp7anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Jambo wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:TPmdnf6eFZT-WZzanZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>> spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >>>> On Oct 1, 8:17 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>>> I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. >>>>> that's a personal issue for you spike. >>>> Actually, it's not a personal issue; it's a personal observation. The >>>> same observation made by many others who have read your posts. >>>> -- >>>> Spike >>>> >>> you want to align yourself with jambo??? >> >> And everybody else, except maybe Dougy Taylor, Bill S, you know, the >> "winners" here in r.b.t. > > translation: "everybody's with me - except for those that aren't!" what a > fucking moron! That's right beamboy. Everybody's with me, except those (2 or 3) that aren't. You may have learned something from "metarials skool" after all.....       Date: 02 Oct 2007 15:11:16 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >> On Oct 1, 8:17 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >>>> I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. >>> that's a personal issue for you spike. >> >> Actually, it's not a personal issue; it's a personal observation. The >> same observation made by many others who have read your posts. >> -- >> Spike >> >> >> > you want to align yourself with jambo??? I think that's what he said, yes.   Date: 01 Oct 2007 20:33:52 From: Anthony DeLorenzo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sep 28, 9:05 pm, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com > wrote: > I wondered if there is a book > that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows > pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book > does for auto repair. Hi Mark, I noticed that (before the thread shifted to a discussion on wheelbuilding) no one mentioned the four-volume Barnett's manual. It uses detailed step-by-step procedures. I've been very happy with it. Regards, Anthony   Date: 01 Oct 2007 08:05:28 From: ycleptor2@cs.com Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There > is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly > don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book > that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows > pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book > does for auto repair. > > I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to > keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this > into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and > the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol And there's Talbot's Designing and Building Your Own Frameset, but I had no idea it was so expensive now. I'll have to move mine to the safe! http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Building-Your-Own-Frameset/dp/0960241833 Cheers,     Date: 01 Oct 2007 21:29:58 From: M-gineering Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals ycleptor2@cs.com wrote: > > And there's Talbot's Designing and Building Your Own Frameset, but I > had no idea it was so expensive now. I'll have to move mine to the > safe! > > http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Building-Your-Own-Frameset/dp/0960241833 > > Cheers, > $75+pp buys a current Paterek manual which is actually usefull instead of a romantic document of a bygone era;) -- /Marten info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl   Date: 01 Oct 2007 00:25:06 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sep 30, 11:23 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: Peter Cole wrote: snip > > You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce > > higher than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? > because i've tried it! Specifically, which 36 hole, conventional cross-section rim of 430 or less grams did you try this on and what is your source for the manufacturer's recommended spoke tension range? I'm asking because I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. The exclamation point you put after your statement doesn't lift it above the normal credibility level of zero. > modern deep profile rims can take much more stress before they > buckle.... a rim stiff enough to take double spoke tension [as > determined by the jobstian method] before buckling isn't going to > make rims last very long when it comes to cracking. use of a > tensiometer is therefore essential. Everyone would be aware of this either from their own knowledge, experience and common sense or from having read Jobst's book. Nothing like stating the obvious as if it's an original and profound revelation from the sage of RBT, jim - never in doubt, often in error - beam. -- Spike     Date: 08 Oct 2007 17:10:58 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 8, 2:57 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote: > On Oct 7, 9:12 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool > > to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. > > But regrettably it does. My 1970's-standard optimum tension by "feel" > will crack modern rims. I don't know about your feel, but four years ago I built two sets of touring wheels for a coast-to-coast fully loaded tour that included many miles of off-road. No tensionmeter, no problems with strength, no problems with staying in true, no cracks in the Sun CR18 rims. My "feel" seems to be working. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 08 Oct 2007 11:57:57 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 9:12 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 7, 11:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: <snip > > Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool > to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. But regrettably it does. My 1970's-standard optimum tension by "feel" will crack modern rims. I have recalibrated my feel but now check it with a tensiometer. That tension represents a compromise between cracking and the wheel going out of true. I never had to make that compromise back in the old ModE days, since the tension necessary to crack the rim would cause it to taco during build. Over-tension was easy to avoid. Now it is not so easy without a tool. C'est la vie. I like tools (except ones for propreitary parts that you use twice before the part breaks/goes out of production). -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 08 Oct 2007 10:12:22 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 8, 11:59 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1191843847.754063.29...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > Ozark Bicycle > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > On Oct 7, 10:42 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > In article > > > <1191725789.830293.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > > > Ozark Bicycle > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote: > > > > > > That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and > > > > > durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack > > > > > at spoke eyelets. > > > > > If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH, > > > > using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids > > > > this problem in most cases. > > > > Building a rim with sockets that can carry a spoke load in > > > excess of the buckling load of the rim avoids the problem > > > without a builder wasting time going to a manufacturer's > > > web site and wasting time searching for the information. > > > > Choice: > > > > * Search for the data and use a tensiometer to keep > > > spoke tension under the manufacturer's specification. > > > > * Build the wheel with spoke tension just under > > > the tension that will buckle the rim. > > > > I want the second choice. > > > I think you should petition the rim makers to make a special line of > > rims for lazy, cheapskate home wheel builders. ;-) > > You rang? > > -- > Michael Press It's a collect call! ;-)       Date: 09 Oct 2007 05:31:17 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191863542.545499.41020@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Oct 8, 11:59 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > In article > > <1191843847.754063.29...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > > Ozark Bicycle > > > > > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 7, 10:42 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <1191725789.830293.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Ozark Bicycle > > > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote: > > > > > > > > That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and > > > > > > durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack > > > > > > at spoke eyelets. > > > > > > > If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH, > > > > > using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids > > > > > this problem in most cases. > > > > > > Building a rim with sockets that can carry a spoke load in > > > > excess of the buckling load of the rim avoids the problem > > > > without a builder wasting time going to a manufacturer's > > > > web site and wasting time searching for the information. > > > > > > Choice: > > > > > > * Search for the data and use a tensiometer to keep > > > > spoke tension under the manufacturer's specification. > > > > > > * Build the wheel with spoke tension just under > > > > the tension that will buckle the rim. > > > > > > I want the second choice. > > > > > I think you should petition the rim makers to make a special line of > > > rims for lazy, cheapskate home wheel builders. ;-) > > > > You rang? > > It's a collect call! ;-) NO CARRIER -- Michael Press     Date: 07 Oct 2007 19:04:49 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 12:33 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Oct 7, 11:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle > >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >>>> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and > >>>> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the > >>>> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true > >>>> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the > >>>> makers recommendations. > >>> FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should > >>> have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage. > >>> And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily > >>> out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that > >>> doesn't destroy the rim. > >>> - Frank Krygowski > >> do you use a pressure gauge when inflating the tires on your car? > > > Why, yes, I do. > > > Do I use a pressure gage when inflating my bike tires? Sometimes yes, > > sometimes no. > > > Do I use a torque wrench when tightening cylinder head bolts? > > Absolutely. > > > Do I use a torque wrench when replacing brake pads on my bike brakes? > > Never. > > > Should every mechanical operation involving a bike require investing > > in a new, single purpose, $60 tool? Absolutely not. > > > Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool > > to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > that's uninformed and arbitrary. Sorry, it's not "uninformed." You may steadfastly despise one of my sources of information, but it's worked well for me during the building of oh, perhaps 20 wheels. None of the wheels has ever failed, including on very long fully loaded tours including rough, even unpaved, riding surfaces. > the logic for using instruments is > that humans can't judge the effect of the process they're undertaking. > that is as applicable to wheel spokes as it is to tire pressure or > cylinder head bolting. if anything, more so given that the materials > involved don't give any indication of pending failure until it's too > late. I seem to have judged the effect of the process rather well - as have perhaps millions of wheel builders who have not bothered with tension meters. I don't feel the need to buy every special tool for every possible process. My success proves to my satisfaction that I don't need every such tool. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:12:47 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:04:49 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On Oct 7, 12:33 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Oct 7, 11:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle >> >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> >>>> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and >> >>>> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the >> >>>> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true >> >>>> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the >> >>>> makers recommendations. >> >>> FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should >> >>> have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage. >> >>> And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily >> >>> out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that >> >>> doesn't destroy the rim. >> >>> - Frank Krygowski >> >> do you use a pressure gauge when inflating the tires on your car? >> >> > Why, yes, I do. >> >> > Do I use a pressure gage when inflating my bike tires? Sometimes yes, >> > sometimes no. >> >> > Do I use a torque wrench when tightening cylinder head bolts? >> > Absolutely. >> >> > Do I use a torque wrench when replacing brake pads on my bike brakes? >> > Never. >> >> > Should every mechanical operation involving a bike require investing >> > in a new, single purpose, $60 tool? Absolutely not. >> >> > Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool >> > to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> that's uninformed and arbitrary. > >Sorry, it's not "uninformed." You may steadfastly despise one of my >sources of information, but it's worked well for me during the >building of oh, perhaps 20 wheels. > >None of the wheels has ever failed, including on very long fully >loaded tours including rough, even unpaved, riding surfaces. > >> the logic for using instruments is >> that humans can't judge the effect of the process they're undertaking. >> that is as applicable to wheel spokes as it is to tire pressure or >> cylinder head bolting. if anything, more so given that the materials >> involved don't give any indication of pending failure until it's too >> late. > >I seem to have judged the effect of the process rather well - as have >perhaps millions of wheel builders who have not bothered with tension >meters. > >I don't feel the need to buy every special tool for every possible >process. My success proves to my satisfaction that I don't need every >such tool. > >- Frank Krygowski Dear Frank, Off-topic, but I'm curious. Plenty of people build wheels without tension gauges, and even more people ride without tire gauges. I've been looking, but I can't get any handle on when tire gauges came into wide use for bicycles for pros or for commuters. Do you have any idea when tire gauges came into use? Or suggestions about who to ask or where to look? Cheers, Carl Fogel     Date: 07 Oct 2007 04:01:32 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com > wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: <snipped for brevity > > > > How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? > > > I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I > have not built any wheels that size. > So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. You're dismissed.       Date: 07 Oct 2007 06:52:23 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote: > On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > <snipped for brevity> > >>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? > > >> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I >> have not built any wheels that size. >> > > So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. > > You're dismissed. Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky! BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. Sorry about all the caps, but Zarky is being a bit dense. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 01 Oct 2007 06:17:56 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > On Sep 30, 11:23 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > Peter Cole wrote: > > snip > >>> You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce >>> higher than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? > >> because i've tried it! > > Specifically, which 36 hole, conventional cross-section rim of 430 or > less grams did you try this on i've done this test on several wheels with different rims - mavic open pro, x517, x618, etc. and of course, an ma2. spoke count and lacing make no difference. > and what is your source for the > manufacturer's recommended spoke tension range? i called mavic's tech department. 1-888-go-mavic. they're very helpful. > I'm asking because > I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. that's a personal issue for you spike. if i state something like "modulus = stress/strain", you can independently verify "believability" for yourself. and you could verify "believability" of the above too if you had a tensiometer. and used it. > The exclamation point you put after your statement doesn't lift it > above the normal credibility level of zero. that's a personal issue for you spike. > >> modern deep profile rims can take much more stress before they > buckle.... a rim stiff enough to take double spoke tension [as > determined by the jobstian method] before buckling isn't going to > make rims last very long when it comes to cracking. use of a > tensiometer is therefore essential. > > > Everyone would be aware of this either from their own knowledge, > experience and common sense or from having read Jobst's book. Nothing > like stating the obvious as if it's an original and profound > revelation from the sage of RBT, jim - never in doubt, often in error > - beam. "obvious"? it's apparently not "obvious" to jobst since he doesn't cover this in his book. kind of a serious omission since the excess spoke tension his procedure causes is directly responsible for rim destruction that costs consumers and manufacturers a small fortune.       Date: 02 Oct 2007 14:58:10 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >> Everyone would be aware of this either from their own knowledge, >> experience and common sense or from having read Jobst's book. Nothing >> like stating the obvious as if it's an original and profound >> revelation from the sage of RBT, jim - never in doubt, often in error >> - beam. > > "obvious"? it's apparently not "obvious" to jobst since he doesn't > cover this in his book. kind of a serious omission since the excess > spoke tension his procedure causes is directly responsible for rim > destruction that costs consumers and manufacturers a small fortune. Cover what? A specific manufacturer's specific max tension limit? Should he have an appendix? Monthly updates? Why not just have Mavic be more up front about their rims? Like a sticker: Warning! Do not exceed spoke tension of 90kg or your rims will crack! That should do it. They could add it to all the useless stickers they plaster their rims with. After all, they say just that in the "tech" manual they hide (password protected) on their crappy flash site.         Date: 02 Oct 2007 20:59:17 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > >>> Everyone would be aware of this either from their own knowledge, >>> experience and common sense or from having read Jobst's book. Nothing >>> like stating the obvious as if it's an original and profound >>> revelation from the sage of RBT, jim - never in doubt, often in error >>> - beam. >> >> "obvious"? it's apparently not "obvious" to jobst since he doesn't >> cover this in his book. kind of a serious omission since the excess >> spoke tension his procedure causes is directly responsible for rim >> destruction that costs consumers and manufacturers a small fortune. > > Cover what? A specific manufacturer's specific max tension limit? Should > he have an appendix? Monthly updates? a simple acknowledgment in the "faq" will suffice. and correcting in subsequent editions of the book. seriously, this is a fundamental error that costs untold numbers of cracked rims every year. > Why not just have Mavic be more up > front about their rims? Like a sticker: Warning! Do not exceed spoke > tension of 90kg or your rims will crack! That should do it. on that we agree. > They could > add it to all the useless stickers they plaster their rims with. After > all, they say just that in the "tech" manual they hide (password > protected) on their crappy flash site. how about you stop being such a prick? if they were as "crappy" as you claim, why bother with the information at all? simply sticker with skull and bones, and "use at your own risk". you'd /love/ that, wouldn't you.           Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:52:21 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >> >>>> Everyone would be aware of this either from their own knowledge, >>>> experience and common sense or from having read Jobst's book. Nothing >>>> like stating the obvious as if it's an original and profound >>>> revelation from the sage of RBT, jim - never in doubt, often in error >>>> - beam. >>> >>> "obvious"? it's apparently not "obvious" to jobst since he doesn't >>> cover this in his book. kind of a serious omission since the excess >>> spoke tension his procedure causes is directly responsible for rim >>> destruction that costs consumers and manufacturers a small fortune. >> >> Cover what? A specific manufacturer's specific max tension limit? >> Should he have an appendix? Monthly updates? > > a simple acknowledgment in the "faq" will suffice. and correcting in > subsequent editions of the book. > seriously, this is a fundamental error > that costs untold numbers of cracked rims every year. Sure, millions at least. > > >> Why not just have Mavic be more up front about their rims? Like a >> sticker: Warning! Do not exceed spoke tension of 90kg or your rims >> will crack! That should do it. > > on that we agree. > > >> They could add it to all the useless stickers they plaster their rims >> with. After all, they say just that in the "tech" manual they hide >> (password protected) on their crappy flash site. > > how about you stop being such a prick? if they were as "crappy" as you > claim, why bother with the information at all? It's the information that says they're crappy. Really, do try to keep up. Their web site is crappy, too. Why do they password protect their manuals? Why don't they put at least wheel builder specs in public? You can buy the rims at retail channels. Stop being such a tool for the industry, and, while you're at it, stop being such a tool period.       Date: 01 Oct 2007 10:47:28 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:dvydnYv169EZbp3anZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@speakeasy.net... > spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >> Specifically, which 36 hole, conventional cross-section rim of 430 or >> less grams did you try this on > > i've done this test on several wheels with different rims - mavic open > pro, x517, x618, etc. and of course, an ma2. spoke count and lacing make > no difference. Then you should be able to post pictures of these on your little flickr website. At least 4 rims mentioned there.         Date: 01 Oct 2007 21:08:24 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:dvydnYv169EZbp3anZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >>> Specifically, which 36 hole, conventional cross-section rim of 430 or >>> less grams did you try this on >> i've done this test on several wheels with different rims - mavic open >> pro, x517, x618, etc. and of course, an ma2. spoke count and lacing make >> no difference. > > Then you should be able to post pictures of these on your little flickr > website. At least 4 rims mentioned there. you know, i could. but since a wheel with excess tension looks /identical/ to one with rim manufacturer spec tension, i figured nobody would be moronic enough to consider it necessary. obviously, i hadn't taken your "special needs" into account. moron.           Date: 02 Oct 2007 22:30:38 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:TPmdnf-eFZSkWZzanZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Jambo wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:dvydnYv169EZbp3anZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>> spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >>>> Specifically, which 36 hole, conventional cross-section rim of 430 or >>>> less grams did you try this on >>> i've done this test on several wheels with different rims - mavic open >>> pro, x517, x618, etc. and of course, an ma2. spoke count and lacing >>> make no difference. >> >> Then you should be able to post pictures of these on your little flickr >> website. At least 4 rims mentioned there. > > you know, i could. but since a wheel with excess tension looks > /identical/ to one with rim manufacturer spec tension, i figured nobody > would be moronic enough to consider it necessary. obviously, i hadn't > taken your "special needs" into account. moron. But it is necessary, beamboy. Since you have a proven track record of fraud and lies, you can at least try to show rims with tensiometers attached to the spokes, and show the effects on the rims. But you can't do that, because all this is in your little mind, isn't it?       Date: 01 Oct 2007 10:44:43 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message > that's a personal issue for you spike. if i state something like "modulus > = stress/strain", you can independently verify "believability" for > yourself. Just like you can verify "believability" of beamboy statements like -"sikorski [sic] materials lecture more than 30 years ago" on non-existent CF helo rotors -cracking sound made by CF is used as damage indicator by aircraft manufacturers -he is a "former metallurgist"... er, make that "metallurgist" -etc, etc, etc...         Date: 02 Oct 2007 23:10:44 From: _ Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:44:43 -0400, Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > >> that's a personal issue for you spike. if i state something like "modulus >> = stress/strain", you can independently verify "believability" for >> yourself. > > Just like you can verify "believability" of beamboy statements like > -"sikorski [sic] materials lecture more than 30 years ago" on non-existent > CF helo rotors > -cracking sound made by CF is used as damage indicator by aircraft > manufacturers > -he is a "former metallurgist"... er, make that "metallurgist" > -etc, etc, etc... How about "crank cotters are tightened with the nut"?           Date: 02 Oct 2007 19:36:44 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals J. Taylor wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:44:43 -0400, Jambo wrote: > >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> >>> that's a personal issue for you spike. if i state something like "modulus >>> = stress/strain", you can independently verify "believability" for >>> yourself. >> Just like you can verify "believability" of beamboy statements like >> -"sikorski [sic] materials lecture more than 30 years ago" on non-existent >> CF helo rotors >> -cracking sound made by CF is used as damage indicator by aircraft >> manufacturers >> -he is a "former metallurgist"... er, make that "metallurgist" >> -etc, etc, etc... > > How about "crank cotters are tightened with the nut"? Maybe he meant to write "crank cotters are tightened by the nut (holding the tool)"? ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 01 Oct 2007 02:11:30 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:25:06 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Sep 30, 11:23 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >Peter Cole wrote: > >snip > >> > You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce >> > higher than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? > >> because i've tried it! > >Specifically, which 36 hole, conventional cross-section rim of 430 or >less grams did you try this on and what is your source for the >manufacturer's recommended spoke tension range? I'm asking because >I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. >The exclamation point you put after your statement doesn't lift it >above the normal credibility level of zero. > >> modern deep profile rims can take much more stress before they > buckle.... a rim stiff enough to take double spoke tension [as > determined by the jobstian method] before buckling isn't going to > make rims last very long when it comes to cracking. use of a > tensiometer is therefore essential. > > >Everyone would be aware of this either from their own knowledge, >experience and common sense or from having read Jobst's book. Nothing >like stating the obvious as if it's an original and profound >revelation from the sage of RBT, jim - never in doubt, often in error >- beam. Dear Spike, Sorry, but people aren't actually reading "The Bicycle Wheel," which is probably why they don't quote it. The book does _say_ to use a tensiometer to determine the correct tension, but only in the sense of measuring an already established correct tension for later use in building the next identical wheel. The book says that the correct tension is _first_ determined by other methods, namely raising tension on 36-spoke count wheels until squeezing spoke pairs together produces a deformed wheel or when the spokes on low-count or deep-section wheels can no longer be tightened without excessive windup: "The final tension of a wheel built by feel is affected by the mood of its builder. By using a tension measuring tool a builder can establish proper tension, then repeat it. Such a tool, a tensiometer, measures the deflection of a spoke over a given span in response to a standard load. The dial is calibrated in tension or displacement. Either measure is equally useful for wheel building. It is not necessary to know the actual tension but only that the tension has reached the desired mark. The correct maximum tension for a specific wheel design must still be determined first by stress relieving. For some deep section rims or wheels with few spokes, the limit of tension is reached when spokes can no longer be tightened further without excessive windup. For subsequent wheels of the same type the tensiometer can accurately and quickly determine whether spokes have reached the predetermined tension." --3rd edition Obviously, deep-section 36-spoke rims can stand more tension before distorting than MA-2's. I'm not arguing about wheel-building methods, just pointing out that people who want to claim that Jobst's book says something ought to provide quotes to back up their claims. As far as I can see, Jim Beam's description is closer to being accurate--the book says to raise tension until the rim fails to stay in shape if you squeeze the spoke pairs, or to tighten low-count spokes until the spoke wind-up reaches some undefined "excessive" point. If anyone has suggestions about other passages, I'll be glad to search my scanned 3rd edition or browse through the first two editions. None of them have an index (indexing was expensive back then), so I sympathize with text-scholars who vaguely remember whatever edition they have saying _something_ and are having trouble finding it. (The deep section/low count/spoke windup comments were added in the 3rd edition. The book was re-written almost sentence by sentence, twice, so don't be surprised if you have trouble finding things. Remember, the first edition was based on and referred to 5, 6, and 7 speed rear wheels--things changed rapidly between 1981 and 1993.) The only example of specific tension in the 3rd edition is this: "If its spokes are tensioned to 1000 N, a 36-spoke wheel will support approximately 400 kg." The 1,000 Newtons mentioned is just an example for an ensuing discussion of when spokes might go slack, not a specific tension recommendation. It's the equivalent of 102 kgf, and a common figure for many wheels today. In any case, Jobst expects that to be reduced by 30% through the constriction of the inflated tire: "Although spoke tension is the principal static load on the rim, tubular tire inflation has a similar effect. When inflated, the tire becomes fatter and shrinks in circumference. The resulting force depends on the tire cross section, cord angle and inflation pressure. A tubular racing tire, inflated to 0.86 MPa, for instance, shrinks with a force of 300 N (see Equation 8 in Part III). Its effect on spoke tension can be detected with a tensiometer." --3rd edition That reduces the _effective_ spoke tension from about 100 kgf to about 70 kgf. Dianne's measurements suggest about a reduction of about 15 kgf for 700c box-section clinchers. On a less pedantic note, the "kgf" commonly used nowadays for spoke tension does not appear in the 3rd edition of 1993, just the two cited passages with "kg". It's possible that tensiometers were so rare back in 1981-1993 that no manufacturers gave recommended kgf (or kg or newton or pound) tensions for their rims, and that Jobst was simply giving the best possible advice for the era when you had to find the right tension yourself. Only after tensiometers became widely available would manufacturers start giving the recommendations that can still be darned hard to find today. If so (and it's just a theory that tension recommendations were scarce or non-existent), then Jobst was simply suggesting that using a tensiometer to record whatever tension you found best by using other methods was a quick and convenient way to build the next wheel. Build the first wheel by raising tension until spoke-squeezing put it out of true or the spokes began to wind up excessively (before anyone sneers, try to define how much wind-up is excessive), measure the results with a tensiometer (and also use it to check for even tension all around the wheel), record the tension, and presto! The next wheel is much quicker and easier to build because you just tighten it to the X marked on your tensiometer. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 01 Oct 2007 09:57:10 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > Sorry, but people aren't actually reading "The Bicycle Wheel," which > is probably why they don't quote it. > > The book does _say_ to use a tensiometer to determine the correct > tension, but only in the sense of measuring an already established > correct tension for later use in building the next identical wheel. To me, this would presume no manufacturer's spec on max spoke tension. Otherwise, if you had a max spec and a tensiometer, why exceed it? > The book says that the correct tension is _first_ determined by other > methods, namely raising tension on 36-spoke count wheels until > squeezing spoke pairs together produces a deformed wheel or when the > spokes on low-count or deep-section wheels can no longer be tightened > without excessive windup: > Obviously, deep-section 36-spoke rims can stand more tension before > distorting than MA-2's. What this approach does is determine the maximum spoke tension by finding the rim buckling point and then backing off considerably to establish a safety margin. The buckling point is determined by the rim cross section (thin column buckling). The load that causes this buckling is circumferential compression. It's not obvious to me that the wider, less tall cross sections of older rims like the MA-2 buckled under less load than the newer narrow/tall cross sections (Reflex, Open Pro). My guess is that the MA-2 would be (a little) more buckle resistant, if anything. > I'm not arguing about wheel-building methods, just pointing out that > people who want to claim that Jobst's book says something ought to > provide quotes to back up their claims. > > As far as I can see, Jim Beam's description is closer to being > accurate--the book says to raise tension until the rim fails to stay > in shape if you squeeze the spoke pairs, or to tighten low-count > spokes until the spoke wind-up reaches some undefined "excessive" > point. There is nothing wrong with this method until the spoke tension exceeds that which the spoke bed can take without cracking. Presumably, it is that limit which is reflected in the manufacturer's maximum spoke tension spec. -- for those who publish such things. A quick look at online data seems to show Sun recommending 110kg max for all road rims, and Mavic 70-90kg for "classic" rims. This would seem to indicate Mavic rims have weaker spoke beds, at least in "classic" rims, something many of us have observed directly. Other Mavic rims have max tension spec up to 160kg. My question was what is the actual tension achieved with Jobst's method using rims that fit his criteria. He implies that will get you to around 100kg. > The only example of specific tension in the 3rd edition is this: "If > its spokes are tensioned to 1000 N, a 36-spoke wheel will support > approximately 400 kg." > The 1,000 Newtons mentioned is just an example for an ensuing > discussion of when spokes might go slack, not a specific tension > recommendation. It's the equivalent of 102 kgf, and a common figure > for many wheels today. All the equations in the back of the book seem to take 100kg as nominal spoke tension. I assumed that the "buckle point" method got him there with the typical rims he referenced, otherwise I don't know why he'd use it as a nominal number. > In any case, Jobst expects that to be reduced by 30% through the > constriction of the inflated tire: > (see Equation 8 in Part III). Its effect on > spoke tension can be detected with a tensiometer." One of us is misunderstanding that equation. I interpret it to mean that the circumferential force from tire inflation nets (compression minus expansion) to ~400N. Immediately above in equation #7, he calculates the compressive rim force from spoke tension at 5730N, roughly a 7% change in spoke tension, assuming a purely linear effect. I don't understand what this has to do with anything, though. > If so (and it's just a theory that tension recommendations were scarce > or non-existent), then Jobst was simply suggesting that using a > tensiometer to record whatever tension you found best by using other > methods was a quick and convenient way to build the next wheel. That's what he said. If spoke breakage isn't a limit (as shown), then the only limits to spoke tension are rim buckling and bed cracking. Buckling can be experimentally determined easily with his method. As for bed cracking, if Jobst's method gets you to 100kg for "classic" rims, you're good for all Sun road rims (according to them), but a bit high for Mavic. Since Mavic knows how to make rims that can take 160kg or more, it seems like they made their "classics" a bit on the dainty side. Perhaps they should have made that better known -- even a feature: "Our rims require 20% less spoke tension!".         Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:42:32 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 8, 7:30 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote: > On Oct 8, 5:10 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 2:57 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 7, 9:12 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool > > > > to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. > > > > But regrettably it does. My 1970's-standard optimum tension by "feel" > > > will crack modern rims. > > > I don't know about your feel, but four years ago I built two sets of > > touring wheels for a coast-to-coast fully loaded tour that included > > many miles of off-road. No tensionmeter, no problems with strength, > > no problems with staying in true, no cracks in the Sun CR18 rims. My > > "feel" seems to be working. > > Good work. I think with a heavier rim there is less worry. Other factors come into play, as well. A 135mm, 7sp rear wheel (a very sensible choice for touring) is much a much easier build than a 130mm 10sp rear. > On a 400 > gram rim (Velocity Aerohead OC), I check my tension. When I did not > check my tension, I cracked rims. Now that I have built maybe four or > five of these wheels, I probably could do it without a tensiometer -- > but I own one, so what the hell. -- Jay Beattie.         Date: 08 Oct 2007 17:30:03 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 8, 5:10 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 8, 2:57 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 7, 9:12 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool > > > to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. > > > But regrettably it does. My 1970's-standard optimum tension by "feel" > > will crack modern rims. > > I don't know about your feel, but four years ago I built two sets of > touring wheels for a coast-to-coast fully loaded tour that included > many miles of off-road. No tensionmeter, no problems with strength, > no problems with staying in true, no cracks in the Sun CR18 rims. My > "feel" seems to be working. Good work. I think with a heavier rim there is less worry. On a 400 gram rim (Velocity Aerohead OC), I check my tension. When I did not check my tension, I cracked rims. Now that I have built maybe four or five of these wheels, I probably could do it without a tensiometer -- but I own one, so what the hell. -- Jay Beattie.           Date: 09 Oct 2007 01:49:44 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jay Beattie writes: >>>> Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose >>>> tool to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. >>> But regrettably it does. My 1970's-standard optimum tension by >>> "feel" will crack modern rims. >> I don't know about your feel, but four years ago I built two sets >> of touring wheels for a coast-to-coast fully loaded tour that >> included many miles of off-road. No tensiometer, no problems with >> strength, no problems with staying in true, no cracks in the Sun >> CR18 rims. My "feel" seems to be working. > Good work. I think with a heavier rim there is less worry. On a > 400 gram rim (Velocity Aerohead OC), I check my tension. When I did > not check my tension, I cracked rims. Now that I have built maybe > four or five of these wheels, I probably could do it without a > tensiometer -- but I own one, so what the hell. In that respect, I haven't used my tensiometer since I wrote about wheels, or before that time. I needed the tensiometers I built to quantify tension for publication. I use my floor pump to inflate tires and because it is a two stage pump that has a gauge, I watch the gauge because feeling the tire after each stroke is a drag and the pump force doesn't reveal how high a pressure it is pumping. Before a ride, I check tire pressure by bouncing the front and rear on the floor before going out the door. http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/PMP_004.jpg http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/showphoto.php?photo=1122&cat=500&size=big&sort =1 Jobst           Date: 09 Oct 2007 01:46:06 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jay Beattie writes: >>>> Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose >>>> tool to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. >>> But regrettably it does. My 1970's-standard optimum tension by >>> "feel" will crack modern rims. >> I don't know about your feel, but four years ago I built two sets >> of touring wheels for a coast-to-coast fully loaded tour that >> included many miles of off-road. No tensiometer, no problems with >> strength, no problems with staying in true, no cracks in the Sun >> CR18 rims. My "feel" seems to be working. > Good work. I think with a heavier rim there is less worry. On a > 400 gram rim (Velocity Aerohead OC), I check my tension. When I did > not check my tension, I cracked rims. Now that I have built maybe > four or five of these wheels, I probably could do it without a > tensiometer -- but I own one, so what the hell. In that respect, I haven't used my tensiometer since I wrote about wheels, or before that time. I needed the tensiometers I built to quantify tension for publication. I use my floor pump to inflate tires and because it is a two stage pump that has a gauge, I watch the gauge because feeling the tire after each stroke is a drag and the pump force doesn't revel ho high it is pumping. Before a ride, I check tire pressure by bouncing the front and rear on the floor before going out the door. http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/PMP_004.jpg http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/showphoto.php?photo=1122&cat=500&size=big&sort =1 Jobst           Date: 09 Oct 2007 01:41:54 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jay Beattie writes: >>>> Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose >>>> tool to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. >>> But regrettably it does. My 1970's-standard optimum tension by >>> "feel" will crack modern rims. >> I don't know about your feel, but four years ago I built two sets >> of touring wheels for a coast-to-coast fully loaded tour that >> included many miles of off-road. No tensiometer, no problems with >> strength, no problems with staying in true, no cracks in the Sun >> CR18 rims. My "feel" seems to be working. > Good work. I think with a heavier rim there is less worry. On a > 400 gram rim (Velocity Aerohead OC), I check my tension. When I did > not check my tension, I cracked rims. Now that I have built maybe > four or five of these wheels, I probably could do it without a > tensiometer -- but I own one, so what the hell. In that respect, I haven't used my tensiometer since I wrote about wheels, or before that time. I needed the tensiometers I built to quantify tension for publication. I use my floor pump to inflate tires and because it is a two stage pump that has a gauge, I watch the gauge because felling the tire after each stroke is a drag and the pump force doesn't revel ho high it is pumping. Before a ride, I check tire pressure by bouncing the front and rear on the floor before going out the door. http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/PMP_004.jpg http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/showphoto.php?photo=1122&cat=500&size=big&sort=1 Jobst             Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:09:32 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Jay Beattie writes: > >>>>> Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose >>>>> tool to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. > >>>> But regrettably it does. My 1970's-standard optimum tension by >>>> "feel" will crack modern rims. > >>> I don't know about your feel, but four years ago I built two sets >>> of touring wheels for a coast-to-coast fully loaded tour that >>> included many miles of off-road. No tensiometer, no problems with >>> strength, no problems with staying in true, no cracks in the Sun >>> CR18 rims. My "feel" seems to be working. > >> Good work. I think with a heavier rim there is less worry. On a >> 400 gram rim (Velocity Aerohead OC), I check my tension. When I did >> not check my tension, I cracked rims. Now that I have built maybe >> four or five of these wheels, I probably could do it without a >> tensiometer -- but I own one, so what the hell. > > In that respect, I haven't used my tensiometer since I wrote about > wheels, or before that time. that's a telling confession! and of course, it's /totally/ unrelated to ability to tell whether anodizing causes rim cracking! > I needed the tensiometers I built to > quantify tension for publication. I use my floor pump to inflate > tires and because it is a two stage pump that has a gauge, I watch the > gauge because felling the tire after each stroke is a drag and the > pump force doesn't revel ho high it is pumping. > > Before a ride, I check tire pressure by bouncing the front and rear on > the floor before going out the door. > > http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/PMP_004.jpg > http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/showphoto.php?photo=1122&cat=500&size=big&sort=1 > > Jobst         Date: 07 Oct 2007 06:49:57 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed: > Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote: > > > > > On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > <snipped for brevity> > > >>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? > > >> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I > >> have not built any wheels that size. > > > So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. > > > You're dismissed. > > Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky! > > BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A > PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE > STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. Piss off. >           Date: 07 Oct 2007 14:57:45 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote: >>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I >>>> have not built any wheels that size. >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>> You're dismissed. > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >> -snip- >> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A >> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE >> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. Ozark Bicycle wrote: > You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what > percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by > REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. > Piss off. Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's cogent. And right. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971             Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:43:36 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Andrew Muzi mused: > ... > Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's cogent. > And right. Andrew Muzi may have whacko socio/political views, but is a highly reliable [1] source when it comes to bicycle mechanics and use of tools in general. [1] To use a Sheldonism. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com             Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:16:47 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals A Muzi wrote: >>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? > >>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote: >>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I >>>>> have not built any wheels that size. > >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>> You're dismissed. > >> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >>> -snip- >>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A >>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE >>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what >> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by >> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. >> Piss off. > > Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's cogent. > And right. not in this case. he's hunting the snark if he thinks he can use higher spoke tension in pursuit of higher strength [which is fundamentally incorrect btw] and not encounter materials problems.             Date: 08 Oct 2007 00:41:01 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Andrew Muzi writes: >>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel >>>>> size, so I have not built any wheels that size. >>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>> You're dismissed. >>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE >>> WHETHER A PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO >>> RESIST THE STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. >> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever >> what percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in >> ACTUAL USE by REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. >> Piss off. > Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's > cogent. And right. I find the atmosphere here on wreck.bike to have taken a substantial dive in tone of discussions and suspect it may be influenced by the insulting manner of the highest offices in the USA, where typically department heads accuse the lowest ranking subordinates, or the public at large, for their failures and hate mongering they have generated ignoring command responsibility... like a CEO saying the company went broke because the employees failed him. I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can thank the rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude people with arguments to support their style. In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses appearing often as anti free speech by intimidation. Jobst Brandt               Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:08:56 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 08 Oct 2007 00:41:01 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: [snip] >I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead >insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can thank the >rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude people with >arguments to support their style. > >In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses appearing >often as anti free speech by intimidation. > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, Here's your idea of courtesy, a thread in which you implied your usual vague claims that you're purely "Fact" and that anyone disagrees with you is full of "Fiction, Lies, and Bullshit": http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a046b665cdec7ce6 You started the thread and chose the title. As usual, you couldn't believe that anyone thought that your own attack might apply to you. Again, I suggest reading Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 07 Oct 2007 18:20:38 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Andrew Muzi writes: > >>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? > >>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel >>>>>> size, so I have not built any wheels that size. > >>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>>> You're dismissed. > >>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE >>>> WHETHER A PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO >>>> RESIST THE STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. > >>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever >>> what percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in >>> ACTUAL USE by REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. > >>> Piss off. > >> Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's >> cogent. And right. > > I find the atmosphere here on wreck.bike to have taken a substantial > dive in tone of discussions and suspect it may be influenced by the > insulting manner of the highest offices in the USA, where typically > department heads accuse the lowest ranking subordinates, or the public > at large, for their failures and hate mongering they have generated > ignoring command responsibility... like a CEO saying the company > went broke because the employees failed him. > > I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead > insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can thank the > rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude people with > arguments to support their style. > > In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses appearing > often as anti free speech by intimidation. Irony and hypocrisy, thy names are Jobst (Brandt @ Stanford Alum yada yada yada). ROTFL             Date: 07 Oct 2007 14:52:43 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals A Muzi wrote: > Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's cogent. You sweet-talker you! LOL           Date: 07 Oct 2007 09:17:52 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated: > On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed: >> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote: >> >>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> <snipped for brevity> >>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I >>>> have not built any wheels that size. >>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>> You're dismissed. >> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky! >> >> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A >> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE >> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. > > You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what > percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by > REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR materials science. What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can support. > Piss off. Considering the source, I will take that as a compliment. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com             Date: 07 Oct 2007 08:34:40 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated: >> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed: >>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>> <snipped for brevity> >>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I >>>>> have not built any wheels that size. >>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>> You're dismissed. >>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky! >>> >>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A >>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE >>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. >> >> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what >> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by >> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. > > A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all > likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR > materials science. > > What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on > the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load occurs > at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can support. sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one. 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. it doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack. http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/ 2. rim cracking is because of the anisotropy of the extruded aluminum. increasing the thickness sufficiently to overcome the fact that there is a /significant/ difference in strength by orientation means a significant step up in weight with no other structural benefit. given that #2 can be completely mitigated by understanding #1 and tensioning accordingly, allegations of "poor design" are propagated simply to defend entrenched positions of misunderstanding, not as attempts to resolve the issue. > >> Piss off. > > Considering the source, I will take that as a compliment. >               Date: 08 Oct 2007 09:18:49 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on >> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load >> occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can >> support. > > sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one. > > 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. it > doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and > pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because > it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack. Rim deformation is related to spoke slackness. If you consider the tables that accompany the FEA in Jobst's book, you'll see that the nominal 50kg load causes a ~0.15mm deflection in the bottommost spoke and about half that in the two adjacent spokes. From his spoke elasticity calculations (confirmed by measurements) he shows that a spoke will have a 0.75mm length change with 100kg tension. Combining those reveals that the combined spoke length change in a loaded wheel in the affected zone is around 0.3mm, where spoke stiffness alone would have predicted 0.375mm. This indicates that wheel stiffness for radial loads is roughly 80% from spokes and 20% from rim. Again, with the nominal 50kg and 0.15mm deflection in the FEA table, we would predict that wheel/load could withstand 5G or so before that spoke would become slack (0.75mm change in length). When the spoke goes slack, the wheel stiffness changes markedly. If we relied on rim stiffness alone, the 5G load would result in a rim deflection of more like 3mm than 0.75mm. The more spoke tension, the greater load required to shift the stiffness of the wheel from high (spoke and rim) to low (rim alone), low stiffness means large displacements, which means bent metal eventually. This is how rims dent in potholes. Another, perhaps more intuitive, way to look at it is that a pothole strike delivers a pulse of energy, much like whacking with a baseball bat. Whatever the tire and spokes don't absorb, the rim must. The spokes will absorb until they go slack, more tension = more energy absorbed.                 Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:55:09 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:18:49 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >Rim deformation is related to spoke slackness. > >If you consider the tables that accompany the FEA in Jobst's book, >you'll see that the nominal 50kg load causes a ~0.15mm deflection in the >bottommost spoke and about half that in the two adjacent spokes. [snip] Dear Peter, For what it's worth, Ian's load is twice as much, 102 kgf on a 36-spoke rim where the same bottom 5 spokes lose tension. The spokes are 2mm, but the wheel may differ in other ways from Jobst's model--diameter, width, cross-section. Ian calculates that the maxiumum deflection on his rim is 0.1803 mm: http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html It's just below "Results" on that long page, not in the huge table of calculations. I'm still wondering whether all wheels lose tension over the same arc (about 40 degrees), or the same number of spokes (5)? Or does the number of spokes (or the arc) where tension is lost vary with the number of spokes--do a 72-spoke highwheeer, a 36-spoke MA2, and an 18-spoke modern deep rim all lose tension over the same arc or same number of spokes? And does the load matter? That is, would Jobst's model show the same 5 spokes losing tension whether the load was 5, 50, or 100 kgf? With a theoretical 3-spoke wheel, I wouldn't be surprised if _no_ spokes lost tension with the wheel loaded in this position:                   Date: 08 Oct 2007 16:53:06 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:18:49 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Rim deformation is related to spoke slackness. >> >> If you consider the tables that accompany the FEA in Jobst's book, >> you'll see that the nominal 50kg load causes a ~0.15mm deflection in the >> bottommost spoke and about half that in the two adjacent spokes. > > [snip] > > Dear Peter, > > For what it's worth, Ian's load is twice as much, 102 kgf on a > 36-spoke rim where the same bottom 5 spokes lose tension. The spokes > are 2mm, but the wheel may differ in other ways from Jobst's > model--diameter, width, cross-section. > > Ian calculates that the maxiumum deflection on his rim is 0.1803 mm: > > http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/index.html Yes, he does. He also uses much stiffer spokes, (3.16mm^2 vs. 2.0mm^2), and distributes the load over 3 points, 250N, 500N, 250N at 3 adjacent spokes vs. just 1 in Jobst's model. Both models use similar rim stiffnesses, which happen to be much stiffer than Gavin's (apparently measured from an actual rim), (~1200mm^4 vs. ~800mm^4). The apparent difference in peak rim deflection is a combination of stiffer spokes and more distributed load. > It's just below "Results" on that long page, not in the huge table of > calculations. > > I'm still wondering whether all wheels lose tension over the same arc > (about 40 degrees), or the same number of spokes (5)? > > Or does the number of spokes (or the arc) where tension is lost vary > with the number of spokes--do a 72-spoke highwheeer, a 36-spoke MA2, > and an 18-spoke modern deep rim all lose tension over the same arc or > same number of spokes? > > And does the load matter? That is, would Jobst's model show the same 5 > spokes losing tension whether the load was 5, 50, or 100 kgf? > > With a theoretical 3-spoke wheel, I wouldn't be surprised if _no_ > spokes lost tension with the wheel loaded in this position: > >                     Date: 08 Oct 2007 15:32:37 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:53:06 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: [snip] >> I'm still wondering whether all wheels lose tension over the same arc >> (about 40 degrees), or the same number of spokes (5)? >> >> Or does the number of spokes (or the arc) where tension is lost vary >> with the number of spokes--do a 72-spoke highwheeer, a 36-spoke MA2, >> and an 18-spoke modern deep rim all lose tension over the same arc or >> same number of spokes? >> >> And does the load matter? That is, would Jobst's model show the same 5 >> spokes losing tension whether the load was 5, 50, or 100 kgf? >> >> With a theoretical 3-spoke wheel, I wouldn't be surprised if _no_ >> spokes lost tension with the wheel loaded in this position: >> >>                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:44:09 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:53:06 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > [snip] > >>> I'm still wondering whether all wheels lose tension over the same arc >>> (about 40 degrees), or the same number of spokes (5)? >>> >>> Or does the number of spokes (or the arc) where tension is lost vary >>> with the number of spokes--do a 72-spoke highwheeer, a 36-spoke MA2, >>> and an 18-spoke modern deep rim all lose tension over the same arc or >>> same number of spokes? >>> >>> And does the load matter? That is, would Jobst's model show the same 5 >>> spokes losing tension whether the load was 5, 50, or 100 kgf? >>> >>> With a theoretical 3-spoke wheel, I wouldn't be surprised if _no_ >>> spokes lost tension with the wheel loaded in this position: >>> >>>                         Date: 09 Oct 2007 00:45:22 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:44:09 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:53:06 -0400, Peter Cole >> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> I'm still wondering whether all wheels lose tension over the same arc >>>> (about 40 degrees), or the same number of spokes (5)? >>>> >>>> Or does the number of spokes (or the arc) where tension is lost vary >>>> with the number of spokes--do a 72-spoke highwheeer, a 36-spoke MA2, >>>> and an 18-spoke modern deep rim all lose tension over the same arc or >>>> same number of spokes? >>>> >>>> And does the load matter? That is, would Jobst's model show the same 5 >>>> spokes losing tension whether the load was 5, 50, or 100 kgf? >>>> >>>> With a theoretical 3-spoke wheel, I wouldn't be surprised if _no_ >>>> spokes lost tension with the wheel loaded in this position: >>>> >>>>               Date: 07 Oct 2007 15:18:40 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated: >>> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed: >>>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> <snipped for brevity> >>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, >>>>>> so I >>>>>> have not built any wheels that size. >>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>>> You're dismissed. >>>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky! >>>> >>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A >>>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE >>>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. >>> >>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what >>> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by >>> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. >> >> A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all >> likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR >> materials science. >> >> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on >> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load >> occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can >> support. > > sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one. > > 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. it > doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and > pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because > it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack. > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/ And how far did you ride on this wheel, "jim"? Or do you only use your bicycle to support static loads? Or are your roads so smooth, that your wheels never see significant dynamic loads? > 2. rim cracking is because of the anisotropy of the extruded aluminum. > increasing the thickness sufficiently to overcome the fact that there is > a /significant/ difference in strength by orientation means a > significant step up in weight with no other structural benefit. So you claim. Others with verifiable engineering experience disagree. > given that #2 can be completely mitigated by understanding #1 and > tensioning accordingly, allegations of "poor design" are propagated > simply to defend entrenched positions of misunderstanding, not as > attempts to resolve the issue. This is avoiding the question. If the spoke beds can handle the spokes being tensioned to 1000N, but the rim can bear considerably more tension before buckling, then the cross-section of the rim in other areas has more material than is needed. (Optimization of design is an engineering principal, which may be foreign to the materials scientist). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com               Date: 07 Oct 2007 15:01:15 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated: >>> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed: >>>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> <snipped for brevity> >>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, >>>>>> so I >>>>>> have not built any wheels that size. >>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>>> You're dismissed. >>>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky! >>>> >>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A >>>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE >>>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. >>> >>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what >>> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by >>> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. >> >> A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all >> likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR >> materials science. >> >> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on >> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load >> occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can >> support. > > sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one. > > 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. it > doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and > pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because > it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack. > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/ And how far did you ride on this wheel, "jim"? Or do you only use your bicycle to support static loads? Or are your roads so smooth, that your wheels never see significant dynamic loads? > 2. rim cracking is because of the anisotropy of the extruded aluminum. > increasing the thickness sufficiently to overcome the fact that there is > a /significant/ difference in strength by orientation means a > significant step up in weight with no other structural benefit. So you claim. Others with verifiable engineering experience disagree. > given that #2 can be completely mitigated by understanding #1 and > tensioning accordingly, allegations of "poor design" are propagated > simply to defend entrenched positions of misunderstanding, not as > attempts to resolve the issue. This is avoiding the question. If the spoke beds can handle the spokes being tensioned to 1000N, but the rim can bear more load without buckling, then the design is not optimized. (Optimization of design is an engineering principal, which may be foreign to the materials scientist). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com               Date: 07 Oct 2007 14:20:20 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated: >>> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed: >>>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> <snipped for brevity> >>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, >>>>>> so I >>>>>> have not built any wheels that size. >>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>>> You're dismissed. >>>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky! >>>> >>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A >>>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE >>>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. >>> >>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what >>> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by >>> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. >> >> A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all >> likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR >> materials science. >> >> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on >> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load >> occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can >> support. > > sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one. > > 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. it > doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and > pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because > it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack. > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/ And how far did you ride on this wheel, "jim"? Or do you only use your bicycle to support static loads? Or are your roads so smooth, that your wheels never see significant dynamic loads? > 2. rim cracking is because of the anisotropy of the extruded aluminum. > increasing the thickness sufficiently to overcome the fact that there is > a /significant/ difference in strength by orientation means a > significant step up in weight with no other structural benefit. So you claim. Others with verifiable engineering experience disagree. > given that #2 can be completely mitigated by understanding #1 and > tensioning accordingly, allegations of "poor design" are propagated > simply to defend entrenched positions of misunderstanding, not as > attempts to resolve the issue. This is avoiding the question. If the spoke beds can handle the spokes being tensioned to 1000N, but the rim can bear considerably more tension before buckling, then the cross-section of the rim in other areas has more material than is needed. (Optimization of design is an engineering principal, which may be foreign to the materials scientist). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:19:58 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated: >>>> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed: >>>>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>>>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>>> <snipped for brevity> >>>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, >>>>>>> so I >>>>>>> have not built any wheels that size. >>>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>>>> You're dismissed. >>>>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky! >>>>> >>>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A >>>>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE >>>>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. >>>> >>>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what >>>> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by >>>> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. >>> >>> A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all >>> likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering >>> OR materials science. >>> >>> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on >>> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load >>> occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can >>> support. >> >> sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one. >> >> 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. >> it doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and >> pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because >> it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack. >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/ > > And how far did you ride on this wheel, "jim"? Or do you only use your > bicycle to support static loads? Or are your roads so smooth, that your > wheels never see significant dynamic loads? er, that wheel will ride tom. i invite you to try a slack spoke wheel experiment of your own. don't you think you'd feel more secure making assertions on this subject if you had direct personal experience on which to draw? > >> 2. rim cracking is because of the anisotropy of the extruded aluminum. >> increasing the thickness sufficiently to overcome the fact that there >> is a /significant/ difference in strength by orientation means a >> significant step up in weight with no other structural benefit. > > So you claim. Others with verifiable engineering experience disagree. eh? are they the "engineers" that don't know about how anisotropy affects the application of materials? the "engineers" that don't know the difference between elasticity and plasticity? or the "engineers" that think fatigue can be eliminated from a non-strain aging material? you of course are not included in this since you don't ride or build wheels like this and so have no experience. > >> given that #2 can be completely mitigated by understanding #1 and >> tensioning accordingly, allegations of "poor design" are propagated >> simply to defend entrenched positions of misunderstanding, not as >> attempts to resolve the issue. > > This is avoiding the question. no it's not - it's spelling out reality. the pursuit of higher spoke tension comes from the fundamental misunderstanding that increasing tension somehow increases strength. > If the spoke beds can handle the spokes > being tensioned to 1000N, but the rim can bear considerably more tension > before buckling, then the cross-section of the rim in other areas has > more material than is needed. you don't understand the concept of anisotropy. if [pick a number] a material is 3 times weaker in cracking normal to the extrusion axis, you'd need 3 times the material to make it as strong as initially intended to carry the planned excess tension. that in turn affects the buckling strength, and you end up chasing your own tail to no purpose. all can be resolved by simple observation of a spoke tension which achieves the structural requirement of tension retention sufficient to mitigate excessive spoke bending [and fatigue] and spoke nipple unscrewing. > (Optimization of design is an engineering > principal, which may be foreign to the materials scientist). > does uttering [wrong] condescending bullshit make you feel good about yourself? fact: materials scientists working in failure analysis end up having to analyze and correct the design cock-ups the engineers make a good majority of the time. and if they didn't, you guys would be out of jobs since you apparently can't get it right on your own.                   Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:36:44 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> ... >> If the spoke beds can handle the spokes being tensioned to 1000N, but >> the rim can bear considerably more tension before buckling, then the >> cross-section of the rim in other areas has more material than is needed. > > you don't understand the concept of anisotropy. if [pick a number] a > material is 3 times weaker in cracking normal to the extrusion axis, > you'd need 3 times the material to make it as strong as initially > intended to carry the planned excess tension. that in turn affects the > buckling strength, and you end up chasing your own tail to no purpose. > all can be resolved by simple observation of a spoke tension which > achieves the structural requirement of tension retention sufficient to > mitigate excessive spoke bending [and fatigue] and spoke nipple unscrewing.... If a metal (aluminium alloy) exhibits this much anisotropy, then something is wrong with the manufacturing process. Any cites for the degree of anisotropy in extruded rims? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                     Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:11:57 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "jim beam" wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> ... >>> If the spoke beds can handle the spokes being tensioned to 1000N, but >>> the rim can bear considerably more tension before buckling, then the >>> cross-section of the rim in other areas has more material than is >>> needed. >> >> you don't understand the concept of anisotropy. if [pick a number] a >> material is 3 times weaker in cracking normal to the extrusion axis, >> you'd need 3 times the material to make it as strong as initially >> intended to carry the planned excess tension. that in turn affects the >> buckling strength, and you end up chasing your own tail to no purpose. >> all can be resolved by simple observation of a spoke tension which >> achieves the structural requirement of tension retention sufficient to >> mitigate excessive spoke bending [and fatigue] and spoke nipple >> unscrewing.... > > If a metal (aluminium alloy) exhibits this much anisotropy, then > something is wrong with the manufacturing process. that's like saying that striped toothpaste shouldn't be striped - you clearly don't understand the process or effect. > > Any cites for the degree of anisotropy in extruded rims? > not for rims no. but you need to ask which rim. and asking that question is like asking for cites for the particle size distribution for the concrete anchors that secure the golden gate bridge cables - it's not readily available but can be determined by observation. do you know someone with access to a metallography microscope? i would have thought yes since there's steel in concrete and you should be testing that stuff. and if so, you can figure it out by observation. as for degree, it depends on work history, temperature, mold friction, and a bunch of other stuff on which theses are written. here's something instructive: http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_kth_diva-1498-2__fulltext.pdf                     Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:52:51 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "jim beam" wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> ... >>> If the spoke beds can handle the spokes being tensioned to 1000N, but >>> the rim can bear considerably more tension before buckling, then the >>> cross-section of the rim in other areas has more material than is >>> needed. >> >> you don't understand the concept of anisotropy. if [pick a number] a >> material is 3 times weaker in cracking normal to the extrusion axis, >> you'd need 3 times the material to make it as strong as initially >> intended to carry the planned excess tension. that in turn affects the >> buckling strength, and you end up chasing your own tail to no purpose. >> all can be resolved by simple observation of a spoke tension which >> achieves the structural requirement of tension retention sufficient to >> mitigate excessive spoke bending [and fatigue] and spoke nipple >> unscrewing.... > > If a metal (aluminium alloy) exhibits this much anisotropy, then > something is wrong with the manufacturing process. > > Any cites for the degree of anisotropy in extruded rims? > He doesn't do cites.         Date: 01 Oct 2007 21:22:05 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> Sorry, but people aren't actually reading "The Bicycle Wheel," which >> is probably why they don't quote it. >> >> The book does _say_ to use a tensiometer to determine the correct >> tension, but only in the sense of measuring an already established >> correct tension for later use in building the next identical wheel. > > To me, this would presume no manufacturer's spec on max spoke tension. > Otherwise, if you had a max spec and a tensiometer, why exceed it? > > >> The book says that the correct tension is _first_ determined by other >> methods, namely raising tension on 36-spoke count wheels until >> squeezing spoke pairs together produces a deformed wheel or when the >> spokes on low-count or deep-section wheels can no longer be tightened >> without excessive windup: > >> Obviously, deep-section 36-spoke rims can stand more tension before >> distorting than MA-2's. > > What this approach does is determine the maximum spoke tension by > finding the rim buckling point and then backing off considerably to > establish a safety margin. > > The buckling point is determined by the rim cross section (thin column > buckling). The load that causes this buckling is circumferential > compression. It's not obvious to me that the wider, less tall cross > sections of older rims like the MA-2 buckled under less load than the > newer narrow/tall cross sections (Reflex, Open Pro). My guess is that > the MA-2 would be (a little) more buckle resistant, if anything. > > >> I'm not arguing about wheel-building methods, just pointing out that >> people who want to claim that Jobst's book says something ought to >> provide quotes to back up their claims. >> >> As far as I can see, Jim Beam's description is closer to being >> accurate--the book says to raise tension until the rim fails to stay >> in shape if you squeeze the spoke pairs, or to tighten low-count >> spokes until the spoke wind-up reaches some undefined "excessive" >> point. > > There is nothing wrong with this method until the spoke tension exceeds > that which the spoke bed can take without cracking. Presumably, it is > that limit which is reflected in the manufacturer's maximum spoke > tension spec. -- for those who publish such things. > > A quick look at online data seems to show Sun recommending 110kg max for > all road rims, and Mavic 70-90kg for "classic" rims. This would seem to > indicate Mavic rims have weaker spoke beds, at least in "classic" rims, > something many of us have observed directly. Other Mavic rims have max > tension spec up to 160kg. > > My question was what is the actual tension achieved with Jobst's method > using rims that fit his criteria. He implies that will get you to around > 100kg. how does he "imply" it? he does not discuss tension numerically in this context at all. > > >> The only example of specific tension in the 3rd edition is this: "If >> its spokes are tensioned to 1000 N, a 36-spoke wheel will support >> approximately 400 kg." > >> The 1,000 Newtons mentioned is just an example for an ensuing >> discussion of when spokes might go slack, not a specific tension >> recommendation. It's the equivalent of 102 kgf, and a common figure >> for many wheels today. > > All the equations in the back of the book seem to take 100kg as nominal > spoke tension. I assumed that the "buckle point" method got him there > with the typical rims he referenced, otherwise I don't know why he'd use > it as a nominal number. but he doesn't say that! for all we know, "100" simply makes the math easier for the example. > > >> In any case, Jobst expects that to be reduced by 30% through the >> constriction of the inflated tire: > >> (see Equation 8 in Part III). Its effect on >> spoke tension can be detected with a tensiometer." > > One of us is misunderstanding that equation. I interpret it to mean that > the circumferential force from tire inflation nets (compression minus > expansion) to ~400N. Immediately above in equation #7, he calculates the > compressive rim force from spoke tension at 5730N, roughly a 7% change > in spoke tension, assuming a purely linear effect. > > I don't understand what this has to do with anything, though. > > >> If so (and it's just a theory that tension recommendations were scarce >> or non-existent), then Jobst was simply suggesting that using a >> tensiometer to record whatever tension you found best by using other >> methods was a quick and convenient way to build the next wheel. > > That's what he said. If spoke breakage isn't a limit (as shown), then > the only limits to spoke tension are rim buckling and bed cracking. > Buckling can be experimentally determined easily with his method. but cracking can't!!! > > As for bed cracking, if Jobst's method gets you to 100kg for "classic" > rims, you're good for all Sun road rims (according to them), but a bit > high for Mavic. Since Mavic knows how to make rims that can take 160kg > or more, which rim? i've called them and they didn't say that high on any of the rims i asked about. and that statement doesn't address cracking at all. > it seems like they made their "classics" a bit on the dainty > side. Perhaps they should have made that better known -- even a feature: > "Our rims require 20% less spoke tension!". typical peter cole.           Date: 02 Oct 2007 10:08:21 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> My question was what is the actual tension achieved with Jobst's >> method using rims that fit his criteria. He implies that will get you >> to around 100kg. > > how does he "imply" it? he does not discuss tension numerically in this > context at all. No, but he does use that figure in several places in the book. >> All the equations in the back of the book seem to take 100kg as >> nominal spoke tension. I assumed that the "buckle point" method got >> him there with the typical rims he referenced, otherwise I don't know >> why he'd use it as a nominal number. > > but he doesn't say that! for all we know, "100" simply makes the math > easier for the example. Right, it's all even numbers.... like it makes a difference to the FEA program. The 1000N figure is a nominal in many places, like spokes operating at 1/3 yield. >> That's what he said. If spoke breakage isn't a limit (as shown), then >> the only limits to spoke tension are rim buckling and bed cracking. >> Buckling can be experimentally determined easily with his method. > > but cracking can't!!! No, and manufacturer's are free to make the spoke beds as thin as they wish. Your claim is that Jobst's method of finding the buckle point and backing off will result in spoke tensions of 175kg. That would be twice the max limit of Mavic "classic" rims. Perhaps the spoke beds in the Open Pro, etc. are 1/2 the strength of the MA2. I don't know why Jobst would suggest a method that would give 175kg final then use 100kg everywhere in the book. I'm not too bad with a spoke wrench, but I can't imagine getting a wheel to 175, never mind the 200 you claim. >> As for bed cracking, if Jobst's method gets you to 100kg for "classic" >> rims, you're good for all Sun road rims (according to them), but a bit >> high for Mavic. Since Mavic knows how to make rims that can take 160kg >> or more, > > which rim? i've called them and they didn't say that high on any of the > rims i asked about. and that statement doesn't address cracking at all. Their data sheets are online, that's where I got the numbers. >> it seems like they made their "classics" a bit on the dainty side. >> Perhaps they should have made that better known -- even a feature: >> "Our rims require 20% less spoke tension!". > > typical peter cole. OK, the maximum spoke tension spec on their "classic" rims is more than 20% less than Sun's. I see that as an admission that their spoke beds are that much weaker -- unless they're going by buckle limit. How else could you interpret it?             Date: 07 Oct 2007 19:27:22 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 7:41 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Andrew Muzi writes: > >>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? > >>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel > >>>>> size, so I have not built any wheels that size. > >>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. > >>>> You're dismissed. > >>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE > >>> WHETHER A PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO > >>> RESIST THE STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. > >> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever > >> what percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in > >> ACTUAL USE by REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. > >> Piss off. > > Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's > > cogent. And right. > > I find the atmosphere here on wreck.bike to have taken a substantial > dive in tone of discussions and suspect it may be influenced by the > insulting manner of the highest offices in the USA, where typically > department heads accuse the lowest ranking subordinates, or the public > at large, for their failures and hate mongering they have generated > ignoring command responsibility... like a CEO saying the company > went broke because the employees failed him. > > I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead > insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can thank the > rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude people with > arguments to support their style. > > In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses appearing > often as anti free speech by intimidation. > > Jobst Brandt Jobst Brandt, sensitive tank! Of course, Mr. Brandt would *never, ever* behave in a rude, dismissive, insulting, abrasive or condescending manner, would he? ;-) Note to Jobst: "Physician, heal thyself!"               Date: 07 Oct 2007 23:03:25 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals >>>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel >>>>>>> size, so I have not built any wheels that size. >>>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>>>> You're dismissed. >>>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE >>>>> WHETHER A PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO >>>>> RESIST THE STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. >>>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever >>>> what percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in >>>> ACTUAL USE by REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. >>>> Piss off. >> Andrew Muzi writes: >>> Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's >>> cogent. And right. > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> I find the atmosphere here on wreck.bike to have taken a substantial >> dive in tone of discussions and suspect it may be influenced by the >> insulting manner of the highest offices in the USA, where typically >> department heads accuse the lowest ranking subordinates, or the public >> at large, for their failures and hate mongering they have generated >> ignoring command responsibility... like a CEO saying the company >> went broke because the employees failed him. >> >> I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead >> insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can thank the >> rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude people with >> arguments to support their style. >> >> In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses appearing >> often as anti free speech by intimidation. Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Jobst Brandt, sensitive tank! Of course, Mr. Brandt would *never, > ever* behave in a rude, dismissive, insulting, abrasive or > condescending manner, would he? ;-) > Note to Jobst: "Physician, heal thyself!" In any discussion it helps to stay in the present. Don't you just hate it when girlfriend brings up some conversation from a year ago? If Mr Brandt civilly asks for civility today, I'll take that at face value and make an effort myself. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                 Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:19:14 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals A Muzi wrote: >> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >>> I find the atmosphere here on wreck.bike to have taken a substantial >>> dive in tone of discussions and suspect it may be influenced by the >>> insulting manner of the highest offices in the USA, where typically >>> department heads accuse the lowest ranking subordinates, or the >>> public at large, for their failures and hate mongering they have >>> generated ignoring command responsibility... like a CEO saying the >>> company went broke because the employees failed him. >>> >>> I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead >>> insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can >>> thank the rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude >>> people with arguments to support their style. >>> >>> In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses >>> appearing often as anti free speech by intimidation. > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> Jobst Brandt, sensitive tank! Of course, Mr. Brandt would *never, >> ever* behave in a rude, dismissive, insulting, abrasive or >> condescending manner, would he? ;-) >> Note to Jobst: "Physician, heal thyself!" > In any discussion it helps to stay in the present. > > Don't you just hate it when girlfriend brings up some conversation > from a year ago? If Mr Brandt civilly asks for civility today, I'll > take that at face value and make an effort myself. Ask him to never start another off-topic political thread while you're at it. (Maybe he won't flame ride reporters -- in RB-MISC -- for being OT any more, either.) TYVM... BS                   Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:20:04 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Bill Sornson writes: >>>> I find the atmosphere here on wreck.bike to have taken a substantial >>>> dive in tone of discussions and suspect it may be influenced by the >>>> insulting manner of the highest offices in the USA, where typically >>>> department heads accuse the lowest ranking subordinates, or the >>>> public at large, for their failures and hate mongering they have >>>> generated ignoring command responsibility... like a CEO saying the >>>> company went broke because the employees failed him. >>>> I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead >>>> insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can >>>> thank the rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude >>>> people with arguments to support their style. >>>> In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses >>>> appearing often as anti free speech by intimidation. >>> Jobst Brandt, sensitive tank! Of course, Mr. Brandt would *never, >>> ever* behave in a rude, dismissive, insulting, abrasive or >>> condescending manner, would he? ;-) Note to Jobst: "Physician, >>> heal thyself!" >> In any discussion it helps to stay in the present. >> Don't you just hate it when girlfriend brings up some conversation >> from a year ago? If Mr Brandt civilly asks for civility today, I'll >> take that at face value and make an effort myself. > Ask him to never start another off-topic political thread while > you're at it. (Maybe he won't flame ride reporters -- in RB-MISC -- > for being OT any more, either.) An elephant never forgets! except this one forgot that the writer was asked to post his ride report to RBrides also, not just to RBtech. What a heinous crime that was... a few years ago. Jobst Brandt                     Date: 08 Oct 2007 14:38:19 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Bill Sornson writes: > >>>>> I find the atmosphere here on wreck.bike to have taken a >>>>> substantial dive in tone of discussions and suspect it may be >>>>> influenced by the insulting manner of the highest offices in the >>>>> USA, where typically department heads accuse the lowest ranking >>>>> subordinates, or the public at large, for their failures and hate >>>>> mongering they have generated ignoring command responsibility... >>>>> like a CEO saying the company went broke because the employees >>>>> failed him. > >>>>> I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". >>>>> Instead insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can >>>>> thank the rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude >>>>> people with arguments to support their style. > >>>>> In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses >>>>> appearing often as anti free speech by intimidation. > >>>> Jobst Brandt, sensitive tank! Of course, Mr. Brandt would *never, >>>> ever* behave in a rude, dismissive, insulting, abrasive or >>>> condescending manner, would he? ;-) Note to Jobst: "Physician, >>>> heal thyself!" > >>> In any discussion it helps to stay in the present. > >>> Don't you just hate it when girlfriend brings up some conversation >>> from a year ago? If Mr Brandt civilly asks for civility today, I'll >>> take that at face value and make an effort myself. > >> Ask him to never start another off-topic political thread while >> you're at it. (Maybe he won't flame ride reporters -- in RB-MISC -- >> for being OT any more, either.) > > An elephant never forgets! except this one forgot that the writer > was asked to post his ride report to RBrides also, not just to RBtech. > > What a heinous crime that was... a few years ago. My Google Groups skills suck, but ISTR you being rather haughty in your admonishment to the poster that his or her RIDE REPORT belonged in RB-Rides and /not/ the current group -- tech or misc, don't remember which. On that subject, in which groups do your links to political hit jobs belong? Even if they're /interesting/ and not just blatantly biased (as they've all seemed to be), they do NOT belong in a cycling newsgroup. (I don't recall you even having the courtesy to label them "OT", either.) I find it ironic and hypocritical that you'd talk about "rude responses appearing often as anti free speech by intimidation" when you engage in that very tactic so often. Whatever. BS                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 22:39:19 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Bill Sornson writes: > My Google Groups skills suck, but ISTR you being rather haughty in > your admonishment to the poster that his or her RIDE REPORT belonged > in RB-Rides and /not/ the current group -- tech or misc, don't > remember which. You seem to have a selective memory, remembering only that I mentioned RBrides and not what was said. > On that subject, in which groups do your links to political hit jobs > belong? Even if they're /interesting/ and not just blatantly biased > (as they've all seemed to be), they do NOT belong in a cycling > newsgroup. (I don't recall you even having the courtesy to label > them "OT", either.) I note that you responded often to these subjects that I mainly introduced with little or no comment with which you might disagree. If you feel offended by that you could just skip the thread instead of giving it more life with your slant. > I find it ironic and hypocritical that you'd talk about "rude > responses appearing often as anti free speech by intimidation" when > you engage in that very tactic so often. Please show such responses and to what they responded. I think your memory is inaccurate on the issue and reflects your politics on which others have commented. I didn't do that. > Whatever. That's vague enough to cast doubt on your sincerity in the concept. Jobst Brandt                         Date: 08 Oct 2007 16:04:28 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Bill Sornson writes: > >> My Google Groups skills suck, but ISTR you being rather haughty in >> your admonishment to the poster that his or her RIDE REPORT belonged >> in RB-Rides and /not/ the current group -- tech or misc, don't >> remember which. > You seem to have a selective memory, remembering only that I mentioned > RBrides and not what was said. Can YOU provide a link to refresh my memory? >> On that subject, in which groups do your links to political hit jobs >> belong? Even if they're /interesting/ and not just blatantly biased >> (as they've all seemed to be), they do NOT belong in a cycling >> newsgroup. (I don't recall you even having the courtesy to label >> them "OT", either.) > I note that you responded often to these subjects that I mainly > introduced with little or no comment with which you might disagree. How dare I! I should just let your blogspit stick to the walls without comment or contradiction! > If you feel offended by that you could just skip the thread instead of > giving it more life with your slant. But...but...YOU CALLED SOMEONE ELSE ON POSTING OFF-TOPIC MATERIAL! Shirley even you can see the irony in that. HTH (but doubt it will) >> I find it ironic and hypocritical that you'd talk about "rude >> responses appearing often as anti free speech by intimidation" when >> you engage in that very tactic so often. > Please show such responses and to what they responded. I think your > memory is inaccurate on the issue and reflects your politics on which > others have commented. I didn't do that. I and many others have commented on your bullying, arrogant manner often. That you'd demand specific examples is yet another example of it! LOL >> Whatever. > > That's vague enough to cast doubt on your sincerity in the concept. Almost equal to you demanding civility when you're so often haughty and condescending. HTH (yet again) BS PS: Fix your freaking user name already. It's REALLY easy to do.                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:09:18 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Bill Sornson wrote: <snip for clarity > > PS: Fix your freaking user name already. It's REALLY easy to do. > but not as condescending or as inviting of credentials conflict.             Date: 06 Oct 2007 21:53:40 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 10:04 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >>> On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>> Peter Cole wrote: > >>>>> jim beam wrote: > >>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: > >>>>>>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >>>>>>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >>>>>>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >>>>>>>> 175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >>>>>>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >>>>>>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > >>>>>>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >>>>>>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >>>>>>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > >>>>>> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >>>>>> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >>>>>> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >>>>>> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > >>>>>> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > >>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > >>>>> who's bullshitting. > >>>> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > >>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > >>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > >>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. > >>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > >>>> fundamentally incorrect. > >>>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >>>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > >>>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > >>>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > >>>>> of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > >>>>> radial and lateral loads? > >>>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > >>>> bullshitting? terribly sorry! > >>>>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >>>>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > >>>>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >>>>>> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >>>>>> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >>>>>> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > >>>>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > >>>> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > >>>> squirm you want to add? > >>>>>>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > >>>>>> wow! that's rich! > >>>>> Maybe, but obviously true. > >>>> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > >>>>>>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > >>>>>> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >>>>>> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >>>>>> convincing too! > >>>>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > >>>>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > >>>> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > >>> Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. > >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" > >>> Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension > >>> spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give > >>> about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I > >>> don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when > >>> held at the same angle. > >> Dear Spike > > >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, > >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: > > >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg > > >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: > > >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg > > >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is > >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. > > >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough > >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. > > >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume > >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an > >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. > > >> Cheers, > > >> Carl Fogel > > > Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. > > > Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my > > properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early > > production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed > > and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring > > end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is > > taken.) > > > Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It > > is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the > > spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce > > readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the > > spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may > > want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the > > picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the > > other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding > > spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus > > and thinner. > > > So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, > > I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, > > given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest > > mistake. > > > -- > > > Spike > > admit it spike, you just don't like me. say the words. > > [and no, i did not fudge the calibration - i drew the while pic in > photoshop instead. took ma about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at > that stuff. i don't even own a tensiometer. saved me $60!] Beam: "i drew the while (sic) pic in photoshop instead. took ma (sic?) about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at that stuff." Sounds like you are sarcastically admitting to the impossible in order to divert attention from the actual.               Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:20:16 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > On Oct 6, 10:04 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >>> On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>> On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>>>>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >>>>>>>>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >>>>>>>>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >>>>>>>>>> 175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >>>>>>>>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >>>>>>>>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >>>>>>>>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >>>>>>>>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >>>>>>>>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >>>>>>>> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >>>>>>>> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >>>>>>>> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >>>>>>>> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >>>>>>>> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >>>>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >>>>>>> who's bullshitting. >>>>>> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >>>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >>>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >>>>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >>>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. >>>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >>>>>> fundamentally incorrect. >>>>>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >>>>>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >>>>>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >>>>>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >>>>>>> of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >>>>>>> radial and lateral loads? >>>>>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >>>>>> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >>>>>>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >>>>>>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>>>>>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >>>>>>>> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >>>>>>>> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >>>>>>>> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >>>>>>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >>>>>> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >>>>>> squirm you want to add? >>>>>>>>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >>>>>>>> wow! that's rich! >>>>>>> Maybe, but obviously true. >>>>>> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >>>>>>>>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >>>>>>>> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >>>>>>>> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >>>>>>>> convincing too! >>>>>>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >>>>>>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >>>>>> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >>>>> Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" >>>>> Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >>>>> spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >>>>> about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >>>>> don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >>>>> held at the same angle. >>>> Dear Spike >>>> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, >>>> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: >>>> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg >>>> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: >>>> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg >>>> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is >>>> fixed against the back of the blue plate. >>>> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough >>>> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. >>>> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume >>>> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an >>>> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Carl Fogel >>> Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. >>> Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my >>> properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early >>> production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed >>> and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring >>> end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is >>> taken.) >>> Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It >>> is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the >>> spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce >>> readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the >>> spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may >>> want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the >>> picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the >>> other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding >>> spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus >>> and thinner. >>> So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, >>> I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, >>> given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest >>> mistake. >>> -- >>> Spike >> admit it spike, you just don't like me. say the words. >> >> [and no, i did not fudge the calibration - i drew the while pic in >> photoshop instead. took ma about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at >> that stuff. i don't even own a tensiometer. saved me $60!] > > Beam: "i drew the while (sic) pic in photoshop instead. took ma > (sic?) about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at that stuff." > > Sounds like you are sarcastically admitting to the impossible in order > to divert attention from the actual. > eh??? i'm sarcastically pointing out the stupidity of your claim! duh.                 Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:54:32 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:JJ6dnXt28aSdLZTanZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >> On Oct 6, 10:04 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>> On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>>> On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >>>>>>>>>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >>>>>>>>>>> 175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >>>>>>>>>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >>>>>>>>>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >>>>>>>>>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the >>>>>>>>>> method >>>>>>>>>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >>>>>>>>>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >>>>>>>>> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern >>>>>>>>> rim. >>>>>>>>> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your >>>>>>>>> ill-considered >>>>>>>>> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't >>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >>>>>>>>> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >>>>>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to >>>>>>>> decide >>>>>>>> who's bullshitting. >>>>>>> deny this, >>>>>>> prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >>>>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to >>>>>>>>>> buckle. >>>>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >>>>>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >>>>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. >>>>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >>>>>>> fundamentally incorrect. >>>>>>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >>>>>>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? >>>>>>>>> duh. >>>>>>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >>>>>>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to >>>>>>>> 90% >>>>>>>> of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support >>>>>>>> simultaneous >>>>>>>> radial and lateral loads? >>>>>>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how >>>>>>> you're >>>>>>> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >>>>>>>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>>>>>>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >>>>>>>>> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff >>>>>>>>> rim >>>>>>>>> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >>>>>>>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >>>>>>> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> squirm you want to add? >>>>>>>>>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke >>>>>>>>>> mechanics. >>>>>>>>> wow! that's rich! >>>>>>>> Maybe, but obviously true. >>>>>>> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >>>>>>>>>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >>>>>>>>> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his >>>>>>>>> "engineering" >>>>>>>>> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >>>>>>>>> convincing too! >>>>>>>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >>>>>>>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you >>>>>>>> goal? >>>>>>> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >>>>>> Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" >>>>>> Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >>>>>> spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >>>>>> about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >>>>>> don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >>>>>> held at the same angle. >>>>> Dear Spike >>>>> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, >>>>> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: >>>>> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg >>>>> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: >>>>> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg >>>>> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is >>>>> fixed against the back of the blue plate. >>>>> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough >>>>> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. >>>>> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume >>>>> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an >>>>> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Carl Fogel >>>> Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. >>>> Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my >>>> properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early >>>> production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed >>>> and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring >>>> end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is >>>> taken.) >>>> Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It >>>> is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the >>>> spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce >>>> readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the >>>> spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may >>>> want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the >>>> picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the >>>> other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding >>>> spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus >>>> and thinner. >>>> So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, >>>> I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, >>>> given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest >>>> mistake. >>>> -- >>>> Spike >>> admit it spike, you just don't like me. say the words. >>> >>> [and no, i did not fudge the calibration - i drew the while pic in >>> photoshop instead. took ma about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at >>> that stuff. i don't even own a tensiometer. saved me $60!] >> >> Beam: "i drew the while (sic) pic in photoshop instead. took ma >> (sic?) about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at that stuff." >> >> Sounds like you are sarcastically admitting to the impossible in order >> to divert attention from the actual. >> > > eh??? i'm sarcastically pointing out the stupidity of your claim! duh. Hey beamboy, amazing what you can do with a bit of sticky tape on your Park tensiometer, isn't it? Fucking fraudulent retard idiot.             Date: 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: > >> > jim beam wrote: > >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > >> > who's bullshitting. > > >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > >> fundamentally incorrect. > > >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > >> > radial and lateral loads? > > >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > >> squirm you want to add? > > >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> >> wow! that's rich! > > >> > Maybe, but obviously true. > > >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> >> convincing too! > > >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > > >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" > > >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension > >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give > >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I > >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when > >held at the same angle. > > Dear Spike > > No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, > just the end of the spring that it pushes against: > > http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg > > Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: > > http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg > > Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is > fixed against the back of the blue plate. > > Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough > when the factory calibrated it to become visible. > > But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume > that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an > embarrassingly ugly conclusion. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is taken.) Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus and thinner. So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest mistake. -- Spike               Date: 08 Oct 2007 15:49:57 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 8, 1:15 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:09:08 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >On Oct 7, 4:12 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> ...Big Snip... > > >> Bullshit. > > >> You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as > >> claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been > >> clearer: > > >> "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park > >> Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." > > >> You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be > >> ashamed. > > >> Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses. > > >> Carl Fogel > > Stop emailing me duplicate of your excuses. This is the third one. Carl, Are you being completely accurate here? I believe you have mischaracterized the situation, representing it as if beam was a first time poster whose veracity I maligned. In actual fact beam has flat out admitted in earlier threads that he "bullshits". I noted this well at the time. And as any unbiased reader of RBT should have noticed, he has been shown by many to be a practiced, relentless, and unrepentant prevaricator. As such he has displayed an unmatched talent for disrupting and subverting discussions, driving off potentially valuable contributors in the process. Look no further than this thread, now more than 300 posts long, that he waylaid with his antics back at about post number four and led into divisiveness. In light of the above and in response to his abusive challenge of "deny this, prick" to a veteran and valuable contributer of this group, I asked him to deny that he hadn't "jimmied" the tensiometer in the picture he proffered. I called him a pathetic little fraud. Remember, beam already admits that he "bullshits". I wanted him to admit that he wasn't doing so now. I wanted him to admit that he hadn't cooked the picture, and by so challenging him, I wanted to raise the possibility that he actually had done so and I also wanted to underscoring his penchant for fraud. Curiously you jumped in between as an apologist for beam. The challenge was directed to him but yet you acted as his surrogate. If I had know that you would do so, I would have been, as stated earlier, clearer and more expansive in my challenge. Concerning the emailing of duplicates and excuses, here again I do not believe you are being completely accurate, I apologize for any duplicates of posts I might have emailed you in error by unintentionally hitting the "Reply to Author" button as opposed to the closely adjacent "Reply" button. I did intentionally email once explaining how you might remove the seven duplicate posts, that now appear in this thread, because this seemed to distress you and I felt partly responsible. I explained how this might have occurred, but this was not an excuse nor were any of the duplicates sent in error. The above inclusion of the subject wayward post in this response is unfortunately made necessary by by its omission from your complaining post. With regard to the question of character and credibility, I am happy to let the reader judge for himself. -- Spike                 Date: 08 Oct 2007 16:56:00 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:49:57 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: [snip] Christ, more duplicates!                   Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:54:39 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:49:57 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > > [snip] > > Christ, more duplicates! Is Spike Nettles The Messiah, as Carl Fogel implies? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com               Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:04:08 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >>> On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >>>>>>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >>>>>>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >>>>>>>> 175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >>>>>>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >>>>>>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >>>>>>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >>>>>>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >>>>>>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >>>>>> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >>>>>> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >>>>>> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >>>>>> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >>>>>> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >>>>> who's bullshitting. >>>> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. >>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >>>> fundamentally incorrect. >>>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >>>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >>>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >>>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >>>>> of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >>>>> radial and lateral loads? >>>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >>>> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >>>>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >>>>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>>>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >>>>>> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >>>>>> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >>>>>> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >>>>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >>>> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >>>> squirm you want to add? >>>>>>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >>>>>> wow! that's rich! >>>>> Maybe, but obviously true. >>>> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >>>>>>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >>>>>> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >>>>>> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >>>>>> convincing too! >>>>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >>>>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >>>> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >>> Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" >>> Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >>> spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >>> about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >>> don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >>> held at the same angle. >> Dear Spike >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > > Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. > > Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my > properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early > production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed > and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring > end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is > taken.) > > Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It > is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the > spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce > readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the > spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may > want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the > picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the > other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding > spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus > and thinner. > > So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, > I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, > given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest > mistake. > > -- > > Spike > admit it spike, you just don't like me. say the words. [and no, i did not fudge the calibration - i drew the while pic in photoshop instead. took ma about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at that stuff. i don't even own a tensiometer. saved me $60!]               Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:30:03 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> >> convincing too! >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >> >held at the same angle. >> >> Dear Spike >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. > >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is >taken.) > >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus >and thinner. > >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest >mistake. Dear Spike, Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment screw not being visible. Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like yours. The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:07:41 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: > >>> My question was what is the actual tension achieved with Jobst's >>> method using rims that fit his criteria. He implies that will get you >>> to around 100kg. >> >> how does he "imply" it? he does not discuss tension numerically in >> this context at all. > > No, but he does use that figure in several places in the book. > >>> All the equations in the back of the book seem to take 100kg as >>> nominal spoke tension. I assumed that the "buckle point" method got >>> him there with the typical rims he referenced, otherwise I don't know >>> why he'd use it as a nominal number. >> >> but he doesn't say that! for all we know, "100" simply makes the math >> easier for the example. > > Right, it's all even numbers.... like it makes a difference to the FEA > program. that's precisely my point!!! but /you/ were trying to say that the "100" was a derived number - there's nothing to support that supposition. > > The 1000N figure is a nominal in many places, like spokes operating at > 1/3 yield. but spokes /do/ operate at ~1/3 yield - that's easily calculated. > > >>> That's what he said. If spoke breakage isn't a limit (as shown), then >>> the only limits to spoke tension are rim buckling and bed cracking. >>> Buckling can be experimentally determined easily with his method. >> >> but cracking can't!!! > > No, and manufacturer's are free to make the spoke beds as thin as they > wish. eh? that's missing the point of what i said. [deliberately?] > Your claim is that Jobst's method of finding the buckle point and > backing off will result in spoke tensions of 175kg. i cited real numbers i measured specially for you since i have those wheels to hand. want to call me a liar? > That would be twice > the max limit of Mavic "classic" rims. which is precisely the point! excess tension /is/ the result of this jobstian process. > Perhaps the spoke beds in the > Open Pro, etc. are 1/2 the strength of the MA2. I don't know why Jobst > would suggest a method that would give 175kg final then use 100kg > everywhere in the book. I'm not too bad with a spoke wrench, but I can't > imagine getting a wheel to 175, never mind the 200 you claim. first, don't say i said 200, i said >175. second, your imagination doesn't come into it. those are measured numbers. > > >>> As for bed cracking, if Jobst's method gets you to 100kg for >>> "classic" rims, you're good for all Sun road rims (according to >>> them), but a bit high for Mavic. Since Mavic knows how to make rims >>> that can take 160kg or more, >> >> which rim? i've called them and they didn't say that high on any of >> the rims i asked about. and that statement doesn't address cracking >> at all. > > Their data sheets are online, that's where I got the numbers. link them then! > >>> it seems like they made their "classics" a bit on the dainty side. >>> Perhaps they should have made that better known -- even a feature: >>> "Our rims require 20% less spoke tension!". >> >> typical peter cole. > > OK, the maximum spoke tension spec on their "classic" rims is more than > 20% less than Sun's. so what??? > I see that as an admission that their spoke beds > are that much weaker -- unless they're going by buckle limit. How else > could you interpret it? what's to "interpret"? do you /always/ have to argue the freakin' toss just for the sake of it?               Date: 03 Oct 2007 09:44:17 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >> >>>> My question was what is the actual tension achieved with Jobst's >>>> method using rims that fit his criteria. He implies that will get >>>> you to around 100kg. >>> >>> how does he "imply" it? he does not discuss tension numerically in >>> this context at all. >> >> No, but he does use that figure in several places in the book. >> >>>> All the equations in the back of the book seem to take 100kg as >>>> nominal spoke tension. I assumed that the "buckle point" method got >>>> him there with the typical rims he referenced, otherwise I don't >>>> know why he'd use it as a nominal number. >>> >>> but he doesn't say that! for all we know, "100" simply makes the >>> math easier for the example. >> >> Right, it's all even numbers.... like it makes a difference to the FEA >> program. > > that's precisely my point!!! What, the FEA program is integer only? Really, try to communicate. > but /you/ were trying to say that the > "100" was a derived number - there's nothing to support that supposition. No, I'm sure you're right, it's a cruel hoax designed to break wheels. >> The 1000N figure is a nominal in many places, like spokes operating at >> 1/3 yield. > > but spokes /do/ operate at ~1/3 yield - that's easily calculated. Try reading for comprehension this time. >>>> That's what he said. If spoke breakage isn't a limit (as shown), >>>> then the only limits to spoke tension are rim buckling and bed >>>> cracking. Buckling can be experimentally determined easily with his >>>> method. >>> >>> but cracking can't!!! >> >> No, and manufacturer's are free to make the spoke beds as thin as they >> wish. > > eh? that's missing the point of what i said. [deliberately?] If you tell me where your point was lurking, I shall go back to try to find it. You think that bed cracking has nothing to do with bed thickness? You think Mavic can't control their bed thickness? Sorry, just throwing out possibilities. I'll make it full multiple choice if that's easier. >> Your claim is that Jobst's method of finding the buckle point and >> backing off will result in spoke tensions of 175kg. > > i cited real numbers i measured specially for you since i have those > wheels to hand. want to call me a liar? > > >> That would be twice the max limit of Mavic "classic" rims. > > which is precisely the point! excess tension /is/ the result of this > jobstian process. > > >> Perhaps the spoke beds in the Open Pro, etc. are 1/2 the strength of >> the MA2. I don't know why Jobst would suggest a method that would give >> 175kg final then use 100kg everywhere in the book. I'm not too bad >> with a spoke wrench, but I can't imagine getting a wheel to 175, never >> mind the 200 you claim. > > first, don't say i said 200, i said >175. second, your imagination > doesn't come into it. those are measured numbers. OK, if you really used the Jobst method [nudge, nudge -- wink, wink], then while reading the copy you don't own, paying special care not to read any of the other sections (so you wouldn't be able to freely misquote), you might have noticed that Jobst says to back off all nipples 1/2 turn. Say, that reminds me! How did you buckle your rim without "yielding" it? Didn't you find that irritating? OK, sorry, back to the main thread. So after you got to the buckle point and backed off all nipples 1/2 turn, your final tension was >175kg? And the buckle tension was what? (You can "use your imagination"). >>>> As for bed cracking, if Jobst's method gets you to 100kg for >>>> "classic" rims, you're good for all Sun road rims (according to >>>> them), but a bit high for Mavic. Since Mavic knows how to make rims >>>> that can take 160kg or more, >>> >>> which rim? i've called them and they didn't say that high on any of >>> the rims i asked about. and that statement doesn't address cracking >>> at all. >> >> Their data sheets are online, that's where I got the numbers. > > link them then! I did! These have been linked before, don't you remember *anything*? Being the Mavic wonk you are, I figured you'd have printed and papered your tool shed with them (or, more in keeping with corporate policy, memorized and eaten them). >>>> it seems like they made their "classics" a bit on the dainty side. >>>> Perhaps they should have made that better known -- even a feature: >>>> "Our rims require 20% less spoke tension!". >>> >>> typical peter cole. >> >> OK, the maximum spoke tension spec on their "classic" rims is more >> than 20% less than Sun's. > > so what??? So, they suck! Next question? >> I see that as an admission that their spoke beds are that much weaker >> -- unless they're going by buckle limit. How else could you interpret it? > > what's to "interpret"? do you /always/ have to argue the freakin' toss > just for the sake of it? OK, give me another reason for spoke tension max limit -- carpal tunnel for wheel builders? I'm warning you, I can't continue arguing unless you give me something to work with -- you're really not holding up your end.                 Date: 08 Oct 2007 03:43:01 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 11:03 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > >>>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? > >>>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel > >>>>>>> size, so I have not built any wheels that size. > >>>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. > >>>>>> You're dismissed. > >>>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE > >>>>> WHETHER A PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO > >>>>> RESIST THE STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. > >>>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever > >>>> what percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in > >>>> ACTUAL USE by REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. > >>>> Piss off. > >> Andrew Muzi writes: > >>> Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's > >>> cogent. And right. > > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > >> I find the atmosphere here on wreck.bike to have taken a substantial > >> dive in tone of discussions and suspect it may be influenced by the > >> insulting manner of the highest offices in the USA, where typically > >> department heads accuse the lowest ranking subordinates, or the public > >> at large, for their failures and hate mongering they have generated > >> ignoring command responsibility... like a CEO saying the company > >> went broke because the employees failed him. > > >> I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead > >> insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can thank the > >> rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude people with > >> arguments to support their style. > > >> In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses appearing > >> often as anti free speech by intimidation. > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > Jobst Brandt, sensitive tank! Of course, Mr. Brandt would *never, > > ever* behave in a rude, dismissive, insulting, abrasive or > > condescending manner, would he? ;-) > > Note to Jobst: "Physician, heal thyself!" > > In any discussion it helps to stay in the present. > > Don't you just hate it when girlfriend brings up some conversation from > a year ago? If Mr Brandt civilly asks for civility today, I'll take that > at face value and make an effort myself. > Let Brandt lead by example for awhile, then I'll start to believe his post was a request for civility from *everyone* and not yet another example of his amazing lack of self-awareness.                   Date: 08 Oct 2007 13:53:19 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals >>>>>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? >>>>>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel >>>>>>>>> size, so I have not built any wheels that size. >>>>>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility. >>>>>>>> You're dismissed. >>>>>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE >>>>>>> WHETHER A PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO >>>>>>> RESIST THE STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE. >>>>>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever >>>>>> what percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in >>>>>> ACTUAL USE by REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard. >>>>>> Piss off. >>>> Andrew Muzi writes: >>>>> Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's >>>>> cogent. And right. >>> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >>>> I find the atmosphere here on wreck.bike to have taken a substantial >>>> dive in tone of discussions and suspect it may be influenced by the >>>> insulting manner of the highest offices in the USA, where typically >>>> department heads accuse the lowest ranking subordinates, or the public >>>> at large, for their failures and hate mongering they have generated >>>> ignoring command responsibility... like a CEO saying the company >>>> went broke because the employees failed him. >>>> I no longer see "I disagree and believe it is otherwise...". Instead >>>> insults have replaced accepting opposing comments. We can thank the >>>> rude ones and then Mr. Fogel, who supports these rude people with >>>> arguments to support their style. >>>> In my estimation, we are not making headway, rude responses appearing >>>> often as anti free speech by intimidation. >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> Jobst Brandt, sensitive tank! Of course, Mr. Brandt would *never, >>> ever* behave in a rude, dismissive, insulting, abrasive or >>> condescending manner, would he? ;-) >>> Note to Jobst: "Physician, heal thyself!" > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> In any discussion it helps to stay in the present. >> Don't you just hate it when girlfriend brings up some conversation from >> a year ago? If Mr Brandt civilly asks for civility today, I'll take that >> at face value and make an effort myself. Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Let Brandt lead by example for awhile, then I'll start to believe his > post was a request for civility from *everyone* and not yet another > example of his amazing lack of self-awareness. Good call, I agree. Thanks so much. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                 Date: 06 Oct 2007 21:36:55 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > >> >> > jim beam wrote: > >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > >> >> > who's bullshitting. > > >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > >> >> fundamentally incorrect. > > >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > >> >> > radial and lateral loads? > > >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > >> >> squirm you want to add? > > >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> >> >> wow! that's rich! > > >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. > > >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> >> >> convincing too! > > >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > > >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. > >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" > > >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension > >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give > >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I > >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when > >> >held at the same angle. > > >> Dear Spike > > >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, > >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: > > >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg > > >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: > > >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg > > >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is > >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. > > >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough > >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. > > >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume > >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an > >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. > > >> Cheers, > > >> Carl Fogel > > >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. > > >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my > >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early > >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed > >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring > >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is > >taken.) > > >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It > >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the > >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce > >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the > >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may > >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the > >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the > >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding > >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus > >and thinner. > > >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, > >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, > >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest > >mistake. > > Dear Spike, > > Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. > > You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different > adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment > screw not being visible. > > Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on > Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like > yours. > > The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. > > Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted > tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the > same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. > > You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Carl, It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam might be up to his regular fraud again. I asked that he deny it. What supported this observation and request was his past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led you to believe that my observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers. Thank you for expounding further on their possible differences. I meant to suggest that "jimmying" of the spring tension was only one possible method by which such a deception could be produced -- certainly this is what could have been done. I should have been clearer and more expansive. This was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it. -- Spike                   Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:32:29 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:36:55 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> >> >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> >> >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> >> >> convincing too! >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >> >> >held at the same angle. >> >> >> Dear Spike >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Carl Fogel >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is >> >taken.) >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus >> >and thinner. >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest >> >mistake. >> >> Dear Spike, >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment >> screw not being visible. >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like >> yours. >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >Carl, > >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam might >be up to his regular fraud again. I asked that he deny it. What >supported this observation and request was his past history of obvious >and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led you to believe that my >observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of >our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers. Thank you for expounding >further on their possible differences. > >I meant to suggest that "jimmying" of the spring tension was only one >possible method by which such a deception could be produced -- >certainly this is what could have been done. I should have been >clearer and more expansive. This was a error on my part; I am not >embarrassed by it. Dear Spike, You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your hatred of Jim Beam. You've lost most of your credibility. Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies. Cheers, Carl Fogel                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:44:57 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:32:29 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:36:55 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > >>On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >>> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >>> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> >> >> > jim beam wrote: >>> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >>> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >>> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >>> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >>> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >>> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >>> >>> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >>> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >>> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >>> >>> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >>> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >>> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >>> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >>> >>> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >>> >>> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >>> >> >> > who's bullshitting. >>> >>> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >>> >>> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >>> >>> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >>> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >>> >>> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >>> >>> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >>> >> >> fundamentally incorrect. >>> >>> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >>> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >>> >>> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >>> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >>> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >>> >> >> > radial and lateral loads? >>> >>> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >>> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >>> >>> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >>> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>> >>> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >>> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >>> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >>> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >>> >>> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >>> >>> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >>> >> >> squirm you want to add? >>> >>> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >>> >>> >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >>> >>> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >>> >>> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >>> >>> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >>> >>> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >>> >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >>> >> >> >> convincing too! >>> >>> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >>> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >>> >>> >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >>> >>> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >>> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" >>> >>> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >>> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >>> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >>> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >>> >> >held at the same angle. >>> >>> >> Dear Spike >>> >>> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, >>> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: >>> >>> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg >>> >>> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: >>> >>> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg >>> >>> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is >>> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. >>> >>> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough >>> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. >>> >>> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume >>> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an >>> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. >>> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >>> >> Carl Fogel >>> >>> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. >>> >>> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my >>> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early >>> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed >>> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring >>> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is >>> >taken.) >>> >>> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It >>> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the >>> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce >>> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the >>> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may >>> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the >>> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the >>> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding >>> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus >>> >and thinner. >>> >>> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, >>> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, >>> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest >>> >mistake. >>> >>> Dear Spike, >>> >>> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. >>> >>> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different >>> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment >>> screw not being visible. >>> >>> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on >>> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like >>> yours. >>> >>> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. >>> >>> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted >>> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the >>> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. >>> >>> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Carl Fogel >> >>Carl, >> >>It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam might >>be up to his regular fraud again. I asked that he deny it. What >>supported this observation and request was his past history of obvious >>and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led you to believe that my >>observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of >>our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers. Thank you for expounding >>further on their possible differences. >> >>I meant to suggest that "jimmying" of the spring tension was only one >>possible method by which such a deception could be produced -- >>certainly this is what could have been done. I should have been >>clearer and more expansive. This was a error on my part; I am not >>embarrassed by it. > >Dear Spike, > >You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your >hatred of Jim Beam. > >You've lost most of your credibility. > >Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel And please learn how to send a single post to the newsgroup. The multiple copies on the newsgroup are bad enough, but now you're emailing me copies of the duplicates.                 Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > >> >> > jim beam wrote: > >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > >> >> > who's bullshitting. > > >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > >> >> fundamentally incorrect. > > >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > >> >> > radial and lateral loads? > > >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > >> >> squirm you want to add? > > >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> >> >> wow! that's rich! > > >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. > > >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> >> >> convincing too! > > >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > > >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. > >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" > > >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension > >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give > >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I > >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when > >> >held at the same angle. > > >> Dear Spike > > >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, > >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: > > >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg > > >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible: > > >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg > > >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is > >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. > > >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough > >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. > > >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume > >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an > >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. > > >> Cheers, > > >> Carl Fogel > > >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. > > >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my > >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early > >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed > >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring > >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is > >taken.) > > >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It > >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the > >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce > >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the > >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may > >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the > >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the > >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding > >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus > >and thinner. > > >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, > >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, > >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest > >mistake. > > Dear Spike, > > Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. > > You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different > adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment > screw not being visible. > > Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on > Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like > yours. > > The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. > > Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted > tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the > same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. > > You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel >Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it. -- Spike                   Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:42:11 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 8, 5:56 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:49:57 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > [snip] > > Christ, more duplicates! Carl Fogel wrote: > Christ, more duplicates! Unfortunately made necessary by its omission from your complaint in which you did, nevertheless, manage to include the original disparaging remarks that it responds to. -- Spike                   Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:35:35 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 8, 5:56 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:49:57 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > [snip] > > Christ, more duplicates! Carl Fogel wrote: > Christ, more duplicates! Unfortunately made necessary by its omission from your complaint in which you did, nevertheless, manage to include the original disparaging remarks that it responds to. -- Spike                   Date: 06 Oct 2007 21:58:58 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> >> >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> >> >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> >> >> convincing too! >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >> >> >held at the same angle. >> >> >> Dear Spike >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible: >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Carl Fogel >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is >> >taken.) >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus >> >and thinner. >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest >> >mistake. >> >> Dear Spike, >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment >> screw not being visible. >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like >> yours. >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. > >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1 >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it. Dear Spike, You've lost most of your credibility. Stop digging. Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:19:18 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>> >>>>> My question was what is the actual tension achieved with Jobst's >>>>> method using rims that fit his criteria. He implies that will get >>>>> you to around 100kg. >>>> >>>> how does he "imply" it? he does not discuss tension numerically in >>>> this context at all. >>> >>> No, but he does use that figure in several places in the book. >>> >>>>> All the equations in the back of the book seem to take 100kg as >>>>> nominal spoke tension. I assumed that the "buckle point" method got >>>>> him there with the typical rims he referenced, otherwise I don't >>>>> know why he'd use it as a nominal number. >>>> >>>> but he doesn't say that! for all we know, "100" simply makes the >>>> math easier for the example. >>> >>> Right, it's all even numbers.... like it makes a difference to the >>> FEA program. >> >> that's precisely my point!!! > > What, the FEA program is integer only? Really, try to communicate. eh? you deliberately misconstrue, then say /i/ can't communicate? that's rich! > > >> but /you/ were trying to say that the "100" was a derived number - >> there's nothing to support that supposition. > > No, I'm sure you're right, it's a cruel hoax designed to break wheels. so where does the number come from then? > > >>> The 1000N figure is a nominal in many places, like spokes operating >>> at 1/3 yield. >> >> but spokes /do/ operate at ~1/3 yield - that's easily calculated. > > Try reading for comprehension this time. rich! > > >>>>> That's what he said. If spoke breakage isn't a limit (as shown), >>>>> then the only limits to spoke tension are rim buckling and bed >>>>> cracking. Buckling can be experimentally determined easily with his >>>>> method. >>>> >>>> but cracking can't!!! >>> >>> No, and manufacturer's are free to make the spoke beds as thin as >>> they wish. >> >> eh? that's missing the point of what i said. [deliberately?] > > If you tell me where your point was lurking, I shall go back to try to > find it. You think that bed cracking has nothing to do with bed > thickness? You think Mavic can't control their bed thickness? Sorry, > just throwing out possibilities. I'll make it full multiple choice if > that's easier. that's not what i meant and you know it. but you'll misconstrue anything just for the sake of having something argumentative to say. > > >>> Your claim is that Jobst's method of finding the buckle point and >>> backing off will result in spoke tensions of 175kg. >> >> i cited real numbers i measured specially for you since i have those >> wheels to hand. want to call me a liar? >> >> >>> That would be twice the max limit of Mavic "classic" rims. >> >> which is precisely the point! excess tension /is/ the result of this >> jobstian process. >> >> >>> Perhaps the spoke beds in the Open Pro, etc. are 1/2 the strength of >>> the MA2. I don't know why Jobst would suggest a method that would >>> give 175kg final then use 100kg everywhere in the book. I'm not too >>> bad with a spoke wrench, but I can't imagine getting a wheel to 175, >>> never mind the 200 you claim. >> >> first, don't say i said 200, i said >175. second, your imagination >> doesn't come into it. those are measured numbers. > > OK, if you really used the Jobst method [nudge, nudge -- wink, wink], > then while reading the copy you don't own, paying special care not to > read any of the other sections (so you wouldn't be able to freely > misquote), you might have noticed that Jobst says to back off all > nipples 1/2 turn. Say, that reminds me! How did you buckle your rim > without "yielding" it? Didn't you find that irritating? OK, sorry, back > to the main thread. So after you got to the buckle point and backed off > all nipples 1/2 turn, your final tension was >175kg? And the buckle > tension was what? (You can "use your imagination"). er, let's summarize: /you/ wanted to know tension because you wanted to try bleating that the jobstian method give "100kgf". it doesn't. i post readings that confirm it. you start bleating about methodology, like it's going to make a damned bit of difference to actual final readings. what a prick! > > >>>>> As for bed cracking, if Jobst's method gets you to 100kg for >>>>> "classic" rims, you're good for all Sun road rims (according to >>>>> them), but a bit high for Mavic. Since Mavic knows how to make rims >>>>> that can take 160kg or more, >>>> >>>> which rim? i've called them and they didn't say that high on any of >>>> the rims i asked about. and that statement doesn't address cracking >>>> at all. >>> >>> Their data sheets are online, that's where I got the numbers. >> >> link them then! > > I did! These have been linked before, /after/ the event!!! > don't you remember *anything*? deliberate deception. > Being the Mavic wonk you are, I figured you'd have printed and papered > your tool shed with them (or, more in keeping with corporate policy, > memorized and eaten them). prick. > > >>>>> it seems like they made their "classics" a bit on the dainty side. >>>>> Perhaps they should have made that better known -- even a feature: >>>>> "Our rims require 20% less spoke tension!". >>>> >>>> typical peter cole. >>> >>> OK, the maximum spoke tension spec on their "classic" rims is more >>> than 20% less than Sun's. >> >> so what??? > > So, they suck! Next question? that's an informative analytical statement. but you're an "engineer", right? > > >>> I see that as an admission that their spoke beds are that much weaker >>> -- unless they're going by buckle limit. How else could you interpret >>> it? >> >> what's to "interpret"? do you /always/ have to argue the freakin' >> toss just for the sake of it? > > OK, give me another reason for spoke tension max limit -- carpal tunnel > for wheel builders? I'm warning you, I can't continue arguing unless you > give me something to work with -- you're really not holding up your end. er, you ignore contradictory fact, then say you have nothing to work with??? try revising all your preconceptions and not bullshitting about them!!!                   Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:18:20 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >>>> Perhaps the spoke beds in the Open Pro, etc. are 1/2 the strength of >>>> the MA2. I don't know why Jobst would suggest a method that would >>>> give 175kg final then use 100kg everywhere in the book. I'm not too >>>> bad with a spoke wrench, but I can't imagine getting a wheel to 175, >>>> never mind the 200 you claim. >>> >>> first, don't say i said 200, i said >175. second, your imagination >>> doesn't come into it. those are measured numbers. >> >> OK, if you really used the Jobst method [nudge, nudge -- wink, wink], >> then while reading the copy you don't own, paying special care not to >> read any of the other sections (so you wouldn't be able to freely >> misquote), you might have noticed that Jobst says to back off all >> nipples 1/2 turn. Say, that reminds me! How did you buckle your rim >> without "yielding" it? Didn't you find that irritating? OK, sorry, >> back to the main thread. So after you got to the buckle point and >> backed off all nipples 1/2 turn, your final tension was >175kg? And >> the buckle tension was what? (You can "use your imagination"). > > er, let's summarize: > /you/ wanted to know tension because you wanted to try bleating that the > jobstian method give "100kgf". it doesn't. i post readings that > confirm it. you start bleating about methodology, like it's going to > make a damned bit of difference to actual final readings. what a prick! I'm sorry, but your claims seem impossible. You claim that following Jobst's method, you got " >175kg" final tension. Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >>>>>> As for bed cracking, if Jobst's method gets you to 100kg for >>>>>> "classic" rims, you're good for all Sun road rims (according to >>>>>> them), but a bit high for Mavic. Since Mavic knows how to make >>>>>> rims that can take 160kg or more, >>>>> >>>>> which rim? i've called them and they didn't say that high on any >>>>> of the rims i asked about. and that statement doesn't address >>>>> cracking at all. >>>> >>>> Their data sheets are online, that's where I got the numbers. >>> >>> link them then! >> >> I did! These have been linked before, > > /after/ the event!!! > > >> don't you remember *anything*? > > deliberate deception. > > >> Being the Mavic wonk you are, I figured you'd have printed and papered >> your tool shed with them (or, more in keeping with corporate policy, >> memorized and eaten them). > > prick. > >> >> >>>>>> it seems like they made their "classics" a bit on the dainty side. >>>>>> Perhaps they should have made that better known -- even a feature: >>>>>> "Our rims require 20% less spoke tension!". >>>>> >>>>> typical peter cole. >>>> >>>> OK, the maximum spoke tension spec on their "classic" rims is more >>>> than 20% less than Sun's. >>> >>> so what??? >> >> So, they suck! Next question? > > that's an informative analytical statement. but you're an "engineer", > right? > > >> >> >>>> I see that as an admission that their spoke beds are that much >>>> weaker -- unless they're going by buckle limit. How else could you >>>> interpret it? >>> >>> what's to "interpret"? do you /always/ have to argue the freakin' >>> toss just for the sake of it? >> >> OK, give me another reason for spoke tension max limit -- carpal >> tunnel for wheel builders? I'm warning you, I can't continue arguing >> unless you give me something to work with -- you're really not holding >> up your end. > > er, you ignore contradictory fact, then say you have nothing to work > with??? try revising all your preconceptions and not bullshitting about > them!!! "Contradictory fact"? "Preconceptions"? I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you, apparently. Carl Fogel posted the link to Mavic's support site and the password month's ago (restricted to dealer only access). As far as I know, that's the only place their tension specs are published. tech-mavic.com, user = tech-mavic, password = dealer Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.                     Date: 07 Oct 2007 01:21:59 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 12:32 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > Dear Spike, > > You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your > hatred of Jim Beam. > > You've lost most of your credibility. > > Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Carl, I believe my skepticism is well founded. It is based on my past assessment of beam's credibility. I would be embarrassed if I were not skeptical. -- Spike                       Date: 07 Oct 2007 15:13:19 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:21:59 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 7, 12:32 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> >> Dear Spike, >> >> You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your >> hatred of Jim Beam. >> >> You've lost most of your credibility. >> >> Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >Carl, > >I believe my skepticism is well founded. It is based on my past >assessment of beam's credibility. I would be embarrassed if I were not >skeptical. Quit emailing me bullshit excuses for emailing me duplicates.                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > >> >> >> > jim beam wrote: > >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > >> >> >> > who's bullshitting. > > >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect. > > >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads? > > >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > >> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > >> >> >> squirm you want to add? > > >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich! > > >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. > > >> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> >> >> >> convincing too! > > >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > >> >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > > >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. > >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" > > >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension > >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give > >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I > >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when > >> >> >held at the same angle. > > >> >> Dear Spike > > >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, > >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: > > >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg > > >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible: > > >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg > > >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is > >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. > > >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough > >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. > > >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume > >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an > >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. > > >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> Carl Fogel > > >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. > > >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my > >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early > >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed > >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring > >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is > >> >taken.) > > >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It > >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the > >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce > >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the > >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may > >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the > >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the > >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding > >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus > >> >and thinner. > > >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, > >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, > >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest > >> >mistake. > > >> Dear Spike, > > >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. > > >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different > >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment > >> screw not being visible. > > >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on > >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like > >> yours. > > >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. > > >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted > >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the > >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. > > >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. > > >> Cheers, > > >> Carl Fogel > > >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. > > >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up > >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his > >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led > >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the > >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1 > >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that > >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This > >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it. > > Dear Spike, > > You've lost most of your credibility. > > Stop digging. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Carl, Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...." Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost most of my credibility. -- Spike                       Date: 07 Oct 2007 06:57:26 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > ... >> Dear Spike, >> >> You've lost most of your credibility. >> >> Stop digging. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > > Carl, > > Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my > observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of > our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been > clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...." > > Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost > most of my credibility. Not that "Dear Carl" would ever make false accusations of dishonesty. [end sarcasm]. Heck, this is the one that that Bill Sornson and I agree upon. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                       Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:38:22 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >> >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> >> >> >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> >> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> >> >> >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> >> >> >> convincing too! >> >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> >> >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >> >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" >> >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >> >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >> >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >> >> >> >held at the same angle. >> >> >> >> Dear Spike >> >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, >> >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: >> >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg >> >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible: >> >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg >> >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is >> >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. >> >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough >> >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. >> >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume >> >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an >> >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Carl Fogel >> >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. >> >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my >> >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early >> >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed >> >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring >> >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is >> >> >taken.) >> >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It >> >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the >> >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce >> >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the >> >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may >> >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the >> >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the >> >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding >> >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus >> >> >and thinner. >> >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, >> >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, >> >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest >> >> >mistake. >> >> >> Dear Spike, >> >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. >> >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different >> >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment >> >> screw not being visible. >> >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on >> >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like >> >> yours. >> >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. >> >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted >> >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the >> >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. >> >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Carl Fogel >> >> >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. >> >> >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up >> >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his >> >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led >> >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the >> >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1 >> >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that >> >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This >> >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it. >> >> Dear Spike, >> >> You've lost most of your credibility. >> >> Stop digging. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >Carl, > >Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my >observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of >our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been >clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...." > >Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost >most of my credibility. Dear Spike, I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior. What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more expansive"? Cheers, Carl Fogel                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 08:19:27 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: > >>>>> Perhaps the spoke beds in the Open Pro, etc. are 1/2 the strength >>>>> of the MA2. I don't know why Jobst would suggest a method that >>>>> would give 175kg final then use 100kg everywhere in the book. I'm >>>>> not too bad with a spoke wrench, but I can't imagine getting a >>>>> wheel to 175, never mind the 200 you claim. >>>> >>>> first, don't say i said 200, i said >175. second, your imagination >>>> doesn't come into it. those are measured numbers. >>> >>> OK, if you really used the Jobst method [nudge, nudge -- wink, wink], >>> then while reading the copy you don't own, paying special care not to >>> read any of the other sections (so you wouldn't be able to freely >>> misquote), you might have noticed that Jobst says to back off all >>> nipples 1/2 turn. Say, that reminds me! How did you buckle your rim >>> without "yielding" it? Didn't you find that irritating? OK, sorry, >>> back to the main thread. So after you got to the buckle point and >>> backed off all nipples 1/2 turn, your final tension was >175kg? And >>> the buckle tension was what? (You can "use your imagination"). >> >> er, let's summarize: >> /you/ wanted to know tension because you wanted to try bleating that >> the jobstian method give "100kgf". it doesn't. i post readings that >> confirm it. you start bleating about methodology, like it's going to >> make a damned bit of difference to actual final readings. what a prick! > > I'm sorry, but your claims seem impossible. > > You claim that following Jobst's method, you got ">175kg" final tension. > > Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the stress > relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then back of > 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >175kg, you > must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that tension, the stress > relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- well past the UTS of the > spokes you claim to have used. > > You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method on > MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't read the > book, which makes your claims more than suspect. i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > > >>>>>>> As for bed cracking, if Jobst's method gets you to 100kg for >>>>>>> "classic" rims, you're good for all Sun road rims (according to >>>>>>> them), but a bit high for Mavic. Since Mavic knows how to make >>>>>>> rims that can take 160kg or more, >>>>>> >>>>>> which rim? i've called them and they didn't say that high on any >>>>>> of the rims i asked about. and that statement doesn't address >>>>>> cracking at all. >>>>> >>>>> Their data sheets are online, that's where I got the numbers. >>>> >>>> link them then! >>> >>> I did! These have been linked before, >> >> /after/ the event!!! >> >> >>> don't you remember *anything*? >> >> deliberate deception. >> >> >>> Being the Mavic wonk you are, I figured you'd have printed and >>> papered your tool shed with them (or, more in keeping with corporate >>> policy, memorized and eaten them). >> >> prick. >> >>> >>> >>>>>>> it seems like they made their "classics" a bit on the dainty >>>>>>> side. Perhaps they should have made that better known -- even a >>>>>>> feature: "Our rims require 20% less spoke tension!". >>>>>> >>>>>> typical peter cole. >>>>> >>>>> OK, the maximum spoke tension spec on their "classic" rims is more >>>>> than 20% less than Sun's. >>>> >>>> so what??? >>> >>> So, they suck! Next question? >> >> that's an informative analytical statement. but you're an "engineer", >> right? >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> I see that as an admission that their spoke beds are that much >>>>> weaker -- unless they're going by buckle limit. How else could you >>>>> interpret it? >>>> >>>> what's to "interpret"? do you /always/ have to argue the freakin' >>>> toss just for the sake of it? >>> >>> OK, give me another reason for spoke tension max limit -- carpal >>> tunnel for wheel builders? I'm warning you, I can't continue arguing >>> unless you give me something to work with -- you're really not >>> holding up your end. >> >> er, you ignore contradictory fact, then say you have nothing to work >> with??? try revising all your preconceptions and not bullshitting >> about them!!! > > "Contradictory fact"? "Preconceptions"? I have no idea what you're > talking about, nor do you, apparently. eh? see above. > > Carl Fogel posted the link to Mavic's support site and the password > month's ago (restricted to dealer only access). As far as I know, that's > the only place their tension specs are published. > > tech-mavic.com, user = tech-mavic, password = dealer > > Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under load. > The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > If a > lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke beds > fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. wow! that's rich! > > Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really convincing too!                       Date: 07 Oct 2007 00:08:35 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 12:44 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > And please learn how to send a single post to the newsgroup. > > The multiple copies on the newsgroup are bad enough, but now you're > emailing me copies of the duplicates. I really am sorry for that, Carl. My browser seems to be a bit balky -- and some posters a bit testy -- but it is all my fault. I'm new to posting to news groups obviously. Your multiple duplicate replies to the group do look funny; my original post doesn't even appear once. You should maybe be pleased. You can now do an exegesis on all seven editions (joke). -- Spike                       Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:44:20 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <5IKdnQ_geqMcOpranZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive force > on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. A structural member can buckle and remain in it elastic regime. This can happen, for instance, when other elements of the overall structure take up the load and prevent collapse. There are other ways a structure can buckle and remain in its elastic regime. Consider a column on a pinned pivot. This has one degree of freedom: the angle of the column from vertical. Now support the column with elastic springs so that it is held vertical. Now start adding weight to the top of the supported column. Do the math. At a certain point the structure will not support any more additional weight in the vertical and it will sag, but will not sag all the way to the horizontal. It will go to a new equilibrium neither horizontal nor vertical. > to put it > another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of compressive yield, > how much more external load can it take??? duh. 1. A bicycle wheel is typically built at less that 99.9% of its rim buckling point. 2. In use, a bicycle wheel is not called upon to support additional compressive forces on the rim. -- Michael Press                       Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:57:19 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- well >> past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't read >> the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use the > spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > you're bullshitting peter. grow up. The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide who's bullshitting. >> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive force > on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. If you mean buckle, say buckle. > to put it > another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of compressive yield, > how much more external load can it take??? duh. An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous radial and lateral loads? >> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? [and > that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > wow! that's rich! Maybe, but obviously true. >> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > convincing too! You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?                         Date: 08 Oct 2007 04:40:14 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 10:25 pm, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > On Oct 7, 4:13 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:21:59 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > >On Oct 7, 12:32 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > > >> Dear Spike, > > > >> You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your > > >> hatred of Jim Beam. > > > >> You've lost most of your credibility. > > > >> Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies. > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Carl Fogel > > > >Carl, > > > >I believe my skepticism is well founded. It is based on my past > > >assessment of beam's credibility. I would be embarrassed if I were not > > >skeptical. > > > Quit emailing me bullshit excuses for emailing me duplicates. > > I certainly wasn't presenting an excuse to you. You seemed to be > embarrassed by your own seven sequential duplicate RBT replies to my > post. I felt partially responsible and accordingly, hesitantly, I > tried once to explain how you might remove your mess. Sorry. > > Based on the tenor of your recent posts and what I am learning from > others, I am not concerned about your opinions of me. I do note that > with the dropping of your "Dear Spike...Cheers, Carl Fogel" routine > you have lost even this last pretext of civility. So, say what you > will. > You are beginning to see through the smarm and thin veneer of (false) civility to the petty, slandering, back-stabbing, vindictive horror that Fogel truly is.                         Date: 07 Oct 2007 20:25:45 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 4:13 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:21:59 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >On Oct 7, 12:32 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > >> Dear Spike, > > >> You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your > >> hatred of Jim Beam. > > >> You've lost most of your credibility. > > >> Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies. > > >> Cheers, > > >> Carl Fogel > > >Carl, > > >I believe my skepticism is well founded. It is based on my past > >assessment of beam's credibility. I would be embarrassed if I were not > >skeptical. > > Quit emailing me bullshit excuses for emailing me duplicates. I certainly wasn't presenting an excuse to you. You seemed to be embarrassed by your own seven sequential duplicate RBT replies to my post. I felt partially responsible and accordingly, hesitantly, I tried once to explain how you might remove your mess. Sorry. Based on the tenor of your recent posts and what I am learning from others, I am not concerned about your opinions of me. I do note that with the dropping of your "Dear Spike...Cheers, Carl Fogel" routine you have lost even this last pretext of civility. So, say what you will. -- Spike                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:00:09 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > ... > Based on the tenor of your recent posts and what I am learning from > others, I am not concerned about your opinions of me. I do note that > with the dropping of your "Dear Spike...Cheers, Carl Fogel" routine > you have lost even this last pretext of civility.... A refreshing change. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 02:54:55 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-08, spikenettles@earthlink.net <spikenettles@earthlink.net > wrote: [...] > I certainly wasn't presenting an excuse to you. You seemed to be > embarrassed by your own seven sequential duplicate RBT replies to my > post. FWIW I saw several duplicates of the original post, each one with a single duplicate of the follow-up from Carl. I wasn't sure whether to adjust my set.                             Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:32:37 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:54:55 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-10-08, spikenettles@earthlink.net <spikenettles@earthlink.net> wrote: >[...] >> I certainly wasn't presenting an excuse to you. You seemed to be >> embarrassed by your own seven sequential duplicate RBT replies to my >> post. > >FWIW I saw several duplicates of the original post, each one with a >single duplicate of the follow-up from Carl. I wasn't sure whether to >adjust my set. Dear Ben, With that many duplicates, who knew which would be deleted on some servers, and where things would end up in this huge thread? Some appeared on my newsreader _after_ I posted my first reply. Cheers, Carl Fogel                         Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:59:31 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 10:38 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > Dear Spike, > > I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior. > > What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't > believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking > photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more > expansive"? Dear Carl, I don't care one way or another about jim beam's photograph and see no reason to doubt its veracity, but: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/5c5727669856726d/85ff7a01beb8e1e7#85ff7a01beb8e1e7 You're in a fine position to lecture people about the rudeness of disbelieving photographic evidence on RBT. Ben                           Date: 10 Oct 2007 02:12:52 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191794371.203568.39280@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote: > On Oct 6, 10:38 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > > Dear Spike, > > > > I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior. > > > > What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't > > believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking > > photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more > > expansive"? > > Dear Carl, > > I don't care one way or another about jim beam's > photograph and see no reason to doubt its veracity, but: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/5c572766985 > 6726d/85ff7a01beb8e1e7#85ff7a01beb8e1e7 > > You're in a fine position to lecture people about > the rudeness of disbelieving photographic evidence > on RBT. > > Ben Ben: in the case of Carl's photo, much like a well-written mystery story, the evidence was all there to be seen. He was being a terrible tease, but he also came clean reasonably quickly (like, in the second half of that message, which started with these stentences: "So much for deceiving trusting readers as an object lesson. There are no hidden flaws in what follows--at least no _deliberately_ hidden flaws.") It's perhaps the case that like Carl, I've read a few too many works of fiction, and especially a few too many mystery stories. We like literary puzzles, and occasionally spring them on others. But really, the technology here is decades and decades old. If you've read Poe's "The Purloined Letter," you'll see that Carl hid the devilishly deceptive spoke in plain sight. As you noted, the length alone was a dead giveaway. Now, if someone points out that a spoke doesn't look quite right, that's one thing. If someone makes an erroneous claim of falsity, and then won't back down in the face of considerable evidence of their own wrongness, well, you can't be paying a terrible amount of attention to such a person. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos                             Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:09:39 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:12:52 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: >In article <1191794371.203568.39280@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote: > >> On Oct 6, 10:38 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> > Dear Spike, >> > >> > I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior. >> > >> > What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't >> > believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking >> > photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more >> > expansive"? >> >> Dear Carl, >> >> I don't care one way or another about jim beam's >> photograph and see no reason to doubt its veracity, but: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/5c572766985 >> 6726d/85ff7a01beb8e1e7#85ff7a01beb8e1e7 >> >> You're in a fine position to lecture people about >> the rudeness of disbelieving photographic evidence >> on RBT. >> >> Ben > >Ben: in the case of Carl's photo, much like a well-written mystery >story, the evidence was all there to be seen. He was being a terrible >tease, but he also came clean reasonably quickly (like, in the second >half of that message, which started with these stentences: "So much for >deceiving trusting readers as an object lesson. There are no hidden >flaws in what follows--at least no _deliberately_ hidden flaws.") > >It's perhaps the case that like Carl, I've read a few too many works of >fiction, and especially a few too many mystery stories. We like literary >puzzles, and occasionally spring them on others. > >But really, the technology here is decades and decades old. If you've >read Poe's "The Purloined Letter," you'll see that Carl hid the >devilishly deceptive spoke in plain sight. As you noted, the length >alone was a dead giveaway. > >Now, if someone points out that a spoke doesn't look quite right, that's >one thing. If someone makes an erroneous claim of falsity, and then >won't back down in the face of considerable evidence of their own >wrongness, well, you can't be paying a terrible amount of attention to >such a person. Dear Ryan, If anything, I was rather more explicit than Mark Twain's famous report of a petrified man, with its careful description of the petrified man pointing to his winking left eye with one hand and thumbing his nose at the world with the other: http://www.twainquotes.com/18621004t.html After all, Twain included no picture and said nothing about what his petrified man was doing. After calculating that the spoke's displacement indicated that its tension must have risen 195 pounds, I wrote:                           Date: 07 Oct 2007 20:57:05 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:59:31 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote: >On Oct 6, 10:38 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> Dear Spike, >> >> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior. >> >> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't >> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking >> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more >> expansive"? > >Dear Carl, > >I don't care one way or another about jim beam's >photograph and see no reason to doubt its veracity, but: > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/5c5727669856726d/85ff7a01beb8e1e7#85ff7a01beb8e1e7 > >You're in a fine position to lecture people about >the rudeness of disbelieving photographic evidence >on RBT. > >Ben Dear Ben, Are you still to dumb to read the original post and notice the smiley? Cheers, Carl Fogel                         Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:57:16 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 12:38 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > >> >> >> >> > jim beam wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >> >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >> >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >> >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >> >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >> >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >> >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >> >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> >> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > >> >> >> >> > who's bullshitting. > > >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >> >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > >> >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect. > > >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > >> >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > >> >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > >> >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads? > > >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > >> >> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >> >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > >> >> >> >> squirm you want to add? > > >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich! > > >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. > > >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> >> >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> >> >> >> >> convincing too! > > >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > >> >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > >> >> >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > > >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. > >> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" > > >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension > >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give > >> >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I > >> >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when > >> >> >> >held at the same angle. > > >> >> >> Dear Spike > > >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, > >> >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: > > >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg > > >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible: > > >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg > > >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is > >> >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. > > >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough > >> >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. > > >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume > >> >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an > >> >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. > > >> >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> >> Carl Fogel > > >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. > > >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my > >> >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early > >> >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed > >> >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring > >> >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is > >> >> >taken.) > > >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It > >> >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the > >> >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce > >> >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the > >> >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may > >> >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the > >> >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the > >> >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding > >> >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus > >> >> >and thinner. > > >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, > >> >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, > >> >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest > >> >> >mistake. > > >> >> Dear Spike, > > >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. > > >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different > >> >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment > >> >> screw not being visible. > > >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on > >> >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like > >> >> yours. > > >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. > > >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted > >> >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the > >> >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. > > >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. > > >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> Carl Fogel > > >> >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. > > >> >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up > >> >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his > >> >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led > >> >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the > >> >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1 > >> >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that > >> >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This > >> >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it. > > >> Dear Spike, > > >> You've lost most of your credibility. > > >> Stop digging. > > >> Cheers, > > >> Carl Fogel > > >Carl, > > >Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my > >observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of > >our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been > >clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...." > > >Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost > >most of my credibility. > > Dear Spike, > > I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior. > > What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't > believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking > photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more > expansive"? > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Carl, Based on beam's past antics I would be embarrassed to give him credibility. Apparently, you are not. I didn't "announce" that he was faking pictures, but, yes, I certainly intended to raise that possibility by asking him to deny that "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." (Indeed, he may have done just this.) I now believe that even if I had been clearer and more expansive, you still would he in disagreement. -- Spike                           Date: 07 Oct 2007 15:12:38 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:57:16 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 7, 12:38 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >> >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >> >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >> >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >> >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >> >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >> >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >> >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >> >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> >> >> >> >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >> >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> >> >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> >> >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> >> >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> >> >> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >> >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> >> >> >> >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> >> >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> >> >> >> >> convincing too! >> >> >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> >> >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> >> >> >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >> >> >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >> >> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" >> >> >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >> >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >> >> >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >> >> >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >> >> >> >> >held at the same angle. >> >> >> >> >> Dear Spike >> >> >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, >> >> >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: >> >> >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg >> >> >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible: >> >> >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg >> >> >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is >> >> >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. >> >> >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough >> >> >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. >> >> >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume >> >> >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an >> >> >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> >> Carl Fogel >> >> >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. >> >> >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my >> >> >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early >> >> >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed >> >> >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring >> >> >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is >> >> >> >taken.) >> >> >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It >> >> >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce >> >> >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the >> >> >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may >> >> >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the >> >> >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the >> >> >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding >> >> >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus >> >> >> >and thinner. >> >> >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, >> >> >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, >> >> >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest >> >> >> >mistake. >> >> >> >> Dear Spike, >> >> >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. >> >> >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different >> >> >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment >> >> >> screw not being visible. >> >> >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on >> >> >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like >> >> >> yours. >> >> >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. >> >> >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted >> >> >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the >> >> >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. >> >> >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Carl Fogel >> >> >> >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. >> >> >> >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up >> >> >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his >> >> >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led >> >> >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the >> >> >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1 >> >> >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that >> >> >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This >> >> >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it. >> >> >> Dear Spike, >> >> >> You've lost most of your credibility. >> >> >> Stop digging. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Carl Fogel >> >> >Carl, >> >> >Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my >> >observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of >> >our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been >> >clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...." >> >> >Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost >> >most of my credibility. >> >> Dear Spike, >> >> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior. >> >> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't >> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking >> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more >> expansive"? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >Carl, > >Based on beam's past antics I would be embarrassed to give him >credibility. Apparently, you are not. > >I didn't "announce" that he was faking pictures, but, yes, I certainly >intended to raise that possibility by asking him to deny that "You >tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool >TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." (Indeed, he may >have done just this.) > >I now believe that even if I had been clearer and more expansive, you >still would he in disagreement. Spike, Bullshit. You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been clearer: "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be ashamed. Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses. Carl Fogel                         Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:26:58 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: > >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >>> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > who's bullshitting. deny this, prick. http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > If you mean buckle, say buckle. er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still fundamentally incorrect. > >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > radial and lateral loads? oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and squirm you want to add? > > >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> wow! that's rich! > > Maybe, but obviously true. you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> convincing too! > > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!                           Date: 06 Oct 2007 14:12:02 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> who's bullshitting. > > deny this, prick. > http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ Deny what exactly? >>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >>> >>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > fundamentally incorrect. Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" is unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself. >>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to >> 90% of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support >> simultaneous radial and lateral loads? > > oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > bullshitting? terribly sorry! I answered your question, how about answering mine? >>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>> >>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you >>> can make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg >>> rim? [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely >>> stiff rim concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > squirm you want to add? Why don't you just stick to the issue? >> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! Your language is not OK. You diminish this forum.                             Date: 06 Oct 2007 11:33:57 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: > >>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to >>> decide who's bullshitting. >> >> deny this, prick. >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > Deny what exactly? are you for real??? go to the park tools web site. dig out the tensiometer conversion table, then report back with what that tension reading is in kgf. spoke gauge is 1.8mm. > > >>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >>>> >>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >>> >>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> fundamentally incorrect. > > Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" is > unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself. eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer. and don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again. > > >>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >>> >>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to >>> 90% of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support >>> simultaneous radial and lateral loads? >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > I answered your question, how about answering mine? what's to answer? you're bullshitting about the wheel getting stronger as spoke tension increases. it doesn't because the rim's ability to bear load decreases. if you don't understand basics like that, what more could i possibly tell you? i'm not here to teach "special needs". > > >>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>>> >>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you >>>> can make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg >>>> rim? [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely >>>> stiff rim concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >>> >>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle >> and squirm you want to add? > > Why don't you just stick to the issue? eh? you're one with an issue-sticking problem! your avoidance of admitting that you don't understand the basics for one. > >>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > > Your language is not OK. You diminish this forum. oh! so sorry! how about you stop bullshitting and see what happens to my language then? prick.                               Date: 06 Oct 2007 18:56:23 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >> ... >>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to >>>>>> buckle. >>>>> >>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >>>> >>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. >>> >>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >>> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" is >> unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself. > > eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer. and > don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again.... Dude, "yielding of the rim" is ambiguous, unless you specify tension or compression, and along what axis the yield is occurring. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                 Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:04:26 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "jim beam" wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>> ... >>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to >>>>>>> buckle. >>>>>> >>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >>>>> >>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. >>>> >>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >>>> fundamentally incorrect. >>> >>> Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" is >>> unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself. >> >> eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer. >> and don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again.... > > Dude, "yielding of the rim" is ambiguous, unless you specify tension or > compression, and along what axis the yield is occurring. > eh? if the rim is compressively pre-loaded, and applied load compresses it more, what type of load do /you/ think is going to cause yield? thermal?                                   Date: 06 Oct 2007 22:24:49 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> "jim beam" wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle >>>>>>>> under load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater >>>>>>>> resistance to buckle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential >>>>>>> compressive force on the rim increases, the closer the rim >>>>>>> approaches yield. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. >>>>> >>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're >>>>> still fundamentally incorrect. >>>> >>>> Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" is >>>> unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself. >>> >>> eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer. >>> and don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again.... >> >> Dude, "yielding of the rim" is ambiguous, unless you specify tension >> or compression, and along what axis the yield is occurring. >> > eh? if the rim is compressively pre-loaded, and applied load compresses > it more, what type of load do /you/ think is going to cause yield? > thermal? How will the rim yield is the question. It is possible to apply loads to the rim that would cause yield in modes other than buckling. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:36:24 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "jim beam" wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> "jim beam" wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle >>>>>>>>> under load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater >>>>>>>>> resistance to buckle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential >>>>>>>> compressive force on the rim increases, the closer the rim >>>>>>>> approaches yield. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. >>>>>> >>>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're >>>>>> still fundamentally incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" >>>>> is unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself. >>>> >>>> eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer. >>>> and don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again.... >>> >>> Dude, "yielding of the rim" is ambiguous, unless you specify tension >>> or compression, and along what axis the yield is occurring. >>> >> eh? if the rim is compressively pre-loaded, and applied load >> compresses it more, what type of load do /you/ think is going to cause >> yield? thermal? > > How will the rim yield is the question. It is possible to apply loads to > the rim that would cause yield in modes other than buckling. > of course. flat-spotting is particularly prevalent in shallow rims like ma2's. /both/ yield modes are exacerbated by excess rim compression.                               Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:34:19 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >> >>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to >>>> decide who's bullshitting. >>> >>> deny this, prick. >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> Deny what exactly? > > are you for real??? go to the park tools web site. dig out the > tensiometer conversion table, then report back with what that tension > reading is in kgf. spoke gauge is 1.8mm. Don't be such a jerk, just say what you're trying to say, I can't even read the numbers. >>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to >>>>>> buckle. >>>>> >>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >>>> >>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle. >>> >>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >>> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" is >> unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself. > > eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer. and > don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again. For the n-th time, I'm not your "dude". I am an engineer. "Bullshitting" what, exactly? You're incoherent, you know that? The subject of discussion is a structure, the issue is failure, the type of failure is buckle, "yield" has nothing to do with anything. >>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >>>> >>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to >>>> 90% of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support >>>> simultaneous radial and lateral loads? >>> >>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how >>> you're bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> I answered your question, how about answering mine? > what's to answer? you're bullshitting about the wheel getting stronger > as spoke tension increases. No, I'm just agreeing with everyone but you. > it doesn't because the rim's ability to > bear load decreases. You keep repeating that, but you never justify with even a weak explanation. Lateral & radial loads don't significantly increase rim compression, therefore they don't contribute towards buckle. Spokes support the rim laterally and radially. When they slack, the rim is unsupported and more prone to buckle. The amount of load sustained before spokes slack is proportional to spoke tension. > if you don't understand basics like that, what > more could i possibly tell you? i'm not here to teach "special needs". Your tactic of trying to drive people away with insults won't work with me. Don't you get that yet? Just try posting some substance, if you dare.                                 Date: 06 Oct 2007 14:13:37 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:34:19 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>> >>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to >>>>> decide who's bullshitting. >>>> >>>> deny this, prick. >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >>> >>> Deny what exactly? >> >> are you for real??? go to the park tools web site. dig out the >> tensiometer conversion table, then report back with what that tension >> reading is in kgf. spoke gauge is 1.8mm. > > >Don't be such a jerk, just say what you're trying to say, I can't even >read the numbers. [snip] Dear Peter, Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension gauge read in increments of 5. Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. For those unfamiliar with the gauge, the spoke is bent slightly sideways in the middle on a pair of well-braced posts by a spring-loaded "hammer". How far the spoke bends is shown by the long indicator needle, which is attached to the hammer mechanism. How far the needle moves varies according to the tension, the material, the thickness of the spoke, and how far the spring has unwound, so Park supplies a 16-column table, where you look up the number, such as 17, and find that it means spoke tension of 51m 65, 73, 88, or 97 kgf for round steel 2.0 to 1.5 mm spokes, or 151 kgf for a bladed steel 2.1 x 1.0 spoke, and so on for titanium, aluminum, bladed, and so forth. Whatever the actual figure in the chart, a higher Park mark always means a higher tension because the hammer has been able to bend the spoke sideways even farther. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                   Date: 06 Oct 2007 16:29:52 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > Dear Peter, > > Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension > gauge read in increments of 5. > > Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which > is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round > steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. OK, thanks Carl. I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for all the reasons I previously mentioned.                                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:04:49 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> Dear Peter, >> >> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension >> gauge read in increments of 5. >> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which >> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. > > OK, thanks Carl. > > I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible". > just that it's > unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for all the reasons > I previously mentioned. hypocritical bullshitter.                                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 09:35:41 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> >>> Dear Peter, >>> >>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension >>> gauge read in increments of 5. >>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which >>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. >> >> OK, thanks Carl. >> >> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, > > ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible". No, I said that to end up with " >175", you had to tension to at least 210 (because you back off all nipples 1/2 turn), and that at 210, the 50% increase in spoke tension caused by squeezing the spokes together would take you to plastic, if not ultimate, yield for those spokes. 175 isn't impossible, getting there with Jobst's method is. >> just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for >> all the reasons I previously mentioned. > > hypocritical bullshitter. Whatever. Your explanation still doesn't hold water.                                         Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:56:57 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message news:x7idnWd8ArKyr5fanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com... > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>>> >>>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension >>>> gauge read in increments of 5. >>>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which >>>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >>>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. >>> >>> OK, thanks Carl. >>> >>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, >> >> ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible". > > No, I said that to end up with ">175", you had to tension to at least 210 > (because you back off all nipples 1/2 turn), and that at 210, the 50% > increase in spoke tension caused by squeezing the spokes together would > take you to plastic, if not ultimate, yield for those spokes. > > 175 isn't impossible, getting there with Jobst's method is. > >>> just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for >>> all the reasons I previously mentioned. >> >> hypocritical bullshitter. > > Whatever. Your explanation still doesn't hold water. And beamboy is most likely to have just used sticky tape to hold his Park in position. Deny that, fucktard.                                         Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:13:28 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:35:41 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>>> >>>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension >>>> gauge read in increments of 5. >>>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which >>>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >>>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. >>> >>> OK, thanks Carl. >>> >>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, >> >> ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible". > >No, I said that to end up with ">175", you had to tension to at least >210 (because you back off all nipples 1/2 turn), and that at 210, the >50% increase in spoke tension caused by squeezing the spokes together >would take you to plastic, if not ultimate, yield for those spokes. > >175 isn't impossible, getting there with Jobst's method is. > >>> just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for >>> all the reasons I previously mentioned. >> >> hypocritical bullshitter. > >Whatever. Your explanation still doesn't hold water. Dear Peter, How do you determine that a half turn on all spokes will raise tension from 175 kgf to 210 kgf? It may be in the thread, but it's far too large to hunt through. Incidentally, should I tension a spoke in my pipe vise rig to 175 kgf, squeeze it and see if it takes things to plastic yield? Have you ever managed to squeeze a spoke to plastic yield in an actual wheel, whose rim deforms noticeably when you squeeze spoke pairs? You can check the rim deformation quite easily by taping a spoke flat to the brake surface so that it sticks out at a tangent to the wheel. When you squeeze the spoke pairs, the end of the spoke wiggles. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 16:24:53 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:35:41 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>> >>>>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension >>>>> gauge read in increments of 5. >>>>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which >>>>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >>>>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. >>>> OK, thanks Carl. >>>> >>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, >>> ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible". >> No, I said that to end up with ">175", you had to tension to at least >> 210 (because you back off all nipples 1/2 turn), and that at 210, the >> 50% increase in spoke tension caused by squeezing the spokes together >> would take you to plastic, if not ultimate, yield for those spokes. >> >> 175 isn't impossible, getting there with Jobst's method is. >> >>>> just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for >>>> all the reasons I previously mentioned. >>> hypocritical bullshitter. >> Whatever. Your explanation still doesn't hold water. > > Dear Peter, > > How do you determine that a half turn on all spokes will raise tension > from 175 kgf to 210 kgf? Pitch of spoke thread, spoke elasticity. > > It may be in the thread, but it's far too large to hunt through. > > Incidentally, should I tension a spoke in my pipe vise rig to 175 kgf, > squeeze it and see if it takes things to plastic yield? Knock yourself out. > Have you ever managed to squeeze a spoke to plastic yield in an actual > wheel, whose rim deforms noticeably when you squeeze spoke pairs? Nope, never tried. > You can check the rim deformation quite easily by taping a spoke flat > to the brake surface so that it sticks out at a tangent to the wheel. > When you squeeze the spoke pairs, the end of the spoke wiggles. Whatever turns you on.                                             Date: 08 Oct 2007 15:24:21 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:24:53 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:35:41 -0400, Peter Cole >> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension >>>>>> gauge read in increments of 5. >>>>>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which >>>>>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >>>>>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. >>>>> OK, thanks Carl. >>>>> >>>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, >>>> ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible". >>> No, I said that to end up with ">175", you had to tension to at least >>> 210 (because you back off all nipples 1/2 turn), and that at 210, the >>> 50% increase in spoke tension caused by squeezing the spokes together >>> would take you to plastic, if not ultimate, yield for those spokes. >>> >>> 175 isn't impossible, getting there with Jobst's method is. >>> >>>>> just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for >>>>> all the reasons I previously mentioned. >>>> hypocritical bullshitter. >>> Whatever. Your explanation still doesn't hold water. >> >> Dear Peter, >> >> How do you determine that a half turn on all spokes will raise tension >> from 175 kgf to 210 kgf? > >Pitch of spoke thread, spoke elasticity. > >> >> It may be in the thread, but it's far too large to hunt through. >> >> Incidentally, should I tension a spoke in my pipe vise rig to 175 kgf, >> squeeze it and see if it takes things to plastic yield? > >Knock yourself out. > > >> Have you ever managed to squeeze a spoke to plastic yield in an actual >> wheel, whose rim deforms noticeably when you squeeze spoke pairs? > >Nope, never tried. > > >> You can check the rim deformation quite easily by taping a spoke flat >> to the brake surface so that it sticks out at a tangent to the wheel. >> When you squeeze the spoke pairs, the end of the spoke wiggles. > >Whatever turns you on. Dear Peter, Can you actually stretch two spokes on a bicycle rim by squeezing them together? I don't think that anyone has ever reported this on RBT, so you can be the first if you can do it. I expect that the rims will just deform sideways and that the most that you'll manage is to put a faint but permanent bend in the middle of the spoke. That's all that I ever managed in extensive testing. Of course, the nipple might break instead of the spoke yielding. Jobst didn't say whether his spoke lengthened (and can be easily forgiven for not measuring), but some airline baggage handlers _really_ squeezed his spokes a few years ago and the nipple broke. As usual, Jobst drew a practical lesson: "Last summer the baggage mashers on the airline ripped a spoke out of my wheel, snapping off a spoke nipple. All spare spokes carried should have a new nipple screwed on just in case." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/7004d448c418313b I just put a spoke nipple on the silly spare spoke tucked in my big frame bag. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                               Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:37:02 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:24:53 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:35:41 -0400, Peter Cole >>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension >>>>>>> gauge read in increments of 5. >>>>>>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which >>>>>>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >>>>>>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. >>>>>> OK, thanks Carl. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, >>>>> ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible". >>>> No, I said that to end up with ">175", you had to tension to at least >>>> 210 (because you back off all nipples 1/2 turn), and that at 210, the >>>> 50% increase in spoke tension caused by squeezing the spokes together >>>> would take you to plastic, if not ultimate, yield for those spokes. >>>> >>>> 175 isn't impossible, getting there with Jobst's method is. >>>> >>>>>> just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for >>>>>> all the reasons I previously mentioned. >>>>> hypocritical bullshitter. >>>> Whatever. Your explanation still doesn't hold water. >>> Dear Peter, >>> >>> How do you determine that a half turn on all spokes will raise tension >>> from 175 kgf to 210 kgf? >> Pitch of spoke thread, spoke elasticity. >> >>> It may be in the thread, but it's far too large to hunt through. >>> >>> Incidentally, should I tension a spoke in my pipe vise rig to 175 kgf, >>> squeeze it and see if it takes things to plastic yield? >> Knock yourself out. >> >> >>> Have you ever managed to squeeze a spoke to plastic yield in an actual >>> wheel, whose rim deforms noticeably when you squeeze spoke pairs? >> Nope, never tried. >> >> >>> You can check the rim deformation quite easily by taping a spoke flat >>> to the brake surface so that it sticks out at a tangent to the wheel. >>> When you squeeze the spoke pairs, the end of the spoke wiggles. >> Whatever turns you on. > > Dear Peter, > > Can you actually stretch two spokes on a bicycle rim by squeezing them > together? As I said above, I never have tried. > > I don't think that anyone has ever reported this on RBT, so you can be > the first if you can do it. I've never tried to tension a wheel to >210kg. According to Jobst's tables that would get me very close, if not actually at, the plastic region. > I expect that the rims will just deform sideways and that the most > that you'll manage is to put a faint but permanent bend in the middle > of the spoke. > > That's all that I ever managed in extensive testing. That doesn't surprise me. > Of course, the nipple might break instead of the spoke yielding. Could happen.                                                 Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:10:16 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:24:53 -0400, Peter Cole >> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:35:41 -0400, Peter Cole >>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension >>>>>>>> gauge read in increments of 5. >>>>>>>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >>>>>>>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. >>>>>>> OK, thanks Carl. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, >>>>>> ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible". >>>>> No, I said that to end up with ">175", you had to tension to at >>>>> least 210 (because you back off all nipples 1/2 turn), and that at >>>>> 210, the 50% increase in spoke tension caused by squeezing the >>>>> spokes together would take you to plastic, if not ultimate, yield >>>>> for those spokes. >>>>> >>>>> 175 isn't impossible, getting there with Jobst's method is. >>>>> >>>>>>> just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there >>>>>>> -- for all the reasons I previously mentioned. >>>>>> hypocritical bullshitter. >>>>> Whatever. Your explanation still doesn't hold water. >>>> Dear Peter, >>>> >>>> How do you determine that a half turn on all spokes will raise tension >>>> from 175 kgf to 210 kgf? >>> Pitch of spoke thread, spoke elasticity. >>> >>>> It may be in the thread, but it's far too large to hunt through. >>>> >>>> Incidentally, should I tension a spoke in my pipe vise rig to 175 kgf, >>>> squeeze it and see if it takes things to plastic yield? >>> Knock yourself out. >>> >>> >>>> Have you ever managed to squeeze a spoke to plastic yield in an actual >>>> wheel, whose rim deforms noticeably when you squeeze spoke pairs? >>> Nope, never tried. >>> >>> >>>> You can check the rim deformation quite easily by taping a spoke flat >>>> to the brake surface so that it sticks out at a tangent to the wheel. >>>> When you squeeze the spoke pairs, the end of the spoke wiggles. >>> Whatever turns you on. >> >> Dear Peter, >> >> Can you actually stretch two spokes on a bicycle rim by squeezing them >> together? > > As I said above, I never have tried. well, well, well - the "engineer" with absolutely no interest in doing anything other than opine. > >> >> I don't think that anyone has ever reported this on RBT, so you can be >> the first if you can do it. > > I've never tried to tension a wheel to >210kg. According to Jobst's > tables that would get me very close, if not actually at, the plastic > region. do you use 1.6mm 30-year old spokes? why not use dt swiss spokes that has a yield of 1100Nmm^-2? a standard butted 1.8mm spoke gives you ~280kgf. > > >> I expect that the rims will just deform sideways and that the most >> that you'll manage is to put a faint but permanent bend in the middle >> of the spoke. >> >> That's all that I ever managed in extensive testing. > > That doesn't surprise me. sarcastic condescension? peter cole? never! > >> Of course, the nipple might break instead of the spoke yielding. > > Could happen.                                                   Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:11:15 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:24:53 -0400, Peter Cole >>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:35:41 -0400, Peter Cole >>>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park >>>>>>>>> tension >>>>>>>>> gauge read in increments of 5. >>>>>>>>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >>>>>>>>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. >>>>>>>> OK, thanks Carl. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, >>>>>>> ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible". >>>>>> No, I said that to end up with ">175", you had to tension to at >>>>>> least 210 (because you back off all nipples 1/2 turn), and that at >>>>>> 210, the 50% increase in spoke tension caused by squeezing the >>>>>> spokes together would take you to plastic, if not ultimate, yield >>>>>> for those spokes. >>>>>> >>>>>> 175 isn't impossible, getting there with Jobst's method is. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there >>>>>>>> -- for all the reasons I previously mentioned. >>>>>>> hypocritical bullshitter. >>>>>> Whatever. Your explanation still doesn't hold water. >>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>> >>>>> How do you determine that a half turn on all spokes will raise tension >>>>> from 175 kgf to 210 kgf? >>>> Pitch of spoke thread, spoke elasticity. >>>> >>>>> It may be in the thread, but it's far too large to hunt through. >>>>> >>>>> Incidentally, should I tension a spoke in my pipe vise rig to 175 kgf, >>>>> squeeze it and see if it takes things to plastic yield? >>>> Knock yourself out. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Have you ever managed to squeeze a spoke to plastic yield in an actual >>>>> wheel, whose rim deforms noticeably when you squeeze spoke pairs? >>>> Nope, never tried. >>>> >>>> >>>>> You can check the rim deformation quite easily by taping a spoke flat >>>>> to the brake surface so that it sticks out at a tangent to the wheel. >>>>> When you squeeze the spoke pairs, the end of the spoke wiggles. >>>> Whatever turns you on. >>> >>> Dear Peter, >>> >>> Can you actually stretch two spokes on a bicycle rim by squeezing them >>> together? >> >> As I said above, I never have tried. > > well, well, well - the "engineer" with absolutely no interest in doing > anything other than opine. I don't have the equipment to do such a test. I'd need to measure (even to detect the largest definition of yield -- 0.2% plastic) half a mm over 300mm. I don't see the point, anyway. >>> I don't think that anyone has ever reported this on RBT, so you can be >>> the first if you can do it. >> >> I've never tried to tension a wheel to >210kg. According to Jobst's >> tables that would get me very close, if not actually at, the plastic >> region. > > do you use 1.6mm 30-year old spokes? why not use dt swiss spokes that > has a yield of 1100Nmm^-2? a standard butted 1.8mm spoke gives you > ~280kgf. I assume you mean something like DT "Competition" spokes. I also assume you're using "1.8mm" the way Jobst & DT do to indicate a spoke with 1.8mm ends and a 1.6mm middle. The standard 0.2% offset yield seems to be around 2100N from the curves in Jobst's book made from actual measurements on DT spokes of that type. If you mean 2.0mm butted (1.8mm middle), the 0.2% yield is still only around 2500N (as best I can read the curve). Where does your "1100Nmm^-2" come from? I didn't see it at the DT site. >>> I expect that the rims will just deform sideways and that the most >>> that you'll manage is to put a faint but permanent bend in the middle >>> of the spoke. >>> >>> That's all that I ever managed in extensive testing. >> >> That doesn't surprise me. > > sarcastic condescension? peter cole? never! No sarcasm, no condescension, just a frank opinion of his methods. We've discussed this at length before. Carl is always attempting to (dis)prove theory with actual measurements. The problem with this is it generally takes an even better grasp of theory just to set up the measurement. I don't mean to slam Carl, I appreciate the difficulty of what he's trying to do (I've worked in the precision measurement field) -- unfortunately, he often seems not to.                                                     Date: 09 Oct 2007 21:08:51 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:24:53 -0400, Peter Cole >>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:35:41 -0400, Peter Cole >>>>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park >>>>>>>>>> tension >>>>>>>>>> gauge read in increments of 5. >>>>>>>>>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >>>>>>>>>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. >>>>>>>>> OK, thanks Carl. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, >>>>>>>> ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it >>>>>>>> "impossible". >>>>>>> No, I said that to end up with ">175", you had to tension to at >>>>>>> least 210 (because you back off all nipples 1/2 turn), and that >>>>>>> at 210, the 50% increase in spoke tension caused by squeezing the >>>>>>> spokes together would take you to plastic, if not ultimate, yield >>>>>>> for those spokes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 175 isn't impossible, getting there with Jobst's method is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> just that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there >>>>>>>>> -- for all the reasons I previously mentioned. >>>>>>>> hypocritical bullshitter. >>>>>>> Whatever. Your explanation still doesn't hold water. >>>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you determine that a half turn on all spokes will raise >>>>>> tension >>>>>> from 175 kgf to 210 kgf? >>>>> Pitch of spoke thread, spoke elasticity. >>>>> >>>>>> It may be in the thread, but it's far too large to hunt through. >>>>>> >>>>>> Incidentally, should I tension a spoke in my pipe vise rig to 175 >>>>>> kgf, >>>>>> squeeze it and see if it takes things to plastic yield? >>>>> Knock yourself out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Have you ever managed to squeeze a spoke to plastic yield in an >>>>>> actual >>>>>> wheel, whose rim deforms noticeably when you squeeze spoke pairs? >>>>> Nope, never tried. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You can check the rim deformation quite easily by taping a spoke flat >>>>>> to the brake surface so that it sticks out at a tangent to the wheel. >>>>>> When you squeeze the spoke pairs, the end of the spoke wiggles. >>>>> Whatever turns you on. >>>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>>> >>>> Can you actually stretch two spokes on a bicycle rim by squeezing them >>>> together? >>> >>> As I said above, I never have tried. >> >> well, well, well - the "engineer" with absolutely no interest in doing >> anything other than opine. > > I don't have the equipment to do such a test. I'd need to measure (even > to detect the largest definition of yield -- 0.2% plastic) half a mm > over 300mm. I don't see the point, anyway. er, the point is that you have an opinion, and you argue the toss, but you don't back it up with fact. > >>>> I don't think that anyone has ever reported this on RBT, so you can be >>>> the first if you can do it. >>> >>> I've never tried to tension a wheel to >210kg. According to Jobst's >>> tables that would get me very close, if not actually at, the plastic >>> region. >> >> do you use 1.6mm 30-year old spokes? why not use dt swiss spokes that >> has a yield of 1100Nmm^-2? a standard butted 1.8mm spoke gives you >> ~280kgf. > > I assume you mean something like DT "Competition" spokes. I also assume > you're using "1.8mm" the way Jobst & DT do to indicate a spoke with > 1.8mm ends and a 1.6mm middle. no, i mean 1.8mm, like 1.8mm in the butted section. just like you yourself assumed in your earlier post. > > The standard 0.2% offset yield seems to be around 2100N from the curves > in Jobst's book made from actual measurements on DT spokes of that type. ok... > > If you mean 2.0mm butted (1.8mm middle), the 0.2% yield is still only > around 2500N (as best I can read the curve). ok... oh, and how close to that yield point is a measured tension of 175kgf? > > Where does your "1100Nmm^-2" come from? I didn't see it at the DT site. not now, but they had a different site with yield data on it not so long ago. why don't you try the wayback machine? > > >>>> I expect that the rims will just deform sideways and that the most >>>> that you'll manage is to put a faint but permanent bend in the middle >>>> of the spoke. >>>> >>>> That's all that I ever managed in extensive testing. >>> >>> That doesn't surprise me. >> >> sarcastic condescension? peter cole? never! > > No sarcasm, no condescension, just a frank opinion of his methods. We've > discussed this at length before. Carl is always attempting to (dis)prove > theory with actual measurements. no, he's simply testing the assertions for which no data has been provided. just like your own careful and meticulous... oh, you've never done anything. my mistake. > The problem with this is it generally > takes an even better grasp of theory just to set up the measurement. I > don't mean to slam Carl, er, except that you do. > I appreciate the difficulty of what he's trying > to do (I've worked in the precision measurement field) then you should be able to contribute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh, wait, than might mean data that contradicts presumption. my bad. > -- unfortunately, > he often seems not to. bullshit.                                                       Date: 10 Oct 2007 15:15:18 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: Dear Peter, >>>>> >>>>> Can you actually stretch two spokes on a bicycle rim by squeezing them >>>>> together? >>>> >>>> As I said above, I never have tried. >>> >>> well, well, well - the "engineer" with absolutely no interest in >>> doing anything other than opine. >> >> I don't have the equipment to do such a test. I'd need to measure >> (even to detect the largest definition of yield -- 0.2% plastic) half >> a mm over 300mm. I don't see the point, anyway. > > er, the point is that you have an opinion, and you argue the toss, but > you don't back it up with fact. No, unlike Carl, I know when I don't have the setup to do a measurement. >>> a standard butted 1.8mm spoke gives >>> you ~280kgf. >> >> I assume you mean something like DT "Competition" spokes. I also >> assume you're using "1.8mm" the way Jobst & DT do to indicate a spoke >> with 1.8mm ends and a 1.6mm middle. > > no, i mean 1.8mm, like 1.8mm in the butted section. just like you > yourself assumed in your earlier post. OK, as usual, adopt your own convention, but don't get testy when people misunderstand you. Isn't "1.8mm butted" redundant? Actually, I didn't assume that in an earlier post, that's why I got 30kg, not 40. (force = stress times *area*, remember?) >> The standard 0.2% offset yield seems to be around 2100N from the >> curves in Jobst's book made from actual measurements on DT spokes of >> that type. > > ok... > >> >> If you mean 2.0mm butted (1.8mm middle), the 0.2% yield is still only >> around 2500N (as best I can read the curve). > > ok... oh, and how close to that yield point is a measured tension of > 175kgf? " >175" + 40 + 10 (tire) = > 225, plus a hard hand squeeze = ?? You tell me. >> Where does your "1100Nmm^-2" come from? I didn't see it at the DT site. > > not now, but they had a different site with yield data on it not so long > ago. why don't you try the wayback machine? It's your claim, you prove it.                                                         Date: 10 Oct 2007 20:51:47 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > Dear Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you actually stretch two spokes on a bicycle rim by squeezing >>>>>> them >>>>>> together? >>>>> >>>>> As I said above, I never have tried. >>>> >>>> well, well, well - the "engineer" with absolutely no interest in >>>> doing anything other than opine. >>> >>> I don't have the equipment to do such a test. I'd need to measure >>> (even to detect the largest definition of yield -- 0.2% plastic) half >>> a mm over 300mm. I don't see the point, anyway. >> >> er, the point is that you have an opinion, and you argue the toss, but >> you don't back it up with fact. > > No, unlike Carl, I know when I don't have the setup to do a measurement. maybe not from your sofa, but if you want to contribute to this "debate", [as opposed to dropping sublime ignorance-bombs], get up off your lardy lazy ass, go into the garage and get working with the instruments. > >>>> a standard butted 1.8mm spoke gives you ~280kgf. >>> >>> I assume you mean something like DT "Competition" spokes. I also >>> assume you're using "1.8mm" the way Jobst & DT do to indicate a spoke >>> with 1.8mm ends and a 1.6mm middle. >> >> no, i mean 1.8mm, like 1.8mm in the butted section. just like you >> yourself assumed in your earlier post. > > OK, as usual, adopt your own convention, but don't get testy when people > misunderstand you. Isn't "1.8mm butted" redundant? er, there are 1.8mm straight gauge spokes. and the majority of butted spokes sold are 2.0/1.8/2.0mm, so it's hardly my own "convention". > > Actually, I didn't assume that in an earlier post, that's why I got > 30kg, not 40. (force = stress times *area*, remember?) how convenient! > > >>> The standard 0.2% offset yield seems to be around 2100N from the >>> curves in Jobst's book made from actual measurements on DT spokes of >>> that type. >> >> ok... >> >>> >>> If you mean 2.0mm butted (1.8mm middle), the 0.2% yield is still only >>> around 2500N (as best I can read the curve). >> >> ok... oh, and how close to that yield point is a measured tension of >> 175kgf? > > ">175" + 40 + 10 (tire) = > 225, plus a hard hand squeeze = ?? You tell me. i don't need to tell you - carl's done it for your lazy ass already. and you have the wrong sign for tire pressure - it /reduces/ spoke tension, not increases it. > > >>> Where does your "1100Nmm^-2" come from? I didn't see it at the DT site. >> >> not now, but they had a different site with yield data on it not so >> long ago. why don't you try the wayback machine? > > It's your claim, you prove it. no, /you/ do it because /you/ don't agree. my figures are already in the archive, and are corroborated by carl fogel from the same dt website i used. /you/ get your lazy ass searching the archive and checking the wayback machine. mr. "extruding only applies shear and compression forces, which are unlikely to produce anisotropy".                                                           Date: 11 Oct 2007 16:28:25 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> Dear Peter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you actually stretch two spokes on a bicycle rim by squeezing >>>>>>> them >>>>>>> together? >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said above, I never have tried. >>>>> >>>>> well, well, well - the "engineer" with absolutely no interest in >>>>> doing anything other than opine. >>>> >>>> I don't have the equipment to do such a test. I'd need to measure >>>> (even to detect the largest definition of yield -- 0.2% plastic) >>>> half a mm over 300mm. I don't see the point, anyway. >>> >>> er, the point is that you have an opinion, and you argue the toss, >>> but you don't back it up with fact. >> >> No, unlike Carl, I know when I don't have the setup to do a measurement. > > maybe not from your sofa, but if you want to contribute to this > "debate", [as opposed to dropping sublime ignorance-bombs], get up off > your lardy lazy ass, go into the garage and get working with the > instruments. > > >> >>>>> a standard butted 1.8mm spoke gives you ~280kgf. >>>> >>>> I assume you mean something like DT "Competition" spokes. I also >>>> assume you're using "1.8mm" the way Jobst & DT do to indicate a >>>> spoke with 1.8mm ends and a 1.6mm middle. >>> >>> no, i mean 1.8mm, like 1.8mm in the butted section. just like you >>> yourself assumed in your earlier post. >> >> OK, as usual, adopt your own convention, but don't get testy when >> people misunderstand you. Isn't "1.8mm butted" redundant? > > er, there are 1.8mm straight gauge spokes. and the majority of butted > spokes sold are 2.0/1.8/2.0mm, so it's hardly my own "convention". > > >> >> Actually, I didn't assume that in an earlier post, that's why I got >> 30kg, not 40. (force = stress times *area*, remember?) > > how convenient! > > >> >> >>>> The standard 0.2% offset yield seems to be around 2100N from the >>>> curves in Jobst's book made from actual measurements on DT spokes of >>>> that type. >>> >>> ok... >>> >>>> >>>> If you mean 2.0mm butted (1.8mm middle), the 0.2% yield is still >>>> only around 2500N (as best I can read the curve). >>> >>> ok... oh, and how close to that yield point is a measured tension of >>> 175kgf? >> >> ">175" + 40 + 10 (tire) = > 225, plus a hard hand squeeze = ?? You >> tell me. > > i don't need to tell you - carl's done it for your lazy ass already. and > you have the wrong sign for tire pressure - it /reduces/ spoke tension, > not increases it. > > >> >> >>>> Where does your "1100Nmm^-2" come from? I didn't see it at the DT site. >>> >>> not now, but they had a different site with yield data on it not so >>> long ago. why don't you try the wayback machine? >> >> It's your claim, you prove it. > > no, /you/ do it because /you/ don't agree. my figures are already in > the archive, and are corroborated by carl fogel from the same dt website > i used. /you/ get your lazy ass searching the archive and checking the > wayback machine. mr. "extruding only applies shear and compression > forces, which are unlikely to produce anisotropy". go piss up a rope.                                                             Date: 11 Oct 2007 20:11:22 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> Dear Peter, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you actually stretch two spokes on a bicycle rim by >>>>>>>> squeezing them >>>>>>>> together? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I said above, I never have tried. >>>>>> >>>>>> well, well, well - the "engineer" with absolutely no interest in >>>>>> doing anything other than opine. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have the equipment to do such a test. I'd need to measure >>>>> (even to detect the largest definition of yield -- 0.2% plastic) >>>>> half a mm over 300mm. I don't see the point, anyway. >>>> >>>> er, the point is that you have an opinion, and you argue the toss, >>>> but you don't back it up with fact. >>> >>> No, unlike Carl, I know when I don't have the setup to do a measurement. >> >> maybe not from your sofa, but if you want to contribute to this >> "debate", [as opposed to dropping sublime ignorance-bombs], get up off >> your lardy lazy ass, go into the garage and get working with the >> instruments. >> >> >>> >>>>>> a standard butted 1.8mm spoke gives you ~280kgf. >>>>> >>>>> I assume you mean something like DT "Competition" spokes. I also >>>>> assume you're using "1.8mm" the way Jobst & DT do to indicate a >>>>> spoke with 1.8mm ends and a 1.6mm middle. >>>> >>>> no, i mean 1.8mm, like 1.8mm in the butted section. just like you >>>> yourself assumed in your earlier post. >>> >>> OK, as usual, adopt your own convention, but don't get testy when >>> people misunderstand you. Isn't "1.8mm butted" redundant? >> >> er, there are 1.8mm straight gauge spokes. and the majority of butted >> spokes sold are 2.0/1.8/2.0mm, so it's hardly my own "convention". >> >> >>> >>> Actually, I didn't assume that in an earlier post, that's why I got >>> 30kg, not 40. (force = stress times *area*, remember?) >> >> how convenient! >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> The standard 0.2% offset yield seems to be around 2100N from the >>>>> curves in Jobst's book made from actual measurements on DT spokes >>>>> of that type. >>>> >>>> ok... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you mean 2.0mm butted (1.8mm middle), the 0.2% yield is still >>>>> only around 2500N (as best I can read the curve). >>>> >>>> ok... oh, and how close to that yield point is a measured tension >>>> of 175kgf? >>> >>> ">175" + 40 + 10 (tire) = > 225, plus a hard hand squeeze = ?? You >>> tell me. >> >> i don't need to tell you - carl's done it for your lazy ass already. >> and you have the wrong sign for tire pressure - it /reduces/ spoke >> tension, not increases it. >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> Where does your "1100Nmm^-2" come from? I didn't see it at the DT >>>>> site. >>>> >>>> not now, but they had a different site with yield data on it not so >>>> long ago. why don't you try the wayback machine? >>> >>> It's your claim, you prove it. >> >> no, /you/ do it because /you/ don't agree. my figures are already in >> the archive, and are corroborated by carl fogel from the same dt >> website i used. /you/ get your lazy ass searching the archive and >> checking the wayback machine. mr. "extruding only applies shear and >> compression forces, which are unlikely to produce anisotropy". > > go piss up a rope. er, how can i do that when there's a giant-ass piece of peter cole bullshit in the way? should i subject it to shear and compression so it doesn't become anisotropic first?                                                     Date: 09 Oct 2007 16:18:58 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:11:15 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: [snip] >No sarcasm, no condescension, just a frank opinion of his methods. We've >discussed this at length before. Carl is always attempting to (dis)prove >theory with actual measurements. The problem with this is it generally >takes an even better grasp of theory just to set up the measurement. I >don't mean to slam Carl, I appreciate the difficulty of what he's trying >to do (I've worked in the precision measurement field) -- unfortunately, >he often seems not to. Dear Peter, We're often at odds, but I think that you're doing a better job here than I usually give you credit for. In the same fashion, I don't mean to slam you. I appreciate that you have considerable engineering skills and experience. The problem that I see is that--and you're not alone in this--we on RBT unfortunately tend to apply theory to a practical situation without testing or even considering the possibility that our theoretical, untested model may not include crucial real-world factors, which by their very nature never how up in our purely theoretical reasoning. (We don't know what's wrong with our theories until reality rubs our noses in our misunderstandings.) Even more unfortunately, we then defend our theoretical position with more theory and whatever ad hoc observations support us, which is more debating than science. (That's why we have the phrase "Back to the drawing board" to describe what happens when theories are not tested.) Here's about as plain and simple a bike example as I can think of, where perfectly valid theory drew an obviously impractical conclusion: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a14af7c4e0dc2fb0 When a closed chain is worn enough, you can easily invert it, despite theory, turning it inside and out like a rubber band. Similarly, I found to my surprise that the spoke tension on a cheap MTB wheel dropped when I let the air out of the tire, instead of rising as theory and even testing on 700c wheels showed it should do. And I found that the contact patch refuses to expand or contract nearly as much as RBT theory predicted when tire pressure is raised or lowered. It turns out that a pressing on the outside of an inflated canvas toroid is more complicated than a rigid steel piston rising or falling in a rigid steel chamber. My favorite non-bicycling example of theory blinding us to reality is the Mpemba effect, where hot water freezes more quickly than cold water, a result that still has no good theoretical explanation, but which can be demonstrated with precision measurements--which aren't actually necessary, since the effect is pronounced enough to be well-known among practical folks who freeze things for a living. Here the Mpemba effect is shown with precision measurements, the bottom graph being hideously clear: http://www.picotech.com/experiments/mpemba_effect/results.html There are still web pages that insist that the Mpemba effect must be due to poor test procedures, even though the original article carefully eliminated the very objections raised, but more and more the multiple explanations are complicated and uncertain: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/freezhot.html#c3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect The real lesson of the Mpemba effect was that it took a visiting professor to take Mpemba seriously. Instead of telling Mpemba not to waste time asking why hot water froze faster than cold water, since it was obviously theoretically impossible, the professor said let's see what happens and discovered that this bit of myth and lore was quite true: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24493 A sound theory by definition leads to a sound conclusion, but in the real world things are often so complicated that describing the situation takes more sound theories than we first imagine. My vote is for testing and measuring, particularly when there are disagreements. Squeezing spoke pairs, for example, has lots of plausible theory and plenty of enthusiasts behind it, but we still have no tests confirming that it prevents broken spokes, much less demonstrating how. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                                       Date: 10 Oct 2007 14:31:42 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:11:15 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > [snip] > >> No sarcasm, no condescension, just a frank opinion of his methods. We've >> discussed this at length before. Carl is always attempting to (dis)prove >> theory with actual measurements. The problem with this is it generally >> takes an even better grasp of theory just to set up the measurement. I >> don't mean to slam Carl, I appreciate the difficulty of what he's trying >> to do (I've worked in the precision measurement field) -- unfortunately, >> he often seems not to. > > Dear Peter, > > We're often at odds, but I think that you're doing a better job here > than I usually give you credit for. That's not saying much, if anything, but do go on. > In the same fashion, I don't mean to slam you. I appreciate that you > have considerable engineering skills and experience. > > The problem that I see is that--and you're not alone in this--we on > RBT unfortunately tend to apply theory to a practical situation > without testing or even considering the possibility that our > theoretical, untested model may not include crucial real-world > factors, which by their very nature never how up in our purely > theoretical reasoning. Sure, the selected model may not be a good match to reality, or it may be parameterized wrong. That happens, but what is much more frequent is arguments based on a lack of understanding of the model or its underlying science. > (We don't know what's wrong with our theories until reality rubs our > noses in our misunderstandings.) > > Even more unfortunately, we then defend our theoretical position with > more theory and whatever ad hoc observations support us, which is more > debating than science. > > (That's why we have the phrase "Back to the drawing board" to describe > what happens when theories are not tested.) If you say so, but I'm not finding your argument convincing. > Here's about as plain and simple a bike example as I can think of, > where perfectly valid theory drew an obviously impractical conclusion: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a14af7c4e0dc2fb0 > > When a closed chain is worn enough, you can easily invert it, despite > theory, turning it inside and out like a rubber band. Sure, but it was a sucker's bet, given the amount of wear on the chain. > Similarly, I found to my surprise that the spoke tension on a cheap > MTB wheel dropped when I let the air out of the tire, instead of > rising as theory and even testing on 700c wheels showed it should do. Again, the "prediction" had to include casing angle, there's no promise that inflation will compress of expand the rim without it. > And I found that the contact patch refuses to expand or contract > nearly as much as RBT theory predicted when tire pressure is raised or > lowered. It turns out that a pressing on the outside of an inflated > canvas toroid is more complicated than a rigid steel piston rising or > falling in a rigid steel chamber. I don't know what "RBT theory" is. The weight of a bike and rider is borne by the sidewall, which has a complex deflection -- how that translates into footprint is not simple. > My favorite non-bicycling example of theory blinding us to reality is > the Mpemba effect, Interesting, but no news & OT. > A sound theory by definition leads to a sound conclusion, but in the > real world things are often so complicated that describing the > situation takes more sound theories than we first imagine. That comes as no news to an engineer. That's pretty much what our professional lives are all about. > My vote is for testing and measuring, particularly when there are > disagreements. Squeezing spoke pairs, for example, has lots of > plausible theory and plenty of enthusiasts behind it, but we still > have no tests confirming that it prevents broken spokes, much less > demonstrating how. If something can't be proved, it's religion, by definition. To conduct a valid experiment, you must prove the experiment. That's the hard part, both in design and realization.                                                         Date: 10 Oct 2007 20:46:01 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:11:15 -0400, Peter Cole >> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> No sarcasm, no condescension, just a frank opinion of his methods. >>> We've discussed this at length before. Carl is always attempting to >>> (dis)prove theory with actual measurements. The problem with this is >>> it generally takes an even better grasp of theory just to set up the >>> measurement. I don't mean to slam Carl, I appreciate the difficulty >>> of what he's trying to do (I've worked in the precision measurement >>> field) -- unfortunately, he often seems not to. >> >> Dear Peter, >> >> We're often at odds, but I think that you're doing a better job here >> than I usually give you credit for. > > That's not saying much, if anything, but do go on. > > >> In the same fashion, I don't mean to slam you. I appreciate that you >> have considerable engineering skills and experience. >> >> The problem that I see is that--and you're not alone in this--we on >> RBT unfortunately tend to apply theory to a practical situation >> without testing or even considering the possibility that our >> theoretical, untested model may not include crucial real-world >> factors, which by their very nature never how up in our purely >> theoretical reasoning. > > Sure, the selected model may not be a good match to reality, or it may > be parameterized wrong. That happens, but what is much more frequent is > arguments based on a lack of understanding of the model or its > underlying science. <snip crap > you said it!!! "extruding only applies shear and compression forces, which are unlikely to produce anisotropy" damn, that is a classic of not understanding the underlying science!!!                                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 14:47:16 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:29:52 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> Dear Peter, >> >> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension >> gauge read in increments of 5. >> >> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which >> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round >> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension. > >OK, thanks Carl. > >I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, just that it's >unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for all the reasons >I previously mentioned. Dear Peter, If the spoke is at 175 kgf with a presumably inflated and constricting tire in place, then it was presumably close to 190 kgf when built bare on a truing stand. The rim looks fairly ordinary, neither deep section nor low spoke count: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ If the spokes are indeed all tensioned to about 175~190 kgf, why wouldn't Jobst's practical method for determining the highest practical tension work? Raise tension until the wheel goes out of true when spoke pairs are squeezed, then back off half a turn and re-true. If you raise the tension well beyond that level, the wheel is presumably going to pop out of true shortly after you start riding it. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 09:58:47 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:29:52 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, just that it's >> unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for all the reasons >> I previously mentioned. > > Dear Peter, > > If the spoke is at 175 kgf with a presumably inflated and constricting > tire in place, then it was presumably close to 190 kgf when built bare > on a truing stand. > > The rim looks fairly ordinary, neither deep section nor low spoke > count: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > If the spokes are indeed all tensioned to about 175~190 kgf, why > wouldn't Jobst's practical method for determining the highest > practical tension work? > > Raise tension until the wheel goes out of true when spoke pairs are > squeezed, then back off half a turn and re-true. > > If you raise the tension well beyond that level, the wheel is > presumably going to pop out of true shortly after you start riding it. I don't know what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim. My only point is that I am skeptical that his method was followed accurately, since the final tension would have to be much lower than the peak tension (1/2 turn off all nipples) and the combination of peak tension and the stress relief "squeeze" should have raised the tension in the squeezed spokes well above failure. Something doesn't add up.                                         Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:08:18 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:58:47 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:29:52 -0400, Peter Cole >> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, just that it's >>> unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for all the reasons >>> I previously mentioned. >> >> Dear Peter, >> >> If the spoke is at 175 kgf with a presumably inflated and constricting >> tire in place, then it was presumably close to 190 kgf when built bare >> on a truing stand. >> >> The rim looks fairly ordinary, neither deep section nor low spoke >> count: >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> If the spokes are indeed all tensioned to about 175~190 kgf, why >> wouldn't Jobst's practical method for determining the highest >> practical tension work? >> >> Raise tension until the wheel goes out of true when spoke pairs are >> squeezed, then back off half a turn and re-true. >> >> If you raise the tension well beyond that level, the wheel is >> presumably going to pop out of true shortly after you start riding it. > >I don't know what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim. > >My only point is that I am skeptical that his method was followed >accurately, since the final tension would have to be much lower than the >peak tension (1/2 turn off all nipples) and the combination of peak >tension and the stress relief "squeeze" should have raised the tension >in the squeezed spokes well above failure. Something doesn't add up. Dear Peter, How much does a half turn reduction, followed by re-truing change what tension? What do you think is the "peak" tension and how do you calculate it for the wheel in the photograph, since you say that you don't know what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim? Cheers, Carl Fogel                                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 16:22:19 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:58:47 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:29:52 -0400, Peter Cole >>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, just that it's >>>> unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for all the reasons >>>> I previously mentioned. >>> Dear Peter, >>> >>> If the spoke is at 175 kgf with a presumably inflated and constricting >>> tire in place, then it was presumably close to 190 kgf when built bare >>> on a truing stand. >>> >>> The rim looks fairly ordinary, neither deep section nor low spoke >>> count: >>> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >>> >>> If the spokes are indeed all tensioned to about 175~190 kgf, why >>> wouldn't Jobst's practical method for determining the highest >>> practical tension work? >>> >>> Raise tension until the wheel goes out of true when spoke pairs are >>> squeezed, then back off half a turn and re-true. >>> >>> If you raise the tension well beyond that level, the wheel is >>> presumably going to pop out of true shortly after you start riding it. >> I don't know what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim. >> >> My only point is that I am skeptical that his method was followed >> accurately, since the final tension would have to be much lower than the >> peak tension (1/2 turn off all nipples) and the combination of peak >> tension and the stress relief "squeeze" should have raised the tension >> in the squeezed spokes well above failure. Something doesn't add up. > > Dear Peter, > > How much does a half turn reduction, followed by re-truing change what > tension? A half turn is about 30kg. > What do you think is the "peak" tension and how do you calculate it > for the wheel in the photograph, since you say that you don't know > what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim? If the final tension is >175kg, + 1/2 turn = >205kg, plus whatever the inflated tire is dropping, perhaps 10kg anyway, so >215kg. According to Jobst's book, 1.8mm spokes let go at 250, I'd think a big guy like jb could easily squeeze another 35kg.                                             Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:09:50 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:58:47 -0400, Peter Cole >> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:29:52 -0400, Peter Cole >>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, just that >>>>> it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for all >>>>> the reasons I previously mentioned. >>>> Dear Peter, >>>> >>>> If the spoke is at 175 kgf with a presumably inflated and constricting >>>> tire in place, then it was presumably close to 190 kgf when built bare >>>> on a truing stand. >>>> The rim looks fairly ordinary, neither deep section nor low spoke >>>> count: >>>> >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >>>> >>>> If the spokes are indeed all tensioned to about 175~190 kgf, why >>>> wouldn't Jobst's practical method for determining the highest >>>> practical tension work? >>>> Raise tension until the wheel goes out of true when spoke pairs are >>>> squeezed, then back off half a turn and re-true. >>>> >>>> If you raise the tension well beyond that level, the wheel is >>>> presumably going to pop out of true shortly after you start riding it. >>> I don't know what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim. >>> >>> My only point is that I am skeptical that his method was followed >>> accurately, since the final tension would have to be much lower than >>> the peak tension (1/2 turn off all nipples) and the combination of >>> peak tension and the stress relief "squeeze" should have raised the >>> tension in the squeezed spokes well above failure. Something doesn't >>> add up. >> >> Dear Peter, >> >> How much does a half turn reduction, followed by re-truing change what >> tension? > > A half turn is about 30kg. spoke thread is 56tpi, correct? that's 0.45mm per thread. 1/2 turn = 0.23mm elastic elongation. if elongation = stress x length / modulus, then elongation x modulus / length = stress. 0.23mm x 200,000Nmm^-2 / 294mm = 156N 156N = ~16kgf tension increase for half a turn. > > >> What do you think is the "peak" tension and how do you calculate it >> for the wheel in the photograph, since you say that you don't know >> what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim? > > If the final tension is >175kg, + 1/2 turn = >205kg, plus whatever the > inflated tire is dropping, perhaps 10kg anyway, so >215kg. According to > Jobst's book, 1.8mm spokes let go at 250, eh? they don't "let go", they simply yield. > I'd think a big guy like jb > could easily squeeze another 35kg. not if he's following written instruction and is not subject to peter cole math or confusion about yield.                                               Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:10:56 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:58:47 -0400, Peter Cole >>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:29:52 -0400, Peter Cole >>>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, just that >>>>>> it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for all >>>>>> the reasons I previously mentioned. >>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>> >>>>> If the spoke is at 175 kgf with a presumably inflated and constricting >>>>> tire in place, then it was presumably close to 190 kgf when built bare >>>>> on a truing stand. >>>>> The rim looks fairly ordinary, neither deep section nor low spoke >>>>> count: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >>>>> >>>>> If the spokes are indeed all tensioned to about 175~190 kgf, why >>>>> wouldn't Jobst's practical method for determining the highest >>>>> practical tension work? >>>>> Raise tension until the wheel goes out of true when spoke pairs are >>>>> squeezed, then back off half a turn and re-true. >>>>> >>>>> If you raise the tension well beyond that level, the wheel is >>>>> presumably going to pop out of true shortly after you start riding it. >>>> I don't know what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim. >>>> >>>> My only point is that I am skeptical that his method was followed >>>> accurately, since the final tension would have to be much lower than >>>> the peak tension (1/2 turn off all nipples) and the combination of >>>> peak tension and the stress relief "squeeze" should have raised the >>>> tension in the squeezed spokes well above failure. Something doesn't >>>> add up. >>> >>> Dear Peter, >>> >>> How much does a half turn reduction, followed by re-truing change what >>> tension? >> >> A half turn is about 30kg. > > spoke thread is 56tpi, correct? > > that's 0.45mm per thread. > > 1/2 turn = 0.23mm elastic elongation. > > if elongation = stress x length / modulus, then > > elongation x modulus / length = stress. > > 0.23mm x 200,000Nmm^-2 / 294mm = 156N > > 156N = ~16kgf tension increase for half a turn. You forgot to multiply for the cross section area (to convert stress to force), so you're off by a factor of about 2.5 for a 1.8mm diameter (2.0mm butted) spoke. >>> What do you think is the "peak" tension and how do you calculate it >>> for the wheel in the photograph, since you say that you don't know >>> what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim? >> >> If the final tension is >175kg, + 1/2 turn = >205kg, plus whatever the >> inflated tire is dropping, perhaps 10kg anyway, so >215kg. According >> to Jobst's book, 1.8mm spokes let go at 250, > > eh? they don't "let go", they simply yield. There are multiple definitions of "yield", if you want to specify 0.2% plastic strain, I'm OK with that. >> I'd think a big guy like jb could easily squeeze another 35kg. > > not if he's following written instruction and is not subject to peter > cole math or confusion about yield. I don't think my "math" is the problem, nor my "confusion" about yield.                                                 Date: 09 Oct 2007 21:07:09 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:58:47 -0400, Peter Cole >>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:29:52 -0400, Peter Cole >>>>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg, just >>>>>>> that it's unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for >>>>>>> all the reasons I previously mentioned. >>>>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> If the spoke is at 175 kgf with a presumably inflated and >>>>>> constricting >>>>>> tire in place, then it was presumably close to 190 kgf when built >>>>>> bare >>>>>> on a truing stand. >>>>>> The rim looks fairly ordinary, neither deep section nor low spoke >>>>>> count: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >>>>>> >>>>>> If the spokes are indeed all tensioned to about 175~190 kgf, why >>>>>> wouldn't Jobst's practical method for determining the highest >>>>>> practical tension work? >>>>>> Raise tension until the wheel goes out of true when spoke pairs are >>>>>> squeezed, then back off half a turn and re-true. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you raise the tension well beyond that level, the wheel is >>>>>> presumably going to pop out of true shortly after you start riding >>>>>> it. >>>>> I don't know what final tension Jobst's method would give for that >>>>> rim. >>>>> >>>>> My only point is that I am skeptical that his method was followed >>>>> accurately, since the final tension would have to be much lower >>>>> than the peak tension (1/2 turn off all nipples) and the >>>>> combination of peak tension and the stress relief "squeeze" should >>>>> have raised the tension in the squeezed spokes well above failure. >>>>> Something doesn't add up. >>>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>>> >>>> How much does a half turn reduction, followed by re-truing change what >>>> tension? >>> >>> A half turn is about 30kg. >> >> spoke thread is 56tpi, correct? >> >> that's 0.45mm per thread. >> >> 1/2 turn = 0.23mm elastic elongation. >> >> if elongation = stress x length / modulus, then >> >> elongation x modulus / length = stress. >> >> 0.23mm x 200,000Nmm^-2 / 294mm = 156N >> >> 156N = ~16kgf tension increase for half a turn. > > You forgot to multiply for the cross section area (to convert stress to > force), so you're off by a factor of about 2.5 for a 1.8mm diameter > (2.0mm butted) spoke. yup, you're right. so that makes it 40kgf, not 30kgf. > > >>>> What do you think is the "peak" tension and how do you calculate it >>>> for the wheel in the photograph, since you say that you don't know >>>> what final tension Jobst's method would give for that rim? >>> >>> If the final tension is >175kg, + 1/2 turn = >205kg, plus whatever >>> the inflated tire is dropping, perhaps 10kg anyway, so >215kg. >>> According to Jobst's book, 1.8mm spokes let go at 250, >> >> eh? they don't "let go", they simply yield. > > There are multiple definitions of "yield", if you want to specify 0.2% > plastic strain, I'm OK with that. good. but how does that reconcile with "let go"??? > >>> I'd think a big guy like jb could easily squeeze another 35kg. >> >> not if he's following written instruction and is not subject to peter >> cole math or confusion about yield. > > I don't think my "math" is the problem, nor my "confusion" about yield. how about you start with defining "let go", then progress onto how that becomes simply yield?                                                   Date: 10 Oct 2007 15:02:51 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > how about you start with defining "let go", then progress onto how that > becomes simply yield? I think we all know what that means.                                                     Date: 10 Oct 2007 20:45:34 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: > >> how about you start with defining "let go", then progress onto how >> that becomes simply yield? > > > I think we all know what that means. yes, it means peter cole is wriggling and squirming because he was trying to say that spokes fracture when all they do is yield.   Date: 30 Sep 2007 14:18:27 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sep 29, 10:04 am, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl > wrote: > > Shimano 2010 catalogue aka The Data book :-) Well said! - Frank Krygowski   Date: 30 Sep 2007 06:37:55 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sep 29, 10:44 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote: > In article <1LadnYtQHvW8CmPbnZ2dnUVZ_sCtn...@comcast.com>, > "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message > >news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > > > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > >> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor > > >> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book > > > > /a/ book. > > > >> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the > > >> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. > > > > procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry... > > > I guess that we all saw that coming...sad > > Actually, thanks to killfiles, I didn't see it at all. > > -- > Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/ > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos Which killfile do you use > And is it applicable to Google groups? Been here before...some authors beg for killfile.     Date: 30 Sep 2007 18:45:47 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191159475.086238.76060@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote: > On Sep 29, 10:44 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote: > > In article <1LadnYtQHvW8CmPbnZ2dnUVZ_sCtn...@comcast.com>, > > "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I guess that we all saw that coming...sad > > > > Actually, thanks to killfiles, I didn't see it at all. > > > > -- > > Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/ > > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics > > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos > > Which killfile do you use> And is it applicable to Google groups? > > Been here before...some authors beg for killfile. My primary newsreader is the venerable MT-Newswatcher on the Mac. It has an integrated killfile system which allows me to kill articles by subject, author, with or without a time limit, and in a single group, across all groups, or in just one branch of a hierarchy (eg I could kill an author, but only in rec.bicycles.* groups, so I could still read their sci.astronomy posts). It surely has more power than even that, but I have not yet needed it. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos   Date: 29 Sep 2007 10:34:21 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sep 28, 11:05 pm, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There > is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly > don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book > that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows > pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book > does for auto repair. > > I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to > keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this > into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and > the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol I've also found the Zinn books and the wheel book by Gerd Schraner to be good sources. I don't have Jobst's book yet but probably will someday. Smokey   Date: 29 Sep 2007 07:44:15 From: Mark Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sep 29, 8:54 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Sep 28, 11:05 pm, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There > > is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly > > don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book > > that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows > > pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book > > does for auto repair. > > If you need immediate help, the Park Tool site is really a superb > resource. > > http://parktool.com/repair/ No not immediate help. When I was a kid a bike lasting very long wasn't happening. Part of it was because we were on them constantly and part because about all we ever did to keep them going was keep the chain oiled, (with extra motor oil or the old 3 in one oil) brakes and fix flats and tires. Yeah I tinker with many things. But the more I tinker, the more I learned that there usually is a reason they do things like they do. Sometimes its for the Sears reason. I ended up with a Sears lawn tractor that I had to work on yesterday. When they put the cover on what I was working on they didn't use a phillips or slotted screw. They didn't use something the common allen wrench would take off either. Instead they used a star bit knowing full well most people that might try to work on it wouldn't have one. I did. ha ha. Yet the average homeowner would get frustrated trying to get that simple thing out and you guessed it call Sears to get them to do the repair for them. My recent bike purchase would likely be called entry level and in the scheme of things would be considered relatively inexpensive. Though its not the $100 Walmart special, its not the $1000 bike either. Still it cost as much as my first car and this time I want to learn how to keep it riding well. Maybe I will have more fun on my bike than I had in my first car. On second thought I doubt it. Mark   Date: 29 Sep 2007 16:04:45 From: M-gineering Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Mark wrote: > > I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to > keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this > into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and > the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol > the usual suspects: bicycles & tricycles / sharp/ mit press bicycling science/wilson /mit/ press touring bikes Tony oliver out of print bicycle design, mike burrows Shimano 2010 catalogue aka The Data book -- /Marten info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl   Date: 29 Sep 2007 13:54:01 From: landotter Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sep 28, 11:05 pm, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There > is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly > don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book > that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows > pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book > does for auto repair. > If you need immediate help, the Park Tool site is really a superb resource. http://parktool.com/repair/     Date: 29 Sep 2007 16:00:17 From: M-gineering Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals landotter wrote: > On Sep 28, 11:05 pm, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >> does for auto repair. >> > If you need immediate help, the Park Tool site is really a superb > resource. > > http://parktool.com/repair/ > also available as ' the big blue book of bicycle repair' -- /Marten info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl   Date: 29 Sep 2007 05:30:10 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sep 28, 10:05 pm, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There > is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly > don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book > that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows > pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book > does for auto repair. > > I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to > keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this > into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and > the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol Sutrherlands, Zinn books and the Park book are all great for your reference library. Add Schraener's and Brandt's books on wheelbuilding.   Date: 29 Sep 2007 04:17:59 From: BigJulie Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals sutherland's http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/0914578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There > is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly > don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book > that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows > pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book > does for auto repair. > > I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to > keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this > into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and > the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol     Date: 29 Sep 2007 04:40:47 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com >, BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com > wrote: > sutherland's > > http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 > 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 > > > On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There > > is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly > > don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book > > that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows > > pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book > > does for auto repair. > > > > I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to > > keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this > > into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and > > the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance (and the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. I'd just get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the material overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out unless you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork maintenance on your MTB. Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having your own bike manual. I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos       Date: 04 Oct 2007 01:14:25 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 3, 7:56 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > At this point I'm not exactly sure of who's saying what, so I'll try to > state my view simply. > > If you consider a railroad track and take out every other tie, the track > will deflect more, both between the ties and at the ties. You could, in > the case of a wheel, increase spoke tension to compensate for the > additional deflection (increasing the point where slacking occurs), that > won't make the wheel stiffer, and there's (still) a limit due to > buckling. Half the spokes should generate half the rim compression, so > theoretically you could double the tension, but the rim is less well > supported laterally against buckling, so the limit of compression will > be lower (exactly how much I don't know). The net effect is that the > wheel will be less stiff (higher cyclic stresses/strains) and probably > won't achieve the same load capacity. I agree. > >>> There's another issue from the fact that box rims are > >>> not as stiff radially as something like a Deep-V, > >>> and probably a bit less stiff side-to-side. > >> I'm not so sure about the side-to-side. If the same amount of material > >> is used, it seems unlikely that moments on both axes will be greater -- > >> all other things being equal. > > > Yes, I specifically mentioned a Deep V because it's > > a stout heavy rim that I suspect would in fact be harder > > to bend sideways, even though no wider than an MA-2. > > If you don't keep the mass the same, then it's apples to oranges. If you > compare 2 "U" columns (for simplicity), the wide, squat "U" will bend > more easily vertically and less easily horizontally than the tall, > narrow "U". I think it's the horizontal bending that dominates in > buckling. The specific profile comparison I had in mind was between the > MA-2 Jobst references in his book and the similar, but taller and > narrower, rims that immediately replaced them (Reflex, Open Pro). It is apples to oranges, I mentioned the Deep-V as representative of the type of heavier aero wheel that people actually build with fewer spokes. IMO, Reflexes and Open Pros are only marginally different from MA-2s or MA-40s. They're still basically box section rims, the kind you build with >=32 spokes to make durable, and the kind of rim Jobst modeled. They are only 1 mm or so different in width. I'm not saying this to disagree with anything you said, just to explain why I used the Deep V as an example. Ben       Date: 29 Sep 2007 06:36:39 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, > BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: > >> sutherland's >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >> >> >> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >>> does for auto repair. >>> >>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to >>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this >>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and >>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol > > At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance > (and the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. > I'd just get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the > material overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out > unless you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork > maintenance on your MTB. > > Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every > mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having > your own bike manual. > > I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor > here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book /a/ book. > on bicycle wheels, called > "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the theory of wheels and the > proper procedure for wheelbuilding. > procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by the rim manufacturer".         Date: 06 Oct 2007 18:13:00 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > Peter Cole wrote: > > > > Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under load. > > The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a > > lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke beds > > fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using the > rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly designed"? I think what Peter's trying to say is that a rim's design should balance the ability of the rim to take overall loads, like hoop compression, with the ability to support the local loads of individual spokes. If the rim buckles long before the spoke holes have reached a problematic level of stress, then it is heavier than it needs to be for its wheel's load carrying capacity. It has more spoke bed or eyelet material than its structural section can use. If, on the other hand, the spoke holes crack long before the rim's buckling strength is reached, then it's also heavier than its load capacity should require. That is, the load capacity of such a wheel is limited by its spoke tension, but the rim section should be able to support higher loads. Many of us prefer the error to fall on the side of the eyelets supporting more tension than the rim section can support, because it allows us to find that optimal tension during the build process. The prescriptive approach, where all the rims from a given manufacturer carry the same spoke tension rating, is a copout. Rims of substantially different sectional sizes and weights should and do support different spoke tensions. Chalo           Date: 07 Oct 2007 01:28:27 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Chalo Colina writes: >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to >>> buckle. If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions >>> because the spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed >>> rim. >> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using >> the rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly >> designed"? > I think what Peter's trying to say is that a rim's design should > balance the ability of the rim to take overall loads, like hoop > compression, with the ability to support the local loads of > individual spokes. > If the rim buckles long before the spoke holes have reached a > problematic level of stress, then it is heavier than it needs to be > for its wheel's load carrying capacity. It has more spoke bed or > eyelet material than its structural section can use. If, on the > other hand, the spoke holes crack long before the rim's buckling > strength is reached, then it's also heavier than its load capacity > should require. That is, the load capacity of such a wheel is > limited by its spoke tension, but the rim section should be able to > support higher loads. > Many of us prefer the error to fall on the side of the eyelets > supporting more tension than the rim section can support, because it > allows us to find that optimal tension during the build process. > The prescriptive approach, where all the rims from a given > manufacturer carry the same spoke tension rating, is a copout. Rims > of substantially different sectional sizes and weights should and do > support different spoke tensions. That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack at spoke eyelets. Spoke eyelets are there to make a usable friction interface between aluminum rim and spoke nipple and are not suitable for spoke load distribution. Someone got the idea that sockets formerly used by all durable rims to distribute load to the inner and outer bed of rims was superfluous. That is where the error occurred. I have more stacks of socketed rims (Fiamme, Ambrosio, Mavic, Super Champion, and others), ridden until the sidewalls wore out, that were spoked as tight as I have described in "the Bicycle Wheel" with no cracks. To deny that rims that cannot support local spoke loads are being offered is masochism. It reminds me of all the claims that jam nut on Presta stems are causing inner tube stem separation failures on Presta stems. That was a manufacturing error that went away as bad stock was depleted and was not the user's fault. Cracked rims are likewise a design (manufacturing) error. That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in itself. Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned. That was the limit that any wheel builder had in his grasp without a lookup table, that tension being dependent on the number of spokes between 28 and 40, typically MA-2 and Monthlery Mavic rims coming in many drillings. Jobst Brandt             Date: 12 Oct 2007 03:39:44 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 10, 11:45 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > > almost_f...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On Oct 8, 11:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> here's something instructive: > >>http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_kth_diva-1498-... > >> Hide quoted text - > > >> I assume rim extrusions are formed hot. Does it matter that the > >> paper's title specifies cold forming conditions? > >> "Determination of Flow Stress and Coefficient of Friction > >> for Extruded Anisotropic Materials > >> under Cold Forming Conditions" > > >> Also, what is the operation studied (ring upsetting)? from the > >> Abstract: "Three typical cases of ring upsetting conditions were > >> analyzed by theory (3DFEM) > >> and experiments:..." > > > The whole paper has nothing to do with anisotropy of extrusions. It's > > about the effects of extruding anisotropic billets: > > > "In the current work, the focus is on the analysis of influence of > > anisotropy coupled with the friction on metal flow. The objectives are > > to identify an appropriate method for predicting anisotropy and its > > influences on metal flow and to find a suitable method for determining > > the flow stress and the coefficient of friction for anisotropic materials." > > > I don't think "jim beam" even got through the intro. > > you are /seriously/ confused. the anisotropy results from extrusion. Most aluminum extrusions of the type used in bicycle rims are done by forward extrusion of heated billets. Initial temperatures are typically not far below the melting point of the alloy - that is, above 900 degrees F, IIRC. This type of extrusion is NOT cold work. Practically speaking, that means the metal will probably not show much anisotropy. There is tremendous metal flow involved in extruding a (say) 8" diameter billet through an extrusion die's hole with the cross section of a bike rim. Certainly the grains in the metal are highly deformed and, at that point, the grains and properties are anisotropic. BUT this happens far above the recrystallization temperature for any aluminum alloy. (That recrystallization temperature's probably in the range of 300 degrees F.) New, strain-free grains are probably forming within half a second of the extrusion's exit from the die. I'd expect the recrystallization process to be complete within ten seconds. I've looked a bit online. The only extrusion microstructure images I could find were in http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-58782003000200015 or http://tinyurl.com/3atv9v Those happened to be for billets that were mechanically alloyed, but I think that's probably immaterial. The point is, the images don't show the distorted, linear grain structure characteristic of cold work, and typically associated with anisotropic properties. (For a fuzzy look at those, see the right hand image at http://www.camesainc.com/manualimages/metalfig7-8.gif) If anyone can explain why the high temperatures of extrusion wouldn't lead to equiaxial grain structure and isotropic properties, I'm willing to learn. - Frank Krygowski               Date: 11 Oct 2007 21:50:41 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 10, 11:45 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> almost_f...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On Oct 8, 11:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> here's something instructive: >>>> http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_kth_diva-1498-... >>>> Hide quoted text - >>>> I assume rim extrusions are formed hot. Does it matter that the >>>> paper's title specifies cold forming conditions? >>>> "Determination of Flow Stress and Coefficient of Friction >>>> for Extruded Anisotropic Materials >>>> under Cold Forming Conditions" >>>> Also, what is the operation studied (ring upsetting)? from the >>>> Abstract: "Three typical cases of ring upsetting conditions were >>>> analyzed by theory (3DFEM) >>>> and experiments:..." >>> The whole paper has nothing to do with anisotropy of extrusions. It's >>> about the effects of extruding anisotropic billets: >>> "In the current work, the focus is on the analysis of influence of >>> anisotropy coupled with the friction on metal flow. The objectives are >>> to identify an appropriate method for predicting anisotropy and its >>> influences on metal flow and to find a suitable method for determining >>> the flow stress and the coefficient of friction for anisotropic materials." >>> I don't think "jim beam" even got through the intro. >> you are /seriously/ confused. the anisotropy results from extrusion. > > Most aluminum extrusions of the type used in bicycle rims are done by > forward extrusion of heated billets. Initial temperatures are > typically not far below the melting point of the alloy - that is, > above 900 degrees F, IIRC. This type of extrusion is NOT cold work. > Practically speaking, that means the metal will probably not show much > anisotropy. absolutely not. you have access to metallography. take an aluminum extrusion and look at the microstructure. fig 6.b is typical. http://www.lm-foundation.or.jp/english/abstract-vol37/abstract/97.html > > There is tremendous metal flow involved in extruding a (say) 8" > diameter billet through an extrusion die's hole with the cross section > of a bike rim. Certainly the grains in the metal are highly deformed > and, at that point, the grains and properties are anisotropic. no kidding. > > BUT this happens far above the recrystallization temperature for any > aluminum alloy. (That recrystallization temperature's probably in the > range of 300 degrees F.) no. typically, you're looking at 650F+. it you want to get rid of anisotropy in a reasonable commercial time frame at any rate. temperature prior to extrusion is raised to assist with cold flow. but there is no melting, and no recrystallization. you /can/ have recrystallization if it is done at high enough temperature, but doing so negates the benefits of anisotropy and may cause problems with the extrusion tearing, depending on alloy. and you can also recrystallize /after/ forming, which would be much more typical of something like soda cans, which you want to be relatively soft and isotropic, not something you /want/ to be relatively hard and anisotropic like a structural extrusion. > New, strain-free grains are probably > forming within half a second of the extrusion's exit from the die. > I'd expect the recrystallization process to be complete within ten > seconds. only at high temperature, not 300F. > > I've looked a bit online. The only extrusion microstructure images I > could find were in http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-58782003000200015 > or http://tinyurl.com/3atv9v > Those happened to be for billets that were mechanically alloyed, but I > think that's probably immaterial. > > The point is, the images don't show the distorted, linear grain > structure characteristic of cold work, and typically associated with > anisotropic properties. (For a fuzzy look at those, see the right > hand image at http://www.camesainc.com/manualimages/metalfig7-8.gif) > > If anyone can explain why the high temperatures of extrusion wouldn't > lead to equiaxial grain structure and isotropic properties, I'm > willing to learn. > doesn't sound like it since you appear ready to jump to conclusions in an information vacuum! anyway, the most important thing is that those micrographs do not state orientation. if they're cut normal to the extrusion axis, you won't see any longitudinal effect of anisotropy, only maybe a little "edge crush"! without that vital piece of information, those pics are completely non-conclusive. seriously, you need to do some metallography. take an extrusion [like a rim], cut it along the extrusion axis, polish, etch and put under the microscope. i absolutely 100% guarantee you'll see a heavily anisotropic microstructure. post the pics when you're done.             Date: 10 Oct 2007 20:29:20 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > > article on aluminum, alloys heat treatmentshttp://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html Golly, don't let jim beam see that! It contains this paragraph: "The ingots can be remelted to make cast aluminum products, using various methods of casting including (in the bike industry), die casting where molten aluminum is injected under high pressure into the cavity of a metal die. Aluminum alloys have a reasonably low melting point which makes a dense, fine-grain surface structure with excellent wear and fatigue properties when die cast. Also permanent mold casting may be used, which uses a metal mold repeatedly for producing many castings of the same form. These casting techniques are the way many crank arms, pedal bodies, hub shells, seatpost head pieces, stems, and some headset parts are commercially made in volume." When I said similar things, he switched to full, furious insult mode. - Frank Krygowski               Date: 11 Oct 2007 04:58:23 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1192073360.850071.31240@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > article on aluminum, alloys heat treatmentshttp://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html > > Golly, don't let jim beam see that! > > It contains this paragraph: > > "The ingots can be remelted to make cast aluminum products, using > various methods of casting including (in the bike industry), die > casting where molten aluminum is injected under high pressure into the > cavity of a metal die. Aluminum alloys have a reasonably low melting > point which makes a dense, fine-grain surface structure with excellent > wear and fatigue properties when die cast. Also permanent mold casting > may be used, which uses a metal mold repeatedly for producing many > castings of the same form. These casting techniques are the way many > crank arms, pedal bodies, hub shells, seatpost head pieces, stems, and > some headset parts are commercially made in volume." > > When I said similar things, he switched to full, furious insult > mode. You owe it to yourself to find that message and reply to it with this paragraph. -- Michael Press                 Date: 10 Oct 2007 22:06:00 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Michael Press wrote: > In article > <1192073360.850071.31240@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> article on aluminum, alloys heat treatmentshttp://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html >> Golly, don't let jim beam see that! >> >> It contains this paragraph: >> >> "The ingots can be remelted to make cast aluminum products, using >> various methods of casting including (in the bike industry), die >> casting where molten aluminum is injected under high pressure into the >> cavity of a metal die. Aluminum alloys have a reasonably low melting >> point which makes a dense, fine-grain surface structure with excellent >> wear and fatigue properties when die cast. Also permanent mold casting >> may be used, which uses a metal mold repeatedly for producing many >> castings of the same form. These casting techniques are the way many >> crank arms, pedal bodies, hub shells, seatpost head pieces, stems, and >> some headset parts are commercially made in volume." >> >> When I said similar things, he switched to full, furious insult >> mode. > > You owe it to yourself to find that message and reply to it > with this paragraph. > why? finding a source of "corroborative" omission is hardly an achievement worthy of re-post - two omissions are still an omission.               Date: 10 Oct 2007 21:00:40 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> article on aluminum, alloys heat treatmentshttp://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html > > Golly, don't let jim beam see that! > > It contains this paragraph: > > "The ingots can be remelted to make cast aluminum products, using > various methods of casting including (in the bike industry), die > casting where molten aluminum is injected under high pressure into the > cavity of a metal die. Aluminum alloys have a reasonably low melting > point which makes a dense, fine-grain surface structure with excellent > wear and fatigue properties when die cast. Also permanent mold casting > may be used, which uses a metal mold repeatedly for producing many > castings of the same form. These casting techniques are the way many > crank arms, pedal bodies, hub shells, seatpost head pieces, stems, and > some headset parts are commercially made in volume." > > When I said similar things, he switched to full, furious insult > mode. > > - Frank Krygowski > so that's why you made your mistake? does this paragraph contain the word "thixoforming" or "melt casting"? no? so how could it be that manufacturers actually use those process and not simple "die casting" then? [rhetorical] bottom line, that article is hugely simplified. just because thixoforming and extrusion are not named doesn't mean they don't exist or are not used.               Date: 10 Oct 2007 20:52:41 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> article on aluminum, alloys heat treatmentshttp://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html > > Golly, don't let jim beam see that! > > It contains this paragraph: > > "The ingots can be remelted to make cast aluminum products, using > various methods of casting including (in the bike industry), die > casting where molten aluminum is injected under high pressure into the > cavity of a metal die. Aluminum alloys have a reasonably low melting > point which makes a dense, fine-grain surface structure with excellent > wear and fatigue properties when die cast. Also permanent mold casting > may be used, which uses a metal mold repeatedly for producing many > castings of the same form. These casting techniques are the way many > crank arms, pedal bodies, hub shells, seatpost head pieces, stems, and > some headset parts are commercially made in volume." > > When I said similar things, he switched to full, furious insult > mode. > > - Frank Krygowski >             Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:10:00 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Chalo Colina writes: > >>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to >>>> buckle. If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions >>>> because the spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed >>>> rim. > >>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using >>> the rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly >>> designed"? > >> I think what Peter's trying to say is that a rim's design should >> balance the ability of the rim to take overall loads, like hoop >> compression, with the ability to support the local loads of >> individual spokes. > >> If the rim buckles long before the spoke holes have reached a >> problematic level of stress, then it is heavier than it needs to be >> for its wheel's load carrying capacity. It has more spoke bed or >> eyelet material than its structural section can use. If, on the >> other hand, the spoke holes crack long before the rim's buckling >> strength is reached, then it's also heavier than its load capacity >> should require. That is, the load capacity of such a wheel is >> limited by its spoke tension, but the rim section should be able to >> support higher loads. > >> Many of us prefer the error to fall on the side of the eyelets >> supporting more tension than the rim section can support, because it >> allows us to find that optimal tension during the build process. > >> The prescriptive approach, where all the rims from a given >> manufacturer carry the same spoke tension rating, is a copout. Rims >> of substantially different sectional sizes and weights should and do >> support different spoke tensions. > > That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and > durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack > at spoke eyelets. Spoke eyelets are there to make a usable friction > interface between aluminum rim and spoke nipple and are not suitable > for spoke load distribution. eh? rims don't crack at the manufacturer defined spoke tension, only at jobstian non-numerically defined spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear". [the non-numerical engineer - novel concept.] > Someone got the idea that sockets > formerly used by all durable rims to distribute load to the inner and > outer bed of rims was superfluous. That is where the error occurred. eh? so why do so many rims still have sockets then? mavic, ambrosio, d.t., etc. > > I have more stacks of socketed rims (Fiamme, Ambrosio, Mavic, Super > Champion, and others), ridden until the sidewalls wore out, that were > spoked as tight as I have described in "the Bicycle Wheel" with no > cracks. To deny that rims that cannot support local spoke loads are > being offered is masochism. It reminds me of all the claims that jam > nut on Presta stems are causing inner tube stem separation failures on > Presta stems. That was a manufacturing error that went away as bad > stock was depleted and was not the user's fault. Cracked rims are > likewise a design (manufacturing) error. > > That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in > itself. not it's not!!! it's done because of /you/ jobst. /your/ bad advice is what makes people go mess up their rims with excess spoke tension. specifying the max permissible spoke tension is the only way to avoid this incompetence. > Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because > the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned. rubbish. unless you mean that they don't remain true once the socket have been pulled through the rim. > That was the limit > that any wheel builder had in his grasp without a lookup table, that > tension being dependent on the number of spokes between 28 and 40, > typically MA-2 and Monthlery Mavic rims coming in many drillings. blah, blah. can't buy them any more. get with reality and correct your advice. if you understood the theory correctly, you wouldn't have this problem or be costing consumers and the industry countless dollars each year. otoh, we wouldn't have high quality, reliable, true, strong, pre-built wheels if it wasn't for you, so life after jobst is not /all/ bad.         Date: 06 Oct 2007 08:16:50 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 9:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: <snipped for brevity/clarity > > > Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under load. > The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a > lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke beds > fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using the rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly designed"? Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker - it's just a question.           Date: 09 Oct 2007 19:15:58 From: almost_fast@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 8, 11:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > here's something instructive: http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_kth_diva-1498-...- Hide quoted text - I assume rim extrusions are formed hot. Does it matter that the paper's title specifies cold forming conditions? "Determination of Flow Stress and Coefficient of Friction for Extruded Anisotropic Materials under Cold Forming Conditions" Also, what is the operation studied (ring upsetting)? from the Abstract: "Three typical cases of ring upsetting conditions were analyzed by theory (3DFEM) and experiments:..."             Date: 10 Oct 2007 15:33:39 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals almost_fast@yahoo.com wrote: > On Oct 8, 11:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> here's something instructive: > http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_kth_diva-1498-...- > Hide quoted text - > > I assume rim extrusions are formed hot. Does it matter that the > paper's title specifies cold forming conditions? > "Determination of Flow Stress and Coefficient of Friction > for Extruded Anisotropic Materials > under Cold Forming Conditions" > > Also, what is the operation studied (ring upsetting)? from the > Abstract: "Three typical cases of ring upsetting conditions were > analyzed by theory (3DFEM) > and experiments:..." > The whole paper has nothing to do with anisotropy of extrusions. It's about the effects of extruding anisotropic billets: "In the current work, the focus is on the analysis of influence of anisotropy coupled with the friction on metal flow. The objectives are to identify an appropriate method for predicting anisotropy and its influences on metal flow and to find a suitable method for determining the flow stress and the coefficient of friction for anisotropic materials." I don't think "jim beam" even got through the intro. Some interesting articles on extrusion (& related stuff): primer on extrusion: http://www.efunda.com/processes/metal_processing/extrusion.cfm "Extrusion produces compressive and shear forces in the stock. No tensile is produced, which makes high deformation possible without tearing the metal." Extrusion glossary http://www.alumaxbath.com/tech/ag.htm Slides on various metal forming processes > http://courses.washington.edu/courseli/me355/Lectures/Sp2006/lecture10-11-Bulk%20Deformation%20Processes.ppt article on aluminum, alloys heat treatments http://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html It looks like "jim beam""s pet theory of anisotropic properties in Mavic extrusions being the cause of rim cracking is all wet. There seems to be little mention in the literature, and what there is is only a reflection of pre-existing anisotropy in the billet. That isn't surprising, since extruding only applies shear and compression forces, which are unlikely to produce anisotropy (how much tension is there in a tube of toothpaste?). Of course, there are many things you can do wrong in extruding that will give you bad texture at the extrusion surface.               Date: 10 Oct 2007 20:45:19 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > almost_fast@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Oct 8, 11:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> here's something instructive: >> http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_kth_diva-1498-...- >> Hide quoted text - >> >> I assume rim extrusions are formed hot. Does it matter that the >> paper's title specifies cold forming conditions? >> "Determination of Flow Stress and Coefficient of Friction >> for Extruded Anisotropic Materials >> under Cold Forming Conditions" >> >> Also, what is the operation studied (ring upsetting)? from the >> Abstract: "Three typical cases of ring upsetting conditions were >> analyzed by theory (3DFEM) >> and experiments:..." >> > > The whole paper has nothing to do with anisotropy of extrusions. It's > about the effects of extruding anisotropic billets: > > "In the current work, the focus is on the analysis of influence of > anisotropy coupled with the friction on metal flow. The objectives are > to identify an appropriate method for predicting anisotropy and its > influences on metal flow and to find a suitable method for determining > the flow stress and the coefficient of friction for anisotropic materials." > > I don't think "jim beam" even got through the intro. you are /seriously/ confused. the anisotropy results from extrusion. > > Some interesting articles on extrusion (& related stuff): > > primer on extrusion: > http://www.efunda.com/processes/metal_processing/extrusion.cfm > > "Extrusion produces compressive and shear forces in the stock. No > tensile is produced, which makes high deformation possible without > tearing the metal." so what effect do you think that has on microstructure, and therefore mechanical properties? > > Extrusion glossary > http://www.alumaxbath.com/tech/ag.htm you arrogant fool. you presume to lecture and "cite" on extrusion, when you don't understand a damned thing about it? that's ridiculous. > > > Slides on various metal forming processes >> http://courses.washington.edu/courseli/me355/Lectures/Sp2006/lecture10-11-Bulk%20Deformation%20Processes.ppt >> > > article on aluminum, alloys heat treatments > http://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html that says nothing about extrusion! it does however touch on "strain hardening", and guess what, it starts to touch on anisotropy. "Anisotropy is desirable if the cold worked metal is "loaded" (having applied force), in a way that uses the increased strength developed in the cold working direction." just like i've said before. > > It looks like "jim beam""s pet theory of anisotropic properties in Mavic > extrusions being the cause of rim cracking is all wet. There seems to be > little mention in the literature, what a bullshitter! any metallurgy student looking down their first microscope looks at that stuff - it's ultra-basic and the basis for /all/ aluminum extrusion. > and what there is is only a reflection > of pre-existing anisotropy in the billet. you don't know hat you're talking about. > > That isn't surprising, since extruding only applies shear and > compression forces, which are unlikely to produce anisotropy let's enjoy this delicious moment one more time: "extruding only applies shear and compression forces, which are unlikely to produce anisotropy" er, no. in fact, that statement is breathtaking in it's ignorance. extrusion /results/ in anisotropy - look at the microstructure. > (how much > tension is there in a tube of toothpaste?). none, because it's an extrusion, not a drawing process! pathetic red herring. > Of course, there are many > things you can do wrong in extruding that will give you bad texture at > the extrusion surface. irrelevant, we're discussing microstructure [anisotropy], not surface texture. you totally do not understand is what anisotropy means or how it results from cold work/extrusion. http://www.lm-foundation.or.jp/english/abstract-vol37/abstract/97.html in this paper, fig 6 gives three micrographs, for cast, extruded, and thixoformed materials. the extruded material's microstructure is highly distinctive and has a direct correlation with production route and resultant mechanical properties. ignorance of that is ok. but shameless bullshit is not. the effluent you've "extruded" on this subject leads me to conclude that the only "engineering" you have any familiarity with is that of sanitation engineering. [no insult to sanitation engineers intended.]             Date: 09 Oct 2007 21:06:18 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals almost_fast@yahoo.com wrote: > On Oct 8, 11:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> here's something instructive: > http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_kth_diva-1498-...- > Hide quoted text - > > I assume rim extrusions are formed hot. no, warm, not hot. and "cold" relative to melting point. > Does it matter that the > paper's title specifies cold forming conditions? yes. cold work retains microstructure changes on deformation. > "Determination of Flow Stress and Coefficient of Friction > for Extruded Anisotropic Materials > under Cold Forming Conditions" see above. > > Also, what is the operation studied (ring upsetting)? from the > Abstract: "Three typical cases of ring upsetting conditions were > analyzed by theory (3DFEM) > and experiments:..." > that's because the ring deforms according to any anisotropy present. here's a more easily understood visual example: http://aluminium.matter.org.uk/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=99&pageid=1028022659           Date: 08 Oct 2007 14:13:30 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 11:12 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:04:49 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >I don't feel the need to buy every special tool for every possible > >process. My success proves to my satisfaction that I don't need every > >such tool. > > Dear Frank, > > Off-topic, but I'm curious. > > Plenty of people build wheels without tension gauges, and even more > people ride without tire gauges. > > I've been looking, but I can't get any handle on when tire gauges came > into wide use for bicycles for pros or for commuters. > > Do you have any idea when tire gauges came into use? Or suggestions > about who to ask or where to look? > For "wide use"... I don't know, I suppose you'd have to define "wide." I imagine that most cyclists today don't use them very much. But I assume they came into use as soon as pneumatic tires were invented! That was a period that produced an immense number of mechanical inventions for bicycles, and there's certainly nothing complicated about inventing a pressure gage. Have you examined the reprinted Sears catalogs from the late 1800s? - Frank Krygowski             Date: 08 Oct 2007 13:03:41 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:13:30 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On Oct 7, 11:12 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:04:49 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> >> >I don't feel the need to buy every special tool for every possible >> >process. My success proves to my satisfaction that I don't need every >> >such tool. >> >> Dear Frank, >> >> Off-topic, but I'm curious. >> >> Plenty of people build wheels without tension gauges, and even more >> people ride without tire gauges. >> >> I've been looking, but I can't get any handle on when tire gauges came >> into wide use for bicycles for pros or for commuters. >> >> Do you have any idea when tire gauges came into use? Or suggestions >> about who to ask or where to look? >> > >For "wide use"... I don't know, I suppose you'd have to define >"wide." I imagine that most cyclists today don't use them very much. >But I assume they came into use as soon as pneumatic tires were >invented! > >That was a period that produced an immense number of mechanical >inventions for bicycles, and there's certainly nothing complicated >about inventing a pressure gage. > >Have you examined the reprinted Sears catalogs from the late 1800s? > >- Frank Krygowski Dear Frank, Thanks, I'll try to find some old Sears catalogs. I've been looking in the scanned-lit section at www.nostalgic.net (and getting wildly side-tracked from this side-track, of course), but so far no tool catalogs show anything. The oldest tire pressure gauges seem to be all schrader--I can't find _any_ old presta and now wonder how old presta is. (Another thread a while ago failed to find even what the hell the origin of "presta" is.) means)and generally imply truck and car use. Anyway, the old gauges are patented from at least as early as the 1890's and are split into "balloon" (10-50 psi) and presumably non-balloon (20-120 psi), judging by what I've found on eBay. I'll probably start a thread with some pictures after I wade through the rest of today's chores. Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 08 Oct 2007 15:30:42 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals >>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> I don't feel the need to buy every special tool for every possible >>>> process. My success proves to my satisfaction that I don't need every >>>> such tool. >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>> Off-topic, but I'm curious. >>> Plenty of people build wheels without tension gauges, and even more >>> people ride without tire gauges. >>> I've been looking, but I can't get any handle on when tire gauges came >>> into wide use for bicycles for pros or for commuters. >>> Do you have any idea when tire gauges came into use? Or suggestions >>> about who to ask or where to look? > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> For "wide use"... I don't know, I suppose you'd have to define >> "wide." I imagine that most cyclists today don't use them very much. >> But I assume they came into use as soon as pneumatic tires were >> invented! >> That was a period that produced an immense number of mechanical >> inventions for bicycles, and there's certainly nothing complicated >> about inventing a pressure gage. >> Have you examined the reprinted Sears catalogs from the late 1800s? carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > Thanks, I'll try to find some old Sears catalogs. > I've been looking in the scanned-lit section at www.nostalgic.net (and > getting wildly side-tracked from this side-track, of course), but so > far no tool catalogs show anything. > The oldest tire pressure gauges seem to be all schrader--I can't find > _any_ old presta and now wonder how old presta is. > (Another thread a while ago failed to find even what the hell the > origin of "presta" is.) means)and generally imply truck and car use. > Anyway, the old gauges are patented from at least as early as the > 1890's and are split into "balloon" (10-50 psi) and presumably > non-balloon (20-120 psi), judging by what I've found on eBay. > I'll probably start a thread with some pictures after I wade through > the rest of today's chores. This was sorta researched and reported by one Carl Fogel on RBT about four months ago, albeit inconclusively: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/410dc66cb28cf998/92f81d1b7ed843cf -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971           Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:25:06 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191683810.253504.23760@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Oct 6, 9:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > <snipped for brevity/clarity> > > > > > > Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under load. > > The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a > > lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke beds > > fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > > > If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using the > rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly designed"? > > Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker - > it's just a question. When a spoke bed cannot support a large load, the spokes must be taken to a lower tension. Normal use includes road bumps. The bumps can take the spoke to its slack state, and then the nipple is free to unwind a bit. -- Michael Press           Date: 06 Oct 2007 13:20:19 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Oct 6, 9:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > <snipped for brevity/clarity> > > >> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under load. >> The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a >> lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke beds >> fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> > > If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using the > rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly designed"? > > Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker - > it's just a question. > I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's fair to say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you land a hard jump or something like that which loads them radially & laterally at the same time. What I mean by badly designed is that the wheel isn't as strong for its weight as it could be. Where strength would be its resistance to buckle under load. I guess that, for a given rim weight (in the lightweight range), the maximum spoke tension is somewhat of a measure of the wheel strength. Most riders may never load a wheel to the buckle point, but all other things being equal, it would be best to have that as high as possible. Other than buckling, low spoke tensions only are a nuisance.             Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:48:04 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-06, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> On Oct 6, 9:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> <snipped for brevity/clarity> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under load. >>> The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a >>> lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke beds >>> fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>> >> >> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using the >> rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly designed"? >> >> Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker - >> it's just a question. >> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's fair to > say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you land a hard > jump or something like that which loads them radially & laterally at the > same time. What I mean by badly designed is that the wheel isn't as > strong for its weight as it could be. Where strength would be its > resistance to buckle under load. But doesn't a stiffer rim also improve buckle-resistance? So it isn't clear to me whether you necessarily get superior buckle-resistance from a 36H MA-2 with high spoke tension or from a 32H CXP-33 with lower tension.               Date: 07 Oct 2007 01:47:07 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C? writes: >>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to >>>> buckle. If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions >>>> because the spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed >>>> rim. >>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using >>> the rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly >>> designed"? >>> Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker >>> - it's just a question. >> I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's >> fair to say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you >> land a hard jump or something like that which loads them radially & >> laterally at the same time. What I mean by badly designed is that >> the wheel isn't as strong for its weight as it could be. Where >> strength would be its resistance to buckle under load. > But doesn't a stiffer rim also improve buckle-resistance? So it > isn't clear to me whether you necessarily get superior > buckle-resistance from a 36H MA-2 with high spoke tension or from a > 32H CXP-33 with lower tension. The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from road irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension because the force is not adequately distributed. In the days of yore, inexpensive rims used flat washers to distribute spoke loads, sockets being too expensive, requiring a special machine. To make up for the lower cost, aligning washers with spoke holes when lacing a wheel was tedious work for wheel builders. Jobst Brandt                 Date: 07 Oct 2007 16:00:10 From: Mark Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals [snip > > The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high > spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from road > irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the > buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent > spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin to > crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension because > the force is not adequately distributed. [snip] After years of relying on the tensioning method in The Bicycle Wheel, I discovered - two expensive rims too late - that "rims begin to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension." I wish I had noticed sooner that your advice (and rim design) had changed.                   Date: 08 Oct 2007 00:53:57 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Mark <mark@blackesthole.com > writes: >> The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high >> spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from >> road irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the >> buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent >> spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin >> to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension >> because the force is not adequately distributed. > [snip] > After years of relying on the tensioning method in The Bicycle > Wheel, I discovered - two expensive rims too late - that "rims begin > to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension." > I wish I had noticed sooner that your advice (and rim design) had > changed. It hasn't. The rims have changed. You cannot spoke most non-deep-aero rims with tension close to buckling today without cracking the rim. It is my contention that building unsocketed rims has brought us to this point and don't find such rims useful for me or for recommendation. At InterBike I saw rims that might work but they are not available in stores and catalogs from which I might purchase them. Jobst Brandt                     Date: 08 Oct 2007 06:34:44 From: Reid Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Mark <mark@blackesthole.com> writes: > >>> The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high >>> spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from >>> road irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the >>> buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent >>> spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin >>> to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension >>> because the force is not adequately distributed. > >> [snip] > >> After years of relying on the tensioning method in The Bicycle >> Wheel, I discovered - two expensive rims too late - that "rims begin >> to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension." >> I wish I had noticed sooner that your advice (and rim design) had >> changed. > > It hasn't. The rims have changed. You cannot spoke most > non-deep-aero rims with tension close to buckling today without > cracking the rim. It is my contention that building unsocketed rims > has brought us to this point and don't find such rims useful for me or > for recommendation. > > At InterBike I saw rims that might work but they are not available in > stores and catalogs from which I might purchase them. > > Jobst Brandt I don't know whether "sockets" are the same as "eyelets." But, I have had the cracking around spoke holes problem (actually dimpling at several spoke holes) with a rim with eyelets, specifically a new Mavic Open Pro, when tensioning a rim using the Bicycle Wheel method. I should have noticed that something was wrong before I dimpled it. The nipples weren't turning the way they should have been. I assumed I had lubricated the spokes poorly, though I hadn't noticed that I had done anything different than usual. Just out of curiosity, are rim walls weaker or are rims constructed in a way that they are tougher to buckle? I have loosened some of the spokes in my dimpled wheel, but I recall the spoke tension being much greater than Peter's 100 kgf.                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:37:50 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Reid Ramos writes: >>>> The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high >>>> spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from >>>> road irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below >>>> the buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to >>>> prevent spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many >>>> rims begin to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below >>>> that tension because the force is not adequately distributed. >>> After years of relying on the tensioning method in The Bicycle >>> Wheel, I discovered - two expensive rims too late - that "rims >>> begin to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that >>> tension." I wish I had noticed sooner that your advice (and rim >>> design) had changed. >> It hasn't. The rims have changed. You cannot spoke most >> non-deep-aero rims with tension close to buckling today without >> cracking the rim. It is my contention that building unsocketed >> rims has brought us to this point and don't find such rims useful >> for me or for recommendation. >> At InterBike I saw rims that might work but they are not available >> in stores and catalogs from which I might purchase them. > I don't know whether "sockets" are the same as "eyelets." But, I > have had the cracking around spoke holes problem (actually dimpling > at several spoke holes) with a rim with eyelets, specifically a new > Mavic Open Pro, when tensioning a rim using the Bicycle Wheel > method. Sockets are so rare today that you have probably not seen any. That's why you ask. A socket is a cup shaped steel insert, about 10mm in diameter, having an extended lip that rests on the "inner" rim wall. Thats the wall against which the inner tube presses. These are usually held in place by an eyelet although some have extended noses that are riveted into the rim as eyelets are. > I should have noticed that something was wrong before I dimpled it. > The nipples weren't turning the way they should have been. I > assumed I had lubricated the spokes poorly, though I hadn't noticed > that I had done anything different than usual. Lubricating the eyelet/spoke nipple interface is equally important. Not doing so is what rounds off wrench flats on spoke nipples. > Just out of curiosity, are rim walls weaker or are rims constructed > in a way that they are tougher to buckle? I have loosened some of > the spokes in my dimpled wheel, but I recall the spoke tension being > much greater than Peter's 100 kgf. Rims vary in weight and with that so does the wall thickness. Track rims, not being made for rim brakes are typically thinner on the sidewalls. Not having come across rims with sockets on the market, I haven't bought any of the current non-Vee shaped rims and have not weighed any. Jobst Brandt                         Date: 08 Oct 2007 16:52:01 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 08 Oct 2007 21:37:50 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Reid Ramos writes: [snip] >> I don't know whether "sockets" are the same as "eyelets." But, I >> have had the cracking around spoke holes problem (actually dimpling >> at several spoke holes) with a rim with eyelets, specifically a new >> Mavic Open Pro, when tensioning a rim using the Bicycle Wheel >> method. > >Sockets are so rare today that you have probably not seen any. That's >why you ask. A socket is a cup shaped steel insert, about 10mm in >diameter, having an extended lip that rests on the "inner" rim wall. >Thats the wall against which the inner tube presses. These are >usually held in place by an eyelet although some have extended noses >that are riveted into the rim as eyelets are. [snip] Dear Jobst, Maybe I'm misunderstanding what sockets are or how rare they are, but don't most Mavic road rims come with them? Sometimes they're called double eyelets, but maybe that's different? The first site that I found with some diagrams showing Mavic rims with and without sockets was Lickbike. These seem to have sockets: Mavic A719 700c Road Rim ... $64.95 MAVIC T520 Silver 700c Clincher Touring Rim ... $69.95 Mavic CXP33 700c Black Clincher Road Rim ... $69.88 Mavic Open Pro silver clincher road rim ... $59.88 Mavic Reflex Tubular Rim ... $59.95 http://www.lickbike.com/searchsite.asp?SEARCH=mavic+rims Cheers, Carl Fogel                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 23:11:46 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Carl Fogel writes: >>> I don't know whether "sockets" are the same as "eyelets." But, I >>> have had the cracking around spoke holes problem (actually dimpling >>> at several spoke holes) with a rim with eyelets, specifically a new >>> Mavic Open Pro, when tensioning a rim using the Bicycle Wheel >>> method. >> Sockets are so rare today that you have probably not seen any. >> That's why you ask. A socket is a cup shaped steel insert, about >> 10mm in diameter, having an extended lip that rests on the "inner" >> rim wall. Thats the wall against which the inner tube presses. >> These are usually held in place by an eyelet although some have >> extended noses that are riveted into the rim as eyelets are. > Dear Jobst, > Maybe I'm misunderstanding what sockets are or how rare they are, > but don't most Mavic road rims come with them? Sometimes they're > called double eyelets, but maybe that's different? > The first site that I found with some diagrams showing Mavic rims > with and without sockets was Lickbike. These seem to have sockets: > Mavic A719 700c Road Rim ... $64.95 http://www.mavic.com/road/products/A-719.324119.aspx > MAVIC T520 Silver 700c Clincher Touring Rim ... $69.95 > Mavic CXP33 700c Black Clincher Road Rim ... $69.88 http://www.mavic.com/road/products/CXP-33.M134B.aspx > Mavic Open Pro silver clincher road rim ... $59.88 http://www.mavic.com/road/products/Open-Pro.323926.aspx > Mavic Reflex Tubular Rim ... $59.95 We aren't riding tubulars anymore and these rims are not generally available in local shops so that one can inspect them. I don't find their dimensions (width) and gratuitous CD Ceramic Maxtel UB etc useful for an all around road rim. Their machined sidewalls are thinner than I prefer for a new rim. http://www.lickbike.com/searchsite.asp?SEARCH=mavic+rims > Cheers, Jobst Brandt                             Date: 09 Oct 2007 02:40:08 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-08, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote: > Carl Fogel writes: > >>>> I don't know whether "sockets" are the same as "eyelets." But, I >>>> have had the cracking around spoke holes problem (actually dimpling >>>> at several spoke holes) with a rim with eyelets, specifically a new >>>> Mavic Open Pro, when tensioning a rim using the Bicycle Wheel >>>> method. > >>> Sockets are so rare today that you have probably not seen any. >>> That's why you ask. A socket is a cup shaped steel insert, about >>> 10mm in diameter, having an extended lip that rests on the "inner" >>> rim wall. Thats the wall against which the inner tube presses. >>> These are usually held in place by an eyelet although some have >>> extended noses that are riveted into the rim as eyelets are. > >> Dear Jobst, > >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what sockets are or how rare they are, >> but don't most Mavic road rims come with them? Sometimes they're >> called double eyelets, but maybe that's different? I was under the impression that the Open Pro and CXP-33, which are the sort of top-of-the-range lightweight and aero rims, both had sockets. But I'm never quite sure if I'm misunderstanding the term "socket" either. I vaguely remember some big brass or copper-coloured things from my very first set of Mavics quite a few years ago. They were MA somethings, either 2 or 40 probably. [...] >> Mavic CXP33 700c Black Clincher Road Rim ... $69.88 > http://www.mavic.com/road/products/CXP-33.M134B.aspx > >> Mavic Open Pro silver clincher road rim ... $59.88 > http://www.mavic.com/road/products/Open-Pro.323926.aspx [...] > We aren't riding tubulars anymore and these rims are not generally > available in local shops so that one can inspect them. The CXP-33 Clincher and Open Pro Clincher road rims are definitely not designed for tubulars.                               Date: 09 Oct 2007 17:07:08 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C? writes: >>>>> I don't know whether "sockets" are the same as "eyelets." But, I >>>>> have had the cracking around spoke holes problem (actually dimpling >>>>> at several spoke holes) with a rim with eyelets, specifically a new >>>>> Mavic Open Pro, when tensioning a rim using the Bicycle Wheel >>>>> method. >>>> Sockets are so rare today that you have probably not seen any. >>>> That's why you ask. A socket is a cup shaped steel insert, about >>>> 10mm in diameter, having an extended lip that rests on the "inner" >>>> rim wall. Thats the wall against which the inner tube presses. >>>> These are usually held in place by an eyelet although some have >>>> extended noses that are riveted into the rim as eyelets are. >>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what sockets are or how rare they are, >>> but don't most Mavic road rims come with them? Sometimes they're >>> called double eyelets, but maybe that's different? >> The first site that I found with some diagrams showing Mavic rims >> with and without sockets was Lickbike. These seem to have sockets: >> Mavic A719 700c Road Rim ... $64.95 http://www.mavic.com/road/products/A-719.324119.aspx >> MAVIC T520 Silver 700c Clincher Touring Rim ... $69.95 >> Mavic CXP33 700c Black Clincher Road Rim ... $69.88 http://www.mavic.com/road/products/CXP-33.M134B.aspx >> Mavic Open Pro silver clincher road rim ... $59.88 http://www.mavic.com/road/products/Open-Pro.323926.aspx >> Mavic Reflex Tubular Rim ... $59.95 >> We aren't riding tubulars anymore and these rims are not generally >> available in local shops so that one can inspect them. > I was under the impression that the Open Pro and CXP-33, which are the > sort of top-of-the-range lightweight and aero rims, both had sockets. > But I'm never quite sure if I'm misunderstanding the term "socket" > either. > I vaguely remember some big brass or copper-coloured things from my very > first set of Mavics quite a few years ago. They were MA somethings, > either 2 or 40 probably. The Reflex is tubular and has sockets if you look on the Mavic web site. I can't give you the URL because the spec's are under the main entry: http://www.mavic.com/road/ > The CXP-33 Clincher and Open Pro Clincher road rims are definitely not > designed for tubulars. In addition, neither Mavic nor Lickton's lists a Cosmos rim. Jobst Brandt                                 Date: 09 Oct 2007 16:32:45 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-09, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote: > Ben C? writes: [...] >> I vaguely remember some big brass or copper-coloured things from my very >> first set of Mavics quite a few years ago. They were MA somethings, >> either 2 or 40 probably. > > The Reflex is tubular and has sockets if you look on the Mavic web site. > I can't give you the URL because the spec's are under the main entry: > > http://www.mavic.com/road/ OK, thanks. You can't give me a URL because their website is so crappy and based on Flash. But I went to products- >rims->Reflex and could see what looked like the eyelets on the Open Pro. Unfortunately you can't get a decent look inside the box section to see them properly. The CXP-33's look a bit different and are described as "profiled eyelets" rather than as "double eyelets" which is the term they use for both the Reflex and the Open Pro.                                   Date: 09 Oct 2007 21:03:17 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C wrote: > On 2007-10-09, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: >> Ben C? writes: > [...] >>> I vaguely remember some big brass or copper-coloured things from my very >>> first set of Mavics quite a few years ago. They were MA somethings, >>> either 2 or 40 probably. >> The Reflex is tubular and has sockets if you look on the Mavic web site. >> I can't give you the URL because the spec's are under the main entry: >> >> http://www.mavic.com/road/ > > OK, thanks. You can't give me a URL because their website is so crappy > and based on Flash. > > But I went to products->rims->Reflex and could see what looked like the > eyelets on the Open Pro. Unfortunately you can't get a decent look > inside the box section to see them properly. > > The CXP-33's look a bit different and are described as "profiled > eyelets" rather than as "double eyelets" which is the term they use for > both the Reflex and the Open Pro. open pros are double eyelet. jobst just likes to use "socket" because he thinks it makes him look more "knowledgeable" so he can sell books. if the rest of us say "double eyelet" like the manufacturers do, then i think we'll be just fine. it's like jobst insists on calling all butted spokes "swaged", even though he's wrong because some are instead drawn and others ground.                                     Date: 13 Oct 2007 19:37:33 From: Jasper Janssen Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:03:17 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: >open pros are double eyelet. jobst just likes to use "socket" because >he thinks it makes him look more "knowledgeable" so he can sell books. >if the rest of us say "double eyelet" like the manufacturers do, then i >think we'll be just fine. it's like jobst insists on calling all butted >spokes "swaged", even though he's wrong because some are instead drawn >and others ground. Ground? Really? Besides the materials strength issue, wouldn't that be *way* too expensive a technique? Jasper                                       Date: 13 Oct 2007 13:51:41 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jasper Janssen wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:03:17 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> > wrote: > >> open pros are double eyelet. jobst just likes to use "socket" because >> he thinks it makes him look more "knowledgeable" so he can sell books. >> if the rest of us say "double eyelet" like the manufacturers do, then i >> think we'll be just fine. it's like jobst insists on calling all butted >> spokes "swaged", even though he's wrong because some are instead drawn >> and others ground. > > Ground? Really? Besides the materials strength issue, wouldn't that be > *way* too expensive a technique? > > Jasper expense depends on how long it takes and the precision achieved i guess. it's not a strength issue because the butted section is not subject to bending fatigue and is only loaded to ~1/3 yield.                             Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:09:07 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Carl Fogel writes: > >>>> I don't know whether "sockets" are the same as "eyelets." But, I >>>> have had the cracking around spoke holes problem (actually dimpling >>>> at several spoke holes) with a rim with eyelets, specifically a new >>>> Mavic Open Pro, when tensioning a rim using the Bicycle Wheel >>>> method. > >>> Sockets are so rare today that you have probably not seen any. >>> That's why you ask. A socket is a cup shaped steel insert, about >>> 10mm in diameter, having an extended lip that rests on the "inner" >>> rim wall. Thats the wall against which the inner tube presses. >>> These are usually held in place by an eyelet although some have >>> extended noses that are riveted into the rim as eyelets are. > >> Dear Jobst, > >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what sockets are or how rare they are, >> but don't most Mavic road rims come with them? Sometimes they're >> called double eyelets, but maybe that's different? > >> The first site that I found with some diagrams showing Mavic rims >> with and without sockets was Lickbike. These seem to have sockets: > >> Mavic A719 700c Road Rim ... $64.95 > > http://www.mavic.com/road/products/A-719.324119.aspx > >> MAVIC T520 Silver 700c Clincher Touring Rim ... $69.95 > >> Mavic CXP33 700c Black Clincher Road Rim ... $69.88 > > http://www.mavic.com/road/products/CXP-33.M134B.aspx > >> Mavic Open Pro silver clincher road rim ... $59.88 > > http://www.mavic.com/road/products/Open-Pro.323926.aspx > >> Mavic Reflex Tubular Rim ... $59.95 > > We aren't riding tubulars anymore and these rims are not generally > available in local shops so that one can inspect them. so the rims lickbike actually sell are not the same as the ones they have cut up for display? isn't that fraud?? > I don't find > their dimensions (width) and gratuitous CD Ceramic Maxtel UB etc > useful for an all around road rim. really? is this based on testing? do you care to share your data? or are you just presenting underinformed opinion as if it's fact? > Their machined sidewalls are > thinner than I prefer for a new rim. what, thin like these machined walls? http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/ i mean, isn't that machined brake track wall actually /thicker/ than the non-machined bit??? > > http://www.lickbike.com/searchsite.asp?SEARCH=mavic+rims > >> Cheers, > > Jobst Brandt                     Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:21:16 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Mark <mark@blackesthole.com> writes: > >>> The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high >>> spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from >>> road irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the >>> buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent >>> spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin >>> to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension >>> because the force is not adequately distributed. > >> [snip] > >> After years of relying on the tensioning method in The Bicycle >> Wheel, I discovered - two expensive rims too late - that "rims begin >> to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension." >> I wish I had noticed sooner that your advice (and rim design) had >> changed. > > It hasn't. The rims have changed. You cannot spoke most > non-deep-aero rims with tension close to buckling today without > cracking the rim. It is my contention that building unsocketed rims > has brought us to this point and don't find such rims useful for me or > for recommendation. > > At InterBike I saw rims that might work but they are not available in > stores and catalogs from which I might purchase them. > say what? that's like the weather person saying "there will be no forecast today because the wrong type of weather is making things too difficult for us. fly to florida if you want sunshine". jobst, you have failed in your analysis of this problem. if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have a model that would account for 100% of wheels with 100% of rims. with numbers. instead, we see you seeking to avoid responsibility and blaming rim manufacturers. that's utterly ridiculous.                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 08:55:53 From: Reid Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > > say what? > > that's like the weather person saying "there will be no forecast today > because the wrong type of weather is making things too difficult for us. > fly to florida if you want sunshine". > > jobst, you have failed in your analysis of this problem. if you knew > what you were talking about, you'd have a model that would account for > 100% of wheels with 100% of rims. with numbers. instead, we see you > seeking to avoid responsibility and blaming rim manufacturers. that's > utterly ridiculous. Sheesh. How many times do you need to say this or variants of this? Even if I agreed, it would be annoying, tedious, and not particularly constructive. And, though I know it's not every thread, it sometimes seems as if it is. This newsgroup is starting feel like a dinner party with a drunk guest.                         Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:14:31 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Reid wrote: > > > jim beam wrote: > >> >> say what? >> >> that's like the weather person saying "there will be no forecast today >> because the wrong type of weather is making things too difficult for >> us. fly to florida if you want sunshine". >> >> jobst, you have failed in your analysis of this problem. if you knew >> what you were talking about, you'd have a model that would account for >> 100% of wheels with 100% of rims. with numbers. instead, we see you >> seeking to avoid responsibility and blaming rim manufacturers. that's >> utterly ridiculous. > > Sheesh. How many times do you need to say this or variants of this? for as long as it takes to have these mistakes corrected. it's costing consumers and manufacturers money. > Even if I agreed, it would be annoying, tedious, and not particularly > constructive. And, though I know it's not every thread, it sometimes > seems as if it is. This newsgroup is starting feel like a dinner party > with a drunk guest. yeah. wasting money on busted equipment because someone is too egotistical and stubborn to fix their mistakes really makes the dinner party sing along.                           Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:55:34 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:ArGdnQtQasu1nZbanZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@speakeasy.net... > for as long as it takes to have these mistakes corrected. it's costing > consumers and manufacturers money. Yeah, cause people look to you for expert advice, dont they, beamboy? You deluded fucking retarded fraud.                 Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:10:30 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Ben C? writes: > >>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to >>>>> buckle. If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions >>>>> because the spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed >>>>> rim. > >>>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using >>>> the rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly >>>> designed"? > >>>> Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker >>>> - it's just a question. > >>> I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's >>> fair to say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you >>> land a hard jump or something like that which loads them radially & >>> laterally at the same time. What I mean by badly designed is that >>> the wheel isn't as strong for its weight as it could be. Where >>> strength would be its resistance to buckle under load. > >> But doesn't a stiffer rim also improve buckle-resistance? So it >> isn't clear to me whether you necessarily get superior >> buckle-resistance from a 36H MA-2 with high spoke tension or from a >> 32H CXP-33 with lower tension. > > The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high > spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from road > irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the > buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent > spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin to > crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension because > the force is not adequately distributed. > > In the days of yore, inexpensive rims used flat washers to distribute > spoke loads, sockets being too expensive, requiring a special machine. > To make up for the lower cost, aligning washers with spoke holes when > lacing a wheel was tedious work for wheel builders. he said, desperately trying to dance the tightrope of not back-tracking on non-numerical jobstian spoke tightness, while leaving the door wide open for the actually appropriate tension as defined by the rim manufacturer. all without actually /saying/ it of course...             Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:32:19 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> On Oct 6, 9:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> <snipped for brevity/clarity> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under load. >>> The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a >>> lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke beds >>> fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>> >> >> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using the >> rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly designed"? >> >> Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker - >> it's just a question. >> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's fair to > say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you land a hard > jump or something like that which loads them radially & laterally at the > same time. What I mean by badly designed is that the wheel isn't as > strong for its weight as it could be. Where strength would be its > resistance to buckle under load. > > I guess that, for a given rim weight (in the lightweight range), the > maximum spoke tension is somewhat of a measure of the wheel strength. > Most riders may never load a wheel to the buckle point, but all other > things being equal, it would be best to have that as high as possible. > Other than buckling, low spoke tensions only are a nuisance. wriggle. squirm.               Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:35:06 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> On Oct 6, 9:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> <snipped for brevity/clarity> >>> >>> >>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under load. >>>> The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a >>>> lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke >>>> beds >>>> fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>>> >>> >>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using the >>> rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly designed"? >>> >>> Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker - >>> it's just a question. >>> >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's fair to >> say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you land a >> hard jump or something like that which loads them radially & laterally >> at the same time. What I mean by badly designed is that the wheel >> isn't as strong for its weight as it could be. Where strength would be >> its resistance to buckle under load. >> >> I guess that, for a given rim weight (in the lightweight range), the >> maximum spoke tension is somewhat of a measure of the wheel strength. >> Most riders may never load a wheel to the buckle point, but all other >> things being equal, it would be best to have that as high as possible. >> Other than buckling, low spoke tensions only are a nuisance. > > wriggle. squirm. and excess spoke tension, as ensured by the jobstian method, will still crack a rim.                 Date: 06 Oct 2007 14:24:06 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>> On Oct 6, 9:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snipped for brevity/clarity> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>> load. >>>>> The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a >>>>> lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the spoke >>>>> beds >>>>> fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using the >>>> rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly designed"? >>>> >>>> Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker - >>>> it's just a question. >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's fair >>> to say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you land a >>> hard jump or something like that which loads them radially & >>> laterally at the same time. What I mean by badly designed is that the >>> wheel isn't as strong for its weight as it could be. Where strength >>> would be its resistance to buckle under load. >>> >>> I guess that, for a given rim weight (in the lightweight range), the >>> maximum spoke tension is somewhat of a measure of the wheel strength. >>> Most riders may never load a wheel to the buckle point, but all other >>> things being equal, it would be best to have that as high as >>> possible. Other than buckling, low spoke tensions only are a nuisance. >> >> wriggle. squirm. > > and excess spoke tension, as ensured by the jobstian method, will still > crack a rim. Spoke tension can only be "excess" if it either buckles the rim or cracks the bed. Rim buckling is mostly a matter of cross section design. It's stupid to design a cross section that you can't fully use because you made the bed too weak. I don't have to explain stupidity to you, do I?                   Date: 06 Oct 2007 11:42:01 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> On Oct 6, 9:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snipped for brevity/clarity> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >>>>>> load. >>>>>> The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. If a >>>>>> lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >>>>>> spoke beds >>>>>> fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using the >>>>> rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly designed"? >>>>> >>>>> Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker - >>>>> it's just a question. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's fair >>>> to say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you land >>>> a hard jump or something like that which loads them radially & >>>> laterally at the same time. What I mean by badly designed is that >>>> the wheel isn't as strong for its weight as it could be. Where >>>> strength would be its resistance to buckle under load. >>>> >>>> I guess that, for a given rim weight (in the lightweight range), the >>>> maximum spoke tension is somewhat of a measure of the wheel >>>> strength. Most riders may never load a wheel to the buckle point, >>>> but all other things being equal, it would be best to have that as >>>> high as possible. Other than buckling, low spoke tensions only are a >>>> nuisance. >>> >>> wriggle. squirm. >> >> and excess spoke tension, as ensured by the jobstian method, will >> still crack a rim. > > Spoke tension can only be "excess" if it either buckles the rim or > cracks the bed. Rim buckling is mostly a matter of cross section design. > It's stupid to design a cross section that you can't fully use because > you made the bed too weak. I don't have to explain stupidity to you, do I? do i need to explain hypocrisy to you? all this bullshit about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke tension only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use. there is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no "increase" in wheel strength]. everything else is just excess weight and the bleating of the ignorant that don't understand the basics.                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:50:02 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: [...] > all this bullshit about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke tension > only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use. there > is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no "increase" > in wheel strength]. I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense of breaking stress. But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not?                       Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:10:49 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C wrote: > On 2007-10-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > [...] >> all this bullshit about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke tension >> only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use. there >> is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no "increase" >> in wheel strength]. > > I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense > of breaking stress. > > But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not? michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing tension increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel.                         Date: 07 Oct 2007 20:57:29 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <aLWdnSUl99On05XanZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Ben C wrote: > > On 2007-10-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > [...] > >> all this bullshit about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke tension > >> only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use. there > >> is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no "increase" > >> in wheel strength]. > > > > I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense > > of breaking stress. > > > > But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not? > > michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing tension > increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had > spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel. You misspelled my name. I never said what you are saying that I said. -- Michael Press                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:44:54 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote: > > jim beam wrote: >> ... >> michael press seems to have the best handle on this.... > > You misspelled my name.... The spelling looks fine. However, the (lack of) capitalization for the proper names is incorrect. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 00:07:37 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-A7C234.20572907102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <aLWdnSUl99On05XanZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >> michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing tension >> increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had >> spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel. > > You misspelled my name. > > I never said what you are saying that I said. Beamboy caught in another lie. beamboy, DFLL.                         Date: 06 Oct 2007 22:37:06 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" wrote: > Ben C wrote: >> On 2007-10-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> [...] >>> all this bullshit about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke tension >>> only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use. >>> there is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no >>> "increase" in wheel strength]. >> >> I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense >> of breaking stress. >> >> But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not? > > michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing tension > increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had > spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel. Did you borrow it from Jobst, or was Jobst the builder of the wheel? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                           Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:58:44 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "jim beam" wrote: >> Ben C wrote: >>> On 2007-10-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> [...] >>>> all this bullshit about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke tension >>>> only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use. >>>> there is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no >>>> "increase" in wheel strength]. >>> >>> I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense >>> of breaking stress. >>> >>> But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not? >> >> michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing >> tension increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had >> spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel. > > Did you borrow it from Jobst, or was Jobst the builder of the wheel? > no, /i/ built it according to the jobstian tensioning method - "as high as the rim can bear", exactly per "the book". is that the "blame the builder" hook you were looking for? because if so, what would make that experience unique to me? use of a tensiometer and adherence to manufacturer spoke tension spec avoids this problem entirely.                             Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:17:11 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> "jim beam" wrote: >>> Ben C wrote: >>>> On 2007-10-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> all this bullshit about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke >>>>> tension only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack >>>>> in use. there is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and >>>>> certainly no "increase" in wheel strength]. >>>> >>>> I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense >>>> of breaking stress. >>>> >>>> But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not? >>> >>> michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing >>> tension increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had >>> spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel. >> >> Did you borrow it from Jobst, or was Jobst the builder of the wheel? >> > no, /i/ built it according to the jobstian tensioning method - "as high > as the rim can bear", exactly per "the book". > > is that the "blame the builder" hook you were looking for?... No, not at all. I was fishing in entirely different waters. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:46:09 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > spoke tension > only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use. there > is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no "increase" > in wheel strength]. Finally, an actual statement! OK, what's "in use", quantitatively? Why shouldn't spokes go slack in use? If a Mavic "classic" rim has a tension spec of 70-90kg right side, what's the left? How much tension remains when a 100kg rider hits a sharp bump? How about with a lateral load, like crossing a wheel on a jump, or twisting in a hole? Do wheels never buckle in use? Never seen one? Why do reduced spoke count wheels have much higher spoke tensions? You're up, don't choke.                       Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:18:53 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: > >> spoke tension only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going >> slack in use. there is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and >> certainly no "increase" in wheel strength]. > > Finally, an actual statement! er, you don't read my posts much, do you. > > OK, what's "in use", quantitatively? er, you know, riding and stuff. > > Why shouldn't spokes go slack in use? er, because the spoke nipples unscrew and the elbows fatigue. other than that, you can ride a slack spoked wheel perfectly well. > > If a Mavic "classic" rim has a tension spec of 70-90kg right side, > what's the left? geometry. consult damon rinard's spoke calculator if you can't do the math yourself. "engineer". > How much tension remains when a 100kg rider hits a > sharp bump? ah, the peter cole non-math approach!!! just like non-defined "impact"!!! come on peter, as an "engineer" you should be able to figure this out yourself - if you wan tto define "sharp" that is. > How about with a lateral load, like crossing a wheel on a > jump, or twisting in a hole? tell you what. /you/ go ahead and replicate all the research rim manufacturers have done ahead of you, then report your results. me, i''m just going to sit on my fat ass, use the manufacturers #'s and let /you/ do some work for a change. > Do wheels never buckle in use? do they "ever" buckle in use? yes they do, especially when the spokes are jobst-tight. > Never seen > one? er, no, i've been blind each time it's happened to me. > Why do reduced spoke count wheels have much higher spoke tensions? er, they don't. you check facts, right? > You're up, don't choke. backatcha. see above.                         Date: 08 Oct 2007 10:15:49 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Why do reduced spoke count wheels have much higher spoke tensions? > > er, they don't. you check facts, right? Yes, I've looked at both Shimano and Mavic sites and linked and quoted the spoke tension specs I've found there. If you have contrary findings I'm all ears.                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:19:13 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: > >>> Why do reduced spoke count wheels have much higher spoke tensions? >> >> er, they don't. you check facts, right? > > Yes, I've looked at both Shimano and Mavic sites and linked and quoted > the spoke tension specs I've found there. If you have contrary findings > I'm all ears. what, no cites? could peter cole be a hypocrite??? or is he merely reluctant to argue about whether 1400N is actually "much higher" than 1200N?         Date: 03 Oct 2007 18:18:45 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 2, 9:32 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1191374868.181743.192...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> > , > > spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > Nothing precludes a reader of Brandt's book from acknowledging and > > using manufacturers' values -- when they are available and reliable > > -- except their own total lack of common sense and intellectual > > honesty. Admittedly the author my have erred by not anticipating this > > pathology in a few readers, but then presumably he was writing the > > ^^^^^^^ > I must admit that I substituted `retards' here. > > > book for those he assumed where actually interested in understanding > > the principles of bicycle wheels and building them. > > -- > Michael Press <I must admit that I substituted `retards' here. You're admirably polite. Jambo's 'f-tard' is more my style. -- Spike         Date: 03 Oct 2007 16:43:04 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 2, 11:00 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > On Oct 1, 11:03 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > >> <snip for brevity> > > >>> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing > >>> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer > >>> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. > >> that's absolutely untrue. if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, > >> then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that > >> /is/ "Proper Tension". > > >>> The author of > >>> course knows this, and so doesn't provide such an answer. > >> no, the author doesn't understand that strength is not increased by > >> increasing spoke tension. and he doesn't understand the nature of the > >> materials. > > >> he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite element" > >> load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an elastic rim > >> causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is - a perfectly > >> rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension figures would be > >> completely different, leading of course to a completely different > >> conclusion and therefore wheel theory. > > >>> A few > >>> readers, I imagine, are disappointed. Bizarrely, one individual > >>> gives the author an answer and then says he is wrong. > >> you mean that i disagree with the theoretical arguments? yes i do. and > >> for the reasons i've explained. you may want to dispute them, in which > >> case, feel free to present your own technical reasoning, but don't just > >> say it's wrong because you don't understand or don't want to know. > > > <snip for brevity> > > >>> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing > >>> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer > >>> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. > > >> that's absolutely untrue. > > > Really? Very glad to hear this; it makes things much simpler. Tell me > > then, what is this single universal proper tension for all rims and > > wheel systems? Is it 17.5 Kgf or maybe it's 175Kgf? Or is it some > > other intermediate? > > er, how long is a piece of sting spike? tell me the single universal > length of all strings and string systems! > > > > > And if there is no universal single value, then what is the single > > easy method that one can use that is all encompassing, unlike Brandt's > > stress relief method which he restricts to classic wheels? > > there is no single value!!! it's empirically determined and depends on > the rim material, dimensions, etc. if all rims were identical, then > maybe there would be a single tension. but there isn't, so... > > > What is > > the single easy method that applies not only to classic wheels but to > > all types of rims in all types of wheel systems? Please let us know, > > unless of course you're saving this revelation for /your/ book? > > see above. > > > > >> if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, > >> then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that > >> /is/ "Proper Tension". > > > Obviously it's the manufactures' proper tension. Once again you are > > displaying your penchant for stating something that is obvious as if > > you are imparting new knowledge. > > if it's so "obvious" why is it not stated in any books, "faq"'s or even > mentioned in /your/ contributions on this subject? > > > > > Nothing precludes a reader of Brandt's book from acknowledging and > > using manufacturers' values -- when they are available and reliable > > -- except their own total lack of common sense and intellectual > > honesty. > > eh??? > > > Admittedly the author my have erred by not anticipating this > > pathology in a few readers, but then presumably he was writing the > > book for those he assumed where actually interested in understanding > > the principles of bicycle wheels and building them. > > strange statement from one so curiously uninterested in "obvious" facts > and ensuring they're actually disseminated. Last Monday I said: >> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing >> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer >> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. To which you replied: >that's absolutely untrue. But then, the very next day, you agreed, posting:: >there is no single value!!! it's empirically determined and depends on >the rim material, dimensions, etc. if all rims were identical, then >maybe there would be a single tension. but there isn't, so... Frankly, this lack of coherence from one day to the next has me concerned. There seems to be even more than a total lack of common sense and intellectual honesty going on here. Later, in this same post you also said 'eh???': >> Nothing precludes a reader of Brandt's book from acknowledging and >> using manufacturers' values -- when they are available and reliable >> -- except their own total lack of common sense and intellectual >> honesty. >eh??? >> Admittedly the author may have erred by not anticipating this >> pathology in a few readers, but then presumably he was writing the >> book for those he assumed where actually interested in understanding >> the principles of bicycle wheels and building them. You say 'eh' a lot I've noticed. But you have to say more than just "eh' to address valid points. Expletives, incidentally, don't work for you either. -- Spike.         Date: 03 Oct 2007 16:39:46 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 2, 11:00 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > On Oct 1, 11:03 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > >> <snip for brevity> > > >>> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing > >>> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer > >>> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. > >> that's absolutely untrue. if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, > >> then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that > >> /is/ "Proper Tension". > > >>> The author of > >>> course knows this, and so doesn't provide such an answer. > >> no, the author doesn't understand that strength is not increased by > >> increasing spoke tension. and he doesn't understand the nature of the > >> materials. > > >> he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite element" > >> load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an elastic rim > >> causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is - a perfectly > >> rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension figures would be > >> completely different, leading of course to a completely different > >> conclusion and therefore wheel theory. > > >>> A few > >>> readers, I imagine, are disappointed. Bizarrely, one individual > >>> gives the author an answer and then says he is wrong. > >> you mean that i disagree with the theoretical arguments? yes i do. and > >> for the reasons i've explained. you may want to dispute them, in which > >> case, feel free to present your own technical reasoning, but don't just > >> say it's wrong because you don't understand or don't want to know. > > > <snip for brevity> > > >>> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing > >>> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer > >>> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. > > >> that's absolutely untrue. > > > Really? Very glad to hear this; it makes things much simpler. Tell me > > then, what is this single universal proper tension for all rims and > > wheel systems? Is it 17.5 Kgf or maybe it's 175Kgf? Or is it some > > other intermediate? > > er, how long is a piece of sting spike? tell me the single universal > length of all strings and string systems! > > > > > And if there is no universal single value, then what is the single > > easy method that one can use that is all encompassing, unlike Brandt's > > stress relief method which he restricts to classic wheels? > > there is no single value!!! it's empirically determined and depends on > the rim material, dimensions, etc. if all rims were identical, then > maybe there would be a single tension. but there isn't, so... > > > What is > > the single easy method that applies not only to classic wheels but to > > all types of rims in all types of wheel systems? Please let us know, > > unless of course you're saving this revelation for /your/ book? > > see above. > > > > >> if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, > >> then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that > >> /is/ "Proper Tension". > > > Obviously it's the manufactures' proper tension. Once again you are > > displaying your penchant for stating something that is obvious as if > > you are imparting new knowledge. > > if it's so "obvious" why is it not stated in any books, "faq"'s or even > mentioned in /your/ contributions on this subject? > > > > > Nothing precludes a reader of Brandt's book from acknowledging and > > using manufacturers' values -- when they are available and reliable > > -- except their own total lack of common sense and intellectual > > honesty. > > eh??? > > > Admittedly the author my have erred by not anticipating this > > pathology in a few readers, but then presumably he was writing the > > book for those he assumed where actually interested in understanding > > the principles of bicycle wheels and building them. > > strange statement from one so curiously uninterested in "obvious" facts > and ensuring they're actually disseminated. To which you replied: >that's absolutely untrue. But then, the very next day, you agreed, posting:: >there is no single value!!! it's empirically determined and depends on >the rim material, dimensions, etc. if all rims were identical, then >maybe there would be a single tension. but there isn't, so... Frankly, this lack of coherence from one day to the next has me concerned. There seems to be even more than a total lack of common sense and intellectual honesty going on here. Later, in this same post you also said 'eh???': >> Nothing precludes a reader of Brandt's book from acknowledging and >> using manufacturers' values -- when they are available and reliable >> -- except their own total lack of common sense and intellectual >> honesty. >eh??? >> Admittedly the author may have erred by not anticipating this >> pathology in a few readers, but then presumably he was writing the >> book for those he assumed where actually interested in understanding >> the principles of bicycle wheels and building them. You say 'eh' a lot I've noticed. But you have to say more than just "eh' to address valid points. Expletives, incidentally, don't work for you either. -- Spike.         Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:17:19 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 3, 8:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: <snipped for brevity and clarity > - on Brandt's wheelbuilding technique, cont'd - > > The max tension has got to be determined by either buckle or bed failure > -- unless you have another candidate? If the rim doesn't buckle anywhere > near the max, then it must be the bed. Yes, and, IME, the rim profile changes the tension at which the rim will "taco" (I assume this is what you mean by "buckle"). So, a rim with the same "resistance" to cracking at the spoke holes as an MA-2, but with a more "modern" profile, will bear higher tension prior to tacoing, meaning it will be more likely to crack if one uses Brandt's method. IMO, his book is simply in need of updating to reflect modern rims and the use of highly dished rear wheels.           Date: 03 Oct 2007 13:07:33 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Oct 3, 8:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > <snipped for brevity and clarity> > > - on Brandt's wheelbuilding technique, cont'd - >> The max tension has got to be determined by either buckle or bed failure >> -- unless you have another candidate? If the rim doesn't buckle anywhere >> near the max, then it must be the bed. > > Yes, and, IME, the rim profile changes the tension at which the rim > will "taco" (I assume this is what you mean by "buckle"). So, a rim > with the same "resistance" to cracking at the spoke holes as an MA-2, > but with a more "modern" profile, will bear higher tension prior to > tacoing, meaning it will be more likely to crack if one uses Brandt's > method. Well, that depends on two things. First, that more "modern" (taller, narrower) rims have a higher second moment in the direction that buckling occurs. I'm not convinced (I suspect the opposite), but I don't have the means to directly measure this. Secondly, even if the rim were slightly more resistant to buckling because of a different profile, this would mean it could take higher spoke tensions (and be overall a stronger wheel) just by adding a little more strength to the spoke bed. This could be done in a variety of ways, the simplest being just to make the bed a little thicker. It would seem the smart way to design a (light) rim is to match the buckle strength to the bed strength. Or, in other words, design a rim that can take reasonable spoke tensions. If Sun specs 110kg, why does Mavic spec 70-90 for a more expensive rim? > IMO, his book is simply in need of updating to reflect modern > rims and the use of highly dished rear wheels. He did explicitly exclude all rims other than <36 spoke, <430g. The method of determining maximum spoke tension wouldn't apply to many modern wheels, nor is it necessary if the makers publish specs. I guess you & you-know-who think he should add a one-liner: "Always consult manufacturers specifications" or some such. I think that's implicit, myself.             Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:30:42 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> On Oct 3, 8:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> <snipped for brevity and clarity> >> >> - on Brandt's wheelbuilding technique, cont'd - >>> The max tension has got to be determined by either buckle or bed failure >>> -- unless you have another candidate? If the rim doesn't buckle anywhere >>> near the max, then it must be the bed. >> >> Yes, and, IME, the rim profile changes the tension at which the rim >> will "taco" (I assume this is what you mean by "buckle"). So, a rim >> with the same "resistance" to cracking at the spoke holes as an MA-2, >> but with a more "modern" profile, will bear higher tension prior to >> tacoing, meaning it will be more likely to crack if one uses Brandt's >> method. > > Well, that depends on two things. First, that more "modern" (taller, > narrower) rims have a higher second moment in the direction that > buckling occurs. I'm not convinced (I suspect the opposite), but I don't > have the means to directly measure this. > > Secondly, even if the rim were slightly more resistant to buckling > because of a different profile, this would mean it could take higher > spoke tensions (and be overall a stronger wheel) just by adding a little > more strength to the spoke bed. This could be done in a variety of ways, > the simplest being just to make the bed a little thicker. > > It would seem the smart way to design a (light) rim is to match the > buckle strength to the bed strength. Or, in other words, design a rim > that can take reasonable spoke tensions. If Sun specs 110kg, why does > Mavic spec 70-90 for a more expensive rim? > > > IMO, his book is simply in need of updating to reflect modern > > rims and the use of highly dished rear wheels. > > He did explicitly exclude all rims other than <36 spoke, <430g. The > method of determining maximum spoke tension wouldn't apply to many > modern wheels, nor is it necessary if the makers publish specs. I guess > you & you-know-who think he should add a one-liner: "Always consult > manufacturers specifications" or some such. I think that's implicit, > myself. implicit like spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear"? or implicit like spoke tensiometer math that doesn't account for spoke stiffness?             Date: 03 Oct 2007 18:54:37 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > ... > It would seem the smart way to design a (light) rim is to match the > buckle strength to the bed strength. Or, in other words, design a rim > that can take reasonable spoke tensions. If Sun specs 110kg, why does > Mavic spec 70-90 for a more expensive rim?... The Mavic rim is more expensive than the Sun, since it has European Heritage & Mystique [TM], which the Sun rims lack. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:01:57 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 2, 9:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > > An infinitely rigid rim could not be trued by > > adjusting spoke tension, > > that's not correct. the position of the rim relative to the hub is a > function of the spoke lengths and forces exerted. truing thus allows > positioning. Positioning isn't all of truing. How would you fix a hop in it? Even infinitely stiff rims could be made with a flat spot. > > nor would it ever go > > out of true or round. > > once built and trued, no! unless lateral loading caused spoke tension > increase which bedded the spokes further into the hub holes of course... > > It's a reductio ad > > absurdum that has little application to bicycle > > wheels as they actually exist. > > except that if you don't understand the principles, you make mistakes in > application. see above for "could not be trued". An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit for understanding bicycle wheels. The fact that both the rim and spokes respond to load is what makes them complicated. Superstiff rims are as if we tried to understand terminal velocity by starting with zero air density, and then concluded that there was no such thing as terminal velocity. > > It's not proper > > understanding of theory or concepts. The whole > > complication of a bicycle wheel is the balance > > in strength and modulus between spokes and rim - > > if you tried building one with wagon wheel spokes and > > a GEL 280, or with bicycle spokes and an automotive > > rim, you'd get a result that didn't behave like an > > Open Pro and 1.8mm spokes. Jobst's FEA analysis is > > an example of theory properly applied, since he used a > > realistic case. > > except that it's a load calculation, not a strength calculation. So what? It's presented as a load calculation. It answers the question of which spokes and what part of a rim support a load on a bicycle wheel. As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely stiff rim, which are different cases. Ben           Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:26:29 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > On Oct 2, 9:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > >>> An infinitely rigid rim could not be trued by >>> adjusting spoke tension, >> that's not correct. the position of the rim relative to the hub is a >> function of the spoke lengths and forces exerted. truing thus allows >> positioning. > > Positioning isn't all of truing. How would you > fix a hop in it? Even infinitely stiff rims > could be made with a flat spot. forgive me for thinking that we were still discussing the theory of the infinitely stiff rim... > >>> nor would it ever go >>> out of true or round. >> once built and trued, no! unless lateral loading caused spoke tension >> increase which bedded the spokes further into the hub holes of course... >>> It's a reductio ad >>> absurdum that has little application to bicycle >>> wheels as they actually exist. >> except that if you don't understand the principles, you make mistakes in >> application. see above for "could not be trued". > > An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit > for understanding bicycle wheels. it is if it allows separation of the elements. and separating spoke tension differentials on loading from rim distortion on loading is /essential/ to proper conceptualization. > The fact that > both the rim and spokes respond to load is what > makes them complicated. Superstiff rims are as if > we tried to understand terminal velocity by starting > with zero air density, and then concluded that > there was no such thing as terminal velocity. see above. > >>> It's not proper >>> understanding of theory or concepts. The whole >>> complication of a bicycle wheel is the balance >>> in strength and modulus between spokes and rim - >>> if you tried building one with wagon wheel spokes and >>> a GEL 280, or with bicycle spokes and an automotive >>> rim, you'd get a result that didn't behave like an >>> Open Pro and 1.8mm spokes. Jobst's FEA analysis is >>> an example of theory properly applied, since he used a >>> realistic case. >> except that it's a load calculation, not a strength calculation. > > So what? It's presented as a load calculation. a load calculation on which an "increasing strength" argument is then incorrectly based! > It answers the question of which spokes and what > part of a rim support a load on a bicycle wheel. does it? so why is rim distortion not discussed like spoke tension is? > As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely > stiff rim, which are different cases. they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i guess one could have that misconception.             Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:40:10 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:L_edndjhgszbeZvanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > forgive me for thinking that we were still discussing the theory of the > infinitely stiff rim... Stupidity is unforgivable, lying fucktard. > it is if it allows separation of the elements. and separating spoke > tension differentials on loading from rim distortion on loading is > /essential/ to proper conceptualization. In your world, beamboy. Since spoke tension affects rim distortion, to separate the two is retarded, damn! Fuck, that is one bad education you got from your "metraials skool". > > see above. See above. > a load calculation on which an "increasing strength" argument is then > incorrectly based! Yeah, like the "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.", and then going on to bleat about it as basis for your stupid argument! > does it? Yes. > so why is rim distortion not discussed like spoke tension is? Because you're stupid, beamboy. Rim distortion has already been discussed quite frequently in relation. > they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i > guess one could have that misconception. Yeah, and you're the one making all the mistakes. Lying fucktard.               Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:28:34 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:L_edndjhgszbeZvanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> forgive me for thinking that we were still discussing the theory of the >> infinitely stiff rim... > > Stupidity is unforgivable, lying fucktard. > >> it is if it allows separation of the elements. and separating spoke >> tension differentials on loading from rim distortion on loading is >> /essential/ to proper conceptualization. > > In your world, beamboy. Since spoke tension affects rim distortion, to > separate the two is retarded, damn! > > Fuck, that is one bad education you got from your "metraials skool". > >> see above. > > See above. > >> a load calculation on which an "increasing strength" argument is then >> incorrectly based! > > Yeah, like the "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an > elastic > deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.", and then going on to bleat > about it as basis for your stupid argument! > > >> does it? > > Yes. > >> so why is rim distortion not discussed like spoke tension is? > > Because you're stupid, beamboy. Rim distortion has already been discussed > quite frequently in relation. > > >> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i >> guess one could have that misconception. > > Yeah, and you're the one making all the mistakes. > > Lying fucktard. > > take your meds. moron.                 Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:55:24 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:iLqdnQlmIYYeEJranZ2dnUVZ_ubinZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Jambo wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:L_edndjhgszbeZvanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>> forgive me for thinking that we were still discussing the theory of the >>> infinitely stiff rim... >> >> Stupidity is unforgivable, lying fucktard. >> >>> it is if it allows separation of the elements. and separating spoke >>> tension differentials on loading from rim distortion on loading is >>> /essential/ to proper conceptualization. >> >> In your world, beamboy. Since spoke tension affects rim distortion, to >> separate the two is retarded, damn! >> >> Fuck, that is one bad education you got from your "metraials skool". >> >>> see above. >> >> See above. >> >>> a load calculation on which an "increasing strength" argument is then >>> incorrectly based! >> >> Yeah, like the "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives >> an elastic >> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.", and then going on to >> bleat about it as basis for your stupid argument! >> >> >>> does it? >> >> Yes. >> >>> so why is rim distortion not discussed like spoke tension is? >> >> Because you're stupid, beamboy. Rim distortion has already been >> discussed quite frequently in relation. >> >> >>> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i >>> guess one could have that misconception. >> >> Yeah, and you're the one making all the mistakes. >> >> Lying fucktard. Great, another devastating retort from beamboy. DLFF.                   Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:15:29 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:iLqdnQlmIYYeEJranZ2dnUVZ_ubinZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> Jambo wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:L_edndjhgszbeZvanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>>> forgive me for thinking that we were still discussing the theory of the >>>> infinitely stiff rim... >>> Stupidity is unforgivable, lying fucktard. >>> >>>> it is if it allows separation of the elements. and separating spoke >>>> tension differentials on loading from rim distortion on loading is >>>> /essential/ to proper conceptualization. >>> In your world, beamboy. Since spoke tension affects rim distortion, to >>> separate the two is retarded, damn! >>> >>> Fuck, that is one bad education you got from your "metraials skool". >>> >>>> see above. >>> See above. >>> >>>> a load calculation on which an "increasing strength" argument is then >>>> incorrectly based! >>> Yeah, like the "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives >>> an elastic >>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.", and then going on to >>> bleat about it as basis for your stupid argument! >>> >>> >>>> does it? >>> Yes. >>> >>>> so why is rim distortion not discussed like spoke tension is? >>> Because you're stupid, beamboy. Rim distortion has already been >>> discussed quite frequently in relation. >>> >>> >>>> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i >>>> guess one could have that misconception. >>> Yeah, and you're the one making all the mistakes. >>> >>> Lying fucktard. > > Great, another devastating retort from beamboy. > > DLFF. > > why do you snip what i said, moron? too close to the bone? you really /do/ need to take your meds!         Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:00:13 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 2, 9:32 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1191374868.181743.192...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> > , > > spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > Nothing precludes a reader of Brandt's book from acknowledging and > > using manufacturers' values -- when they are available and reliable > > -- except their own total lack of common sense and intellectual > > honesty. Admittedly the author my have erred by not anticipating this > > pathology in a few readers, but then presumably he was writing the > > ^^^^^^^ > I must admit that I substituted `retards' here. > > > book for those he assumed where actually interested in understanding > > the principles of bicycle wheels and building them. > > -- > Michael Press >I must admit that I substituted `retards' here. Just 'retards'? You're very polite -- I'm thinking of the f-tard word. -- Spike         Date: 02 Oct 2007 19:53:34 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 1, 8:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: <snipped for brevity and clarity > - on Brandt's wheelbuilding technique - > > What this approach does is determine the maximum spoke tension by > finding the rim buckling point and then backing off considerably to > establish a safety margin. > > The buckling point is determined by the rim cross section (thin column > buckling). The load that causes this buckling is circumferential > compression. It's not obvious to me that the wider, less tall cross > sections of older rims like the MA-2 buckled under less load than the > newer narrow/tall cross sections (Reflex, Open Pro). My guess is that > the MA-2 would be (a little) more buckle resistant, if anything. > The only way to know is to "suck it and see". IME, a box section rim such as an MA-2, etc., will "taco" at lower tension than will a rim of similar weight but taller cross section. Try it yourself and see what results you get.           Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:12:22 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Oct 1, 8:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > <snipped for brevity and clarity> > > - on Brandt's wheelbuilding technique - >> What this approach does is determine the maximum spoke tension by >> finding the rim buckling point and then backing off considerably to >> establish a safety margin. >> >> The buckling point is determined by the rim cross section (thin column >> buckling). The load that causes this buckling is circumferential >> compression. It's not obvious to me that the wider, less tall cross >> sections of older rims like the MA-2 buckled under less load than the >> newer narrow/tall cross sections (Reflex, Open Pro). My guess is that >> the MA-2 would be (a little) more buckle resistant, if anything. >> > > > The only way to know is to "suck it and see". IME, a box section rim > such as an MA-2, etc., will "taco" at lower tension than will a rim > of similar weight but taller cross section. Try it yourself and see > what results you get. > peter cole will /never/ do anything that might contradict one of his preconceptions.             Date: 03 Oct 2007 09:55:40 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> On Oct 1, 8:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> <snipped for brevity and clarity> >> >> - on Brandt's wheelbuilding technique - >>> What this approach does is determine the maximum spoke tension by >>> finding the rim buckling point and then backing off considerably to >>> establish a safety margin. >>> >>> The buckling point is determined by the rim cross section (thin column >>> buckling). The load that causes this buckling is circumferential >>> compression. It's not obvious to me that the wider, less tall cross >>> sections of older rims like the MA-2 buckled under less load than the >>> newer narrow/tall cross sections (Reflex, Open Pro). My guess is that >>> the MA-2 would be (a little) more buckle resistant, if anything. >>> >> >> >> The only way to know is to "suck it and see". IME, a box section rim >> such as an MA-2, etc., will "taco" at lower tension than will a rim >> of similar weight but taller cross section. Try it yourself and see >> what results you get. >> > > peter cole will /never/ do anything that might contradict one of his > preconceptions. Oooh, another "beam's law". Riddle me this lightning-wit, how does a "guess" (see above) equal a "preconception"? You're such a pompous twit. Example: <mega thread fully quoted > "indeed!" (he beamed) Example: <thread fully quoted > insert lame ad hominem of your choice (see above).               Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:20:03 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> On Oct 1, 8:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> <snipped for brevity and clarity> >>> >>> - on Brandt's wheelbuilding technique - >>>> What this approach does is determine the maximum spoke tension by >>>> finding the rim buckling point and then backing off considerably to >>>> establish a safety margin. >>>> >>>> The buckling point is determined by the rim cross section (thin column >>>> buckling). The load that causes this buckling is circumferential >>>> compression. It's not obvious to me that the wider, less tall cross >>>> sections of older rims like the MA-2 buckled under less load than the >>>> newer narrow/tall cross sections (Reflex, Open Pro). My guess is that >>>> the MA-2 would be (a little) more buckle resistant, if anything. >>>> >>> >>> >>> The only way to know is to "suck it and see". IME, a box section rim >>> such as an MA-2, etc., will "taco" at lower tension than will a rim >>> of similar weight but taller cross section. Try it yourself and see >>> what results you get. >>> >> >> peter cole will /never/ do anything that might contradict one of his >> preconceptions. > > Oooh, another "beam's law". Riddle me this lightning-wit, how does a > "guess" (see above) equal a "preconception"? You're such a pompous twit. > > Example: > <mega thread fully quoted> > > "indeed!" (he beamed) > > Example: > <thread fully quoted> > > insert lame ad hominem of your choice (see above). > is that an "engineering" argument?         Date: 02 Oct 2007 18:27:48 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 1, 11:03 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > > <snip for brevity> > > > It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing > > answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer > > is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. > > that's absolutely untrue. if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, > then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that > /is/ "Proper Tension". > > > The author of > > course knows this, and so doesn't provide such an answer. > > no, the author doesn't understand that strength is not increased by > increasing spoke tension. and he doesn't understand the nature of the > materials. > > he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite element" > load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an elastic rim > causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is - a perfectly > rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension figures would be > completely different, leading of course to a completely different > conclusion and therefore wheel theory. > > > A few > > readers, I imagine, are disappointed. Bizarrely, one individual > > gives the author an answer and then says he is wrong. > > you mean that i disagree with the theoretical arguments? yes i do. and > for the reasons i've explained. you may want to dispute them, in which > case, feel free to present your own technical reasoning, but don't just > say it's wrong because you don't understand or don't want to know. <snip for brevity > >> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing >> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer >> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. > that's absolutely untrue. Really? Very glad to hear this; it makes things much simpler. Tell me then, what is this single universal proper tension for all rims and wheel systems? Is it 17.5 Kgf or maybe it's 175Kgf? Or is it some other intermediate? And if there is no universal single value, then what is the single easy method that one can use that is all encompassing, unlike Brandt's stress relief method which he restricts to classic wheels? What is the single easy method that applies not only to classic wheels but to all types of rims in all types of wheel systems? Please let us know, unless of course you're saving this revelation for /your/ book? > if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, > then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that > /is/ "Proper Tension". Obviously it's the manufactures' proper tension. Once again you are displaying your penchant for stating something that is obvious as if you are imparting new knowledge. Nothing precludes a reader of Brandt's book from acknowledging and using manufacturers' values -- when they are available and reliable -- except their own total lack of common sense and intellectual honesty. Admittedly the author my have erred by not anticipating this pathology in a few readers, but then presumably he was writing the book for those he assumed where actually interested in understanding the principles of bicycle wheels and building them. -- Spike           Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:00:46 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > On Oct 1, 11:03 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: >> >> <snip for brevity> >> >>> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing >>> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer >>> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. >> that's absolutely untrue. if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, >> then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that >> /is/ "Proper Tension". >> >>> The author of >>> course knows this, and so doesn't provide such an answer. >> no, the author doesn't understand that strength is not increased by >> increasing spoke tension. and he doesn't understand the nature of the >> materials. >> >> he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite element" >> load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an elastic rim >> causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is - a perfectly >> rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension figures would be >> completely different, leading of course to a completely different >> conclusion and therefore wheel theory. >> >>> A few >>> readers, I imagine, are disappointed. Bizarrely, one individual >>> gives the author an answer and then says he is wrong. >> you mean that i disagree with the theoretical arguments? yes i do. and >> for the reasons i've explained. you may want to dispute them, in which >> case, feel free to present your own technical reasoning, but don't just >> say it's wrong because you don't understand or don't want to know. > > <snip for brevity> > >>> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing >>> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer >>> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. > >> that's absolutely untrue. > > Really? Very glad to hear this; it makes things much simpler. Tell me > then, what is this single universal proper tension for all rims and > wheel systems? Is it 17.5 Kgf or maybe it's 175Kgf? Or is it some > other intermediate? er, how long is a piece of sting spike? tell me the single universal length of all strings and string systems! > > And if there is no universal single value, then what is the single > easy method that one can use that is all encompassing, unlike Brandt's > stress relief method which he restricts to classic wheels? there is no single value!!! it's empirically determined and depends on the rim material, dimensions, etc. if all rims were identical, then maybe there would be a single tension. but there isn't, so... > What is > the single easy method that applies not only to classic wheels but to > all types of rims in all types of wheel systems? Please let us know, > unless of course you're saving this revelation for /your/ book? see above. > >> if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, >> then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that >> /is/ "Proper Tension". > > Obviously it's the manufactures' proper tension. Once again you are > displaying your penchant for stating something that is obvious as if > you are imparting new knowledge. if it's so "obvious" why is it not stated in any books, "faq"'s or even mentioned in /your/ contributions on this subject? > > Nothing precludes a reader of Brandt's book from acknowledging and > using manufacturers' values -- when they are available and reliable > -- except their own total lack of common sense and intellectual > honesty. eh??? > Admittedly the author my have erred by not anticipating this > pathology in a few readers, but then presumably he was writing the > book for those he assumed where actually interested in understanding > the principles of bicycle wheels and building them. strange statement from one so curiously uninterested in "obvious" facts and ensuring they're actually disseminated.             Date: 03 Oct 2007 11:39:14 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message > if it's so "obvious" why is it not stated in any books, "faq"'s or even > mentioned in /your/ contributions on this subject? And not stated by manufacturers in manuals and in their rims? You lying fraudtard, you just sunk yourself again... > strange statement from one so curiously uninterested in "obvious" facts > and ensuring they're actually disseminated. Yeah, just like the "cracking sounds of CF doom" being used by CF users to detect damage....           Date: 03 Oct 2007 02:32:05 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191374868.181743.192830@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com > , spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > Nothing precludes a reader of Brandt's book from acknowledging and > using manufacturers' values -- when they are available and reliable > -- except their own total lack of common sense and intellectual > honesty. Admittedly the author my have erred by not anticipating this > pathology in a few readers, but then presumably he was writing the ^^^^^^^ I must admit that I substituted `retards' here. > book for those he assumed where actually interested in understanding > the principles of bicycle wheels and building them. -- Michael Press         Date: 02 Oct 2007 16:41:57 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 1, 9:49 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:> "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: > >> ... > >> he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite > >> element" load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an > >> elastic rim causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is > >> - a perfectly rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension > >> figures would be completely different, leading of course to a > >> completely different conclusion and therefore wheel theory.... > > > Where can I buy some of these perfectly rigid rims? > > you're an engineer aren't you? you need to consider theory and > understand concepts properly before you can progress to practice and > have any hope of understanding what's actually going on. An infinitely rigid rim could not be trued by adjusting spoke tension, nor would it ever go out of true or round. It's a reductio ad absurdum that has little application to bicycle wheels as they actually exist. It's not proper understanding of theory or concepts. The whole complication of a bicycle wheel is the balance in strength and modulus between spokes and rim - if you tried building one with wagon wheel spokes and a GEL 280, or with bicycle spokes and an automotive rim, you'd get a result that didn't behave like an Open Pro and 1.8mm spokes. Jobst's FEA analysis is an example of theory properly applied, since he used a realistic case. An engineer (or a physicist) has a responsibility to calculate with models that bear some correspondence to experimental reality. Ben RBR Physics Dept.           Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:05:43 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > On Oct 1, 9:49 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:> "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: >>>> ... >>>> he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite >>>> element" load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an >>>> elastic rim causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is >>>> - a perfectly rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension >>>> figures would be completely different, leading of course to a >>>> completely different conclusion and therefore wheel theory.... >>> Where can I buy some of these perfectly rigid rims? >> you're an engineer aren't you? you need to consider theory and >> understand concepts properly before you can progress to practice and >> have any hope of understanding what's actually going on. > > An infinitely rigid rim could not be trued by > adjusting spoke tension, that's not correct. the position of the rim relative to the hub is a function of the spoke lengths and forces exerted. truing thus allows positioning. > nor would it ever go > out of true or round. once built and trued, no! unless lateral loading caused spoke tension increase which bedded the spokes further into the hub holes of course... > It's a reductio ad > absurdum that has little application to bicycle > wheels as they actually exist. except that if you don't understand the principles, you make mistakes in application. see above for "could not be trued". > It's not proper > understanding of theory or concepts. The whole > complication of a bicycle wheel is the balance > in strength and modulus between spokes and rim - > if you tried building one with wagon wheel spokes and > a GEL 280, or with bicycle spokes and an automotive > rim, you'd get a result that didn't behave like an > Open Pro and 1.8mm spokes. Jobst's FEA analysis is > an example of theory properly applied, since he used a > realistic case. except that it's a load calculation, not a strength calculation. > > An engineer (or a physicist) has a responsibility > to calculate with models that bear some > correspondence to experimental reality. > > Ben > RBR Physics Dept. > yeah, and "engineers" have a responsibility to stay awake in class.         Date: 01 Oct 2007 17:31:54 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 1, 3:11 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:25:06 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >On Sep 30, 11:23 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > >Peter Cole wrote: > > >snip > > >> > You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce > >> > higher than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? > > >> because i've tried it! > > >Specifically, which 36 hole, conventional cross-section rim of 430 or > >less grams did you try this on and what is your source for the > >manufacturer's recommended spoke tension range? I'm asking because > >I've learned from previous threads to not believe anything you say. > >The exclamation point you put after your statement doesn't lift it > >above the normal credibility level of zero. > > >> modern deep profile rims can take much more stress before they > buckle.... a rim stiff enough to take double spoke tension [as > determined by the jobstian method] before buckling isn't going to > make rims last very long when it comes to cracking. use of a > tensiometer is therefore essential. > > >Everyone would be aware of this either from their own knowledge, > >experience and common sense or from having read Jobst's book. Nothing > >like stating the obvious as if it's an original and profound > >revelation from the sage of RBT, jim - never in doubt, often in error > >- beam. > > Dear Spike, > > Sorry, but people aren't actually reading "The Bicycle Wheel," which > is probably why they don't quote it. > > The book does _say_ to use a tensiometer to determine the correct > tension, but only in the sense of measuring an already established > correct tension for later use in building the next identical wheel. > > The book says that the correct tension is _first_ determined by other > methods, namely raising tension on 36-spoke count wheels until > squeezing spoke pairs together produces a deformed wheel or when the > spokes on low-count or deep-section wheels can no longer be tightened > without excessive windup: > > "The final tension of a wheel built by feel is affected by the mood of > its builder. By using a tension measuring tool a builder can establish > proper tension, then repeat it. Such a tool, a tensiometer, measures > the deflection of a spoke over a given span in response to a standard > load. The dial is calibrated in tension or displacement. Either > measure is equally useful for wheel building. It is not necessary to > know the actual tension but only that the tension has reached the > desired mark. The correct maximum tension for a specific wheel design > must still be determined first by stress relieving. For some deep > section rims or wheels with few spokes, the limit of tension is > reached when spokes can no longer be tightened further without > excessive windup. For subsequent wheels of the same type the > tensiometer can accurately and quickly determine whether spokes have > reached the predetermined tension." > > --3rd edition > > Obviously, deep-section 36-spoke rims can stand more tension before > distorting than MA-2's. > > I'm not arguing about wheel-building methods, just pointing out that > people who want to claim that Jobst's book says something ought to > provide quotes to back up their claims. > > As far as I can see, Jim Beam's description is closer to being > accurate--the book says to raise tension until the rim fails to stay > in shape if you squeeze the spoke pairs, or to tighten low-count > spokes until the spoke wind-up reaches some undefined "excessive" > point. > > If anyone has suggestions about other passages, I'll be glad to search > my scanned 3rd edition or browse through the first two editions. None > of them have an index (indexing was expensive back then), so I > sympathize with text-scholars who vaguely remember whatever edition > they have saying _something_ and are having trouble finding it. > > (The deep section/low count/spoke windup comments were added in the > 3rd edition. The book was re-written almost sentence by sentence, > twice, so don't be surprised if you have trouble finding things. > Remember, the first edition was based on and referred to 5, 6, and 7 > speed rear wheels--things changed rapidly between 1981 and 1993.) > > The only example of specific tension in the 3rd edition is this: "If > its spokes are tensioned to 1000 N, a 36-spoke wheel will support > approximately 400 kg." > > The 1,000 Newtons mentioned is just an example for an ensuing > discussion of when spokes might go slack, not a specific tension > recommendation. It's the equivalent of 102 kgf, and a common figure > for many wheels today. > > In any case, Jobst expects that to be reduced by 30% through the > constriction of the inflated tire: > > "Although spoke tension is the principal static load on the rim, > tubular tire inflation has a similar effect. When inflated, the tire > becomes fatter and shrinks in circumference. The resulting force > depends on the tire cross section, cord angle and inflation pressure. > A tubular racing tire, inflated to 0.86 MPa, for instance, shrinks > with a force of 300 N (see Equation 8 in Part III). Its effect on > spoke tension can be detected with a tensiometer." > > --3rd edition > > That reduces the _effective_ spoke tension from about 100 kgf to about > 70 kgf. Dianne's measurements suggest about a reduction of about 15 > kgf for 700c box-section clinchers. > > On a less pedantic note, the "kgf" commonly used nowadays for spoke > tension does not appear in the 3rd edition of 1993, just the two cited > passages with "kg". > > It's possible that tensiometers were so rare back in 1981-1993 that no > manufacturers gave recommended kgf (or kg or newton or pound) tensions > for their rims, and that Jobst was simply giving the best possible > advice for the era when you had to find the right tension yourself. > Only after tensiometers became widely available would manufacturers > start giving the recommendations that can still be darned hard to find > today. > > If so (and it's just a theory that tension recommendations were scarce > or non-existent), then Jobst was simply suggesting that using a > tensiometer to record whatever tension you found best by using other > methods was a quick and convenient way to build the next wheel. > > Build the first wheel by raising tension until spoke-squeezing put it > out of true or the spokes began to wind up excessively (before anyone > sneers, try to define how much wind-up is excessive), measure the > results with a tensiometer (and also use it to check for even tension > all around the wheel), record the tension, and presto! The next wheel > is much quicker and easier to build because you just tighten it to the > X marked on your tensiometer. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Thank you for your response, Carl. I have quoted and responded to some of it below. >Sorry, but people aren't actually reading "The Bicycle Wheel," which >is probably why they don't quote it. In the case of jim beam, even if he did read Jobst Brandt's The Bicycle Wheel, I think he would continue to misquote it. >The book does _say_ to use a tensiometer to determine the correct >tension, but only in the sense of measuring an already established >correct tension for later use in building the next identical wheel. >The book says that the correct tension is _first_ determined by other >methods, namely raising tension on 36-spoke count wheels until >squeezing spoke pairs together produces a deformed wheel or when the >spokes on low-count or deep-section wheels can no longer be tightened >without excessive windup: Within the context of the whole book, put in the simplest terms, the author recommends that a tensiometer be used to measure proper spoke tension. In the Third Edition under the paragraph on page 104 titled "Final Tensioning" he states, "Spoke tension can be directly measured with a tensiometer...." Elsewhere, on page 118, in the paragraph titled "Tensiometer" the author says, "By using a tension measuring tool a builder can establish proper tension, then repeat it." Nowhere does the author restrict how the tensiometer measured proper tension is determined. The one method that he helpfully sets forth on page 105 is, he notes, for "...conventional road rims of up to 430 grams with 36 spokes." For other wheel systems such as those with heavy rims, with deep section rims, and those with fewer than 32 spokes, he does not provide a method but does observe that tensioning may be at its limit when nipples are not easily tightened. The author in no way precludes determining proper spoke tension from rim manufactures recommendations, from measurements of manufacturers' prebuilt wheels, from a reliable wheelset that has already served long and hard, or by other means. It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. The author of course knows this, and so doesn't provide such an answer. A few readers, I imagine, are disappointed. Bizarrely, one individual gives the author an answer and then says he is wrong. -- Spike           Date: 01 Oct 2007 21:03:28 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: <snip for brevity > > It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing > answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer > is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. that's absolutely untrue. if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that /is/ "Proper Tension". > The author of > course knows this, and so doesn't provide such an answer. no, the author doesn't understand that strength is not increased by increasing spoke tension. and he doesn't understand the nature of the materials. he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite element" load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an elastic rim causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is - a perfectly rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension figures would be completely different, leading of course to a completely different conclusion and therefore wheel theory. > A few > readers, I imagine, are disappointed. Bizarrely, one individual > gives the author an answer and then says he is wrong. you mean that i disagree with the theoretical arguments? yes i do. and for the reasons i've explained. you may want to dispute them, in which case, feel free to present your own technical reasoning, but don't just say it's wrong because you don't understand or don't want to know.             Date: 02 Oct 2007 14:50:16 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: > <snip for brevity> >> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing >> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer >> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. > > that's absolutely untrue. if a manufacturer does the testing necessary, > then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke tension spec, that > /is/ "Proper Tension". It's also "what the rim will bear" -- *their* rim. >> The author of >> course knows this, and so doesn't provide such an answer. > > no, the author doesn't understand that strength is not increased by > increasing spoke tension. Of course it is. Most of the stiffness (lateral and radial) of a wheel is provided by the spokes. This stiffness disappears when the spokes go slack. The amount of load a wheel can take before spokes go slack is proportional to the spoke tension. Spoke tension compresses the rim. Compression will cause the rim to buckle once it exceeds the amount that the spokes can constrain. Wheel loading doesn't significantly change rim compression. Therefore, the higher the spoke tension, the stronger the wheel, up to the point where the rim buckles. If rim manufacturer's want to shave grams off the spoke bed and sell rims that have to be run with much lower spoke tension than the other components (hubs, spokes, nipples) can bear, that's their choice. It doesn't make it a better rim, it does make for a weaker wheel. > and he doesn't understand the nature of the > materials. Like what? Endurance limit of spokes? That's a dead horse. "Vacuum degassing"? Done that, too. "Anisotropy of extrusions"? How come Mavic can make some rims that can take >160kg? Why can all Sun's take more? > he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite element" > load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an elastic rim > causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is Elastic rim *and* elastic spokes. So what? BTW, he's not only "seeing", he's modeling in a very precise and provably correct manner. > - a perfectly > rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension figures would be > completely different, leading of course to a completely different > conclusion and therefore wheel theory. Who cares about a "perfectly rigid rim"? What's this "wheel theory"? >> A few >> readers, I imagine, are disappointed. Bizarrely, one individual >> gives the author an answer and then says he is wrong. > > you mean that i disagree with the theoretical arguments? yes i do. and > for the reasons i've explained. Except you've explained nothing. > you may want to dispute them, in which > case, feel free to present your own technical reasoning, but don't just > say it's wrong because you don't understand or don't want to know. When shall we expect your FEA?               Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:03:50 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >> <snip for brevity> >>> It would be nice if there was a single, easy, and all encompassing >>> answer to the question: What's The Proper Tension? But, such an answer >>> is not possible; the situation does not allow for it. >> >> that's absolutely untrue. if a manufacturer does the testing >> necessary, then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke >> tension spec, that /is/ "Proper Tension". > > It's also "what the rim will bear" -- *their* rim. in "real" application!!! > >>> The author of >>> course knows this, and so doesn't provide such an answer. >> >> no, the author doesn't understand that strength is not increased by >> increasing spoke tension. > > Of course it is. no it's not. you're making the jobstian error of looking at a load calculation and assuming that it tells you something about strength - it doesn't! > > Most of the stiffness (lateral and radial) of a wheel is provided by the > spokes. er, so how stiff would a wheel with no rim be then??? > > This stiffness disappears when the spokes go slack. no it doesn't. http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/ > > The amount of load a wheel can take before spokes go slack is > proportional to the spoke tension. no, the amount of load a wheel can take before the spokes go slack is the amount of load a wheel can take before the spokes go slack. > > Spoke tension compresses the rim. indeed. > > Compression will cause the rim to buckle once it exceeds the amount that > the spokes can constrain. indeed. > > Wheel loading doesn't significantly change rim compression. indeed. but increasing spoke tension does. > > Therefore, the higher the spoke tension, the stronger the wheel, up to > the point where the rim buckles. no, that's a fundamental disconnect. if increasing spoke tension is increasing rim compression, it gets closer to compressive yield than before! [duh.] in that respect, increasing spoke tension is /reducing/ the available load capacity for the rim. > > If rim manufacturer's want to shave grams off the spoke bed and sell > rims that have to be run with much lower spoke tension than the other > components (hubs, spokes, nipples) can bear, that's their choice. It > doesn't make it a better rim, it does make for a weaker wheel. eh? that's a red herring. > >> and he doesn't understand the nature of the materials. > > Like what? Endurance limit of spokes? That's a dead horse. "Vacuum > degassing"? Done that, too. "Anisotropy of extrusions"? eh? jobst had no clue about anisotropy and why it would affect cracking until i raised the subject. > How come Mavic > can make some rims that can take >160kg? Why can all Sun's take more? er, because they can? > > >> he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite >> element" load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an >> elastic rim causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is > > Elastic rim *and* elastic spokes. So what? BTW, he's not only "seeing", > he's modeling in a very precise and provably correct manner. no he's not!!! he's modeling load, then claiming it demonstrates strength!!! that's a fundamental error!!! > >> - a perfectly rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension >> figures would be completely different, leading of course to a >> completely different conclusion and therefore wheel theory. > > Who cares about a "perfectly rigid rim"? What's this "wheel theory"? er, /you/ should care if you want to understand this stuff! > >>> A few >>> readers, I imagine, are disappointed. Bizarrely, one individual >>> gives the author an answer and then says he is wrong. >> >> you mean that i disagree with the theoretical arguments? yes i do. >> and for the reasons i've explained. > > Except you've explained nothing. er, i have. but that doesn't stop /you/ saying different. because you always do, rhyme, reason, or none. > >> you may want to dispute them, in which case, feel free to present your >> own technical reasoning, but don't just say it's wrong because you >> don't understand or don't want to know. > > When shall we expect your FEA? when you show me how a load calculation can be called a strength calculation when it isn't.                 Date: 03 Oct 2007 09:18:07 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> that's absolutely untrue. if a manufacturer does the testing >>> necessary, then publishes their findings in the form of a spoke >>> tension spec, that /is/ "Proper Tension". >> >> It's also "what the rim will bear" -- *their* rim. > > in "real" application!!! I don't know what "real" application!!! means (jimbo-ese). The max tension has got to be determined by either buckle or bed failure -- unless you have another candidate? If the rim doesn't buckle anywhere near the max, then it must be the bed. Mavic shaved the bed on their lightweight rims, then further compromised with crappy materials (Chalo) and anodize finish. Their (hidden) specs reflect this. Stop hiding behind mumbo-jimbo and accept the obvious. Or at least make a *coherent* counter-argument. >>> no, the author doesn't understand that strength is not increased by >>> increasing spoke tension. >> >> Of course it is. > > no it's not. you're making the jobstian error of looking at a load > calculation and assuming that it tells you something about strength - it > doesn't! > > >> >> Most of the stiffness (lateral and radial) of a wheel is provided by >> the spokes. > > er, so how stiff would a wheel with no rim be then??? They have these on your planet, too? >> This stiffness disappears when the spokes go slack. > > no it doesn't. > http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/ Not *all* the stiffness, slow one, just *most* (read above again slowly -- you may move your lips). >> The amount of load a wheel can take before spokes go slack is >> proportional to the spoke tension. > > no, the amount of load a wheel can take before the spokes go slack is > the amount of load a wheel can take before the spokes go slack. The sound of one hand wanking. >> Spoke tension compresses the rim. > > indeed. deedy-do. > > >> >> Compression will cause the rim to buckle once it exceeds the amount >> that the spokes can constrain. > > indeed. deedy-do, too. >> Wheel loading doesn't significantly change rim compression. > > indeed. but increasing spoke tension does. Threedy-do. Duh. >> Therefore, the higher the spoke tension, the stronger the wheel, up to >> the point where the rim buckles. > > no, that's a fundamental disconnect. if increasing spoke tension is > increasing rim compression, it gets closer to compressive yield than > before! [duh.] Buckle [duh - over]? > in that respect, increasing spoke tension is /reducing/ > the available load capacity for the rim. No, because load doesn't increase rim compression significantly, so it doesn't bring the wheel closer to buckle. [duh?] [duh?] [anybody home?] >> If rim manufacturer's want to shave grams off the spoke bed and sell >> rims that have to be run with much lower spoke tension than the other >> components (hubs, spokes, nipples) can bear, that's their choice. It >> doesn't make it a better rim, it does make for a weaker wheel. > > eh? that's a red herring. No, it's a Mavic! >>> and he doesn't understand the nature of the materials. >> >> Like what? Endurance limit of spokes? That's a dead horse. "Vacuum >> degassing"? Done that, too. "Anisotropy of extrusions"? > > eh? jobst had no clue about anisotropy and why it would affect cracking > until i raised the subject. No, I'm sure he never heard about it before. No of us has ever looked closely at an extrusion, or [gasp] even used one. We're totally clueless about metal forming except what we learned from the village smithy. >> How come Mavic can make some rims that can take >160kg? Why can all >> Sun's take more? > > er, because they can? Other hand wanking. >>> he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite >>> element" load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an >>> elastic rim causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is >> >> Elastic rim *and* elastic spokes. So what? BTW, he's not only >> "seeing", he's modeling in a very precise and provably correct manner. > > no he's not!!! he's modeling load, then claiming it demonstrates > strength!!! that's a fundamental error!!! Warning Will Robinson!!! Tilt!!! Tilt!!! Where do you get this stuff? How about just a *pinch* of coherence? Substance? >>> - a perfectly rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension >>> figures would be completely different, leading of course to a >>> completely different conclusion and therefore wheel theory. >> >> Who cares about a "perfectly rigid rim"? What's this "wheel theory"? > > er, /you/ should care if you want to understand this stuff! Good answer! I'm still waiting for the PRR "theory". We haven't heard it yet on this planet. >>>> A few >>>> readers, I imagine, are disappointed. Bizarrely, one individual >>>> gives the author an answer and then says he is wrong. >>> >>> you mean that i disagree with the theoretical arguments? yes i do. >>> and for the reasons i've explained. >> >> Except you've explained nothing. > > er, i have. but that doesn't stop /you/ saying different. because you > always do, rhyme, reason, or none. You are so busted. > > >> >>> you may want to dispute them, in which case, feel free to present >>> your own technical reasoning, but don't just say it's wrong because >>> you don't understand or don't want to know. >> >> When shall we expect your FEA? > > when you show me how a load calculation can be called a strength > calculation when it isn't. And again.                 Date: 03 Oct 2007 06:34:17 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals I noticed a misrepresentation of "the Bicycle Wheel" in this thread on which a line of argumentation is built, a classic straw man. "The error of looking at a load calculation and assuming that it tells you something about strength - it doesn't!" There are NO loads calculated in "the Bicycle Wheel" nor values for strengths of wheels. Deflection diagrams are shown using the cross section of an MA-2 rim with a test load that approximates that of an average rider. That test load is the same for all loading diagrams so that a comparison of the effects can be easily made. No one rides straight up a vertical wall, but the load used is such, because that diagram uses the same vertical load as loading on level ground. An important deduction one can make from these diagrams is that torque on a reasonable complement of spokes, both braking and pedaling, is insignificant and that it does not adversely affect the rim. Similarly rim braking causes the only significant increase in rim compression because it causes the forward half of the spoke complement to become looser and the rearward half tighter as the hub tries to move forward with respect to the rim. A wheel that is near its tension limit may buckle when rim brakes are used. Just the diagrams alone tell much about the effects of wheel loading. That a wheel that does not behave well can be made should be obvious. Spinergy showed that to an extreme. As I mentioned, buckling is not an indication of rim yielding just as it is not a sign of spoke yielding. One is steel, the other aluminum. That effect on a rim is explained in conjunction with testing for maximum safe tension during stress relief. When a tire is inflated it replaces part of the spoke load in compressing the rim, net compression being slightly higher than when un-inflated. For this reason, proper tension should not be measured with a highly inflated tire, nor should spoke tension be increased to the value the wheel had before inflation. Jobst Brandt                   Date: 03 Oct 2007 02:12:41 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 03 Oct 2007 06:34:17 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >I noticed a misrepresentation of "the Bicycle Wheel" in this thread on >which a line of argumentation is built, a classic straw man. > >"The error of looking at a load calculation and assuming that it tells >you something about strength - it doesn't!" > >There are NO loads calculated in "the Bicycle Wheel" nor values for >strengths of wheels. [snip] Dear Jobst, Fig. 16 "Lateral force and spoke tension graph" in "Strength and Durability" in the 3rd edition: http://i24.tinypic.com/15qvzir.jpg *** "If its spokes are tensioned to 1000 N, a 36-spoke wheel will support approximately 400 kg. This is considerably greater than the average rider's weight. However, loads of 400 kg or more sometimes occur when a wheel strikes a bump in the road at high speed. If such overloads occur often, the nipples of slack spokes can unscrew, reducing tension to affect both wheel alignment and strength." --3rd edition *** "A concern has been expressed that, unless the two spokes adjacent to the joint cross on the way to the hub, the joint will separate in use. This concern ignores that the tension of all the spokes is supported by the rim as an arch in compression, a load of about a half ton for a 36-spoke wheel." --3rd edition *** "Equations" "3. Spoke elongation from tension . . . P = 180kg Tension in spoke" [Possibly a mistake cleared up later--I seem to recall Joe Riel asking about something like this?] --1st edition, p. 135 *** "Equations" "7. Rim Compression from spoke tension . . . T = 90 kg Tension in each spoke" --1st edition, p. 136 *** "Finite Element Computer Analysis . . . Load = 50.00 . . . [presumably kg] Fig. 70 Radial load (see fig. 8) --p. 141, 1st editionq [The same load appears for the next 5 pages of equations, all labeled "load" such-and-so.] *** For lagniappe, here are two passages across three editions, showing the historical side of the "Bicycle Wheel." "AERODYNAMIC RIMS" The 1st edition of 1981/3 has no such section. Here the aero rim section appears in the second edition: "Streamlined rims have deep, rounded "V" shapes. Most of these rims are heavier and more rigid than their conventional counterparts. Their braking surfaces are not perpendicular to the surface of the brake pads and they have no reinforcement for spoke nipples. Structurally, they give a strong wheel but their aerodynamic advantage is achieved at the expense of these deficiencies." --2nd edition 1988 The aero rim passage was expanded considerably in the 3rd edition: "Streamlined rims have deep, rounded "V" shapes. Most of these rims are heavier and more rigid than their conventional counterparts. Often their braking surfaces are not perpendicular to the brake pad motion, and they usually have no steel inserts for spoke nipples because their deep cross section makes them adequately strong. However, nipples can easily gall rims without steel inserts, and bind during tightening and retruing. Although `aero' rims may be structurally strong, their minimal aerodynamic advantage often comes at the expense of greater weight, greater side wind sensitivity, and higher cost." --3rd edition 1993 The historical pattern is clear. Deep aero rims didn't even appear in the first edition, were briefly disparaged a few years later in the second edition, and were extensively criticized in the third edition. Ignoring the merits of the criticism, it's plain that the book was written in the era before the modern deep low-spoke-count rim replaced the 36-spoke shallow box rim as the industry favorite. *** The other passage of interest is too long to reproduce for all three editions, but suggests how far off the radar deep low-spoke-count modern rims were. The first edition of 1981/3 described wood and wood-filled tubular rims in detail and concluded: "These disadvantages have contributed to the decline in popularity of these [wood-filled] rims." The same detailed consideration of wood and wood-filled tubular rims appeared in the second edition of 1988, with this stronger conclusion: "Because they have these disadvantages, wood-filled (and wooden) rims are rarely used now." In the third edition of 1993, the long discussion of wood and wood-filled rims still appeared, but was prefaced by this frank admission that they had become obsolete: "Wood-filled rims have followed wooden rims into history, and the tubular tires that were mounted on them are likely to disappear next." So wood rims were vanishing, but as the aero rim passages show, the book failed to see that deep low-spoke-count rims were going to replace the MA2. (And tubulars still occupy their niche.) For those unfamiliar with tubular wood rims and why tubular metal rims were sometimes filled with wood, here are the details: "Wooden rims are strong and light, and are ideal for gluing tubular tires. Since wood is a good insulator, heat produced by braking will not soften tubular tire glue and cause tire creep. However, the disadvantages of wood outweigh these positive features. Wood is brittle and will not dent or fail partially. Wooden rim failures usually result in wheel collapse and dangerous splinters. Moisture causes wooden rims to distort and lose spoke tension and makes repeated truing necessary. Low thermal conductivity keeps wooden rims from absorbing braking heat and causes brake pads to burn away rapidly. In addition, wooden rims require greater braking force than metal rims because high temperatures soften the brake pads and reduce their coefficient of friction." "WOOD-FILLED RIMS FOR TUBULAR TIRES" "Wood-filled rims have followed wooden rims into history, and the tubular tires that were mounted on them are likely to disappear next. Instead of sockets or washers, these rims use wooden filler pieces inside the hollow aluminum alloy rims. These pieces distribute the load to both surfaces of the rim as steel sockets do and require much smaller holes in the rim. Because the holes need be only large enough to accept nipple shafts, less material is lost from the rim. Because little material is lost, these rims can have thinner walls with the same strength as heavier rims. Although wood-filled rims are extremely light, they have the disadvantage of losing tension when the wood compresses under spoke nipple pressure aggravated by the effects of moisture. Loss of tension causes the wheel to lose both alignment and strength." "Wood-filled rims present other problems. The nipples cannot swivel in the rim to accommodate the different spoke angles produced by different spoke pat-terns. Therefore, spokes may bend excessively at the nipple. The holes must be drilled in the rim at angles to match a specific spoke pattern. Wood rims and wood-filled rims require long nipples. They must reach from the bed of the tire through the rim to expose flanks that can be engaged by a spoke wrench. Long nipples make wheel truing difficult because they often bind while being turned, and they weigh more then standard nipples." --3rd edition 1993 Cheers, Carl Fogel                     Date: 03 Oct 2007 17:33:35 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net writes: >> I noticed a misrepresentation of "the Bicycle Wheel" in this thread >> on which a line of argumentation is built, a classic straw man. >> "The error of looking at a load calculation and assuming that it >> tells you something about strength - it doesn't!" >> There are NO loads calculated in "the Bicycle Wheel" nor values for >> strengths of wheels. > [snip] > Dear Jobst, > Fig. 16 "Lateral force and spoke tension graph" in "Strength and > Durability" in the 3rd edition: http://i24.tinypic.com/15qvzir.jpg > *** > "If its spokes are tensioned to 1000 N, a 36-spoke wheel will > support approximately 400 kg. This is considerably greater than the > average rider's weight. However, loads of 400 kg or more sometimes > occur when a wheel strikes a bump in the road at high speed. If such > overloads occur often, the nipples of slack spokes can unscrew, > reducing tension to affect both wheel alignment and strength." > --3rd edition > *** > "A concern has been expressed that, unless the two spokes adjacent > to the joint cross on the way to the hub, the joint will separate in > use. This concern ignores that the tension of all the spokes is > supported by the rim as an arch in compression, a load of about a > half ton for a 36-spoke wheel." > --3rd edition > *** > "Equations" > "3. Spoke elongation from tension ... > P = 180kg Tension in spoke" > [Possibly a mistake cleared up later--I seem to recall Joe Riel asking > about something like this?] > --1st edition, p. 135 > *** > "Equations" > "7. Rim Compression from spoke tension... > T = 90 kg Tension in each spoke" > --1st edition, p. 136 > *** > "Finite Element Computer Analysis... > Load = 50.00... [presumably kg] > Fig. 70 Radial load (see fig. 8) > --p. 141, 1st editionq > [The same load appears for the next 5 pages of equations, all > labeled "load" such-and-so.] > *** > For lagniappe, here are two passages across three editions, showing > the historical side of the "Bicycle Wheel." > "AERODYNAMIC RIMS" > The 1st edition of 1981/3 has no such section. > Here the aero rim section appears in the second edition: > "Streamlined rims have deep, rounded "V" shapes. Most of these rims > are heavier and more rigid than their conventional counterparts. > Their braking surfaces are not perpendicular to the surface of the > brake pads and they have no reinforcement for spoke nipples. > Structurally, they give a strong wheel but their aerodynamic > advantage is achieved at the expense of these deficiencies." > --2nd edition 1988 > The aero rim passage was expanded considerably in the 3rd edition: > "Streamlined rims have deep, rounded "V" shapes. Most of these rims > are heavier and more rigid than their conventional counterparts. > Often their braking surfaces are not perpendicular to the brake pad > motion, and they usually have no steel inserts for spoke nipples > because their deep cross section makes them adequately strong. > However, nipples can easily gall rims without steel inserts, and > bind during tightening and retruing. Although `aero' rims may be > structurally strong, their minimal aerodynamic advantage often comes > at the expense of greater weight, greater side wind sensitivity, and > higher cost." > --3rd edition 1993 > The historical pattern is clear. Deep aero rims didn't even appear > in the first edition, were briefly disparaged a few years later in > the second edition, and were extensively criticized in the third > edition. > Ignoring the merits of the criticism, it's plain that the book was > written in the era before the modern deep low-spoke-count rim > replaced the 36-spoke shallow box rim as the industry favorite. > *** > The other passage of interest is too long to reproduce for all three > editions, but suggests how far off the radar deep low-spoke-count > modern rims were. > The first edition of 1981/3 described wood and wood-filled tubular > rims in detail and concluded: > "These disadvantages have contributed to the decline in popularity > of these [wood-filled] rims." > The same detailed consideration of wood and wood-filled tubular rims > appeared in the second edition of 1988, with this stronger > conclusion: > "Because they have these disadvantages, wood-filled (and wooden) > rims are rarely used now." > In the third edition of 1993, the long discussion of wood and > wood-filled rims still appeared, but was prefaced by this frank > admission that they had become obsolete: > "Wood-filled rims have followed wooden rims into history, and the > tubular tires that were mounted on them are likely to disappear > next." > So wood rims were vanishing, but as the aero rim passages show, the > book failed to see that deep low-spoke-count rims were going to > replace the MA2. (And tubulars still occupy their niche.) > For those unfamiliar with tubular wood rims and why tubular metal > rims were sometimes filled with wood, here are the details: > "Wooden rims are strong and light, and are ideal for gluing tubular > tires. Since wood is a good insulator, heat produced by braking > will not soften tubular tire glue and cause tire creep. However, > the disadvantages of wood outweigh these positive features. Wood is > brittle and will not dent or fail partially. Wooden rim failures > usually result in wheel collapse and dangerous splinters. Moisture > causes wooden rims to distort and lose spoke tension and makes > repeated truing necessary. Low thermal conductivity keeps wooden > rims from absorbing braking heat and causes brake pads to burn away > rapidly. In addition, wooden rims require greater braking force > than metal rims because high temperatures soften the brake pads and > reduce their coefficient of friction." > "WOOD-FILLED RIMS FOR TUBULAR TIRES" > "Wood-filled rims have followed wooden rims into history, and the > tubular tires that were mounted on them are likely to disappear > next. Instead of sockets or washers, these rims use wooden filler > pieces inside the hollow aluminum alloy rims. These pieces > distribute the load to both surfaces of the rim as steel sockets do > and require much smaller holes in the rim. Because the holes need > be only large enough to accept nipple shafts, less material is lost > from the rim. Because little material is lost, these rims can have > thinner walls with the same strength as heavier rims. Although > wood-filled rims are extremely light, they have the disadvantage of > losing tension when the wood compresses under spoke nipple pressure > aggravated by the effects of moisture. Loss of tension causes the > wheel to lose both alignment and strength." > "Wood-filled rims present other problems. The nipples cannot swivel > in the rim to accommodate the different spoke angles produced by > different spoke patterns. Therefore, spokes may bend excessively > at the nipple. The holes must be drilled in the rim at angles to > match a specific spoke pattern. Wood rims and wood-filled rims > require long nipples. They must reach from the bed of the tire > through the rim to expose flanks that can be engaged by a spoke > wrench. Long nipples make wheel truing difficult because they often > bind while being turned, and they weigh more then standard nipples." > --3rd edition 1993 > Cheers, I think you just showed that no load and strength calculations of wheels are made in the book. However, you seem to go into publishing unrelated parts of the book as in copyright infringement. So what makes you so testy of late? Jobst Brandt                       Date: 03 Oct 2007 18:39:59 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net writes: > ... > So what makes you so testy of late? Better than smarmy? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                       Date: 03 Oct 2007 14:14:25 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 03 Oct 2007 17:33:35 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >carlfogel@comcast.net writes: > > >>> I noticed a misrepresentation of "the Bicycle Wheel" in this thread >>> on which a line of argumentation is built, a classic straw man. > >>> "The error of looking at a load calculation and assuming that it >>> tells you something about strength - it doesn't!" > >>> There are NO loads calculated in "the Bicycle Wheel" nor values for >>> strengths of wheels. > >> [snip] > >> Dear Jobst, > >> Fig. 16 "Lateral force and spoke tension graph" in "Strength and >> Durability" in the 3rd edition: > > http://i24.tinypic.com/15qvzir.jpg > >> *** > >> "If its spokes are tensioned to 1000 N, a 36-spoke wheel will >> support approximately 400 kg. This is considerably greater than the >> average rider's weight. However, loads of 400 kg or more sometimes >> occur when a wheel strikes a bump in the road at high speed. If such >> overloads occur often, the nipples of slack spokes can unscrew, >> reducing tension to affect both wheel alignment and strength." > >> --3rd edition > >> *** > >> "A concern has been expressed that, unless the two spokes adjacent >> to the joint cross on the way to the hub, the joint will separate in >> use. This concern ignores that the tension of all the spokes is >> supported by the rim as an arch in compression, a load of about a >> half ton for a 36-spoke wheel." > >> --3rd edition > >> *** > >> "Equations" > >> "3. Spoke elongation from tension ... >> P = 180kg Tension in spoke" > >> [Possibly a mistake cleared up later--I seem to recall Joe Riel asking >> about something like this?] > >> --1st edition, p. 135 > >> *** > >> "Equations" > >> "7. Rim Compression from spoke tension... >> T = 90 kg Tension in each spoke" > >> --1st edition, p. 136 > >> *** > >> "Finite Element Computer Analysis... > >> Load = 50.00... [presumably kg] > >> Fig. 70 Radial load (see fig. 8) > >> --p. 141, 1st editionq > >> [The same load appears for the next 5 pages of equations, all >> labeled "load" such-and-so.] > >> *** > >> For lagniappe, here are two passages across three editions, showing >> the historical side of the "Bicycle Wheel." > >> "AERODYNAMIC RIMS" > >> The 1st edition of 1981/3 has no such section. > >> Here the aero rim section appears in the second edition: > >> "Streamlined rims have deep, rounded "V" shapes. Most of these rims >> are heavier and more rigid than their conventional counterparts. >> Their braking surfaces are not perpendicular to the surface of the >> brake pads and they have no reinforcement for spoke nipples. >> Structurally, they give a strong wheel but their aerodynamic >> advantage is achieved at the expense of these deficiencies." > >> --2nd edition 1988 > >> The aero rim passage was expanded considerably in the 3rd edition: > >> "Streamlined rims have deep, rounded "V" shapes. Most of these rims >> are heavier and more rigid than their conventional counterparts. >> Often their braking surfaces are not perpendicular to the brake pad >> motion, and they usually have no steel inserts for spoke nipples >> because their deep cross section makes them adequately strong. >> However, nipples can easily gall rims without steel inserts, and >> bind during tightening and retruing. Although `aero' rims may be >> structurally strong, their minimal aerodynamic advantage often comes >> at the expense of greater weight, greater side wind sensitivity, and >> higher cost." > >> --3rd edition 1993 > >> The historical pattern is clear. Deep aero rims didn't even appear >> in the first edition, were briefly disparaged a few years later in >> the second edition, and were extensively criticized in the third >> edition. > >> Ignoring the merits of the criticism, it's plain that the book was >> written in the era before the modern deep low-spoke-count rim >> replaced the 36-spoke shallow box rim as the industry favorite. > >> *** > >> The other passage of interest is too long to reproduce for all three >> editions, but suggests how far off the radar deep low-spoke-count >> modern rims were. > >> The first edition of 1981/3 described wood and wood-filled tubular >> rims in detail and concluded: > >> "These disadvantages have contributed to the decline in popularity >> of these [wood-filled] rims." > >> The same detailed consideration of wood and wood-filled tubular rims >> appeared in the second edition of 1988, with this stronger >> conclusion: > >> "Because they have these disadvantages, wood-filled (and wooden) >> rims are rarely used now." > >> In the third edition of 1993, the long discussion of wood and >> wood-filled rims still appeared, but was prefaced by this frank >> admission that they had become obsolete: > >> "Wood-filled rims have followed wooden rims into history, and the >> tubular tires that were mounted on them are likely to disappear >> next." > >> So wood rims were vanishing, but as the aero rim passages show, the >> book failed to see that deep low-spoke-count rims were going to >> replace the MA2. (And tubulars still occupy their niche.) > >> For those unfamiliar with tubular wood rims and why tubular metal >> rims were sometimes filled with wood, here are the details: > >> "Wooden rims are strong and light, and are ideal for gluing tubular >> tires. Since wood is a good insulator, heat produced by braking >> will not soften tubular tire glue and cause tire creep. However, >> the disadvantages of wood outweigh these positive features. Wood is >> brittle and will not dent or fail partially. Wooden rim failures >> usually result in wheel collapse and dangerous splinters. Moisture >> causes wooden rims to distort and lose spoke tension and makes >> repeated truing necessary. Low thermal conductivity keeps wooden >> rims from absorbing braking heat and causes brake pads to burn away >> rapidly. In addition, wooden rims require greater braking force >> than metal rims because high temperatures soften the brake pads and >> reduce their coefficient of friction." > >> "WOOD-FILLED RIMS FOR TUBULAR TIRES" > >> "Wood-filled rims have followed wooden rims into history, and the >> tubular tires that were mounted on them are likely to disappear >> next. Instead of sockets or washers, these rims use wooden filler >> pieces inside the hollow aluminum alloy rims. These pieces >> distribute the load to both surfaces of the rim as steel sockets do >> and require much smaller holes in the rim. Because the holes need >> be only large enough to accept nipple shafts, less material is lost >> from the rim. Because little material is lost, these rims can have >> thinner walls with the same strength as heavier rims. Although >> wood-filled rims are extremely light, they have the disadvantage of >> losing tension when the wood compresses under spoke nipple pressure >> aggravated by the effects of moisture. Loss of tension causes the >> wheel to lose both alignment and strength." > >> "Wood-filled rims present other problems. The nipples cannot swivel >> in the rim to accommodate the different spoke angles produced by >> different spoke patterns. Therefore, spokes may bend excessively >> at the nipple. The holes must be drilled in the rim at angles to >> match a specific spoke pattern. Wood rims and wood-filled rims >> require long nipples. They must reach from the bed of the tire >> through the rim to expose flanks that can be engaged by a spoke >> wrench. Long nipples make wheel truing difficult because they often >> bind while being turned, and they weigh more then standard nipples." > >> --3rd edition 1993 > >> Cheers, > >I think you just showed that no load and strength calculations of >wheels are made in the book. However, you seem to go into publishing >unrelated parts of the book as in copyright infringement. > >So what makes you so testy of late? > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, Please quote something from that post that I wrote that was testy. You stated that there are no loads calculated in your book, so I quoted passages like this one, where you seemed to be doing calculations involving loads and strength: "If its spokes are tensioned to 1000 N, a 36-spoke wheel will support approximately 400 kg." --3rd edition As for copyright infringement, I hope that you know more about engineering than you do about the fair use laws. It's curious that so many posters make claims about what a text says without quoting it. Cheers, Carl Fogel                       Date: 03 Oct 2007 13:37:37 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-03, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net writes: [...] >> overloads occur often, the nipples of slack spokes can unscrew, >> reducing tension to affect both wheel alignment and strength." [...] > I think you just showed that no load and strength calculations of > wheels are made in the book. Perhaps you can help clarify this point then. What does "strength" mean? Technically we know it means breaking stress. Can it also be used of a structure, as opposed to of a material, to mean the force (or stress?) at which the structure collapses, even if collapsing doesn't involve anything breaking, and might not even involve anything even yielding? If it can, then it's correct to say in that sense that high spoke tension increases strength. If it can't, then it's not correct-- high spoke tension doesn't change the breaking stress of any of the components in the wheel. I think that's jim beam's point. Since his expertise is in materials he naturally takes "strength" to mean "breaking stress". Putting define:strength into Google retrieves this: very general term that may be applied to a material or a structure. In a material, strength refers to a level of stress at which there is a significant change in the state of the material, eg, yielding or rupture. In a structure, strength refers to a level of level of loading which produces a significant change in the state of the structure, eg, inelastic deformations, buckling, or collapse. urban.arch.virginia.edu/~km6e/references/glossary/struc-glossary.html So I think you're both right and this is another misunderstanding.                         Date: 03 Oct 2007 21:57:54 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C? writes: >>> overloads occur often, the nipples of slack spokes can unscrew, >>> reducing tension to affect both wheel alignment and strength." >> I think you just showed that no load and strength calculations of >> wheels are made in the book. > Perhaps you can help clarify this point then. > What does "strength" mean? Technically we know it means breaking > stress. Can it also be used of a structure, as opposed to of a > material, to mean the force (or stress?) at which the structure > collapses, even if collapsing doesn't involve anything breaking, and > might not even involve anything even yielding? How much load the wheel can carry. Lets not get this confused with structural or engineering terms of materials. > If it can, then it's correct to say in that sense that high spoke > tension increases strength. If it can't, then it's not correct-- > high spoke tension doesn't change the breaking stress of any of the > components in the wheel. I think that's jim beam's point. Since his > expertise is in materials he naturally takes "strength" to mean > "breaking stress". You seem to jump to jb's aid at the drop of a suggestion. Forget it. he can insult great numbers of folks at a single bound... up up and away! > Putting define:strength into Google retrieves this: > very general term that may be applied to a material or a structure. > In a material, strength refers to a level of stress at which there > is a significant change in the state of the material, eg, yielding > or rupture. In a structure, strength refers to a level of level of > loading which produces a significant change in the state of the > structure, eg, inelastic deformations, buckling, or collapse. > urban.arch.virginia.edu/~km6e/references/glossary/struc-glossary.html > So I think you're both right and this is another misunderstanding. To assume this a misunderstanding leans toward the naive. Jobst Brandt                         Date: 03 Oct 2007 17:00:09 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C wrote: > On 2007-10-03, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: >> carlfogel@comcast.net writes: > [...] >>> overloads occur often, the nipples of slack spokes can unscrew, >>> reducing tension to affect both wheel alignment and strength." > [...] >> I think you just showed that no load and strength calculations of >> wheels are made in the book. > > Perhaps you can help clarify this point then. > > What does "strength" mean? Technically we know it means breaking stress. > Can it also be used of a structure, as opposed to of a material, to mean > the force (or stress?) at which the structure collapses, even if > collapsing doesn't involve anything breaking, and might not even involve > anything even yielding? > > If it can, then it's correct to say in that sense that high spoke > tension increases strength. If it can't, then it's not correct-- high > spoke tension doesn't change the breaking stress of any of the > components in the wheel. I think that's jim beam's point. Since his > expertise is in materials he naturally takes "strength" to mean > "breaking stress". Have you ever seen a "broken" wheel? That is, a wheel broken from excessive load? A wheel will break two ways, flat spotting (denting) the rim and "tacoing". From Sheldon Brown's glossary: -------------- Taco To bend a wheel so that it assumes a saddle shape. A Tacoed wheel is more than just out of true, it has bent far enough that the spokes have assumed a new equilibrium position and lost tension. Two spots, 180 degrees apart will be way off to the left, two other spots, halfway between, will be way off to the right. A tacoed wheel is also known as a "potato chipped" wheel. <http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-002/img_0221.crop.jpg > --------------- First you have to convince yourself that higher spoke tension means better radial support. Consider the analogy of railroad tracks. When the rim deflects enough to slack the spoke, the spoke is out of the picture, you might as well remove it. This is like removing a railroad tie. As the wheel deforms more, more spokes become effectively removed, and a longer span of rim is unsupported, just like a span of railroad track. The combination of track and tie is much stiffer than track alone. Now consider that the wheel is still under a great deal of circumferential compression. This is akin to putting the railroad track under longitudinal compression. As you remove ties, the railroad track will also want to spread (buckle). A wheel "wants" to taco. If you keep increasing the spoke tension it eventually will. It is constrained from doing so by the lateral rim stiffness and the spoke tension. Imagine tensioning a wheel with no dish (removing the lateral spoke support), it will taco more readily. When you load a wheel radially enough to slacken spokes, the compression is still there and the wheel will want to taco. This is often aided by some lateral forces. Jumping a bike onto a less than straight wheel is the classic way to taco. The railroad track analogy is technically accurate. Without spoke support, the wheel becomes more prone to both tacoing and denting. Spokes, hubs and rims all operate in high cycle loading, meaning breaks (fractures) come from fatigue. There is no way you can normally overload these components to fracture. What happens in bicycle wheel failure is a structural failure, the rim just deforms, buckle, dent, or both. High spoke tensions make for a strong wheel structure. The context is engineering, not metallurgy.                           Date: 03 Oct 2007 17:17:28 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-03, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Ben C wrote: [...] >> What does "strength" mean? Technically we know it means breaking stress. >> Can it also be used of a structure, as opposed to of a material, to mean >> the force (or stress?) at which the structure collapses, even if >> collapsing doesn't involve anything breaking, and might not even involve >> anything even yielding? >> >> If it can, then it's correct to say in that sense that high spoke >> tension increases strength. If it can't, then it's not correct-- high >> spoke tension doesn't change the breaking stress of any of the >> components in the wheel. I think that's jim beam's point. Since his >> expertise is in materials he naturally takes "strength" to mean >> "breaking stress". > > Have you ever seen a "broken" wheel? That is, a wheel broken from > excessive load? No. If you keep increasing the load I strongly suspect the wheel will buckle long before it breaks. [...] > First you have to convince yourself that higher spoke tension means > better radial support. Consider the analogy of railroad tracks. When the > rim deflects enough to slack the spoke, the spoke is out of the picture, > you might as well remove it. This is like removing a railroad tie. As > the wheel deforms more, more spokes become effectively removed, and a > longer span of rim is unsupported, just like a span of railroad track. > The combination of track and tie is much stiffer than track alone. > > Now consider that the wheel is still under a great deal of > circumferential compression. This is akin to putting the railroad track > under longitudinal compression. As you remove ties, the railroad track > will also want to spread (buckle). With you so far. > A wheel "wants" to taco. I remember Michael Press mentioning something about this once. Is a tacoed wheel in a lower energy state than a true wheel, or is it a slightly higher energy state, but a local minimum? If so you would need to put in a bit of energy to snap it into a taco (easily done when you hit a bump etc.) but once it starts to go, it will "want" to sink towards the local minimum of a taco shape. > If you keep increasing the spoke tension it > eventually will. It is constrained from doing so by the lateral rim > stiffness and the spoke tension. Imagine tensioning a wheel with no dish > (removing the lateral spoke support), it will taco more readily. By "with no dish" do you mean using a hypothetical hub in which both the flanges were right next to each other and in the centre of the wheel? In other words, not just no dish in the sense that a normal front wheel has no dish, but no bracing? [...] > Spokes, hubs and rims all operate in high cycle loading, meaning breaks > (fractures) come from fatigue. There is no way you can normally overload > these components to fracture. What happens in bicycle wheel failure is a > structural failure, the rim just deforms, buckle, dent, or both. Agreed. > High spoke tensions make for a strong wheel structure. The context is > engineering, not metallurgy. Fair enough. So, does a stiffer rim with rather looser spokes produce a wheel that's less prone to buckling? What if the build isn't that great and the tension is a bit uneven-- is the stiffer rim combination more tolerant of that? It seems like the bendy rim with lots of tight spokes and uneven tension could be a taco waiting to happen. I also wonder if it might be easier to achieve even tension with a lower spoke count, since the low-spoke-count wheel is less over-constrained: uneven tension means out-of-true and therefore easily corrected when the wheel is built.                             Date: 04 Oct 2007 02:09:46 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <slrnfg8596.bsv.spamspam@bowser.marioworld >, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: > On 2007-10-03, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > Ben C wrote: > [...] > >> What does "strength" mean? Technically we know it means breaking stress. > >> Can it also be used of a structure, as opposed to of a material, to mean > >> the force (or stress?) at which the structure collapses, even if > >> collapsing doesn't involve anything breaking, and might not even involve > >> anything even yielding? > >> > >> If it can, then it's correct to say in that sense that high spoke > >> tension increases strength. If it can't, then it's not correct-- high > >> spoke tension doesn't change the breaking stress of any of the > >> components in the wheel. I think that's jim beam's point. Since his > >> expertise is in materials he naturally takes "strength" to mean > >> "breaking stress". > > > > Have you ever seen a "broken" wheel? That is, a wheel broken from > > excessive load? > > No. If you keep increasing the load I strongly suspect the wheel will > buckle long before it breaks. > > [...] > > First you have to convince yourself that higher spoke tension means > > better radial support. Consider the analogy of railroad tracks. When the > > rim deflects enough to slack the spoke, the spoke is out of the picture, > > you might as well remove it. This is like removing a railroad tie. As > > the wheel deforms more, more spokes become effectively removed, and a > > longer span of rim is unsupported, just like a span of railroad track. > > The combination of track and tie is much stiffer than track alone. > > > > Now consider that the wheel is still under a great deal of > > circumferential compression. This is akin to putting the railroad track > > under longitudinal compression. As you remove ties, the railroad track > > will also want to spread (buckle). > > With you so far. > > > A wheel "wants" to taco. > > I remember Michael Press mentioning something about this once. Is a > tacoed wheel in a lower energy state than a true wheel, or is it a > slightly higher energy state, but a local minimum? Definitely a local minimum. My money is on lower energy state than the true state. Reason is that in the true state the surface described by the wheel is a flat Euclidean disc, while the potato chip shape is a disc on a surface of negative curvature. On surfaces with negative curvature a disc has less area for a given circumferenc compared to a disc on a flat surface. When the wheel assumes a potato chip shape, all the spokes get to contract, decreasing the area while the rim keeps the same circumference. The shorter spokes have much lower energy. Measurement of the tension in the spokes of a potato chipped wheel will be revealing. > If so you would need to put in a bit of energy to snap it into a taco > (easily done when you hit a bump etc.) but once it starts to go, it will > "want" to sink towards the local minimum of a taco shape. [...] -- Michael Press                               Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:19:03 From: Luns Tee Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <rubrum-DFC985.02094604102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote: >Definitely a local minimum. My money is on lower energy >state than the true state. That's my guess too, though I'm more interested in the local maxima that's between the true and buckled states. How high these maxima are relative to the energy of the true state reflects how strong the wheel is. I don't have a good way to directly estimate these maxima, but a properly done(*) linear static FEA can give us something that indirectly relates to it. Compression in an element behaves somewhat like a negative bending stiffness. The critical load for buckling is when this negative stiffness equals the member's normal stiffness. At this point, the local minima of the unbent state, and the local maxima it lies between, have converged. A properly done(*) FEA can tell us the critical spoke tension this convergence occurs at, by looking for when the wheel's lateral stiffness to loads goes to zero (tension as high as the rim will bear). I suspect the energy in the structure at this point is comparable to the energy of the local maxima after backing off on prestress. With a vertical load present, I expect this critical tension to be reduced, but suspect that the sum of energy from this vertical load plus the energy of the critical prestress to also be comparable. (*) What constitutes a properly done FEA is that it must take into account the prestress condition of the structure. All the FEAs I've seen for a bicycle wheel assume that the effects of load and prestress superpose linearly on each other, and thus assume a prestress of zero for convenience. In so doing, the whole mechanism by which elastic buckling occurs is thrown out. The mechanism by which prestress would affect the analysis is easily seen - consider doing an FEA on a static pendulum. The pendulum's restoring force is proportional to the weight of the bob. Trying to superpose the effects of a lateral displacement with no gravity load, on top of the analysis of gravity load with no lateral displacement, misses the interaction between the two effects. -Luns                               Date: 04 Oct 2007 04:57:38 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-04, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article ><slrnfg8596.bsv.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>, > Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: > >> On 2007-10-03, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: [...] >> > A wheel "wants" to taco. >> >> I remember Michael Press mentioning something about this once. Is a >> tacoed wheel in a lower energy state than a true wheel, or is it a >> slightly higher energy state, but a local minimum? > > Definitely a local minimum. My money is on lower energy > state than the true state. Reason is that in the true > state the surface described by the wheel is a flat > Euclidean disc, while the potato chip shape is a disc > on a surface of negative curvature. On surfaces with > negative curvature a disc has less area for a given > circumferenc compared to a disc on a flat surface. When > the wheel assumes a potato chip shape, all the spokes > get to contract, decreasing the area while the rim > keeps the same circumference. Do they all contract? It's difficult to visualize but perhaps some of them get a bit longer. But if the total length of all the spokes is shorter, which it should be if the area is less, then as you say, lower total energy. But then there's also energy stored in the buckled rim, which isn't so easy to estimate.                                 Date: 04 Oct 2007 11:11:37 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <slrnfg9ea0.5ko.spamspam@bowser.marioworld >, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: > On 2007-10-04, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > > In article > ><slrnfg8596.bsv.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>, > > Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: > > > >> On 2007-10-03, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > [...] > >> > A wheel "wants" to taco. > >> > >> I remember Michael Press mentioning something about this once. Is a > >> tacoed wheel in a lower energy state than a true wheel, or is it a > >> slightly higher energy state, but a local minimum? > > > > Definitely a local minimum. My money is on lower energy > > state than the true state. Reason is that in the true > > state the surface described by the wheel is a flat > > Euclidean disc, while the potato chip shape is a disc > > on a surface of negative curvature. On surfaces with > > negative curvature a disc has less area for a given > > circumferenc compared to a disc on a flat surface. When > > the wheel assumes a potato chip shape, all the spokes > > get to contract, decreasing the area while the rim > > keeps the same circumference. > > Do they all contract? It's difficult to visualize but perhaps some of > them get a bit longer. But if the total length of all the spokes is > shorter, which it should be if the area is less, then as you say, lower > total energy. But then there's also energy stored in the buckled rim, > which isn't so easy to estimate. They all contract. The bent rim energy is easy to estimate, for certain values of easy. Pick a model curve approximating the shape, such as a sine curve on a cylinder, compute the curvature, get the second bending moment for the rim, put in the correct material parameters and integrate the square of the curvature along the model curve. I guess that the spokes in a potato chipped wheel are carrying very little tension. -- Michael Press                                   Date: 05 Oct 2007 03:31:45 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Michael Press writes: >>>>> A wheel "wants" to taco. >>>> I remember Michael Press mentioning something about this once. >>>> Is a tacoed wheel in a lower energy state than a true wheel, or >>>> is it a slightly higher energy state, but a local minimum? >>> Definitely a local minimum. My money is on lower energy state >>> than the true state. Reason is that in the true state the surface >>> described by the wheel is a flat Euclidean disc, while the potato >>> chip shape is a disc on a surface of negative curvature. On >>> surfaces with negative curvature a disc has less area for a given >>> circumference compared to a disc on a flat surface. When the >>> wheel assumes a potato chip shape, all the spokes get to contract, >>> decreasing the area while the rim keeps the same circumference. >> Do they all contract? It's difficult to visualize but perhaps some >> of them get a bit longer. But if the total length of all the >> spokes is shorter, which it should be if the area is less, then as >> you say, lower total energy. But then there's also energy stored >> in the buckled rim, which isn't so easy to estimate. > They all contract. The bent rim energy is easy to estimate, for > certain values of easy. Pick a model curve approximating the shape, > such as a sine curve on a cylinder, compute the curvature, get the > second bending moment for the rim, put in the correct material > parameters and integrate the square of the curvature along the model > curve. I guess that the spokes in a potato chipped wheel are > carrying very little tension. An easy test to this is whether the spokes are looser or tighter in the warped (buckled) rim state. I think you'll find that no spokes are significantly tighter and that most are looser if not entirely slack. Does that leave any doubt? Jobst Brandt                                   Date: 04 Oct 2007 18:21:02 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals >>>> On 2007-10-03, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> [...] >>>>> A wheel "wants" to taco. >>> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >>>> I remember Michael Press mentioning something about this once. Is a >>>> tacoed wheel in a lower energy state than a true wheel, or is it a >>>> slightly higher energy state, but a local minimum? >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>> Definitely a local minimum. My money is on lower energy >>> state than the true state. Reason is that in the true >>> state the surface described by the wheel is a flat >>> Euclidean disc, while the potato chip shape is a disc >>> on a surface of negative curvature. On surfaces with >>> negative curvature a disc has less area for a given >>> circumferenc compared to a disc on a flat surface. When >>> the wheel assumes a potato chip shape, all the spokes >>> get to contract, decreasing the area while the rim >>> keeps the same circumference. > Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >> Do they all contract? It's difficult to visualize but perhaps some of >> them get a bit longer. But if the total length of all the spokes is >> shorter, which it should be if the area is less, then as you say, lower >> total energy. But then there's also energy stored in the buckled rim, >> which isn't so easy to estimate. Michael Press wrote: > They all contract. The bent rim energy is easy to > estimate, for certain values of easy. Pick a model > curve approximating the shape, such as a sine curve on > a cylinder, compute the curvature, get the second > bending moment for the rim, put in the correct material > parameters and integrate the square of the curvature > along the model curve. I guess that the spokes in a > potato chipped wheel are carrying very little tension. Maybe I did not understand the context but a wheel with rim out-of-plane and collapsed so as to be unrideable will have some fully slack spokes. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                                     Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:46:29 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <13gat8pdf1c20bc@corp.supernews.com >, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > >>>> On 2007-10-03, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> [...] > >>>>> A wheel "wants" to taco. > > >>> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: > >>>> I remember Michael Press mentioning something about this once. Is a > >>>> tacoed wheel in a lower energy state than a true wheel, or is it a > >>>> slightly higher energy state, but a local minimum? > > >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > >>> Definitely a local minimum. My money is on lower energy > >>> state than the true state. Reason is that in the true > >>> state the surface described by the wheel is a flat > >>> Euclidean disc, while the potato chip shape is a disc > >>> on a surface of negative curvature. On surfaces with > >>> negative curvature a disc has less area for a given > >>> circumferenc compared to a disc on a flat surface. When > >>> the wheel assumes a potato chip shape, all the spokes > >>> get to contract, decreasing the area while the rim > >>> keeps the same circumference. > > > Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: > >> Do they all contract? It's difficult to visualize but perhaps some of > >> them get a bit longer. But if the total length of all the spokes is > >> shorter, which it should be if the area is less, then as you say, lower > >> total energy. But then there's also energy stored in the buckled rim, > >> which isn't so easy to estimate. > > Michael Press wrote: > > They all contract. The bent rim energy is easy to > > estimate, for certain values of easy. Pick a model > > curve approximating the shape, such as a sine curve on > > a cylinder, compute the curvature, get the second > > bending moment for the rim, put in the correct material > > parameters and integrate the square of the curvature > > along the model curve. I guess that the spokes in a > > potato chipped wheel are carrying very little tension. > > Maybe I did not understand the context but a wheel with rim out-of-plane > and collapsed so as to be unrideable will have some fully slack spokes. An actual potato chipped rim likely has bent plastically and has completely slack spokes. In a real world event the potato chipped wheel has had large, uneven forces applied. I had in mind a simple model. In the model * The rim does not plastically deform * Al spokes are evenly tensioned at the start. * All spokes are exactly the same length. * The rim is perfectly circular. * The rim is homogeneous. -- Michael Press                                       Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:28:51 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Michael Press wrote: > In article <13gat8pdf1c20bc@corp.supernews.com>, > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > >>>>>> On 2007-10-03, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>>> A wheel "wants" to taco. >>>>> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >>>>>> I remember Michael Press mentioning something about this once. Is a >>>>>> tacoed wheel in a lower energy state than a true wheel, or is it a >>>>>> slightly higher energy state, but a local minimum? >> >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>> Definitely a local minimum. My money is on lower energy >>>>> state than the true state. Reason is that in the true >>>>> state the surface described by the wheel is a flat >>>>> Euclidean disc, while the potato chip shape is a disc >>>>> on a surface of negative curvature. On surfaces with >>>>> negative curvature a disc has less area for a given >>>>> circumferenc compared to a disc on a flat surface. When >>>>> the wheel assumes a potato chip shape, all the spokes >>>>> get to contract, decreasing the area while the rim >>>>> keeps the same circumference. >>> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >>>> Do they all contract? It's difficult to visualize but perhaps some of >>>> them get a bit longer. But if the total length of all the spokes is >>>> shorter, which it should be if the area is less, then as you say, lower >>>> total energy. But then there's also energy stored in the buckled rim, >>>> which isn't so easy to estimate. >> Michael Press wrote: >>> They all contract. The bent rim energy is easy to >>> estimate, for certain values of easy. Pick a model >>> curve approximating the shape, such as a sine curve on >>> a cylinder, compute the curvature, get the second >>> bending moment for the rim, put in the correct material >>> parameters and integrate the square of the curvature >>> along the model curve. I guess that the spokes in a >>> potato chipped wheel are carrying very little tension. >> Maybe I did not understand the context but a wheel with rim out-of-plane >> and collapsed so as to be unrideable will have some fully slack spokes. > > An actual potato chipped rim likely has bent plastically > and has completely slack spokes. In a real world event > the potato chipped wheel has had large, uneven forces applied. > > I had in mind a simple model. In the model > * The rim does not plastically deform > * Al spokes are evenly tensioned at the start. > * All spokes are exactly the same length. > * The rim is perfectly circular. > * The rim is homogeneous. > wow! analytical and on-target! am i still reading r.b.t?                                         Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:41:20 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:L_edndvhgsxOeZvanZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> > wow! analytical and on-target! am i still reading r.b.t? What would you know about it, beamboy? Riding on someone's back again, as if you understand it? Lying fucktard.                                           Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:28:04 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:L_edndvhgsxOeZvanZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> wow! analytical and on-target! am i still reading r.b.t? > > What would you know about it, beamboy? Riding on someone's back again, as > if you understand it? > > Lying fucktard. > > off your meds? moron.                             Date: 03 Oct 2007 20:23:35 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C wrote: > On 2007-10-03, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> Ben C wrote: > [...] >>> What does "strength" mean? Technically we know it means breaking stress. >>> Can it also be used of a structure, as opposed to of a material, to mean >>> the force (or stress?) at which the structure collapses, even if >>> collapsing doesn't involve anything breaking, and might not even involve >>> anything even yielding? >>> >>> If it can, then it's correct to say in that sense that high spoke >>> tension increases strength. If it can't, then it's not correct-- high >>> spoke tension doesn't change the breaking stress of any of the >>> components in the wheel. I think that's jim beam's point. Since his >>> expertise is in materials he naturally takes "strength" to mean >>> "breaking stress". >> Have you ever seen a "broken" wheel? That is, a wheel broken from >> excessive load? > > No. If you keep increasing the load I strongly suspect the wheel will > buckle long before it breaks. As I said, a wheel breaks two ways, it dents or tacos. A tacoed wheel is a broken wheel. > > [...] >> First you have to convince yourself that higher spoke tension means >> better radial support. Consider the analogy of railroad tracks. When the >> rim deflects enough to slack the spoke, the spoke is out of the picture, >> you might as well remove it. This is like removing a railroad tie. As >> the wheel deforms more, more spokes become effectively removed, and a >> longer span of rim is unsupported, just like a span of railroad track. >> The combination of track and tie is much stiffer than track alone. >> >> Now consider that the wheel is still under a great deal of >> circumferential compression. This is akin to putting the railroad track >> under longitudinal compression. As you remove ties, the railroad track >> will also want to spread (buckle). > > With you so far. > >> A wheel "wants" to taco. > > I remember Michael Press mentioning something about this once. Is a > tacoed wheel in a lower energy state than a true wheel, or is it a > slightly higher energy state, but a local minimum? As per Sheldon's definition in my post, the spokes lose tension, this can be seen also in the photo I linked. > If so you would need to put in a bit of energy to snap it into a taco > (easily done when you hit a bump etc.) but once it starts to go, it will > "want" to sink towards the local minimum of a taco shape. I think you mean force, not energy. I'm not sure it "snaps" into that shape. It's just a buckling beam, forced into a saddle shape by the spokes. "Local minimum" of what? I don't have a formal mathematical description of it, but when discs shrink, like cooking potato slices, they adopt a characteristic shape. Among mathematical surfaces, it's called a "saddle". >> If you keep increasing the spoke tension it >> eventually will. It is constrained from doing so by the lateral rim >> stiffness and the spoke tension. Imagine tensioning a wheel with no dish >> (removing the lateral spoke support), it will taco more readily. > > By "with no dish" do you mean using a hypothetical hub in which both the > flanges were right next to each other and in the centre of the wheel? In > other words, not just no dish in the sense that a normal front wheel has > no dish, but no bracing? Again, from Sheldon's glossary: "Dish When rear wheels are built properly, the spokes on the right side are made tighter than those on the left side. This pulls the rim to the right, so that it is centered with respect to the axle (and to the frame.) Viewed edgewise, a rear wheel built this way resembles a dish, or bowl, since the left spokes form a broad cone, while the right spokes are nearly flat." Call it a "plate" if you want. > [...] >> Spokes, hubs and rims all operate in high cycle loading, meaning breaks >> (fractures) come from fatigue. There is no way you can normally overload >> these components to fracture. What happens in bicycle wheel failure is a >> structural failure, the rim just deforms, buckle, dent, or both. > > Agreed. > >> High spoke tensions make for a strong wheel structure. The context is >> engineering, not metallurgy. > > Fair enough. > > So, does a stiffer rim with rather looser spokes produce a wheel that's > less prone to buckling? That would require numbers, an infinitely stiff rim (obviously) wouldn't buckle. There's a quick limit to how laterally stiff you can make a rim, you have to increase its width. You can see how much spoke support affects lateral rim stiffness from the measurements Damon Rinard did (posted at Sheldon's site). > What if the build isn't that great and the > tension is a bit uneven-- is the stiffer rim combination more tolerant > of that? It seems like the bendy rim with lots of tight spokes and > uneven tension could be a taco waiting to happen. Again, it would require numbers. As the rim starts to taco, tension drops on half the spokes (4 concave regions, 2 on each side), when those spokes are slack, the wheel becomes less stiff laterally (just as spoke slackness affects radial stiffness). Higher spoke tension makes for higher lateral load capacity, since you can tolerate more lateral deflection before spokes go slack. > I also wonder if it might be easier to achieve even tension with a lower > spoke count, since the low-spoke-count wheel is less over-constrained: > uneven tension means out-of-true and therefore easily corrected when the > wheel is built. I don't understand this argument. I don't understand your use of the term "over-constrained". You seem to be trying to build a case for beefy rims and few low tension spokes. Sounds beam-ish. I'd rather not play that game, thank you. I'd also rather not quibble over semantics, that's unfortunately beam-ish, too. I try to answer your questions straight up but I always come away feeling a little chumped. It's getting tiresome.                               Date: 04 Oct 2007 02:44:05 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-04, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: [...] >> If so you would need to put in a bit of energy to snap it into a taco >> (easily done when you hit a bump etc.) but once it starts to go, it will >> "want" to sink towards the local minimum of a taco shape. > > I think you mean force, not energy. I'm not sure it "snaps" into that > shape. It's just a buckling beam, forced into a saddle shape by the spokes. But why a saddle shape rather than any other shape? > "Local minimum" of what? Of energy. The wheel consists of spokes which are all stretched out a bit and a rim that is in compression. It's a bit like a jack-in-a-box. The shape it adopts can be predicted by working out what shape minimizes its energy subject to the constraints every component is under. I thought that was roughly how FEAs worked. Here we are, I've found Michael Press's explanation: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/fdac1b666bd5c5ed/59ff11c0efe8f451?hl=en&lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#59ff11c0efe8f451 or http://tinyurl.com/32szvf Yes some of the configurations between a true rim and a potato-chipped rim have longer spokes, more highly tensioned spokes, and higher energy than the starting and ending configuration. The true wheel and the potato-chipped wheel are both local energy minima. The latter has lower energy than the former because the spokes are shorter, hence have given up mechanical energy that was stored in their elastic deformation in the true wheel configuration. And a couple of posts up: A potato-chip wheel is in a lower energy state, even starting with equal tension on all spokes. A potato chip is a surface with negative Gaussian curvature. A sphere is a surface with positive Gaussian curvature. Cut a disk out of a sphere such as a basketball then try to flatten it. The outside portion is not big enough around and wants to tear as you flatten the disk. A surface of negative curvature is different. It wants to fold over at the outside as you try to flatten it. A Lettuce leave is another example of a surface with negative curvature. A potato-chipped wheel has the same circumference as when it started, but the spokes are shorter. Hence, the energy is much less. [...] >> I also wonder if it might be easier to achieve even tension with a lower >> spoke count, since the low-spoke-count wheel is less over-constrained: >> uneven tension means out-of-true and therefore easily corrected when the >> wheel is built. > > I don't understand this argument. I don't understand your use of the > term "over-constrained". I just mean "more redundancy". It's easier to build a 36 spoke wheel that is true and round but with uneven tension than a 16 spoke wheel. This is because if tension is wrong in one spoke of a 16 spoke wheel you are likely to see a wobble in the truing stand. There aren't so many other nearby spokes around to make up for it. > You seem to be trying to build a case for beefy rims and few low tension > spokes. I'm not building a case for anything, just curious what the pros and cons are. It's just possible that the the changes to wheels over the years weren't solely driven by a conspiracy between jim beam, George Bush and the Solomon Ski company. That's a very sound theory of course, but I think it's OK to consider alternatives. > Sounds beam-ish. I'd rather not play that game, thank you. I'd > also rather not quibble over semantics, that's unfortunately beam-ish, > too. I've got nothing against beam but I don't take sides.                                 Date: 04 Oct 2007 11:25:39 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C wrote: > On 2007-10-04, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > [...] >>> If so you would need to put in a bit of energy to snap it into a taco >>> (easily done when you hit a bump etc.) but once it starts to go, it will >>> "want" to sink towards the local minimum of a taco shape. >> I think you mean force, not energy. I'm not sure it "snaps" into that >> shape. It's just a buckling beam, forced into a saddle shape by the spokes. > > But why a saddle shape rather than any other shape? If you look at a wheel like a disc, the forces applied by the spokes and the rim want to simultaneously lower the area (reduce spoke tension) and increase the circumference (reduce rim compression). Since a circle already has the lowest A/C, there is no solution in-plane. To visualize the out-of-plane solution, you can reduce it to a one dimensional model of beam buckling (view disc edge-on). The difficulty with this visualization is that the beam is elastically supported, more or less continuously along its length, unlike the point supports we are used to seeing. When one end of this beam is deflected, the midspan deflects in the opposite direction. A bending moment is created, which must be balanced by an equal opposing one, hence the familiar double curve. That's why, when you put a lateral force on the bottom of the rim the top deflects in the same direction. When the rim buckles from excess compression, the same curve is formed. The beam (rim) is supported from buckling both by lateral spoke stiffness (elasticity & bracing angle) and by rim stiffness in the direction of bend. >> "Local minimum" of what? > > Of energy. The wheel consists of spokes which are all stretched out a > bit and a rim that is in compression. It's a bit like a jack-in-a-box. > The shape it adopts can be predicted by working out what shape minimizes > its energy subject to the constraints every component is under. Since this beam buckling is elastically constrained, I guess it's theoretically possible to buckle in higher modes, but given the relative rim stiffness that's not going to happen in practice. > I thought that was roughly how FEAs worked. FEA's deal with forces and displacements, like free body diagrams (sum of forces must be zero for no acceleration). >>> I also wonder if it might be easier to achieve even tension with a lower >>> spoke count, since the low-spoke-count wheel is less over-constrained: >>> uneven tension means out-of-true and therefore easily corrected when the >>> wheel is built. >> I don't understand this argument. I don't understand your use of the >> term "over-constrained". > > I just mean "more redundancy". It's easier to build a 36 spoke wheel > that is true and round but with uneven tension than a 16 spoke wheel. > This is because if tension is wrong in one spoke of a 16 spoke wheel you > are likely to see a wobble in the truing stand. There aren't so many > other nearby spokes around to make up for it. I'd think if you took an n-sided polygon as a crude approximation of an n-spoked wheel, it would be less easy to see out of roundness. On the other hand, if you're wondering whether it's easier to unintentionally make a round wheel with uneven spoke tensions (assuming a round rim to start) with a higher spoke count wheel, I don't see why. If a low spoke count wheel requires much higher spoke tensions, I think that's the greater difficulty. > >> You seem to be trying to build a case for beefy rims and few low tension >> spokes. > > I'm not building a case for anything, just curious what the pros and > cons are. > > It's just possible that the the changes to wheels over the years weren't > solely driven by a conspiracy between jim beam, George Bush and the > Solomon Ski company. That's a very sound theory of course, but I think > it's OK to consider alternatives. Your tone and sentiment don't match. If you want people to give you straight answers, you might lose the sarcasm. >> Sounds beam-ish. I'd rather not play that game, thank you. I'd >> also rather not quibble over semantics, that's unfortunately beam-ish, >> too. > > I've got nothing against beam but I don't take sides. I'm having trouble believing you when you spout stuff like the above.                               Date: 03 Oct 2007 20:59:46 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message news:AdOdnYB-W-Aar5nanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > Ben C wrote: > You seem to be trying to build a case for beefy rims and few low tension > spokes. Sounds beam-ish. I'd rather not play that game, thank you. I'd > also rather not quibble over semantics, that's unfortunately beam-ish, > too. I try to answer your questions straight up but I always come away > feeling a little chumped. It's getting tiresome. Makes me paranoidish - beamboy as Ben C... Hey, if beamboy can make up "sikorski" stories.....                         Date: 03 Oct 2007 15:08:20 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote in message news:slrnfg7ocv.bsv.spamspam@bowser.marioworld... > What does "strength" mean? Technically we know it means breaking stress. > Can it also be used of a structure, as opposed to of a material, to mean > the force (or stress?) at which the structure collapses, even if > collapsing doesn't involve anything breaking, and might not even involve > anything even yielding? Only if the structure relies on friction joins, i.e. something like lego blocks. You can break a lego structure simply by causing individual blocks to separate, as in pulling two blocks apart. There are no similar such in a bicycle wheel - to collapse the wheel structure, you need to deform a section through weakening or removal of a support member, or loading the wheel in directions and points where there is little support (as in perpendicular to the rim radius). In any case, something will deform or break. > > If it can, then it's correct to say in that sense that high spoke > tension increases strength. If it can't, then it's not correct-- high > spoke tension doesn't change the breaking stress of any of the > components in the wheel. It's not a dichotomy. > I think that's jim beam's point. His point is to be contrary despite scientific fact. > Since his > expertise is in materials he naturally takes "strength" to mean > "breaking stress". Beamboy takes strength and any other term to mean what he wants them to mean, and often not what their scientific definitions are. He has no expertise in materials, despite his bleatings about attending "materials skool". > Putting define:strength into Google retrieves this: > > very general term that may be applied to a material or a structure. > In a material, strength refers to a level of stress at which there > is a significant change in the state of the material, eg, yielding > or rupture. In a structure, strength refers to a level of level of > loading which produces a significant change in the state of the > structure, eg, inelastic deformations, buckling, or collapse. > > urban.arch.virginia.edu/~km6e/references/glossary/struc-glossary.html > > So I think you're both right and this is another misunderstanding. No, one of them is wrong, and Brandt is right.             Date: 01 Oct 2007 23:38:41 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: > ... > he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite element" > load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an elastic rim > causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is - a perfectly > rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension figures would be > completely different, leading of course to a completely different > conclusion and therefore wheel theory.... Where can I buy some of these perfectly rigid rims? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com               Date: 07 Oct 2007 05:15:31 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > >>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely > >>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel > >>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all > >>> proper conceptualization. > > >jim beam wrote: > >> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue > >> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? how > >> about 16 spokes? > > >Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel > >auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. > > Dear Andrew, > > Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters > agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like > wooden wagon wheels: > > "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a > wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground > by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a > way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension > greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in > function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still > carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load, > its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward > force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned." > > "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The > important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in > compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the > load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a > wire. ... Carl, note the "if." A real wagon wheel isn't tensioned. This is why Jobst had to engage in the thought experiment of dreaming up a tensioned wagon wheel to explain how wire spokes support the load. Everybody (I think) agrees that a wagon wheel supports the load by standing on the bottom spoke; the bottom spoke is in compression. It doesn't take an FEA to convince people. However, if you made a bicycle wheel with conventional components and untensioned spokes, it wouldn't last very long. Jobst had to make the leap to a tensioned-spoke wagon wheel analogy to explain how a bicycle wheel can work even though the thin wire spokes are not strong in compression. Ben                 Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:35:03 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:15:31 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote: >On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> >> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >> >>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >> >>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >> >>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >> >>> proper conceptualization. >> >> >jim beam wrote: >> >> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue >> >> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? how >> >> about 16 spokes? >> >> >Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel >> >auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. >> >> Dear Andrew, >> >> Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters >> agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like >> wooden wagon wheels: >> >> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a >> wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground >> by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a >> way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension >> greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in >> function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still >> carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load, >> its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward >> force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned." >> >> "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The >> important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in >> compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the >> load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a >> wire. ... > >Carl, note the "if." A real wagon wheel isn't >tensioned. This is why Jobst had to engage in the >thought experiment of dreaming up a tensioned >wagon wheel to explain how wire spokes support the >load. > >Everybody (I think) agrees that a wagon wheel >supports the load by standing on the bottom spoke; >the bottom spoke is in compression. It doesn't >take an FEA to convince people. However, if >you made a bicycle wheel with conventional >components and untensioned spokes, it wouldn't >last very long. Jobst had to make the leap to a >tensioned-spoke wagon wheel analogy to explain >how a bicycle wheel can work even though the >thin wire spokes are not strong in compression. > >Ben Dear Ben, Note the opening sentence: "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way." Cheers, Carl Fogel                   Date: 07 Oct 2007 07:02:59 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote: > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:15:31 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" > <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote: > >> On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >>>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >>>>>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >>>>>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >>>>>> proper conceptualization. >>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue >>>>> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? how >>>>> about 16 spokes? >>>> Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel >>>> auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. >>> Dear Andrew, >>> >>> Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters >>> agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like >>> wooden wagon wheels: >>> >>> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a >>> wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground >>> by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a >>> way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension >>> greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in >>> function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still >>> carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load, >>> its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward >>> force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned." >>> >>> "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The >>> important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in >>> compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the >>> load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a >>> wire. ... >> Carl, note the "if." A real wagon wheel isn't >> tensioned. This is why Jobst had to engage in the >> thought experiment of dreaming up a tensioned >> wagon wheel to explain how wire spokes support the >> load. >> >> Everybody (I think) agrees that a wagon wheel >> supports the load by standing on the bottom spoke; >> the bottom spoke is in compression. It doesn't >> take an FEA to convince people. However, if >> you made a bicycle wheel with conventional >> components and untensioned spokes, it wouldn't >> last very long. Jobst had to make the leap to a >> tensioned-spoke wagon wheel analogy to explain >> how a bicycle wheel can work even though the >> thin wire spokes are not strong in compression. >> >> Ben > > Dear Ben, > > Note the opening sentence: > > "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way." When you (general you) ignore the semantics, all spoked wheels do carry loads in the same way. Whether it is a loss of pre-tension or an increase in compression, the force vector is the same. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                     Date: 07 Oct 2007 08:36:46 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote: >> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:15:31 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" >> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>> >>>>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>>>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >>>>>>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >>>>>>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >>>>>>> proper conceptualization. >>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue >>>>>> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 >>>>>> spokes? how >>>>>> about 16 spokes? >>>>> Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel >>>>> auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. >>>> Dear Andrew, >>>> >>>> Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters >>>> agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like >>>> wooden wagon wheels: >>>> >>>> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a >>>> wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground >>>> by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a >>>> way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension >>>> greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in >>>> function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still >>>> carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load, >>>> its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward >>>> force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned." >>>> >>>> "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The >>>> important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in >>>> compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the >>>> load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a >>>> wire. ... >>> Carl, note the "if." A real wagon wheel isn't >>> tensioned. This is why Jobst had to engage in the >>> thought experiment of dreaming up a tensioned >>> wagon wheel to explain how wire spokes support the >>> load. >>> >>> Everybody (I think) agrees that a wagon wheel >>> supports the load by standing on the bottom spoke; >>> the bottom spoke is in compression. It doesn't >>> take an FEA to convince people. However, if >>> you made a bicycle wheel with conventional >>> components and untensioned spokes, it wouldn't >>> last very long. Jobst had to make the leap to a >>> tensioned-spoke wagon wheel analogy to explain >>> how a bicycle wheel can work even though the >>> thin wire spokes are not strong in compression. >>> >>> Ben >> >> Dear Ben, >> >> Note the opening sentence: >> >> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way." > > When you (general you) ignore the semantics, all spoked wheels do carry > loads in the same way. Whether it is a loss of pre-tension or an > increase in compression, the force vector is the same. > absolutely.                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:05:34 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> ... >> When you (general you) ignore the semantics, all spoked wheels do >> carry loads in the same way. Whether it is a loss of pre-tension or an >> increase in compression, the force vector is the same. >> > absolutely. Sometime a vector diagram is worth a thousand words. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                         Date: 09 Oct 2007 02:13:11 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom Sherman writes: >>> ... When you (general you) ignore the semantics, all spoked >>> wheels do carry loads in the same way. Whether it is a loss of >>> pre-tension or an increase in compression, the force vector is the >>> same. >> absolutely. > Sometime a vector diagram is worth a thousand words. The book, to which this refers, has vector diagrams with displacements. Jobst Brandt                           Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:23:25 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Tom Sherman writes: > >>>> ... When you (general you) ignore the semantics, all spoked >>>> wheels do carry loads in the same way. Whether it is a loss of >>>> pre-tension or an increase in compression, the force vector is the >>>> same. > >>> absolutely. > >> Sometime a vector diagram is worth a thousand words. > > The book, to which this refers, has vector diagrams with displacements. > it also [erroneously] concludes that loading can be used to infer strength.               Date: 01 Oct 2007 21:49:18 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: >> ... >> he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite >> element" load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an >> elastic rim causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation is >> - a perfectly rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke tension >> figures would be completely different, leading of course to a >> completely different conclusion and therefore wheel theory.... > > Where can I buy some of these perfectly rigid rims? > you're an engineer aren't you? you need to consider theory and understand concepts properly before you can progress to practice and have any hope of understanding what's actually going on.                 Date: 02 Oct 2007 15:12:27 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: >>> ... >>> he's even confused about what he's witnessing with his "finite >>> element" load calculation. all he's seeing is deformation of an >>> elastic rim causing a change in spoke tension where the deformation >>> is - a perfectly rigid rim would not deform there and so spoke >>> tension figures would be completely different, leading of course to a >>> completely different conclusion and therefore wheel theory.... >> >> Where can I buy some of these perfectly rigid rims? >> > you're an engineer aren't you? you need to consider theory and > understand concepts properly before you can progress to practice and > have any hope of understanding what's actually going on. Translation: On his home planet.           Date: 01 Oct 2007 20:21:25 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:31:54 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: [snip] >Within the context of the whole book, put in the simplest terms, the >author recommends that a tensiometer be used to measure proper spoke >tension. [snip] Dear Spike, Jobst does indeed suggest _measuring_ proper spoke tension with the tensiometer. But that's not the same as _finding_ the proper tension. (Unfortunately, Jobst wrote "establishing proper tension" when it turns out that he means "recording proper tension," which can give the wrong impression, but he goes on to explain what he means so clearly that there's no question how he thinks proper tension should be determined.) Jobst explicitly states that proper tension must _first_ be determined by either raising tension until the wheel goes out of true when spoke pairs are squeezed, or else until spoke windup becomes excessive. That is closer to Jim Beam's description of raising tension as high as the wheel can stand than anything else is ever going to be. There is no practical way to raise a wheel's tension past where it will go out of true if you squeeze spoke pairs or past where the spoke windup becomes excessive. Here's the passage again, with the clarifying sentence emphasized: "The final tension of a wheel built by feel is affected by the mood of its builder. By using a tension measuring tool a builder can establish proper tension, then repeat it. Such a tool, a tensiometer, measures the deflection of a spoke over a given span in response to a standard load. The dial is calibrated in tension or displacement. Either measure is equally useful for wheel building. It is not necessary to know the actual tension but only that the tension has reached the desired mark. The correct maximum tension for a specific wheel design ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ must still be determined first by stress relieving. For some deep ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ section rims or wheels with few spokes, the limit of tension is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ reached when spokes can no longer be tightened further without ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ excessive windup. For subsequent wheels of the same type the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ tensiometer can accurately and quickly determine whether spokes have reached the predetermined tension." --"The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd edition It is a modern mistake, an anachronism, for us to think that "The Bicycle Wheel" says to use a tensiometer to set the spoke tension to some manufacturer's recommended value. Many RBT posters do indeed use tensiometers to set tension to recommended values (no explanation of how those values were derived has appeared on RBT). But Jobst did _not_ say anything at all about manufacturer's recommended tensions. In fact, it's unlikely that there were any such recommendations back then. He wrote a book in 1981 that plainly tells how to find proper tension by setting it as high as possible. He updated it in 1993 to include deep rims and low-spoke-count rims. He can't say it any plainer--raise the tension until a fairly hefty 36-spoke rim goes out of true when spoke pairs are squeezed, or else until a deep or low-spoke-count rim's spokes show excessive windup. No tensiometer is involved in finding the proper tension, which Jobst wrote is as high as the wheel can bear without deforming either the rim or the spokes. Much of the debate about this is merely the conflict between the old and the new. In 1981, Jobst explained how we could set high tension on 36-spoke MA2 rims, which could generally stand such tension, despite a few photos of MA2's cracking at the spoke holes. It seems like a perfectly sound approach for sturdy rims in an era where tensiometers were scarce and manufacturers' recommendations probably even scarcer. (I'm curious to see what the earliest published tension recommendation was from any major manufacturer.) But nowadays rims are often lighter, have deep sections, and have low spoke counts. We often hear of rim cracking. Jim Beam's point is mostly that manufacturers recommend lower tensions for many rims than what the sensible 1981 method provides. In any case, we do Jobst no service by misunderstanding what he plainly wrote about how to build a wheel to what was a proper tension a quarter of a century ago. And we do ourselves no service by insisting that Jim Beam is wrong when he points out that Jobst's method involves the highest tension that the wheel can stand. Cheers, Carl Fogel         Date: 30 Sep 2007 21:24:56 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> ... >> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular >> contributor here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book > > /a/ book. > >> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >> > > procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as > high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental > misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and > costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a > higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the > book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by > the rim manufacturer". I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com           Date: 30 Sep 2007 20:54:19 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> ... >>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular >>> contributor here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >> >> /a/ book. >> >>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >>> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>> >> >> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as >> high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and >> costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a >> higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. >> the book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as >> determined by the rim manufacturer". > > I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? > that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst".             Date: 02 Oct 2007 14:58:40 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: >>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>> ... >>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular >>>> contributor here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>> >>> /a/ book. >>> >>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both >>>> the theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>> >>> >>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension >>> "as high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and >>> costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause >>> a higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim >>> cracking. the book should should be amended to specify spoke tension >>> "as determined by the rim manufacturer". >> >> I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? >> > that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". Who do you think you are fooling?               Date: 02 Oct 2007 20:47:27 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular >>>>> contributor here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>>> >>>> /a/ book. >>>> >>>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both >>>>> the theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>>> >>>> >>>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension >>>> "as high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical >>>> [and costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can >>>> cause a higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim >>>> cracking. the book should should be amended to specify spoke >>>> tension "as determined by the rim manufacturer". >>> >>> I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? >>> >> that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". > > Who do you think you are fooling? why are you so fucking argumentative? jb: "the sky is blue" pc: "liar!" prick.                 Date: 03 Oct 2007 16:33:46 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <FoidnX0Z2pNNjZ7anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > > jim beam wrote: > >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > >>> "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: > >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: > >>>>> ... > >>>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular > >>>>> contributor here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book > >>>> > >>>> /a/ book. > >>>> > >>>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both > >>>>> the theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension > >>>> "as high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental > >>>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical > >>>> [and costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can > >>>> cause a higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim > >>>> cracking. the book should should be amended to specify spoke > >>>> tension "as determined by the rim manufacturer". > >>> > >>> I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? > >>> > >> that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". > > > > Who do you think you are fooling? > > why are you so fucking argumentative? > > jb: "the sky is blue" > pc: "liar!" At midnight? The sky is definitely not blue. When raining, the sky is not blue. When overcast, the sky is not blue. "The sky is blue". What is the sky? Is it an object to be taken into a laboratory? Is it an object at all? What do we mean when we say "is"? When I step out into the open air and look upward, sometimes I observe a blue field. -- Michael Press                   Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:40:06 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Michael Press wrote: > In article > <FoidnX0Z2pNNjZ7anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>>>> "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: >>>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular >>>>>>> contributor here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>>>>> /a/ book. >>>>>> >>>>>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both >>>>>>> the theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>>>>> >>>>>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension >>>>>> "as high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>>>>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical >>>>>> [and costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can >>>>>> cause a higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim >>>>>> cracking. the book should should be amended to specify spoke >>>>>> tension "as determined by the rim manufacturer". >>>>> I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? >>>>> >>>> that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". >>> Who do you think you are fooling? >> why are you so fucking argumentative? >> >> jb: "the sky is blue" >> pc: "liar!" > > At midnight? The sky is definitely not blue. > When raining, the sky is not blue. > When overcast, the sky is not blue. > > "The sky is blue". What is the sky? > Is it an object to be taken into a laboratory? > Is it an object at all? > What do we mean when we say "is"? > > When I step out into the open air and look upward, > sometimes I observe a blue field. > and that is the point - rather than define conditions, peter cole simply argues to the contrary, rhyme, reason or none! and if conditions don't allow a contrary argument, why, he'll simply step back to a previous point, then misconstrue!                     Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:44:52 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:euednT6T9bbqepvanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Michael Press wrote: >>> jb: "the sky is blue" >>> pc: "liar!" >> >> At midnight? The sky is definitely not blue. >> When raining, the sky is not blue. >> When overcast, the sky is not blue. >> >> "The sky is blue". What is the sky? >> Is it an object to be taken into a laboratory? >> Is it an object at all? What do we mean when we say "is"? >> >> When I step out into the open air and look upward, >> sometimes I observe a blue field. >> > and that is the point - rather than define conditions, peter cole simply > argues to the contrary, rhyme, reason or none! HAHAHA! Typical beamboy bullshit - fyi, your statement has been refuted, so don't even try to pretend that you meant something else! THE POINT IS THAT THE SKY IS NOT ALWAYS BLUE, BUT YOU SAID IT IS! Cornered like a rat again, lying tard. >and if conditions don't allow a contrary argument, why, he'll simply step >back to a previous point, then misconstrue! And if conditions don't apply as in beamboy world, beamboy obfuscates and abuses in attempts to cover up! Ignorant lying fraud.                       Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:17:14 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:euednT6T9bbqepvanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> Michael Press wrote: >>>> jb: "the sky is blue" >>>> pc: "liar!" >>> At midnight? The sky is definitely not blue. >>> When raining, the sky is not blue. >>> When overcast, the sky is not blue. >>> >>> "The sky is blue". What is the sky? >>> Is it an object to be taken into a laboratory? >>> Is it an object at all? What do we mean when we say "is"? >>> >>> When I step out into the open air and look upward, >>> sometimes I observe a blue field. >>> >> and that is the point - rather than define conditions, peter cole simply >> argues to the contrary, rhyme, reason or none! > > HAHAHA! Typical beamboy bullshit - fyi, your statement has been refuted, so > don't even try to pretend that you meant something else! THE POINT IS THAT > THE SKY IS NOT ALWAYS BLUE, BUT YOU SAID IT IS! Cornered like a rat again, > lying tard. er, moron, i did not say "always". i made a deliberately open statement for the definition of conditions. you, obviously, are too moronic to figure that out. > >> and if conditions don't allow a contrary argument, why, he'll simply step >> back to a previous point, then misconstrue! > > And if conditions don't apply as in beamboy world, beamboy obfuscates and > abuses in attempts to cover up! > > Ignorant lying fraud. > > how old are you? moron.                         Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:54:40 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:W-ednWbUq6JGF5ranZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Jambo wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:euednT6T9bbqepvanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>> Michael Press wrote: >>>>> jb: "the sky is blue" >>>>> pc: "liar!" >>>> At midnight? The sky is definitely not blue. >>>> When raining, the sky is not blue. >>>> When overcast, the sky is not blue. >>>> >>>> "The sky is blue". What is the sky? >>>> Is it an object to be taken into a laboratory? >>>> Is it an object at all? What do we mean when we say "is"? >>>> >>>> When I step out into the open air and look upward, >>>> sometimes I observe a blue field. >>>> >>> and that is the point - rather than define conditions, peter cole simply >>> argues to the contrary, rhyme, reason or none! >> >> HAHAHA! Typical beamboy bullshit - fyi, your statement has been refuted, >> so don't even try to pretend that you meant something else! THE POINT IS >> THAT THE SKY IS NOT ALWAYS BLUE, BUT YOU SAID IT IS! Cornered like a rat >> again, lying tard. > > er, moron, i did not say "always". i made a deliberately open statement > for the definition of conditions. you, obviously, are too moronic to > figure that out. Great. Here it is: :: jb: "the sky is blue" :: pc: "liar!" Translation: beamboy defines the sky as blue, and can't be anything else. Lying fucktard. >> >>> and if conditions don't allow a contrary argument, why, he'll simply >>> step back to a previous point, then misconstrue! >> >> And if conditions don't apply as in beamboy world, beamboy obfuscates and >> abuses in attempts to cover up! >> >> Ignorant lying fraud. > > how old are you? moron. Ignorant lying fucktard, caught in another foot-in-mouth episode.                           Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:15:16 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:W-ednWbUq6JGF5ranZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> Jambo wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:euednT6T9bbqepvanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>>> Michael Press wrote: >>>>>> jb: "the sky is blue" >>>>>> pc: "liar!" >>>>> At midnight? The sky is definitely not blue. >>>>> When raining, the sky is not blue. >>>>> When overcast, the sky is not blue. >>>>> >>>>> "The sky is blue". What is the sky? >>>>> Is it an object to be taken into a laboratory? >>>>> Is it an object at all? What do we mean when we say "is"? >>>>> >>>>> When I step out into the open air and look upward, >>>>> sometimes I observe a blue field. >>>>> >>>> and that is the point - rather than define conditions, peter cole simply >>>> argues to the contrary, rhyme, reason or none! >>> HAHAHA! Typical beamboy bullshit - fyi, your statement has been refuted, >>> so don't even try to pretend that you meant something else! THE POINT IS >>> THAT THE SKY IS NOT ALWAYS BLUE, BUT YOU SAID IT IS! Cornered like a rat >>> again, lying tard. >> er, moron, i did not say "always". i made a deliberately open statement >> for the definition of conditions. you, obviously, are too moronic to >> figure that out. > > Great. Here it is: > > :: jb: "the sky is blue" > :: pc: "liar!" > > Translation: beamboy defines the sky as blue, and can't be anything else. > > Lying fucktard. > >>>> and if conditions don't allow a contrary argument, why, he'll simply >>>> step back to a previous point, then misconstrue! >>> And if conditions don't apply as in beamboy world, beamboy obfuscates and >>> abuses in attempts to cover up! >>> >>> Ignorant lying fraud. >> how old are you? moron. > > Ignorant lying fucktard, caught in another foot-in-mouth episode. > > how old are you? moron.                   Date: 03 Oct 2007 20:09:11 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote: > ... > What do we mean when we say "is"? "No, not 'is'. You wouldn't get vary far in life not saying 'is'." - Head Knight -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                     Date: 04 Oct 2007 02:11:03 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-04, Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote: > Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote: >> ... >> What do we mean when we say "is"? > > "No, not 'is'. You wouldn't get vary far in life not saying 'is'." - There is no word for 'is' in Russian, and they seem to do OK.                       Date: 04 Oct 2007 19:24:37 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C wrote: > On 2007-10-04, Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote: >> Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote: >>> ... >>> What do we mean when we say "is"? >> "No, not 'is'. You wouldn't get vary far in life not saying 'is'." - > > There is no word for 'is' in Russian, and they seem to do OK. When a Russian can cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring, I will be impressed. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 03 Oct 2007 11:01:25 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:FoidnX0Z2pNNjZ7anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". >> >> Who do you think you are fooling? > > why are you so fucking argumentative? Not argumentative, observant. > jb: "the sky is blue" > pc: "liar!" jb: "CF talks to people" "materials lecture more than 30 years ago on composite helo rotors" "CF fatigue properties same as CF damage tolerance" "yadda, yadda, yadda" r.b.t: "bullshit, lying fraud tard" > prick. Indeed.                 Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:01:39 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>>> "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote: >>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular >>>>>> contributor here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>>>> >>>>> /a/ book. >>>>> >>>>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both >>>>>> the theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension >>>>> "as high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>>>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical >>>>> [and costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can >>>>> cause a higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim >>>>> cracking. the book should should be amended to specify spoke >>>>> tension "as determined by the rim manufacturer". >>>> >>>> I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? >>>> >>> that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". >> >> Who do you think you are fooling? > > why are you so fucking argumentative? > > jb: "the sky is blue" > pc: "liar!" > > prick. Tourette's kicking up again?             Date: 01 Oct 2007 10:45:19 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:9-Wdna115r728p3anZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? >> > that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". That's "anti-Jobst", not "corrective".               Date: 01 Oct 2007 20:59:09 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:9-Wdna115r728p3anZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? >>> >> that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". > > That's "anti-Jobst", not "corrective". > but being a moron doesn't mean one has to be anti-intelligent. except in your case of course.                 Date: 02 Oct 2007 22:25:15 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:QNydnSibmveQX5zanZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Jambo wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:9-Wdna115r728p3anZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>>> I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? >>>> >>> that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". >> >> That's "anti-Jobst", not "corrective". > but being a moron doesn't mean one has to be anti-intelligent. except in > your case of course. Uh, eh? Talking in tongues again, beamboy?                   Date: 02 Oct 2007 20:45:20 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:QNydnSibmveQX5zanZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> Jambo wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:9-Wdna115r728p3anZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>>>> I wonder if "jim" has a macro for anti-Jobst replies? >>>>> >>>> that's "corrective", not "anti-jobst". >>> That's "anti-Jobst", not "corrective". >> but being a moron doesn't mean one has to be anti-intelligent. except in >> your case of course. > > Uh, eh? Talking in tongues again, beamboy? > > moron.         Date: 29 Sep 2007 11:19:14 From: Frank Drackman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >> BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> sutherland's >>> >>> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >>> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >>> >>> >>> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >>>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >>>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >>>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >>>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >>>> does for auto repair. >>>> >>>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to >>>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this >>>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and >>>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol >> >> At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance (and >> the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. I'd just >> get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the material >> overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out unless >> you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork maintenance >> on your MTB. >> >> Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every >> mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having your >> own bike manual. >> >> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor >> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book > > /a/ book. > >> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >> > > procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as > high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental > misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and > costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a > higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the > book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by > the rim manufacturer". I guess that we all saw that coming...sad           Date: 30 Sep 2007 04:44:33 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1LadnYtQHvW8CmPbnZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@comcast.com >, "Frank Drackman" <frankdrack@yahoo.com > wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > >> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor > >> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book > > > > /a/ book. > > > >> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the > >> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. > >> > > > > procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry... > > I guess that we all saw that coming...sad Actually, thanks to killfiles, I didn't see it at all. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos           Date: 29 Sep 2007 19:46:48 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Frank Drackman wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >>> BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> sutherland's >>>> >>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >>>> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >>>>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >>>>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >>>>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >>>>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >>>>> does for auto repair. >>>>> >>>>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to >>>>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this >>>>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and >>>>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol >>> At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance (and >>> the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. I'd just >>> get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the material >>> overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out unless >>> you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork maintenance >>> on your MTB. >>> >>> Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every >>> mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having your >>> own bike manual. >>> >>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor >>> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >> /a/ book. >> >>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >>> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>> >> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as >> high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and >> costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a >> higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the >> book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by >> the rim manufacturer". > > I guess that we all saw that coming...sad > > what's sad? having to correct gross error? or being gullible so that having smoke blown up your skirt seems like it's a good thing?             Date: 30 Sep 2007 10:12:17 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:46:48 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: >Frank Drackman wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>> In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >>>> BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> sutherland's >>>>> >>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >>>>> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >>>>>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >>>>>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >>>>>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >>>>>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >>>>>> does for auto repair. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to >>>>>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this >>>>>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and >>>>>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol >>>> At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance (and >>>> the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. I'd just >>>> get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the material >>>> overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out unless >>>> you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork maintenance >>>> on your MTB. >>>> >>>> Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every >>>> mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having your >>>> own bike manual. >>>> >>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor >>>> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>> /a/ book. >>> >>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >>>> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>> >>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as >>> high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and >>> costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a >>> higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the >>> book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by >>> the rim manufacturer". >> >> I guess that we all saw that coming...sad >> >> >what's sad? having to correct gross error? or being gullible so that >having smoke blown up your skirt seems like it's a good thing? This is NOT torquing a bolt until it starts to strip and then backing off a little. Stop pretending it is. The phrase "as high as the rim can bear" does NOT equal "higher than the rim can bear." Using the specified tension from the manufacturer is a convenient, well documented determination of how high a tension the rim can bear. Not a bad thing. Not necessarily in conflict with the other. If you want to keep beating this horse please continue in private, there's nothing but bones and maggots left and it smells bad. Stop.               Date: 30 Sep 2007 08:01:27 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote: > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:46:48 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Frank Drackman wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>> In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> sutherland's >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >>>>>> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >>>>>>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >>>>>>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >>>>>>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >>>>>>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >>>>>>> does for auto repair. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to >>>>>>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this >>>>>>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and >>>>>>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol >>>>> At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance (and >>>>> the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. I'd just >>>>> get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the material >>>>> overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out unless >>>>> you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork maintenance >>>>> on your MTB. >>>>> >>>>> Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every >>>>> mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having your >>>>> own bike manual. >>>>> >>>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor >>>>> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>>> /a/ book. >>>> >>>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >>>>> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>>> >>>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as >>>> high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and >>>> costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a >>>> higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the >>>> book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by >>>> the rim manufacturer". >>> I guess that we all saw that coming...sad >>> >>> >> what's sad? having to correct gross error? or being gullible so that >> having smoke blown up your skirt seems like it's a good thing? > > This is NOT torquing a bolt until it starts to strip and then backing off a > little. Stop pretending it is. The phrase "as high as the rim can bear" does NOT > equal "higher than the rim can bear." you don't understand the problem. because the rim doesn't pretzel doesn't mean it's not at its strength limit. pretzel means yield. but fatigue loading for aluminum is typically 1/3 yield. if spoke tension is close to the limit of gross yield, it surely shouldn't be too hard to understand that point loading is also beyond that necessary to ensure a decent fatigue life - particularly in highly anisotropic materials like rim extrusions where strength is much lower perpendicular to the extrusion axis. > Using the specified tension from the > manufacturer is a convenient, well documented determination of how high a > tension the rim can bear. Not a bad thing. Not necessarily in conflict with the > other. > > If you want to keep beating this horse please continue in private, there's > nothing but bones and maggots left and it smells bad. Stop. ignorance is no excuse. i want the facts corrected so that people stop wasting their money by prematurely destroying their rims with excess spoke tension. what do /you/ want? other than to not be confronted with uncomfortable reality that's you've been misled of course.                 Date: 02 Oct 2007 15:09:27 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote: > >> This is NOT torquing a bolt until it starts to strip and then backing >> off a >> little. Stop pretending it is. The phrase "as high as the rim can >> bear" does NOT >> equal "higher than the rim can bear." > > you don't understand the problem. because the rim doesn't pretzel > doesn't mean it's not at its strength limit. Which "strength limit"? > pretzel means yield. No, it doesn't. It means to buckle. > but > fatigue loading for aluminum is typically 1/3 yield. if spoke tension > is close to the limit of gross yield, it surely shouldn't be too hard to > understand that point loading is also beyond that necessary to ensure a > decent fatigue life - particularly in highly anisotropic materials like > rim extrusions where strength is much lower perpendicular to the > extrusion axis. Hoo boy! Just how do you relate spoke tension to fatigue *at the spoke bed* without knowing the thickness of the bed? What a howler! Anisotropic, my eye. > >> Using the specified tension from the >> manufacturer is a convenient, well documented determination of how >> high a >> tension the rim can bear. Not a bad thing. Not necessarily in conflict >> with the >> other. >> >> If you want to keep beating this horse please continue in private, >> there's >> nothing but bones and maggots left and it smells bad. Stop. > > ignorance is no excuse. i want the facts corrected so that people stop > wasting their money by prematurely destroying their rims with excess > spoke tension. what do /you/ want? other than to not be confronted > with uncomfortable reality that's you've been misled of course. Tell Mavic (as an interested and passionate consumer advocate) that they shouldn't be so coy about publishing the (weak) specs on their rims. They like stickers, tell them to add one. Problem solved.                   Date: 02 Oct 2007 20:54:00 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote: >> >>> This is NOT torquing a bolt until it starts to strip and then backing >>> off a >>> little. Stop pretending it is. The phrase "as high as the rim can >>> bear" does NOT >>> equal "higher than the rim can bear." >> >> you don't understand the problem. because the rim doesn't pretzel >> doesn't mean it's not at its strength limit. > > Which "strength limit"? er, yield? you know, onset of plasticity? > >> pretzel means yield. > > No, it doesn't. It means to buckle. which is permanent. which is yield. [which is plasticity.] > >> but fatigue loading for aluminum is typically 1/3 yield. if spoke >> tension is close to the limit of gross yield, it surely shouldn't be >> too hard to understand that point loading is also beyond that >> necessary to ensure a decent fatigue life - particularly in highly >> anisotropic materials like rim extrusions where strength is much lower >> perpendicular to the extrusion axis. > > Hoo boy! Just how do you relate spoke tension to fatigue *at the spoke > bed* without knowing the thickness of the bed? What a howler! er, when the rim cracks, it's the spoke bed cracking. boy. > > Anisotropic, my eye. ok, this is bullshit. rim extrusions /are/ anisotropic. your ignorance or lack of willingness to understand what effect this has on fatigue fundamentally disqualifies you from making /any/ credible comment on this subject. > >> >>> Using the specified tension from the >>> manufacturer is a convenient, well documented determination of how >>> high a >>> tension the rim can bear. Not a bad thing. Not necessarily in >>> conflict with the >>> other. >>> >>> If you want to keep beating this horse please continue in private, >>> there's >>> nothing but bones and maggots left and it smells bad. Stop. >> >> ignorance is no excuse. i want the facts corrected so that people >> stop wasting their money by prematurely destroying their rims with >> excess spoke tension. what do /you/ want? other than to not be >> confronted with uncomfortable reality that's you've been misled of >> course. > > Tell Mavic (as an interested and passionate consumer advocate) that they > shouldn't be so coy about publishing the (weak) specs on their rims. > They like stickers, tell them to add one. Problem solved. i agree, they /should/ sticker their rims with this info. but that doesn't mean /you/ can suddenly be ignorant of the theory and then presume to lecture people on these subjects you [proudly] know nothing about. "Anisotropic, my eye." what a prick!                     Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:09:29 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> pretzel means yield. >> >> No, it doesn't. It means to buckle. > > which is permanent. which is yield. [which is plasticity.] Not necessarily, it depends on the degree of buckle. >>> but fatigue loading for aluminum is typically 1/3 yield. if spoke >>> tension is close to the limit of gross yield, it surely shouldn't be >>> too hard to understand that point loading is also beyond that >>> necessary to ensure a decent fatigue life - particularly in highly >>> anisotropic materials like rim extrusions where strength is much >>> lower perpendicular to the extrusion axis. >> >> Hoo boy! Just how do you relate spoke tension to fatigue *at the spoke >> bed* without knowing the thickness of the bed? What a howler! > > er, when the rim cracks, it's the spoke bed cracking. boy. Did you miss the question? >> Anisotropic, my eye. > > ok, this is bullshit. rim extrusions /are/ anisotropic. your ignorance > or lack of willingness to understand what effect this has on fatigue > fundamentally disqualifies you from making /any/ credible comment on > this subject. Sure. I suppose there's no finite bed thickness that will sustain a given spoke tension. Sure. "Anisotropy", what a load. >> Tell Mavic (as an interested and passionate consumer advocate) that >> they shouldn't be so coy about publishing the (weak) specs on their >> rims. They like stickers, tell them to add one. Problem solved. > > i agree, they /should/ sticker their rims with this info. but that > doesn't mean /you/ can suddenly be ignorant of the theory and then > presume to lecture people on these subjects you [proudly] know nothing > about. "Anisotropic, my eye." what a prick! There goes that pesky Tourette's again. You really should see someone about that. Why don't you just admit Mavic made their spoke beds too thin? It's obvious to everyone else.                       Date: 03 Oct 2007 11:23:52 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message news:MoGdnWcjr7HnG57anZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com... > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: > >>>> pretzel means yield. >>> >>> No, it doesn't. It means to buckle. >> >> which is permanent. which is yield. [which is plasticity.] > > Not necessarily, it depends on the degree of buckle. And when the rim returns to its pre-buckle shape after loosening spoke tension, that's called elastic deformation. Boy, that "metarialas skool" didn't teach beamboy much... >>> Hoo boy! Just how do you relate spoke tension to fatigue *at the spoke >>> bed* without knowing the thickness of the bed? What a howler! >> >> er, when the rim cracks, it's the spoke bed cracking. boy. Er, not a rule, beamboy, and not always true. >> ok, this is bullshit. Glad you say that, but go on anyway: >> rim extrusions /are/ anisotropic. your ignorance or lack of willingness >> to understand what effect this has on fatigue fundamentally disqualifies >> you from making /any/ credible comment on this subject. Wow, that IS bullshit. Rims are extruded because that is the most economical way of producing long parts with constant cross-section. The product's final characteristics are dependent upon a complex interaction of the alloy system and thermal and mechanical processing steps (billet temperature, extrusion speed, product cross-section, extrusion and final heat treatment, stretch straightening, etc.). Extrusions do not necessarily end up imparting anisotropic properties to the material, unless the material itself has anisotropic properties to begin with. So, "your ignorance or lack of willingness to understand what effect this has on fatigue fundamentally disqualifies you from making /any/ credible comment on this subject." >>> Tell Mavic (as an interested and passionate consumer advocate) that they >>> shouldn't be so coy about publishing the (weak) specs on their rims. >>> They like stickers, tell them to add one. Problem solved. >> >> i agree, they /should/ sticker their rims with this info. but that >> doesn't mean /you/ can suddenly be ignorant of the theory and then >> presume to lecture people on these subjects you [proudly] know nothing >> about. "Anisotropic, my eye." what a prick! Anisotropic, my eye.                   Date: 03 Oct 2007 03:43:54 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole writes: >>> This is NOT torquing a bolt until it starts to strip and then >>> backing off a little. Stop pretending it is. The phrase "as high >>> as the rim can bear" does NOT equal "higher than the rim can >>> bear." >> you don't understand the problem. because the rim doesn't pretzel >> doesn't mean it's not at its strength limit. > Which "strength limit"? >> pretzel means yield. > No, it doesn't. It means to buckle. I might point out that pole vault poles buckle visibly and there is no yield. Maybe buckling is a more complex subject than I thought. However, making rims that split down their center in short order at spoke tensions far below buckling is a wast of effort and material, producing a weaker wheel than the rims could offer had it been made with sockets and eyelets to load the inner wall as well. That load on the inner wall is the important one because it is spread over an area several times that of the eyelet in the rim bed. In other words the MA-2 is a far more durable and stronger rim than the MA-3 and its ilk. Of course those who have tried them probably know that already. Jobst Brandt                     Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:27:16 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Peter Cole writes: > >>>> This is NOT torquing a bolt until it starts to strip and then >>>> backing off a little. Stop pretending it is. The phrase "as high >>>> as the rim can bear" does NOT equal "higher than the rim can >>>> bear." > >>> you don't understand the problem. because the rim doesn't pretzel >>> doesn't mean it's not at its strength limit. > >> Which "strength limit"? > >>> pretzel means yield. > >> No, it doesn't. It means to buckle. > > I might point out that pole vault poles buckle visibly and there is no > yield. Maybe buckling is a more complex subject than I thought. and the material is??? > > However, making rims that split down their center in short order at > spoke tensions far below buckling is a wast of effort and material, er, except that if the manufacturer has bothered to do their homework and has determined the spoke tension - they didn't just pull some crazy notion out of thin air, which makes no account of the materials involved, and which ignores how rims have compressive yield limits. > producing a weaker wheel than the rims could offer had it been made > with sockets and eyelets to load the inner wall as well. That load on > the inner wall is the important one because it is spread over an area > several times that of the eyelet in the rim bed. loading the inner wall is pretty much pointless if that wall is as thin as this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/ indeed, why not go the while way and have an even /thinner/ inner wall and use a single eyelet to save weight. oh, wait... > In other words the > MA-2 is a far more durable and stronger rim than the MA-3 and its ilk. > > Of course those who have tried them probably know that already. and those that don't know a damned thing about materials or their applications still presume to lecture on them!                       Date: 03 Oct 2007 10:08:59 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> Peter Cole writes: >> >>>>> This is NOT torquing a bolt until it starts to strip and then >>>>> backing off a little. Stop pretending it is. The phrase "as high >>>>> as the rim can bear" does NOT equal "higher than the rim can >>>>> bear." >> >>>> you don't understand the problem. because the rim doesn't pretzel >>>> doesn't mean it's not at its strength limit. >> >>> Which "strength limit"? >> >>>> pretzel means yield. >> >>> No, it doesn't. It means to buckle. >> >> I might point out that pole vault poles buckle visibly and there is no >> yield. Maybe buckling is a more complex subject than I thought. > > and the material is??? You could look it up. Vault poles are typically fiberglass, but they have been made in aluminum. >> However, making rims that split down their center in short order at >> spoke tensions far below buckling is a wast of effort and material, > > er, except that if the manufacturer has bothered to do their homework > and has determined the spoke tension - they didn't just pull some crazy > notion out of thin air, which makes no account of the materials > involved, and which ignores how rims have compressive yield limits. "compressive yield limits" -- you keep using that fuzzy phrase, why not just say buckle like the rest of us? If the spoke tension limit isn't set by rim buckle or bed strength, then what is it? (for the second or third time). >> producing a weaker wheel than the rims could offer had it been made >> with sockets and eyelets to load the inner wall as well. That load on >> the inner wall is the important one because it is spread over an area >> several times that of the eyelet in the rim bed. > > loading the inner wall is pretty much pointless if that wall is as thin > as this: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/ > > indeed, why not go the while way and have an even /thinner/ inner wall > and use a single eyelet to save weight. oh, wait... > >> In other words the >> MA-2 is a far more durable and stronger rim than the MA-3 and its ilk. >> >> Of course those who have tried them probably know that already. > > and those that don't know a damned thing about materials or their > applications still presume to lecture on them! Why don't you answer the man's question? Why not *any* question? We'll wait. Take your time. Take a break from the Jobst-bashing and prick-calling. You can still go back to it, we won't run away.           Date: 29 Sep 2007 16:38:15 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Frank Drackman wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >>> BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> sutherland's >>>> >>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >>>> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >>>>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >>>>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >>>>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >>>>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >>>>> does for auto repair. >>>>> >>>>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to >>>>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this >>>>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and >>>>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol >>> At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance (and >>> the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. I'd just >>> get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the material >>> overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out unless >>> you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork maintenance >>> on your MTB. >>> >>> Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every >>> mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having your >>> own bike manual. >>> >>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor >>> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >> /a/ book. >> >>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >>> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>> >> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as >> high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and >> costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a >> higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the >> book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by >> the rim manufacturer". > > I guess that we all saw that coming...sad > > And completely wrong, it's not what the book says at all.             Date: 06 Oct 2007 19:56:29 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote: > > That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and > durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack > at spoke eyelets. If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH, using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids this problem in most cases. <boilerplate blather snipped > > That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in > itself. With all due respect, that's horse pucky. Shall we inflate tires until they blow off the rim and just go 5 psi lower the next time? Or should we at least look at the makers recommendations for max inflation? > Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because > the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned. And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the makers recommendations. <remainder snipped >               Date: 07 Oct 2007 20:42:12 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191725789.830293.8540@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote: > > > > > > That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and > > durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack > > at spoke eyelets. > > > If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH, > using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids > this problem in most cases. Building a rim with sockets that can carry a spoke load in excess of the buckling load of the rim avoids the problem without a builder wasting time going to a manufacturer's web site and wasting time searching for the information. Choice: * Search for the data and use a tensiometer to keep spoke tension under the manufacturer's specification. * Build the wheel with spoke tension just under the tension that will buckle the rim. I want the second choice. -- Michael Press               Date: 06 Oct 2007 22:06:36 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" - Bicycle wrote: > On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote: > > >> That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and >> durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack >> at spoke eyelets. > > > If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH, > using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids > this problem in most cases. > > <boilerplate blather snipped> > > >> That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in >> itself. > > With all due respect, that's horse pucky. Shall we inflate tires until > they blow off the rim and just go 5 psi lower the next time? Or should > we at least look at the makers recommendations for max inflation? > > >> Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because >> the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned. > > And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and > they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the > symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true > to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the > makers recommendations. > > <remainder snipped> What part of making the rim stronger in resistance to buckling than needed (for the maximum spoke tension the spoke bed can sustain) being a waste of materials (and therefore making an unnecessarily heavy rim for the strength of the wheel) do you not understand? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 12 Oct 2007 03:01:32 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 11, 12:00 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> article on aluminum, alloys heat treatmentshttp://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html > > > Golly, don't let jim beam see that! > > > It contains this paragraph: > > > "The ingots can be remelted to make cast aluminum products, using > > various methods of casting including (in the bike industry), die > > casting where molten aluminum is injected under high pressure into the > > cavity of a metal die. Aluminum alloys have a reasonably low melting > > point which makes a dense, fine-grain surface structure with excellent > > wear and fatigue properties when die cast. Also permanent mold casting > > may be used, which uses a metal mold repeatedly for producing many > > castings of the same form. These casting techniques are the way many > > crank arms, pedal bodies, hub shells, seatpost head pieces, stems, and > > some headset parts are commercially made in volume." > > > When I said similar things, he switched to full, furious insult > > mode. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > so that's why you made your mistake? does this paragraph contain the > word "thixoforming" or "melt casting"? no? so how could it be that > manufacturers actually use those process and not simple "die casting" > then? [rhetorical] > > bottom line, that article is hugely simplified. just because > thixoforming and extrusion are not named doesn't mean they don't exist > or are not used. That wasn't what you were claiming at the time, jim. Your argument was that bike parts are not cast. When I produced enough citations proving that many are cast, you switched to posting one word insults. But we're talking about rims and extrusions now. - Frank Krygowski                   Date: 11 Oct 2007 20:35:55 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 11, 12:00 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Oct 10, 3:33 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> article on aluminum, alloys heat treatmentshttp://www.bikepro.com/products/metals/alum.html >>> Golly, don't let jim beam see that! >>> It contains this paragraph: >>> "The ingots can be remelted to make cast aluminum products, using >>> various methods of casting including (in the bike industry), die >>> casting where molten aluminum is injected under high pressure into the >>> cavity of a metal die. Aluminum alloys have a reasonably low melting >>> point which makes a dense, fine-grain surface structure with excellent >>> wear and fatigue properties when die cast. Also permanent mold casting >>> may be used, which uses a metal mold repeatedly for producing many >>> castings of the same form. These casting techniques are the way many >>> crank arms, pedal bodies, hub shells, seatpost head pieces, stems, and >>> some headset parts are commercially made in volume." >>> When I said similar things, he switched to full, furious insult >>> mode. >>> - Frank Krygowski >> so that's why you made your mistake? does this paragraph contain the >> word "thixoforming" or "melt casting"? no? so how could it be that >> manufacturers actually use those process and not simple "die casting" >> then? [rhetorical] >> >> bottom line, that article is hugely simplified. just because >> thixoforming and extrusion are not named doesn't mean they don't exist >> or are not used. > > That wasn't what you were claiming at the time, jim. Your argument > was that bike parts are not cast. and they're still not cast!!! they're thixoformed. just because you find something over-simplified to triviality, doesn't give you, the "engineering professor", a reason to continue propagating the information omission. especially not in view of a substantial intervening period in which you should have read a few books and resolved your lack of information. > When I produced enough citations > proving that many are cast, you switched to posting one word insults. but they weren't cast, they were thixoformed! > > But we're talking about rims and extrusions now. > based on the above, will you propose isotropic extrusions like peter cole?             Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > > jim beam wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > > who's bullshitting. > > deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > > > >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > fundamentally incorrect. > > > > >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > > radial and lateral loads? > > oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > > > >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > squirm you want to add? > > > > >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> wow! that's rich! > > > Maybe, but obviously true. > > you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > > > >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> convincing too! > > > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ " Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same angle. -- Spike               Date: 17 Oct 2007 04:55:10 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 16, 10:57 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.- > wrote: > <spikenett...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:1191852548.561741.61310@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Oct 7, 4:12 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> ...Big Snip... > > >> Bullshit. > > >> You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as > >> claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been > >> clearer: > > >> "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park > >> Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." > > >> You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be > >> ashamed. > > >> Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses. > > >> Carl Fogel > > > Fogel, > > > Are you being completely accurate here? > > > I believe you have mischaracterized the situation, representing it as > > if beam was a first time poster whose veracity I maligned. > > > In actual fact beam has flat out admitted in earlier threads that he > > "bullshits". I noted this well at the time. And as any unbiased reader > > of RBT should have noticed, he has been shown by many to be a > > practiced, relentless, and unrepentant prevaricator. As such he has > > displayed an unmatched talent for disrupting and subverting > > discussions, driving off potentially valuable contributors in the > > process. Look no further than this thread, now more than 300 posts > > long, that he waylaid with his antics back at about post number four > > and led into divisiveness. > > > In light of the above and in response to his abusive challenge of > > "deny this, prick" to a veteran and valuable contributer of this > > group, I asked him to deny that he hadn't "jimmied" the tensiometer in > > the picture he proffered. I called him a pathetic little fraud. > > > Remember, beam already admits that he "bullshits". I wanted him to > > admit that he wasn't doing so now. I wanted him to admit that he > > hadn't cooked the picture and by so challenging him, I wanted to raise > > the possibility that he actually had done so and I also wanted to > > underscoring his penchant for fraud. > > > Curiously you jumped in between as an apologist for beam. The > > challenge was directed to him but yet you acted as his surrogate. If I > > had know that you would do so, I would have been, as stated earlier, > > clearer and more expansive in my challenge. > > > Concerning the emailing of duplicates and excuses, here again I do not > > believe you are being completely accurate, I apologize for any > > duplicate of a post I might have emailed you in error by > > unintentionally hitting the "Reply to Author" button as opposed to the > > closely adjacent "Reply" button. I did intentionally email once > > explaining how you might remove the seven duplicate posts that now > > appear in this thread because this seemed to distress you and I felt > > partly responsible. I explained how this might have occurred, but this > > was not an excuse. > > > With regard to the question of character and credibility, I am happy > > to let the reader judge for himself. > > Beamboy used tape on his Park. Prove it!               Date: 08 Oct 2007 07:09:08 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 4:12 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > ...Big Snip... > > Bullshit. > > You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as > claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been > clearer: > > "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park > Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." > > You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be > ashamed. > > Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses. > > Carl Fogel Fogel, Are you being completely accurate here? I believe you have mischaracterized the situation, representing it as if beam was a first time poster whose veracity I maligned. In actual fact beam has flat out admitted in earlier threads that he "bullshits". I noted this well at the time. And as any unbiased reader of RBT should have noticed, he has been shown by many to be a practiced, relentless, and unrepentant prevaricator. As such he has displayed an unmatched talent for disrupting and subverting discussions, driving off potentially valuable contributors in the process. Look no further than this thread, now more than 300 posts long, that he waylaid with his antics back at about post number four and led into divisiveness. In light of the above and in response to his abusive challenge of "deny this, prick" to a veteran and valuable contributer of this group, I asked him to deny that he hadn't "jimmied" the tensiometer in the picture he proffered. I called him a pathetic little fraud. Remember, beam already admits that he "bullshits". I wanted him to admit that he wasn't doing so now. I wanted him to admit that he hadn't cooked the picture and by so challenging him, I wanted to raise the possibility that he actually had done so and I also wanted to underscoring his penchant for fraud. Curiously you jumped in between as an apologist for beam. The challenge was directed to him but yet you acted as his surrogate. If I had know that you would do so, I would have been, as stated earlier, clearer and more expansive in my challenge. Concerning the emailing of duplicates and excuses, here again I do not believe you are being completely accurate, I apologize for any duplicate of a post I might have emailed you in error by unintentionally hitting the "Reply to Author" button as opposed to the closely adjacent "Reply" button. I did intentionally email once explaining how you might remove the seven duplicate posts that now appear in this thread because this seemed to distress you and I felt partly responsible. I explained how this might have occurred, but this was not an excuse. With regard to the question of character and credibility, I am happy to let the reader judge for himself. -- Spike                 Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:57:53 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals <spikenettles@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:1191852548.561741.61310@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 7, 4:12 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> ...Big Snip... >> >> Bullshit. >> >> You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as >> claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been >> clearer: >> >> "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park >> Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." >> >> You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be >> ashamed. >> >> Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses. >> >> Carl Fogel > > Fogel, > > Are you being completely accurate here? > > I believe you have mischaracterized the situation, representing it as > if beam was a first time poster whose veracity I maligned. > > In actual fact beam has flat out admitted in earlier threads that he > "bullshits". I noted this well at the time. And as any unbiased reader > of RBT should have noticed, he has been shown by many to be a > practiced, relentless, and unrepentant prevaricator. As such he has > displayed an unmatched talent for disrupting and subverting > discussions, driving off potentially valuable contributors in the > process. Look no further than this thread, now more than 300 posts > long, that he waylaid with his antics back at about post number four > and led into divisiveness. > > In light of the above and in response to his abusive challenge of > "deny this, prick" to a veteran and valuable contributer of this > group, I asked him to deny that he hadn't "jimmied" the tensiometer in > the picture he proffered. I called him a pathetic little fraud. > > Remember, beam already admits that he "bullshits". I wanted him to > admit that he wasn't doing so now. I wanted him to admit that he > hadn't cooked the picture and by so challenging him, I wanted to raise > the possibility that he actually had done so and I also wanted to > underscoring his penchant for fraud. > > Curiously you jumped in between as an apologist for beam. The > challenge was directed to him but yet you acted as his surrogate. If I > had know that you would do so, I would have been, as stated earlier, > clearer and more expansive in my challenge. > > Concerning the emailing of duplicates and excuses, here again I do not > believe you are being completely accurate, I apologize for any > duplicate of a post I might have emailed you in error by > unintentionally hitting the "Reply to Author" button as opposed to the > closely adjacent "Reply" button. I did intentionally email once > explaining how you might remove the seven duplicate posts that now > appear in this thread because this seemed to distress you and I felt > partly responsible. I explained how this might have occurred, but this > was not an excuse. > > With regard to the question of character and credibility, I am happy > to let the reader judge for himself. Beamboy used tape on his Park.                 Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:15:26 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:09:08 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 7, 4:12 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> ...Big Snip... >> >> Bullshit. >> >> You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as >> claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been >> clearer: >> >> "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park >> Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." >> >> You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be >> ashamed. >> >> Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses. >> >> Carl Fogel Stop emailing me duplicate of your excuses. This is the third one.               Date: 08 Oct 2007 06:39:06 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 4:12 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:57:16 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >On Oct 7, 12:38 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >> >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > jim beam wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >> >> >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >> >> >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >> >> >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >> >> >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >> >> >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >> >> >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> >> >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> >> >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> >> >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > >> >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > >> >> >> >> >> > who's bullshitting. > > >> >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >> >> >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> >> >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > >> >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > >> >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> >> >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > >> >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > >> >> >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > >> >> >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > >> >> >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads? > > >> >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > >> >> >> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >> >> >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> >> >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> >> >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> >> >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > >> >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > >> >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > >> >> >> >> >> squirm you want to add? > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich! > > >> >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. > > >> >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> >> >> >> >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> >> >> >> >> >> convincing too! > > >> >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > >> >> >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > >> >> >> >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > > >> >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. > >> >> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/" > > >> >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension > >> >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give > >> >> >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I > >> >> >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when > >> >> >> >> >held at the same angle. > > >> >> >> >> Dear Spike > > >> >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, > >> >> >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against: > > >> >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg > > >> >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible: > > >> >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg > > >> >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is > >> >> >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate. > > >> >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough > >> >> >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible. > > >> >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume > >> >> >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an > >> >> >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion. > > >> >> >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> >> >> Carl Fogel > > >> >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl. > > >> >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my > >> >> >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early > >> >> >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed > >> >> >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring > >> >> >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is > >> >> >> >taken.) > > >> >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It > >> >> >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the > >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce > >> >> >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the > >> >> >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may > >> >> >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the > >> >> >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the > >> >> >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding > >> >> >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus > >> >> >> >and thinner. > > >> >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do, > >> >> >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all, > >> >> >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest > >> >> >> >mistake. > > >> >> >> Dear Spike, > > >> >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. > > >> >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different > >> >> >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment > >> >> >> screw not being visible. > > >> >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on > >> >> >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like > >> >> >> yours. > > >> >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool. > > >> >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted > >> >> >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the > >> >> >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive. > > >> >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole. > > >> >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> >> Carl Fogel > > >> >> >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. > > >> >> >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up > >> >> >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his > >> >> >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led > >> >> >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the > >> >> >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1 > >> >> >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that > >> >> >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This > >> >> >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it. > > >> >> Dear Spike, > > >> >> You've lost most of your credibility. > > >> >> Stop digging. > > >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> Carl Fogel > > >> >Carl, > > >> >Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my > >> >observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of > >> >our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been > >> >clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...." > > >> >Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost > >> >most of my credibility. > > >> Dear Spike, > > >> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior. > > >> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't > >> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking > >> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more > >> expansive"? > > >> Cheers, > > >> Carl Fogel > > >Carl, > > >Based on beam's past antics I would be embarrassed to give him > >credibility. Apparently, you are not. > > >I didn't "announce" that he was faking pictures, but, yes, I certainly > >intended to raise that possibility by asking him to deny that "You > >tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool > >TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." (Indeed, he may > >have done just this.) > > >I now believe that even if I had been clearer and more expansive, you > >still would he in disagreement. > > Spike, > > Bullshit. > > You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as > claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been > clearer: > > "You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park > Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." > > You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be > ashamed. > > Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses. > > Carl Fogel Fogel, Are you being completely accurate here? I believe you have mischaracterized the situation, representing it as if beam was a first time poster whose veracity I maligned. In actual fact beam has flat out admitted in earlier threads that he "bullshits". I noted this well at the time. And as any unbiased reader of RBT should have noticed, he has been shown by many to be a practiced, relentless, and unrepentant prevaricator. As such he has displayed an unmatched talent for disrupting and subverting discussions, driving off potentially valuable contributors in the process. Look no further than this thread, now nearly 300 posts long, that he waylaid with his antics back at about post number four and led into divisiveness. In light of the above and in response to his abusive challenge of "deny this, prick" to a veteran and valuable contributer of this group, I asked him to deny that he hadn't "jimmied" the tensiometer in the picture he proffered. I called him a pathetic little fraud. Remember, beam already admits that he "bullshits". I wanted him to admit that he wasn't doing so now. I wanted him to admit that he hadn't cooked the picture and by so challenging him, I wanted to raise the possibility that he actually had done so and I also wanted to underscoring his penchant for fraud. Curiously you jumped in between as an apologist for beam. The challenge was directed to him but yet you acted as his surrogate. If I had know that you would do so, I would have been, as stated earlier, clearer and more expansive in my challenge. Concerning the emailing of duplicates and excuses, here again I don't think you are being completely accurate, I apologize for any duplicate of a post I might have emailed you in error by unintentionally hitting the "Reply to Author" button as opposed to the closely adjacent "Reply" button. I did intentionally email once explaining how you might remove the seven duplicate posts that now appear in this thread because this seemed to distress you and I felt partly responsible. I explained how this might have occurred, but this was not an excuse. With regard to the question of character and credibility, I am happy to let the reader judge for himself. -- Spike                 Date: 08 Oct 2007 09:09:28 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-08, spikenettles@earthlink.net <spikenettles@earthlink.net > wrote: [...] > Curiously you jumped in between as an apologist for beam. Not true. Carl brought some new facts to the discussion relating to whether that screw would be expected to be visible or not (or whatever the details were). I am sure he would have done exactly the same regardless of whose allegedly faked photos we were talking about.               Date: 08 Oct 2007 05:01:33 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 7:57 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >Dear Carl, > > >I don't care one way or another about jim beam's > >photograph and see no reason to doubt its veracity, but: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/5c... > > >You're in a fine position to lecture people about > >the rudeness of disbelieving photographic evidence > >on RBT. > > >Ben > > Dear Ben, > > Are you still to dumb to read the original post and notice the smiley? > Dear Carl, Language, dear boy, language. Calling me "dumb" is discourteous. You could accuse me of having no sense of humor and achieve the same effect without rudeness. Smileys are common on Usenet - I didn't realize then that the smiley was a clue you were no longer interested in a serious discussion, but wished to play a joke on your audience. Judging from the other people who posted in that thread, I wasn't alone. But that is all water under the bridge. The point is that you can't always trust everything you see on Usenet or the poster's motives, even in a technical discussion on RBT, and that's why I brought it up today. That is all. Ben                 Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:29:59 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:01:33 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote: >On Oct 7, 7:57 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> >Dear Carl, >> >> >I don't care one way or another about jim beam's >> >photograph and see no reason to doubt its veracity, but: >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/5c... >> >> >You're in a fine position to lecture people about >> >the rudeness of disbelieving photographic evidence >> >on RBT. >> >> >Ben >> >> Dear Ben, >> >> Are you still to dumb to read the original post and notice the smiley? >> > >Dear Carl, > >Language, dear boy, language. Calling me "dumb" is >discourteous. You could accuse me of having no >sense of humor and achieve the same effect without >rudeness. > >Smileys are common on Usenet - I didn't realize then >that the smiley was a clue you were no longer interested >in a serious discussion, but wished to play a joke on >your audience. Judging from the other people who posted >in that thread, I wasn't alone. But that is all water >under the bridge. The point is that you can't always >trust everything you see on Usenet or the poster's motives, >even in a technical discussion on RBT, and that's why >I brought it up today. That is all. > >Ben > > Dear Ben, You're probably right. But you missed the smiley, missed what the text said, speed-read past it all (as Frank Krygowski's excuse put it), failed to notice that the _single-butted_ spoke lying across a 4.5" gap in a vise in the picture was obviously about half the length of a bicycle spoke-- And unwittingly illustrated the point that I was making in that post: RBT has plenty of posters who insist that they can't be mistaken and there can't be any little details (like a 168 mm motorcycle spoke lying loose on a vise giving measurements indicating a 19 pound "squeeze" has raised its tension almost 200 pounds. You went off in a great hurry and calculated that it was just impossible. Then it finally dawned on you what was going on, so you wrote another furious post, still without re-reading the opening of my post and seeing the dripping sarcasm and smiley: "Wait a minute, looking at your picture the spoke is unusually short and thick. Goddamnit, Fogel, that is a 3mm or 3.5mm motorcycle spoke, isn't it? No wonder it doesn't bend much. I know you were trying to be cute with this demonstration, but that is perilously close to scientific fraud, or at least bullshit." Incidentally, as Jim Beam has repeatedly pointed out about that bending effect, in a _real_ bicycle spoke in a _real_ tension gauge, there are _three_ bends, not the _single_ bend_ whose effect so many posters dismiss without testing--the thickness of the spoke does indeed affect the delicate effect of the small force. Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 06 Oct 2007 16:33:17 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> convincing too! >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick. >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ " > > >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when >held at the same angle. Dear Spike No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, just the end of the spring that it pushes against: http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is fixed against the back of the blue plate. Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough when the factory calibrated it to become visible. But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an embarrassingly ugly conclusion. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:21:29 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > > jim beam wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > > who's bullshitting. > > deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > > > >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > fundamentally incorrect. > > > > >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > > radial and lateral loads? > > oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > > > >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > squirm you want to add? > > > > >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> wow! that's rich! > > > Maybe, but obviously true. > > you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > > > >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> convincing too! > > > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! Deny this you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same angle. -- Spike               Date: 06 Oct 2007 16:33:04 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:29 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> convincing too! >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > >Deny this you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring >adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about >double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I don't see >the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the >same angle. Dear Spike No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, just the end of the spring that it pushes against: http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is fixed against the back of the blue plate. Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough when the factory calibrated it to become visible. But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an embarrassingly ugly conclusion. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:16:31 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > > jim beam wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > > who's bullshitting. > > deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > > > >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > fundamentally incorrect. > > > > >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > > radial and lateral loads? > > oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > > > >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > squirm you want to add? > > > > >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> wow! that's rich! > > > Maybe, but obviously true. > > you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > > > >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> convincing too! > > > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! Deny this you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same angle. -- Spike               Date: 06 Oct 2007 16:32:48 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:16:31 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> convincing too! >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > >Deny this you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring >adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about >double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I don't see >the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the >same angle. Dear Spike No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, just the end of the spring that it pushes against: http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is fixed against the back of the blue plate. Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough when the factory calibrated it to become visible. But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an embarrassingly ugly conclusion. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:12:34 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > > jim beam wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > > >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > > who's bullshitting. > > deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ ...more expletives deleted... Deny this you pathetic fraud:. You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same angle. -- Spike               Date: 06 Oct 2007 16:32:33 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:12:34 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > ...more expletives deleted... > >Deny this you pathetic fraud:. You tightened down the tension spring >adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about >double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I don't see >the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the >same angle. Dear Spike No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, just the end of the spring that it pushes against: http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is fixed against the back of the blue plate. Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough when the factory calibrated it to become visible. But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an embarrassingly ugly conclusion. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:02:43 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > > jim beam wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > > who's bullshitting. > > deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > > > >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > fundamentally incorrect. > > > > >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > > radial and lateral loads? > > oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > > > >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > squirm you want to add? > > > > >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> wow! that's rich! > > > Maybe, but obviously true. > > you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > > > >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> convincing too! > > > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >deny this, prick. >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > Deny this, you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values. In your linked flickr picture, I don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same angle. -- Spike               Date: 06 Oct 2007 16:32:23 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:02:43 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> convincing too! >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > >>deny this, prick. >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> > >Deny this, you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring >adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about >double actual values. In your linked flickr picture, I don't see the >end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same >angle. Dear Spike No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, just the end of the spring that it pushes against: http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is fixed against the back of the blue plate. Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough when the factory calibrated it to become visible. But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an embarrassingly ugly conclusion. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 06 Oct 2007 14:58:16 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > > jim beam wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > > who's bullshitting. > > deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > > > >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > fundamentally incorrect. > > > > >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > > radial and lateral loads? > > oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > > > >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > squirm you want to add? > > > > >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> wow! that's rich! > > > Maybe, but obviously true. > > you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > > > >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> convincing too! > > > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >deny this, prick. >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > Deny this you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values. In your linked flickr picture, I don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same angle. -- Spike               Date: 06 Oct 2007 16:32:10 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:58:16 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> convincing too! >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > > >>deny this, prick. >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> > >Deny this you pathetic fraud: You tightened down the tension spring >adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about >double actual values. In your linked flickr picture, I don't see the >end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same >angle. Dear Spike No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, just the end of the spring that it pushes against: http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is fixed against the back of the blue plate. Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough when the factory calibrated it to become visible. But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an embarrassingly ugly conclusion. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 06 Oct 2007 14:52:32 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: > > jim beam wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the > >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then > >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was > >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that > >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- > >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. > > >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method > >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't > >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. > > >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. > >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered > >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use > >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? > > >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. > > > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide > > who's bullshitting. > > deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > > > > >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under > >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. > > >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive > >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. > > > If you mean buckle, say buckle. > > er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still > fundamentally incorrect. > > > > >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of > >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. > > > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right > > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% > > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous > > radial and lateral loads? > > oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're > bullshitting? terribly sorry! > > > > >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the > >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. > > >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can > >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? > >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim > >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] > > > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. > > how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and > squirm you want to add? > > > > >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. > > >> wow! that's rich! > > > Maybe, but obviously true. > > you are a shameless bullshitting prick. > > > > >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. > > >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" > >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really > >> convincing too! > > > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it > > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? > > bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! >deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ Deny this you pathetic fraud. You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values. In your linked flickr picture, I don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same angle. -- Spike               Date: 06 Oct 2007 16:29:44 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:52:32 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote: >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >> > jim beam wrote: >> >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg -- >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used. >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect. >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim. >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity? >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up. >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide >> > who's bullshitting. >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle. >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield. >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle. >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still >> fundamentally incorrect. >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh. >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90% >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous >> > radial and lateral loads? >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're >> bullshitting? terribly sorry! >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim. >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim? >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.] >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims. >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and >> squirm you want to add? >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics. >> >> >> wow! that's rich! >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true. >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting prick. >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children. >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering" >> >> bullshit cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really >> >> convincing too! >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal? >> >> bullshit's ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick! > >>deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/ > >Deny this you pathetic fraud. You tightened down the tension spring >adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about >double actual values. In your linked flickr picture, I don't see the >end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when held at the same >angle. Dear Spike No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle, just the end of the spring that it pushes against: http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible: http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is fixed against the back of the blue plate. Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough when the factory calibrated it to become visible. But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an embarrassingly ugly conclusion. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 06 Oct 2007 02:17:32 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 5, 6:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > > An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit > > for understanding bicycle wheels. > > it is if it allows separation of the elements. and separating spoke > tension differentials on loading from rim distortion on loading is > /essential/ to proper conceptualization. In a real wheel, where the rim isn't infinitely stiff, you cannot separate effects of loading on spoke tension and on rim distortion. It is a statically indeterminate structure. It doesn't obey rules of superposition like a linear system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statically_determinate Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all proper conceptualization. I don't think it is going to be productive to continue if you can't produce a useful analysis without tossing up these red herrings. Ben > > As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely > > stiff rim, which are different cases. > > they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i > guess one could have that misconception.               Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:45:25 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message news:1191637052.876433.218910@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 5, 6:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > >> > An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit >> > for understanding bicycle wheels. >> >> it is if it allows separation of the elements. and separating spoke >> tension differentials on loading from rim distortion on loading is >> /essential/ to proper conceptualization. > > In a real wheel, where the rim isn't infinitely stiff, > you cannot separate effects of loading on spoke tension and > on rim distortion. It is a statically indeterminate structure. > It doesn't obey rules of superposition like a linear system. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statically_determinate > > Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely > different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel > and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all > proper conceptualization. > > I don't think it is going to be productive to continue if you > can't produce a useful analysis without tossing up these > red herrings. > > Ben Excellent statements. Read and learn, beamboy.               Date: 05 Oct 2007 19:53:35 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > On Oct 5, 6:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: > >>> An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit >>> for understanding bicycle wheels. >> it is if it allows separation of the elements. and separating spoke >> tension differentials on loading from rim distortion on loading is >> /essential/ to proper conceptualization. > > In a real wheel, where the rim isn't infinitely stiff, > you cannot separate effects of loading on spoke tension and > on rim distortion. yes you can. the net is the sum of the two components. > It is a statically indeterminate structure. > It doesn't obey rules of superposition like a linear system. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statically_determinate which is where finite element analysis comes in! > > Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely > different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel > and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all > proper conceptualization. but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? how about 16 spokes? > > I don't think it is going to be productive to continue if you > can't produce a useful analysis without tossing up these > red herrings. this is not herringry - this is discussion of concepts omitted from previous discussion. for basic modeling of a wheel structure, we can ignore metal fatigue in j-bend spoke elbows. if we then want to examine observed spoke failures, we need to examine the extent of the bending moment spokes experience in service. but we can't observe spoke failures and conclude that we know how a wheel works. similarly, we can't observe spoke tension decrease under a distorted rim and conclude that we know how the structure bears load unless we first understand the relationship between spoke load bearing and a rim that doesn't distort. > > Ben > >>> As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely >>> stiff rim, which are different cases. >> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i >> guess one could have that misconception. > >                 Date: 05 Oct 2007 22:15:08 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals >>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>> An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit >>>> for understanding bicycle wheels. >>>> As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely >>>> stiff rim, which are different cases. >> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i >>> guess one could have that misconception. > bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >> proper conceptualization. jim beam wrote: > but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue > that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? how > about 16 spokes? Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                   Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:28:45 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals A Muzi wrote: >>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>> An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit >>>>> for understanding bicycle wheels. >>>>> As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely >>>>> stiff rim, which are different cases. > >>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i >>>> guess one could have that misconception. > >> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >>> proper conceptualization. > > jim beam wrote: >> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue >> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? >> how about 16 spokes? > > Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel > auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. the only difference between tension and compression is the "+" or "-" sign you use - in all other respects, the math is identical.                   Date: 05 Oct 2007 21:51:49 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:15:08 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: >>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>> An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit >>>>> for understanding bicycle wheels. >>>>> As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely >>>>> stiff rim, which are different cases. > >>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i >>>> guess one could have that misconception. > >> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >>> proper conceptualization. > >jim beam wrote: >> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue >> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? how >> about 16 spokes? > >Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel >auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. Dear Andrew, Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like wooden wagon wheels: "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load, its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned." "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a wire. The function of the wheel elements would not be changed and, if all the thick wooden spokes were replaced by slender steel strands of the same (tensile) strength) as the wooden spokes, the weight of the wheel would be greatly reduced. However, the thin wire spokes, although having adequate strength, would bow under comprssion loads and allow the wheel to collapse if they were not tensioned." I'm sure that everyone recognizes the source, though they may not be able to find it unless they have a first edition. The wagon-wheel passage was later edited to read like this: "The wire-spoked wheel is no different from a wooden spoked wheel in the way it works. A wooden wheel transmits loads from its hub to the ground by pressing on its bottom spoke. That spoke is slightly shortened as it furnishes the upward force to carry the hub. In the wire-spoked wheel the bottom spoke is also shortened, but instead of gaining in compression, it loses tension. The change in force is the same for either wheel. The spoke sees a net increase in force equal and opposite to the downward force on the hub." "Because light weight is so important to the efficiency of the bicycle, heavy wooden spokes of the earliest bicycle wheels were soon replaced by pre-tensioned thin steel wire. Wires must be pre-tensioned because although they are very strong, they only support loads in tension, and a spoked wheel supports loads in compression. Pre-tensioning the wires prevents them from becoming slack when compressed." Here's the third version: "In the bicycle wheel, wires replace the rigid spokes of wooden wheels. Although wires are strong, they cannot directly replace wooden spokes that carry loads in compression. In order to work, wires must be tensioned to prevent their buckling under load. With tension, wires can support compression loads up to the point where they become slack. The same loads that increase compression in wooden spokes, reduce tension in wires. As in algebra, where negative and positive numbers are combined to give algebraic sums, in spokes tension and compression are the negative and positive forces whose sums depend on built-in spoke tension and the carried load." "A wheel with wire spokes works the same as one with wooden spokes except that the built-in force in its spokes is different. In a wooden-spoked wheel, force is transmitted from the ground to the hub by compressing the bottom spoke. This spoke becomes shorter as it furnishes the upward force to the hub. As in a wooden-spoked wheel, the bottom spokes of a wire wheel become shorter under load, but instead of gaining in compression, they lose tension. With the same load, the net change in force is the same for both wheels. The algebraic sum of negative and positive forces (compression and tension) is the same." Each of the three versions uses the same illustration of a 12-spoked wooden wagon wheel. Cheers, Carl Fogel                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:31:37 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals >>>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>>> An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit >>>>>> for understanding bicycle wheels. >>>>>> As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely >>>>>> stiff rim, which are different cases. >>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i >>>>> guess one could have that misconception. >>> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >>>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >>>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >>>> proper conceptualization. >> jim beam wrote: >>> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue >>> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? how >>> about 16 spokes? > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel >> auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters > agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like > wooden wagon wheels: > > "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a > wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground > by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a > way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension > greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in > function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still > carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load, > its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward > force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned." > > "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The > important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in > compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the > load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a > wire. The function of the wheel elements would not be changed and, if > all the thick wooden spokes were replaced by slender steel strands of > the same (tensile) strength) as the wooden spokes, the weight of the > wheel would be greatly reduced. However, the thin wire spokes, > although having adequate strength, would bow under comprssion loads > and allow the wheel to collapse if they were not tensioned." > > I'm sure that everyone recognizes the source, though they may not be > able to find it unless they have a first edition. The wagon-wheel > passage was later edited to read like this: > > "The wire-spoked wheel is no different from a wooden spoked wheel in > the way it works. A wooden wheel transmits loads from its hub to the > ground by pressing on its bottom spoke. That spoke is slightly > shortened as it furnishes the upward force to carry the hub. In the > wire-spoked wheel the bottom spoke is also shortened, but instead of > gaining in compression, it loses tension. The change in force is the > same for either wheel. The spoke sees a net increase in force equal > and opposite to the downward force on the hub." > > "Because light weight is so important to the efficiency of the > bicycle, heavy wooden spokes of the earliest bicycle wheels were soon > replaced by pre-tensioned thin steel wire. Wires must be pre-tensioned > because although they are very strong, they only support loads in > tension, and a spoked wheel supports loads in compression. > Pre-tensioning the wires prevents them from becoming slack when > compressed." > > Here's the third version: > > "In the bicycle wheel, wires replace the rigid spokes of wooden > wheels. Although wires are strong, they cannot directly replace wooden > spokes that carry loads in compression. In order to work, wires must > be tensioned to prevent their buckling under load. With tension, wires > can support compression loads up to the point where they become slack. > The same loads that increase compression in wooden spokes, reduce > tension in wires. As in algebra, where negative and positive numbers > are combined to give algebraic sums, in spokes tension and compression > are the negative and positive forces whose sums depend on built-in > spoke tension and the carried load." > > "A wheel with wire spokes works the same as one with wooden spokes > except that the built-in force in its spokes is different. In a > wooden-spoked wheel, force is transmitted from the ground to the hub > by compressing the bottom spoke. This spoke becomes shorter as it > furnishes the upward force to the hub. As in a wooden-spoked wheel, > the bottom spokes of a wire wheel become shorter under load, but > instead of gaining in compression, they lose tension. With the same > load, the net change in force is the same for both wheels. The > algebraic sum of negative and positive forces (compression and > tension) is the same." > > Each of the three versions uses the same illustration of a 12-spoked > wooden wagon wheel. I guess we'll semantically diverge on that point. Tension versus compression seems a 'fundamental difference' to me, YMMV. Then again, I'd call Bowden wire-rope suspension bridges 'fundamentally different' from stone arches even though they share some similarities. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                       Date: 06 Oct 2007 08:37:51 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals A Muzi wrote: >>>>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>>>> An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit >>>>>>> for understanding bicycle wheels. >>>>>>> As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely >>>>>>> stiff rim, which are different cases. > >>>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, then i >>>>>> guess one could have that misconception. > >>>> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >>>>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >>>>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >>>>> proper conceptualization. > >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - >>>> argue that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 >>>> spokes? how about 16 spokes? > >> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>> Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel >>> auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. > > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters >> agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like >> wooden wagon wheels: >> >> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a >> wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground >> by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a >> way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension >> greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in >> function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still >> carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load, >> its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward >> force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned." >> >> "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The >> important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in >> compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the >> load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a >> wire. The function of the wheel elements would not be changed and, if >> all the thick wooden spokes were replaced by slender steel strands of >> the same (tensile) strength) as the wooden spokes, the weight of the >> wheel would be greatly reduced. However, the thin wire spokes, >> although having adequate strength, would bow under comprssion loads >> and allow the wheel to collapse if they were not tensioned." >> >> I'm sure that everyone recognizes the source, though they may not be >> able to find it unless they have a first edition. The wagon-wheel >> passage was later edited to read like this: >> >> "The wire-spoked wheel is no different from a wooden spoked wheel in >> the way it works. A wooden wheel transmits loads from its hub to the >> ground by pressing on its bottom spoke. That spoke is slightly >> shortened as it furnishes the upward force to carry the hub. In the >> wire-spoked wheel the bottom spoke is also shortened, but instead of >> gaining in compression, it loses tension. The change in force is the >> same for either wheel. The spoke sees a net increase in force equal >> and opposite to the downward force on the hub." >> >> "Because light weight is so important to the efficiency of the >> bicycle, heavy wooden spokes of the earliest bicycle wheels were soon >> replaced by pre-tensioned thin steel wire. Wires must be pre-tensioned >> because although they are very strong, they only support loads in >> tension, and a spoked wheel supports loads in compression. >> Pre-tensioning the wires prevents them from becoming slack when >> compressed." >> >> Here's the third version: >> >> "In the bicycle wheel, wires replace the rigid spokes of wooden >> wheels. Although wires are strong, they cannot directly replace wooden >> spokes that carry loads in compression. In order to work, wires must >> be tensioned to prevent their buckling under load. With tension, wires >> can support compression loads up to the point where they become slack. >> The same loads that increase compression in wooden spokes, reduce >> tension in wires. As in algebra, where negative and positive numbers >> are combined to give algebraic sums, in spokes tension and compression >> are the negative and positive forces whose sums depend on built-in >> spoke tension and the carried load." >> >> "A wheel with wire spokes works the same as one with wooden spokes >> except that the built-in force in its spokes is different. In a >> wooden-spoked wheel, force is transmitted from the ground to the hub >> by compressing the bottom spoke. This spoke becomes shorter as it >> furnishes the upward force to the hub. As in a wooden-spoked wheel, >> the bottom spokes of a wire wheel become shorter under load, but >> instead of gaining in compression, they lose tension. With the same >> load, the net change in force is the same for both wheels. The >> algebraic sum of negative and positive forces (compression and >> tension) is the same." >> >> Each of the three versions uses the same illustration of a 12-spoked >> wooden wagon wheel. > > I guess we'll semantically diverge on that point. > > Tension versus compression seems a 'fundamental difference' to me, YMMV. > Then again, I'd call Bowden wire-rope suspension bridges 'fundamentally > different' from stone arches even though they share some similarities. bowden cable is tensile inner with compressive outer. suspension bridges just use tensile, so it's not bowden.                         Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:37:56 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > A Muzi wrote: >>>>>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>>>>> An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit >>>>>>>> for understanding bicycle wheels. >>>>>>>> As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely >>>>>>>> stiff rim, which are different cases. >> >>>>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, >>>>>>> then i >>>>>>> guess one could have that misconception. >> >>>>> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >>>>>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >>>>>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >>>>>> proper conceptualization. >> >>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - >>>>> argue that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 >>>>> spokes? how about 16 spokes? >> >>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>> Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed >>>> steel auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. >> >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters >>> agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like >>> wooden wagon wheels: >>> >>> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a >>> wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground >>> by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a >>> way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension >>> greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in >>> function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still >>> carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load, >>> its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward >>> force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned." >>> >>> "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The >>> important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in >>> compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the >>> load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a >>> wire. The function of the wheel elements would not be changed and, if >>> all the thick wooden spokes were replaced by slender steel strands of >>> the same (tensile) strength) as the wooden spokes, the weight of the >>> wheel would be greatly reduced. However, the thin wire spokes, >>> although having adequate strength, would bow under comprssion loads >>> and allow the wheel to collapse if they were not tensioned." >>> >>> I'm sure that everyone recognizes the source, though they may not be >>> able to find it unless they have a first edition. The wagon-wheel >>> passage was later edited to read like this: >>> >>> "The wire-spoked wheel is no different from a wooden spoked wheel in >>> the way it works. A wooden wheel transmits loads from its hub to the >>> ground by pressing on its bottom spoke. That spoke is slightly >>> shortened as it furnishes the upward force to carry the hub. In the >>> wire-spoked wheel the bottom spoke is also shortened, but instead of >>> gaining in compression, it loses tension. The change in force is the >>> same for either wheel. The spoke sees a net increase in force equal >>> and opposite to the downward force on the hub." >>> >>> "Because light weight is so important to the efficiency of the >>> bicycle, heavy wooden spokes of the earliest bicycle wheels were soon >>> replaced by pre-tensioned thin steel wire. Wires must be pre-tensioned >>> because although they are very strong, they only support loads in >>> tension, and a spoked wheel supports loads in compression. >>> Pre-tensioning the wires prevents them from becoming slack when >>> compressed." >>> >>> Here's the third version: >>> >>> "In the bicycle wheel, wires replace the rigid spokes of wooden >>> wheels. Although wires are strong, they cannot directly replace wooden >>> spokes that carry loads in compression. In order to work, wires must >>> be tensioned to prevent their buckling under load. With tension, wires >>> can support compression loads up to the point where they become slack. >>> The same loads that increase compression in wooden spokes, reduce >>> tension in wires. As in algebra, where negative and positive numbers >>> are combined to give algebraic sums, in spokes tension and compression >>> are the negative and positive forces whose sums depend on built-in >>> spoke tension and the carried load." >>> >>> "A wheel with wire spokes works the same as one with wooden spokes >>> except that the built-in force in its spokes is different. In a >>> wooden-spoked wheel, force is transmitted from the ground to the hub >>> by compressing the bottom spoke. This spoke becomes shorter as it >>> furnishes the upward force to the hub. As in a wooden-spoked wheel, >>> the bottom spokes of a wire wheel become shorter under load, but >>> instead of gaining in compression, they lose tension. With the same >>> load, the net change in force is the same for both wheels. The >>> algebraic sum of negative and positive forces (compression and >>> tension) is the same." >>> >>> Each of the three versions uses the same illustration of a 12-spoked >>> wooden wagon wheel. >> >> I guess we'll semantically diverge on that point. >> >> Tension versus compression seems a 'fundamental difference' to me, >> YMMV. Then again, I'd call Bowden wire-rope suspension bridges >> 'fundamentally different' from stone arches even though they share >> some similarities. > > bowden cable is tensile inner with compressive outer. suspension > bridges just use tensile, so it's not bowden. Been around bikes too much, thanks for the clarification -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                           Date: 06 Oct 2007 19:02:22 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Andrew Muzi mused: > > Been around bikes too much... Every day since 1 April, 1971? ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                           Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:40:15 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals A Muzi wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> A Muzi wrote: >>>>>>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>>>>>> An infinitely stiff rim isn't a useful limit >>>>>>>>> for understanding bicycle wheels. >>>>>>>>> As opposed to a wagon wheel, or an infinitely >>>>>>>>> stiff rim, which are different cases. >>> >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> they're really not. but if the big picture is not understood, >>>>>>>> then i >>>>>>>> guess one could have that misconception. >>> >>>>>> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote: >>>>>>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely >>>>>>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel >>>>>>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all >>>>>>> proper conceptualization. >>> >>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - >>>>>> argue that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 >>>>>> spokes? how about 16 spokes? >>> >>>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>> Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed >>>>> steel auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel. >>> >>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters >>>> agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like >>>> wooden wagon wheels: >>>> >>>> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a >>>> wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground >>>> by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a >>>> way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension >>>> greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in >>>> function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still >>>> carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load, >>>> its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward >>>> force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned." >>>> >>>> "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The >>>> important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in >>>> compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the >>>> load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a >>>> wire. The function of the wheel elements would not be changed and, if >>>> all the thick wooden spokes were replaced by slender steel strands of >>>> the same (tensile) strength) as the wooden spokes, the weight of the >>>> wheel would be greatly reduced. However, the thin wire spokes, >>>> although having adequate strength, would bow under comprssion loads >>>> and allow the wheel to collapse if they were not tensioned." >>>> >>>> I'm sure that everyone recognizes the source, though they may not be >>>> able to find it unless they have a first edition. The wagon-wheel >>>> passage was later edited to read like this: >>>> >>>> "The wire-spoked wheel is no different from a wooden spoked wheel in >>>> the way it works. A wooden wheel transmits loads from its hub to the >>>> ground by pressing on its bottom spoke. That spoke is slightly >>>> shortened as it furnishes the upward force to carry the hub. In the >>>> wire-spoked wheel the bottom spoke is also shortened, but instead of >>>> gaining in compression, it loses tension. The change in force is the >>>> same for either wheel. The spoke sees a net increase in force equal >>>> and opposite to the downward force on the hub." >>>> >>>> "Because light weight is so important to the efficiency of the >>>> bicycle, heavy wooden spokes of the earliest bicycle wheels were soon >>>> replaced by pre-tensioned thin steel wire. Wires must be pre-tensioned >>>> because although they are very strong, they only support loads in >>>> tension, and a spoked wheel supports loads in compression. >>>> Pre-tensioning the wires prevents them from becoming slack when >>>> compressed." >>>> >>>> Here's the third version: >>>> >>>> "In the bicycle wheel, wires replace the rigid spokes of wooden >>>> wheels. Although wires are strong, they cannot directly replace wooden >>>> spokes that carry loads in compression. In order to work, wires must >>>> be tensioned to prevent their buckling under load. With tension, wires >>>> can support compression loads up to the point where they become slack. >>>> The same loads that increase compression in wooden spokes, reduce >>>> tension in wires. As in algebra, where negative and positive numbers >>>> are combined to give algebraic sums, in spokes tension and compression >>>> are the negative and positive forces whose sums depend on built-in >>>> spoke tension and the carried load." >>>> >>>> "A wheel with wire spokes works the same as one with wooden spokes >>>> except that the built-in force in its spokes is different. In a >>>> wooden-spoked wheel, force is transmitted from the ground to the hub >>>> by compressing the bottom spoke. This spoke becomes shorter as it >>>> furnishes the upward force to the hub. As in a wooden-spoked wheel, >>>> the bottom spokes of a wire wheel become shorter under load, but >>>> instead of gaining in compression, they lose tension. With the same >>>> load, the net change in force is the same for both wheels. The >>>> algebraic sum of negative and positive forces (compression and >>>> tension) is the same." >>>> >>>> Each of the three versions uses the same illustration of a 12-spoked >>>> wooden wagon wheel. >>> >>> I guess we'll semantically diverge on that point. >>> >>> Tension versus compression seems a 'fundamental difference' to me, >>> YMMV. Then again, I'd call Bowden wire-rope suspension bridges >>> 'fundamentally different' from stone arches even though they share >>> some similarities. >> >> bowden cable is tensile inner with compressive outer. suspension >> bridges just use tensile, so it's not bowden. > > Been around bikes too much, thanks for the clarification don't be too hasty - i might be bullshitting!             Date: 29 Sep 2007 14:58:16 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:38:15 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >Frank Drackman wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>> In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >>>> BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> sutherland's >>>>> >>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >>>>> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >>>>>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >>>>>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >>>>>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >>>>>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >>>>>> does for auto repair. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to >>>>>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this >>>>>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and >>>>>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol >>>> At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance (and >>>> the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. I'd just >>>> get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the material >>>> overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out unless >>>> you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork maintenance >>>> on your MTB. >>>> >>>> Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every >>>> mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having your >>>> own bike manual. >>>> >>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor >>>> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>> /a/ book. >>> >>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >>>> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>> >>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as >>> high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and >>> costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a >>> higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the >>> book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by >>> the rim manufacturer". >> >> I guess that we all saw that coming...sad >> > >And completely wrong, it's not what the book says at all. Dear Peter, Here's what the 3rd edition says: FINDING THE RIGHT TENSION The following method works well in determining proper spoke tension for conventional road rims of up to 43 0 grams with 36 spokes. Tighten all the spokes a quarter turn at a time, starting at the valve stem hole. Once a distinct tone can be made by plucking, and spokes are not easily squeezed together by grasping them in pairs, it is time to check tension. After each round of tightening, test the tension by stress relieving. If the wheel becomes untrue in two large waves during stress relieving, the maximum, safe tension has been exceeded. Approach this tension carefully to avoid major rim distortions. When the wheel loses alignment from stress relieving, loosen all spokes a half turn before retruing the wheel Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 30 Sep 2007 11:09:41 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:38:15 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Frank Drackman wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>> In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> sutherland's >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >>>>>> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >>>>>>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >>>>>>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >>>>>>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >>>>>>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >>>>>>> does for auto repair. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to >>>>>>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this >>>>>>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and >>>>>>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol >>>>> At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance (and >>>>> the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. I'd just >>>>> get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the material >>>>> overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out unless >>>>> you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork maintenance >>>>> on your MTB. >>>>> >>>>> Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every >>>>> mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having your >>>>> own bike manual. >>>>> >>>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor >>>>> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>>> /a/ book. >>>> >>>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >>>>> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>>> >>>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as >>>> high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and >>>> costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a >>>> higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the >>>> book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by >>>> the rim manufacturer". >>> I guess that we all saw that coming...sad >>> >> And completely wrong, it's not what the book says at all. > > Dear Peter, > > Here's what the 3rd edition says: > > FINDING THE RIGHT TENSION > > The following method works well in determining proper spoke tension > for conventional road rims of up to 43 0 grams with 36 spokes. Tighten > all the spokes a quarter turn at a time, starting at the valve stem > hole. Once a distinct tone can be made by plucking, and spokes are not > easily squeezed together by grasping them in pairs, it is time to > check tension. After each round of tightening, test the tension by > stress relieving. If the wheel becomes untrue in two large waves > during stress relieving, the maximum, safe tension has been exceeded. > Approach this tension carefully to avoid major rim distortions. When > the wheel loses alignment from stress relieving, loosen all spokes a > half turn before retruing the wheel > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Yes, I know, I have that edition. It also describes, in a previous section "Final Tensioning", use of a tensiometer (with drawing), and comparison by tone to a known good wheel as methods of achieving proper tension. In the context, the method described above is given as an alternative with the stated qualifications (<430g, 36 spokes), presumably for those without tensiometers. He goes on to say that for heavy rims or road rims with less than 32 spokes that tensioning is usually at the limit when nipples can no longer be easily turned. The overall impression I get is that Jobst is trying to give people a feel for how tight spokes should be. It seems obvious that, for rims where the manufacturer has specified a maximum spoke tension, those limits should be observed, and a tensiometer is required to do that. From its online manual, Mavic indicates that conventional 3 cross wheels should have tensions in the 70-90kg range. They also set weight limits on their road wheels (2008) for 100kg, bike rider & gear. Both seem low. Perhaps wheel builders using Mavic product should read the fine print carefully and never build without a tensiometer. It would be interesting to know what the actual tension would be if the quoted procedure was followed for the kind of rim described. As far as I know, no one has reported that.                 Date: 07 Oct 2007 03:53:04 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > > And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and > they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the > symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true > to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the > makers recommendations. FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage. And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that doesn't destroy the rim. - Frank Krygowski                   Date: 07 Oct 2007 08:38:18 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and >> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the >> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true >> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the >> makers recommendations. > > FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should > have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage. > > And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily > out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that > doesn't destroy the rim. > > - Frank Krygowski > do you use a pressure gauge when inflating the tires on your car?                 Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:12:13 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 10:06 pm, Tom Sherman "underpaid and underlaid" wrote: > Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" - Bicycle wrote: > > > > > On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote: > > >> That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and > >> durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack > >> at spoke eyelets. > > > If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH, > > using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids > > this problem in most cases. > > > <boilerplate blather snipped> > > >> That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in > >> itself. > > > With all due respect, that's horse pucky. Shall we inflate tires until > > they blow off the rim and just go 5 psi lower the next time? Or should > > we at least look at the makers recommendations for max inflation? > > >> Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because > >> the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned. > > > And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and > > they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the > > symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true > > to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the > > makers recommendations. > > > <remainder snipped> > > What part of making the rim stronger in resistance to buckling than > needed (for the maximum spoke tension the spoke bed can sustain) being a > waste of materials (and therefore making an unnecessarily heavy rim for > the strength of the wheel) do you not understand? > How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?                   Date: 06 Oct 2007 22:19:22 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Oct 6, 10:06 pm, Tom Sherman "underpaid and underlaid" wrote: >> Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" - Bicycle wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote: >>>> That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and >>>> durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack >>>> at spoke eyelets. >>> If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH, >>> using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids >>> this problem in most cases. >>> <boilerplate blather snipped> >>>> That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in >>>> itself. >>> With all due respect, that's horse pucky. Shall we inflate tires until >>> they blow off the rim and just go 5 psi lower the next time? Or should >>> we at least look at the makers recommendations for max inflation? >>>> Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because >>>> the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned. >>> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and >>> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the >>> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true >>> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the >>> makers recommendations. >>> <remainder snipped> >> What part of making the rim stronger in resistance to buckling than >> needed (for the maximum spoke tension the spoke bed can sustain) being a >> waste of materials (and therefore making an unnecessarily heavy rim for >> the strength of the wheel) do you not understand? >> > > How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy? > I am not a construction worker, so I have not built any buildings, bridges, elevated storage tanks, etc. However, quite a few of these have been built using my design recommendations, with no failures. Proper analysis and design does not require actual construction experience. I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I have not built any wheels that size. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 30 Sep 2007 08:22:25 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:38:15 -0400, Peter Cole >> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Frank Drackman wrote: >>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>> news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>>> In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> sutherland's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. >>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and >>>>>>>> frankly >>>>>>>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is >>>>>>>> a book >>>>>>>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that >>>>>>>> shows >>>>>>>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>> does for auto repair. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would >>>>>>>> like to >>>>>>>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an >>>>>>>> engineer and >>>>>>>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol >>>>>> At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike >>>>>> Maintenance (and the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good >>>>>> Chilton-level books. I'd just get the one for your primary kind of >>>>>> ride, as much of the material overlaps, and the differences aren't >>>>>> liable to catch you out unless you're a roadie and you decide to >>>>>> start doing your own fork maintenance on your MTB. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every >>>>>> mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as >>>>>> having your own bike manual. >>>>>> >>>>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular >>>>>> contributor here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>>>> /a/ book. >>>>> >>>>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both >>>>>> the theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>>>> >>>>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension >>>>> "as high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>>>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical >>>>> [and costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can >>>>> cause a higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim >>>>> cracking. the book should should be amended to specify spoke >>>>> tension "as determined by the rim manufacturer". >>>> I guess that we all saw that coming...sad >>> And completely wrong, it's not what the book says at all. >> >> Dear Peter, >> >> Here's what the 3rd edition says: >> >> FINDING THE RIGHT TENSION >> >> The following method works well in determining proper spoke tension >> for conventional road rims of up to 43 0 grams with 36 spokes. Tighten >> all the spokes a quarter turn at a time, starting at the valve stem >> hole. Once a distinct tone can be made by plucking, and spokes are not >> easily squeezed together by grasping them in pairs, it is time to >> check tension. After each round of tightening, test the tension by >> stress relieving. If the wheel becomes untrue in two large waves >> during stress relieving, the maximum, safe tension has been exceeded. >> Approach this tension carefully to avoid major rim distortions. When >> the wheel loses alignment from stress relieving, loosen all spokes a >> half turn before retruing the wheel >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > > Yes, I know, I have that edition. > > It also describes, in a previous section "Final Tensioning", use of a > tensiometer (with drawing), and comparison by tone to a known good wheel > as methods of achieving proper tension. > > In the context, the method described above is given as an alternative > with the stated qualifications (<430g, 36 spokes), presumably for those > without tensiometers. > > He goes on to say that for heavy rims or road rims with less than 32 > spokes that tensioning is usually at the limit when nipples can no > longer be easily turned. > > The overall impression I get is that Jobst is trying to give people a > feel for how tight spokes should be. It seems obvious that, for rims > where the manufacturer has specified a maximum spoke tension, those > limits should be observed, and a tensiometer is required to do that. > > From its online manual, Mavic indicates that conventional 3 cross > wheels should have tensions in the 70-90kg range. They also set weight > limits on their road wheels (2008) for 100kg, bike rider & gear. Both > seem low. Perhaps wheel builders using Mavic product should read the > fine print carefully and never build without a tensiometer. > > It would be interesting to know what the actual tension would be if the > quoted procedure was followed for the kind of rim described. As far as > I know, no one has reported that. to avoid pretzel? what's the point? longevity depends on avoiding rim cracking and fatigue, and the manufacturer has reported that already. increasing tension doesn't increase strength so there's no point seeking more of it.                   Date: 03 Oct 2007 16:40:10 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 3, 1:23 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:51:16 -0000, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" > > <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote: > > [snip] > > > . . .I'm quite sure that an 18-spoke wheel will suffer > >higher cyclic loads on the spokes than a 36 spoke wheel. > > Dear Ben, > > If the 18-spoke wheel has a significantly stronger rim than a > traditional 36-spoke rim, it will deform less and the spokes may see > the same (or even lower) cyclic loads. > > I _think_ that this is what Jim Beam has in mind. I was only answering Ben C's question about what would happen if you built an MA-2 type rim with 18 spokes instead of 36. This was quoted in my original response but has since gotten lost. I agree that a deeper or heavier rim is stiffer, but changing more than one thing at a time (rim stiffness and spoke number) makes it hard to isolate effects. Collective experience suggests that an MA-2 with 18 spokes would not make a great wheel. I don't have a lot of luck figuring out what jim beam has in mind, but he seemed to be taking the limit of an infinitely stiff rim, which I argued isn't a useful limit for then dialing back to figure out what a stiff, but not infinitely stiff, rim will do. The indeterminacies in the structure are different if you crank one of the moduli up to infinity - an infinitely stiff rim won't deform under load, so the spokes won't be cyclically stressed in the same way as in a real wheel. Ben > > Certainly Jobst wrote that aero rims were stronger: > > "With large cross section mountain bike and deep section aero rims the > tension of 36 spokes may not exceed the strength of the rim. For such > heavy rims and conventional road rims using fewer than 32 spokes, > tensioning is usually at the limit when the nipples can no longer be > tightened easily." > > --3rd edition >                     Date: 03 Oct 2007 19:32:37 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191429610.341865.90450@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote: > On Oct 3, 1:23 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:51:16 -0000, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" > > > > <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > . . .I'm quite sure that an 18-spoke wheel will suffer > > >higher cyclic loads on the spokes than a 36 spoke wheel. > > > > Dear Ben, > > > > If the 18-spoke wheel has a significantly stronger rim than a > > traditional 36-spoke rim, it will deform less and the spokes may see > > the same (or even lower) cyclic loads. > > > > I _think_ that this is what Jim Beam has in mind. > > I was only answering Ben C's question about what would > happen if you built an MA-2 type rim with 18 spokes > instead of 36. This was quoted in my original response > but has since gotten lost. I agree that a deeper or heavier > rim is stiffer, but changing more than one thing at a time > (rim stiffness and spoke number) makes it hard to isolate > effects. Collective experience suggests that an MA-2 > with 18 spokes would not make a great wheel. > > I don't have a lot of luck figuring out what jim beam > has in mind, but he seemed to be taking the limit of an > infinitely stiff rim, which I argued isn't a useful > limit for then dialing back to figure out what a stiff, > but not infinitely stiff, rim will do. The indeterminacies > in the structure are different if you crank one of > the moduli up to infinity - an infinitely stiff rim > won't deform under load, so the spokes won't be > cyclically stressed in the same way as in a real > wheel. A sufficiently stiff rim could be so loosely spoked that it would hang from the top spokes. -- Michael Press                       Date: 04 Oct 2007 03:18:29 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Michael Press writes: >>>> ...I'm quite sure that an 18-spoke wheel will suffer higher >>>> cyclic loads on the spokes than a 36 spoke wheel. >>> Dear Ben, >>> If the 18-spoke wheel has a significantly stronger rim than a >>> traditional 36-spoke rim, it will deform less and the spokes may >>> see the same (or even lower) cyclic loads. >>> I _think_ that this is what Jim Beam has in mind. >> I was only answering Ben C's question about what would happen if >> you built an MA-2 type rim with 18 spokes instead of 36. This was >> quoted in my original response but has since gotten lost. I agree >> that a deeper or heavier rim is stiffer, but changing more than one >> thing at a time (rim stiffness and spoke number) makes it hard to >> isolate effects. Collective experience suggests that an MA-2 with >> 18 spokes would not make a great wheel. >> I don't have a lot of luck figuring out what jim beam has in mind, >> but he seemed to be taking the limit of an infinitely stiff rim, >> which I argued isn't a useful limit for then dialing back to figure >> out what a stiff, but not infinitely stiff, rim will do. The >> indeterminacies in the structure are different if you crank one of >> the moduli up to infinity - an infinitely stiff rim won't deform >> under load, so the spokes won't be cyclically stressed in the same >> way as in a real wheel. > A sufficiently stiff rim could be so loosely spoked that it would > hang from the top spokes. If you try that experiment you'll see that upper spokes do not stretch significantly and that their tension does not increase, if they have tension. The rim deforms to cause fairly uniform tension in all spokes not in the flattened area of the rim. It is not exactly hanging from the top spokes but having tension in the remainder, with no tension in the bottom spokes, which comes out to about the same as a tensioned wheel except that it has little lateral stability at the road contact zone. I saw a rider who had such a wheel with spokes rattling as they passed through the flattened zone. The event gave me the opportunity to check spoke tension when he sat on the saddle. Jobst Brandt                         Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:35:59 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Michael Press writes: > >>>>> ...I'm quite sure that an 18-spoke wheel will suffer higher >>>>> cyclic loads on the spokes than a 36 spoke wheel. > >>>> Dear Ben, > >>>> If the 18-spoke wheel has a significantly stronger rim than a >>>> traditional 36-spoke rim, it will deform less and the spokes may >>>> see the same (or even lower) cyclic loads. > >>>> I _think_ that this is what Jim Beam has in mind. > >>> I was only answering Ben C's question about what would happen if >>> you built an MA-2 type rim with 18 spokes instead of 36. This was >>> quoted in my original response but has since gotten lost. I agree >>> that a deeper or heavier rim is stiffer, but changing more than one >>> thing at a time (rim stiffness and spoke number) makes it hard to >>> isolate effects. Collective experience suggests that an MA-2 with >>> 18 spokes would not make a great wheel. > >>> I don't have a lot of luck figuring out what jim beam has in mind, >>> but he seemed to be taking the limit of an infinitely stiff rim, >>> which I argued isn't a useful limit for then dialing back to figure >>> out what a stiff, but not infinitely stiff, rim will do. The >>> indeterminacies in the structure are different if you crank one of >>> the moduli up to infinity - an infinitely stiff rim won't deform >>> under load, so the spokes won't be cyclically stressed in the same >>> way as in a real wheel. > >> A sufficiently stiff rim could be so loosely spoked that it would >> hang from the top spokes. > > If you try that experiment you'll see that upper spokes do not stretch > significantly and that their tension does not increase, if they have > tension. The rim deforms to cause fairly uniform tension in all > spokes not in the flattened area of the rim. It is not exactly > hanging from the top spokes but having tension in the remainder, with > no tension in the bottom spokes, which comes out to about the same as > a tensioned wheel except that it has little lateral stability at the > road contact zone. > > I saw a rider who had such a wheel with spokes rattling as they passed > through the flattened zone. The event gave me the opportunity to > check spoke tension when he sat on the saddle. > > Jobst Brandt you're confused. if the rim is infinitely stiff, spokes bear the load with tension increase and tension increase, above and below, and the solution is geometrical. if the rim distorts, that distortion is superimposed /on top of/ the original load bearing changes. you need to separate the two concepts to understand the whole.                           Date: 06 Oct 2007 04:02:03 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: [...] > if the rim is infinitely stiff, spokes bear the load with tension > increase and tension increase, above and below, and the solution is > geometrical. if the rim distorts, that distortion is superimposed /on > top of/ the original load bearing changes. you need to separate the > two concepts to understand the whole. ITYM "tension increase and tension decrease"? I have a herring at this point which is the question of the pre-tensioned space elevator. The idea is you have a geo-stationary satellite, but attached to Earth with a cable. If it were in a normal geo-stationary orbit the cable would have zero tension, so you put the satellite a little bit further out so that it's geo-stationary with 20 tons of tension in the cable. Then you winch a load up the cable that weighs 5 tons. I was hoping the cable would lose tension (to about 15 tons) below the load but stay about the same (20 tons) above it, and the satellite's orbit would not be perturbed. Is this right, or would we see a tension increase above the load as well?                             Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:27:55 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ben C wrote: > On 2007-10-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > [...] >> if the rim is infinitely stiff, spokes bear the load with tension >> increase and tension increase, above and below, and the solution is >> geometrical. if the rim distorts, that distortion is superimposed /on >> top of/ the original load bearing changes. you need to separate the >> two concepts to understand the whole. > > ITYM "tension increase and tension decrease"? er, yes. thanks. > > I have a herring at this point which is the question of the > pre-tensioned space elevator. stop right there... that herring is so large and contentious, there's just no way. > > The idea is you have a geo-stationary satellite, but attached to Earth > with a cable. If it were in a normal geo-stationary orbit the cable > would have zero tension, so you put the satellite a little bit further > out so that it's geo-stationary with 20 tons of tension in the cable. > > Then you winch a load up the cable that weighs 5 tons. I was hoping the > cable would lose tension (to about 15 tons) below the load but stay > about the same (20 tons) above it, and the satellite's orbit would not > be perturbed. Is this right, or would we see a tension increase above > the load as well?                         Date: 03 Oct 2007 22:31:36 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <47045b85$0$14118$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Michael Press writes: > > >>>> ...I'm quite sure that an 18-spoke wheel will suffer higher > >>>> cyclic loads on the spokes than a 36 spoke wheel. > > >>> Dear Ben, > > >>> If the 18-spoke wheel has a significantly stronger rim than a > >>> traditional 36-spoke rim, it will deform less and the spokes may > >>> see the same (or even lower) cyclic loads. > > >>> I _think_ that this is what Jim Beam has in mind. > > >> I was only answering Ben C's question about what would happen if > >> you built an MA-2 type rim with 18 spokes instead of 36. This was > >> quoted in my original response but has since gotten lost. I agree > >> that a deeper or heavier rim is stiffer, but changing more than one > >> thing at a time (rim stiffness and spoke number) makes it hard to > >> isolate effects. Collective experience suggests that an MA-2 with > >> 18 spokes would not make a great wheel. > > >> I don't have a lot of luck figuring out what jim beam has in mind, > >> but he seemed to be taking the limit of an infinitely stiff rim, > >> which I argued isn't a useful limit for then dialing back to figure > >> out what a stiff, but not infinitely stiff, rim will do. The > >> indeterminacies in the structure are different if you crank one of > >> the moduli up to infinity - an infinitely stiff rim won't deform > >> under load, so the spokes won't be cyclically stressed in the same > >> way as in a real wheel. > > > A sufficiently stiff rim could be so loosely spoked that it would > > hang from the top spokes. > > If you try that experiment you'll see that upper spokes do not stretch > significantly and that their tension does not increase, if they have > tension. The rim deforms to cause fairly uniform tension in all > spokes not in the flattened area of the rim. It is not exactly > hanging from the top spokes but having tension in the remainder, with > no tension in the bottom spokes, which comes out to about the same as > a tensioned wheel except that it has little lateral stability at the > road contact zone. > > I saw a rider who had such a wheel with spokes rattling as they passed > through the flattened zone. The event gave me the opportunity to > check spoke tension when he sat on the saddle. I still say that with a _very_ stiff rim, and spokes that are not tensioned at all the hub will hang from the top spokes. This is not an idle flight of fancy. I suggest that this is the model for most people who think that in a tensioned wire spoke wheel the hub hangs from the top spokes. -- Michael Press                   Date: 30 Sep 2007 18:01:43 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> It would be interesting to know what the actual tension would be if >> the quoted procedure was followed for the kind of rim described. As >> far as I know, no one has reported that. > > to avoid pretzel? what's the point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Jobst infers that following his alternate procedure will result in a spoke tension of around 100kg. > longevity depends on avoiding rim > cracking and fatigue, and the manufacturer has reported that already. > increasing tension doesn't increase strength so there's no point seeking > more of it. Mavic (and most others I presume) spec a min and max. I haven't seen anyone (including Jobst) recommending using more than the max spec. So what's the problem? You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce higher than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? I've used lots of wheels, Mavic & others, the only cracking I ever got was with Mavic Reflex rims (2). I don't know what tension they were built to, I don't think it was very high, they had to be Locktited. All of my other rims just wore out on the brake track.                     Date: 08 Oct 2007 04:44:07 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 10:42 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1191725789.830293.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > Ozark Bicycle > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote: > > > > That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and > > > durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack > > > at spoke eyelets. > > > If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH, > > using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids > > this problem in most cases. > > Building a rim with sockets that can carry a spoke load in > excess of the buckling load of the rim avoids the problem > without a builder wasting time going to a manufacturer's > web site and wasting time searching for the information. > > Choice: > > * Search for the data and use a tensiometer to keep > spoke tension under the manufacturer's specification. > > * Build the wheel with spoke tension just under > the tension that will buckle the rim. > > I want the second choice. > I think you should petition the rim makers to make a special line of rims for lazy, cheapskate home wheel builders. ;-)                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 09:59:42 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191843847.754063.29070@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Oct 7, 10:42 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > In article > > <1191725789.830293.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > > Ozark Bicycle > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote: > > > > > > That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and > > > > durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack > > > > at spoke eyelets. > > > > > If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH, > > > using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids > > > this problem in most cases. > > > > Building a rim with sockets that can carry a spoke load in > > excess of the buckling load of the rim avoids the problem > > without a builder wasting time going to a manufacturer's > > web site and wasting time searching for the information. > > > > Choice: > > > > * Search for the data and use a tensiometer to keep > > spoke tension under the manufacturer's specification. > > > > * Build the wheel with spoke tension just under > > the tension that will buckle the rim. > > > > I want the second choice. > > > > I think you should petition the rim makers to make a special line of > rims for lazy, cheapskate home wheel builders. ;-) You rang? -- Michael Press                     Date: 07 Oct 2007 09:12:40 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 7, 11:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and > >> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the > >> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true > >> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the > >> makers recommendations. > > > FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should > > have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage. > > > And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily > > out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that > > doesn't destroy the rim. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > do you use a pressure gauge when inflating the tires on your car? Why, yes, I do. Do I use a pressure gage when inflating my bike tires? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Do I use a torque wrench when tightening cylinder head bolts? Absolutely. Do I use a torque wrench when replacing brake pads on my bike brakes? Never. Should every mechanical operation involving a bike require investing in a new, single purpose, $60 tool? Absolutely not. Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. - Frank Krygowski                       Date: 07 Oct 2007 09:33:42 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 7, 11:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >>>> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and >>>> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the >>>> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true >>>> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the >>>> makers recommendations. >>> FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should >>> have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage. >>> And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily >>> out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that >>> doesn't destroy the rim. >>> - Frank Krygowski >> do you use a pressure gauge when inflating the tires on your car? > > Why, yes, I do. > > Do I use a pressure gage when inflating my bike tires? Sometimes yes, > sometimes no. > > Do I use a torque wrench when tightening cylinder head bolts? > Absolutely. > > Do I use a torque wrench when replacing brake pads on my bike brakes? > Never. > > Should every mechanical operation involving a bike require investing > in a new, single purpose, $60 tool? Absolutely not. > > Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool > to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not. > > - Frank Krygowski > that's uninformed and arbitrary. the logic for using instruments is that humans can't judge the effect of the process they're undertaking. that is as applicable to wheel spokes as it is to tire pressure or cylinder head bolting. if anything, more so given that the materials involved don't give any indication of pending failure until it's too late. at least with a cylinder head, permanent damage is preceded by leakage and permanent damage can often be avoided.                     Date: 06 Oct 2007 15:13:12 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 6, 9:28 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > > the only difference between tension and compression is the "+" or "-" > sign you use - in all other respects, the math is identical. That's not what Leonhard Euler taught us. There is the matter of buckling. Or as one of my engineering professors put it, "You can't push a rope." For most practical purposes, it's important to distinguish between (net) tension and (net) compression, at least in narrow members. Although I've got no problem with the mathematics of the plus and minus signs, I'm not fond of Jobst's phrasing, which may cause some people to confuse reduced tension with net compresson. If you're actually going to agree with Jobst on something, I wish it were something else. - Frank Krygowski                       Date: 06 Oct 2007 08:27:05 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 6, 9:28 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> the only difference between tension and compression is the "+" or "-" >> sign you use - in all other respects, the math is identical. > > That's not what Leonhard Euler taught us. There is the matter of > buckling. Or as one of my engineering professors put it, "You can't > push a rope." For most practical purposes, it's important to > distinguish between (net) tension and (net) compression, at least in > narrow members. buckling is not a factor unless you're slack spoking. > > Although I've got no problem with the mathematics of the plus and > minus signs, I'm not fond of Jobst's phrasing, which may cause some > people to confuse reduced tension with net compresson. > > If you're actually going to agree with Jobst on something, I wish it > were something else. > > - Frank Krygowski > >                     Date: 30 Sep 2007 21:23:00 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: > >>> It would be interesting to know what the actual tension would be if >>> the quoted procedure was followed for the kind of rim described. As >>> far as I know, no one has reported that. >> >> to avoid pretzel? what's the point? > > I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Jobst infers that following his > alternate procedure will result in a spoke tension of around 100kg. "infers"??? how can you infer a number??? oh, wait, it's /convenient/ to state it after the fact! my mistake. > >> longevity depends on avoiding rim cracking and fatigue, and the >> manufacturer has reported that already. increasing tension doesn't >> increase strength so there's no point seeking more of it. > > Mavic (and most others I presume) spec a min and max. I haven't seen > anyone (including Jobst) recommending using more than the max spec. So > what's the problem? what is numerical about "as high as the rim can bear"??? modern deep profile rims can take much more stress before they buckle, but the alloy from which they are made is just as anisotropic and very similar in yield. a rim stiff enough to take double spoke tension [as determined by the jobstian method] before buckling isn't going to make rims last very long when it comes to cracking. use of a tensiometer is therefore essential. > > You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce higher > than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? because i've tried it! > > I've used lots of wheels, Mavic & others, the only cracking I ever got > was with Mavic Reflex rims (2). I don't know what tension they were > built to, er,... > I don't think it was very high, that's a cop-out - for someone purporting to be an engineer, it's also remarkably incurious. > they had to be Locktited. eh? aren't you one of those that condemns loctite? > All > of my other rims just wore out on the brake track. as will happen to all rims if accident or excess spoke tension doesn't kill them first.                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:32:36 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > Reid wrote: > > > Just out of curiosity, are rim walls weaker or are rims constructed in a > > way that they are tougher to buckle? > > Compared to an older, "box section" rim (e.g., the Mavic MA-2), most > newer rims are "tougher to buckle", making the "Brandt methodology" > obsolete, even dangerous to the life of the rim. In my observation, most of them are weaker too, especially but not exclusively in their ability to support the point loads of spoke tension. Mavics have seriously declined in that regard, and their welded seams are now less able to resist hoop compression from high spoke counts. At one time they were my rims of choice, but then their quality deteriorated and their prices soared. I no longer have any use for Mavics. Aero rims constitute another "innovation" that doesn't generally work for me. Their increased section height almost always comes at the expense of width, which makes them less than satisfactory for mounting wide tires. If more aero rims were both tall and moderately wide like the Velocity Deep-V ATB rim, or if Velocity made that extrusion in the 700c size, I'd probably use them sometimes. But no such luck. Chalo                         Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:13:56 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <1191868356.276440.283050@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > Reid wrote: > > > > > Just out of curiosity, are rim walls weaker or are rims constructed in a > > > way that they are tougher to buckle? > > > > Compared to an older, "box section" rim (e.g., the Mavic MA-2), most > > newer rims are "tougher to buckle", making the "Brandt methodology" > > obsolete, even dangerous to the life of the rim. > > In my observation, most of them are weaker too, especially but not > exclusively in their ability to support the point loads of spoke > tension. Mavics have seriously declined in that regard, and their > welded seams are now less able to resist hoop compression from high > spoke counts. At one time they were my rims of choice, but then their > quality deteriorated and their prices soared. I no longer have any > use for Mavics. > > Aero rims constitute another "innovation" that doesn't generally work > for me. Their increased section height almost always comes at the > expense of width, which makes them less than satisfactory for mounting > wide tires. If more aero rims were both tall and moderately wide like > the Velocity Deep-V ATB rim, or if Velocity made that extrusion in the > 700c size, I'd probably use them sometimes. But no such luck. > > Chalo Are 29ers increasing the quantity of ISO 622 rims that meet your approval? -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos                       Date: 08 Oct 2007 05:52:49 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Oct 8, 7:34 am, Reid <rra...@gmail.com > wrote: > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > > Mark <m...@blackesthole.com> writes: > > >>> The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high > >>> spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from > >>> road irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the > >>> buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent > >>> spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin > >>> to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension > >>> because the force is not adequately distributed. > > >> [snip] > > >> After years of relying on the tensioning method in The Bicycle > >> Wheel, I discovered - two expensive rims too late - that "rims begin > >> to crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension." > >> I wish I had noticed sooner that your advice (and rim design) had > >> changed. > > > It hasn't. The rims have changed. You cannot spoke most > > non-deep-aero rims with tension close to buckling today without > > cracking the rim. It is my contention that building unsocketed rims > > has brought us to this point and don't find such rims useful for me or > > for recommendation. > > > At InterBike I saw rims that might work but they are not available in > > stores and catalogs from which I might purchase them. > > > Jobst Brandt > > I don't know whether "sockets" are the same as "eyelets." But, I have > had the cracking around spoke holes problem (actually dimpling at > several spoke holes) with a rim with eyelets, specifically a new Mavic > Open Pro, when tensioning a rim using the Bicycle Wheel method. > > I should have noticed that something was wrong before I dimpled it. The > nipples weren't turning the way they should have been. I assumed I had > lubricated the spokes poorly, though I hadn't noticed that I had done > anything different than usual. > > Just out of curiosity, are rim walls weaker or are rims constructed in a > way that they are tougher to buckle? Compared to an older, "box section" rim (e.g., the Mavic MA-2), most newer rims are "tougher to buckle", making the "Brandt methodology" obsolete, even dangerous to the life of the rim. > I have loosened some of the spokes > in my dimpled wheel, but I recall the spoke tension being much greater > than Peter's 100 kgf.                       Date: 01 Oct 2007 10:10:28 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Mavic (and most others I presume) spec a min and max. I haven't seen >> anyone (including Jobst) recommending using more than the max spec. So >> what's the problem? > > what is numerical about "as high as the rim can bear"??? modern deep > profile rims can take much more stress before they buckle, but the alloy > from which they are made is just as anisotropic and very similar in > yield. a rim stiff enough to take double spoke tension [as determined > by the jobstian method] before buckling isn't going to make rims last > very long when it comes to cracking. use of a tensiometer is therefore > essential. Jobst excluded heavy and/or deep section and/or low spoke count rims from his alternate method. If you had a tensiometer, and a manufacturer's max spoke tension spec., it would seem obvious to anyone to use both. The obvious context of his method is where a spec and perhaps even a tensiometer weren't available. >> You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce higher >> than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? > > because i've tried it! I don't believe you've reported this before. What rim and what was your final tension? >> I've used lots of wheels, Mavic & others, the only cracking I ever got >> was with Mavic Reflex rims (2). I don't know what tension they were >> built to, > > er,... > > > I don't think it was very high, > > that's a cop-out - for someone purporting to be an engineer, it's also > remarkably incurious. > > > they had to be Locktited. > > eh? aren't you one of those that condemns loctite? I cite the Locktite as evidence they weren't too high. I didn't build the wheel. It was my first bike purchase when I reentered cycling many years ago. I only became curious after the fact when a wheel that had to be Locktited to keep nipples from unscrewing also cracked spoke holes. I started learning about wheels. That was my last wheel to use Locktite. Also my last one to crack.                         Date: 01 Oct 2007 21:07:59 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: > >>> Mavic (and most others I presume) spec a min and max. I haven't seen >>> anyone (including Jobst) recommending using more than the max spec. >>> So what's the problem? >> >> what is numerical about "as high as the rim can bear"??? modern deep >> profile rims can take much more stress before they buckle, but the >> alloy from which they are made is just as anisotropic and very similar >> in yield. a rim stiff enough to take double spoke tension [as >> determined by the jobstian method] before buckling isn't going to make >> rims last very long when it comes to cracking. use of a tensiometer >> is therefore essential. > > Jobst excluded heavy and/or deep section and/or low spoke count rims > from his alternate method. only because they weren't around at the time of original writing. he's had plenty of opportunity to revisit since. and has steadfastly refused. regarding spoke tension, jobst is incorrect when he says reducing spoke count should increase spoke tension. there is /no/ reason a rim should keep "constant" compression in this way. and tension does not increase the strength of a wheel. hence, if you check manufacturer tension figures for rims with different spoke counts, you'll find the same tension spec regardless of count. but this is unsurprising if you also consider that increasing tension increases spoke cracking at the point of loading. > > If you had a tensiometer, and a manufacturer's max spoke tension spec., > it would seem obvious to anyone to use both. the book doesn't even begin to say that, it simply rattles on about increasing spoke tension to the point of rim buckling. > The obvious context of his > method is where a spec and perhaps even a tensiometer weren't available. that's not the case today. $60 buys you a tensiometer. no excuse not to buy and use it at that price. > >>> You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce higher >>> than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? >> >> because i've tried it! > > I don't believe you've reported this before. no one has asked before. > What rim and what was your > final tension? x517 = ~#"27" average over 5 spokes on the park gauge. for a 1.8mm spoke, that's >175kgf. x618 = ~#"26" average over 5 spokes. that's ~=175kgf. the others i've since re-tensioned but the open pros were in that range. > > >>> I've used lots of wheels, Mavic & others, the only cracking I ever >>> got was with Mavic Reflex rims (2). I don't know what tension they >>> were built to, >> >> er,... >> >> > I don't think it was very high, >> >> that's a cop-out - for someone purporting to be an engineer, it's also >> remarkably incurious. >> >> > they had to be Locktited. >> >> eh? aren't you one of those that condemns loctite? > > I cite the Locktite as evidence they weren't too high. I didn't build > the wheel. "i didn't build that wheel". that's the excuse you used last time. what you don't acknowledge is that it means you therefore also don't know the full history. > It was my first bike purchase when I reentered cycling many > years ago. I only became curious after the fact when a wheel that had to > be Locktited to keep nipples from unscrewing also cracked spoke holes. I > started learning about wheels. That was my last wheel to use Locktite. > Also my last one to crack. see above.                           Date: 02 Oct 2007 09:47:54 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >> >>>> Mavic (and most others I presume) spec a min and max. I haven't seen >>>> anyone (including Jobst) recommending using more than the max spec. >>>> So what's the problem? >>> >>> what is numerical about "as high as the rim can bear"??? modern deep >>> profile rims can take much more stress before they buckle, but the >>> alloy from which they are made is just as anisotropic and very >>> similar in yield. a rim stiff enough to take double spoke tension >>> [as determined by the jobstian method] before buckling isn't going to >>> make rims last very long when it comes to cracking. use of a >>> tensiometer is therefore essential. >> >> Jobst excluded heavy and/or deep section and/or low spoke count rims >> from his alternate method. > > only because they weren't around at the time of original writing. he's > had plenty of opportunity to revisit since. and has steadfastly refused. He explicitly excluded them. He realized that his rule of thumb would only apply to rims with specific characteristics. > regarding spoke tension, jobst is incorrect when he says reducing spoke > count should increase spoke tension. there is /no/ reason a rim should > keep "constant" compression in this way. and tension does not increase > the strength of a wheel. hence, if you check manufacturer tension > figures for rims with different spoke counts, you'll find the same > tension spec regardless of count. but this is unsurprising if you also > consider that increasing tension increases spoke cracking at the point > of loading. Increasing spoke tension does make a stronger wheel. The higher the initial tension, the greater the load the wheel can support before the spokes go slack. Slack spokes don't support the rim from buckling. >> If you had a tensiometer, and a manufacturer's max spoke tension >> spec., it would seem obvious to anyone to use both. > > the book doesn't even begin to say that, it simply rattles on about > increasing spoke tension to the point of rim buckling. This was a method to determine the maximum spoke tension for a specific category of rims, as determined by rim buckling. He never said that you should exceed manufacturer's spec for maximum tension. You could claim he implied that, but why would he? That seems absurd on the face o it. >> The obvious context of his method is where a spec and perhaps even a >> tensiometer weren't available. > > that's not the case today. $60 buys you a tensiometer. no excuse not > to buy and use it at that price. Well, by your logic, if there's no real minimum tension, why bother? >>>> You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce >>>> higher than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? >>> >>> because i've tried it! >> >> I don't believe you've reported this before. > > no one has asked before. > > >> What rim and what was your final tension? > > x517 = ~#"27" average over 5 spokes on the park gauge. for a 1.8mm > spoke, that's >175kgf. > x618 = ~#"26" average over 5 spokes. that's ~=175kgf. > > the others i've since re-tensioned but the open pros were in that range. Of course the first 2 rims are 559, since the buckle load varies with the square of length, that alone will give you a 25% or so error. If those are your final tensions, then your buckle tensions must have been over 200kg -- into plastic region of the spokes. I'm a little skeptical that, especially the Open Pro -- a rim that should have a lower buckle limit (lower moment of inertia) than the MA2's Jobst measured could take that much compression. >>>> I've used lots of wheels, Mavic & others, the only cracking I ever >>>> got was with Mavic Reflex rims (2). I don't know what tension they >>>> were built to, >>> >>> er,... >>> >>> > I don't think it was very high, >>> >>> that's a cop-out - for someone purporting to be an engineer, it's >>> also remarkably incurious. >>> >>> > they had to be Locktited. >>> >>> eh? aren't you one of those that condemns loctite? >> >> I cite the Locktite as evidence they weren't too high. I didn't build >> the wheel. > > "i didn't build that wheel". that's the excuse you used last time. what > you don't acknowledge is that it means you therefore also don't know the > full history. I know the "full history". It was built, I rode it, the left spokes loosened, they were Locktited, the rim developed cracking around the spoke holes in low mileage, a replacement rim went through the same thing. A replacement Open Pro (same builder, also Loctited) lasted until the brake track wore through ( >10K mi). >> It was my first bike purchase when I reentered cycling many years ago. >> I only became curious after the fact when a wheel that had to be >> Locktited to keep nipples from unscrewing also cracked spoke holes. I >> started learning about wheels. That was my last wheel to use Locktite. >> Also my last one to crack. > > see above. see below above.                             Date: 02 Oct 2007 20:55:42 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>> >>>>> Mavic (and most others I presume) spec a min and max. I haven't >>>>> seen anyone (including Jobst) recommending using more than the max >>>>> spec. So what's the problem? >>>> >>>> what is numerical about "as high as the rim can bear"??? modern >>>> deep profile rims can take much more stress before they buckle, but >>>> the alloy from which they are made is just as anisotropic and very >>>> similar in yield. a rim stiff enough to take double spoke tension >>>> [as determined by the jobstian method] before buckling isn't going >>>> to make rims last very long when it comes to cracking. use of a >>>> tensiometer is therefore essential. >>> >>> Jobst excluded heavy and/or deep section and/or low spoke count rims >>> from his alternate method. >> >> only because they weren't around at the time of original writing. >> he's had plenty of opportunity to revisit since. and has steadfastly >> refused. > > He explicitly excluded them. He realized that his rule of thumb would > only apply to rims with specific characteristics. he told you that? everything i've seen suggests ignorance of this matter, not calculated exclusion. if he knows about this stuff, he should discuss - this does purport to be an engineering treatise after all... > > >> regarding spoke tension, jobst is incorrect when he says reducing >> spoke count should increase spoke tension. there is /no/ reason a rim >> should keep "constant" compression in this way. and tension does not >> increase the strength of a wheel. hence, if you check manufacturer >> tension figures for rims with different spoke counts, you'll find the >> same tension spec regardless of count. but this is unsurprising if >> you also consider that increasing tension increases spoke cracking at >> the point of loading. > > Increasing spoke tension does make a stronger wheel. The higher the > initial tension, the greater the load the wheel can support before the > spokes go slack. Slack spokes don't support the rim from buckling. spokes need to be tense enough to resist slackness. but the higher the spoke tension, the closer the rim to compressive yield. and that means failure. you're repeating the jobstian error of only looking at the spoke loading and mis-concluding that it's indicative of whole wheel strength. > > >>> If you had a tensiometer, and a manufacturer's max spoke tension >>> spec., it would seem obvious to anyone to use both. >> >> the book doesn't even begin to say that, it simply rattles on about >> increasing spoke tension to the point of rim buckling. > > This was a method to determine the maximum spoke tension for a specific > category of rims, as determined by rim buckling. but that gives spoke tension too high and which causes rim cracking!!! > He never said that you > should exceed manufacturer's spec for maximum tension. no, because he never acknowledges it in any way! > You could claim > he implied that, but why would he? That seems absurd on the face o it. ok, show me where, either in the book or in the faq's, where he even begins to acknowledge manufacturer spoke tension specs! jobst simply stops all consideration of the subject once he does his spoke loading analysis [because he things it demonstrates strength] and fails to ignore all other aspects. and rim cracking, the obvious evidence that his theory is incomplete, is mis-attributed to anodizing, again by ignoring simple observational fact. > >>> The obvious context of his method is where a spec and perhaps even a >>> tensiometer weren't available. >> >> that's not the case today. $60 buys you a tensiometer. no excuse not >> to buy and use it at that price. > > Well, by your logic, if there's no real minimum tension, why bother? no, that's not my logic. you /do/ need tension to avoid spoke slackness which causes spoke fatigue and spoke nipple unscrewing. but tension above that limit achieves nothing for wheel strength and is *detrimental* in terms of rim cracking. > >>>>> You seem to be sure that Jobst's alternate method will produce >>>>> higher than max spec spoke tensions. How do you know that? >>>> >>>> because i've tried it! >>> >>> I don't believe you've reported this before. >> >> no one has asked before. >> >> >>> What rim and what was your final tension? >> >> x517 = ~#"27" average over 5 spokes on the park gauge. for a 1.8mm >> spoke, that's >175kgf. >> x618 = ~#"26" average over 5 spokes. that's ~=175kgf. >> >> the others i've since re-tensioned but the open pros were in that range. > > Of course the first 2 rims are 559, since the buckle load varies with > the square of length, that alone will give you a 25% or so error. but my open pro was about that level too. i'm not in a position to re-measure for you as i've re-tensioned that wheel, but you could easily verify for yourself. if you were genuinely curious of course. > > If those are your final tensions, then your buckle tensions must have > been over 200kg -- into plastic region of the spokes. still confused about plasticity? if a spoke has tensile strength of say 1,100Nmm^-2 for a 1.8mm butted spoke, [d.t.'s web site], then yield is 3,110N. 200kg is /well/ away from the plastic region of the spokes. > I'm a little > skeptical that, especially the Open Pro -- a rim that should have a > lower buckle limit (lower moment of inertia) than the MA2's Jobst > measured could take that much compression. no, that's underinformed presumption, not fact. > > >>>>> I've used lots of wheels, Mavic & others, the only cracking I ever >>>>> got was with Mavic Reflex rims (2). I don't know what tension they >>>>> were built to, >>>> >>>> er,... >>>> >>>> > I don't think it was very high, >>>> >>>> that's a cop-out - for someone purporting to be an engineer, it's >>>> also remarkably incurious. >>>> >>>> > they had to be Locktited. >>>> >>>> eh? aren't you one of those that condemns loctite? >>> >>> I cite the Locktite as evidence they weren't too high. I didn't build >>> the wheel. >> >> "i didn't build that wheel". that's the excuse you used last time. >> what you don't acknowledge is that it means you therefore also don't >> know the full history. > > I know the "full history". It was built, did you watch? what happened before you got it? > I rode it, the left spokes > loosened, they were Locktited, the rim developed cracking around the > spoke holes in low mileage, a replacement rim went through the same > thing. A replacement Open Pro (same builder, also Loctited) lasted until > the brake track wore through (>10K mi). but you said before you only used loctite once! now it's multiple times. how many more peter cole "factoids" are bullshit like this? oh, wait, it wasn't /your/ hand on the loctite squeezy bottle? then it doesn't count. my bad. > > >>> It was my first bike purchase when I reentered cycling many years >>> ago. I only became curious after the fact when a wheel that had to be >>> Locktited to keep nipples from unscrewing also cracked spoke holes. I >>> started learning about wheels. That was my last wheel to use >>> Locktite. Also my last one to crack. >> >> see above. > > see below above.                               Date: 03 Oct 2007 11:33:16 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:FoidnXgZ2pMjj57anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Peter Cole wrote: >> He explicitly excluded them. He realized that his rule of thumb would >> only apply to rims with specific characteristics. > > he told you that? everything i've seen suggests ignorance of this matter, > not calculated exclusion. Well, we all know about your cognitive abilities, does tell us what the problem is. > if he knows about this stuff, he should discuss - this does purport to be > an engineering treatise after all... Come now, been there done that, but you already know that.... >> Increasing spoke tension does make a stronger wheel. The higher the >> initial tension, the greater the load the wheel can support before the >> spokes go slack. Slack spokes don't support the rim from buckling. > > spokes need to be tense enough to resist slackness. but the higher the > spoke tension, the closer the rim to compressive yield. and that means > failure. No, it doesn't. The rim will yield if you ever exceed the yield limit, but loading the wheel DECREASES tension in the lower spokes, not increase them. You can't see this because you don't have the ability to do so. > you're repeating the jobstian error of only looking at the spoke loading > and mis-concluding that it's indicative of whole wheel strength. Rubbish - you need to look at the loaded areas of the wheel and the effect of the loads on the wheel - and if you understand the mechanism for wheel structural loading (which you don't), you'll see that that the area os interest is where the wheel takes up the loads. >> This was a method to determine the maximum spoke tension for a specific >> category of rims, as determined by rim buckling. > > but that gives spoke tension too high and which causes rim cracking!!! But, but, but...... Mom...... > no, because he never acknowledges it in any way! But, but, but...... Mom...... > and rim cracking, the obvious evidence that his theory is incomplete, is > mis-attributed to anodizing, again by ignoring simple observational fact. That's observational "opinion", not "fact". >> Well, by your logic, if there's no real minimum tension, why bother? > > no, that's not my logic. you /do/ need tension to avoid spoke slackness > which causes spoke fatigue and spoke nipple unscrewing. but tension above > that limit achieves nothing for wheel strength and is *detrimental* in > terms of rim cracking. That's not logic, that's a misunderstanding on your part. "metarials skool" sure didn't pay off for you.... >> Of course the first 2 rims are 559, since the buckle load varies with the >> square of length, that alone will give you a 25% or so error. > > but my open pro was about that level too. i'm not in a position to > re-measure for you as i've re-tensioned that wheel, but you could easily > verify for yourself. if you were genuinely curious of course. But, but, but.... MOOOOOM...                               Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:36:31 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >>>> Jobst excluded heavy and/or deep section and/or low spoke count rims >>>> from his alternate method. >>> >>> only because they weren't around at the time of original writing. >>> he's had plenty of opportunity to revisit since. and has steadfastly >>> refused. >> >> He explicitly excluded them. He realized that his rule of thumb would >> only apply to rims with specific characteristics. > > he told you that? everything i've seen suggests ignorance of this > matter, not calculated exclusion. if he knows about this stuff, he > should discuss - this does purport to be an engineering treatise after > all... Why don't you just read the book and save yourself more embarrassment? >> Increasing spoke tension does make a stronger wheel. The higher the >> initial tension, the greater the load the wheel can support before the >> spokes go slack. Slack spokes don't support the rim from buckling. > > spokes need to be tense enough to resist slackness. but the higher the > spoke tension, the closer the rim to compressive yield. Do you mean to say buckle? > and that means > failure. you're repeating the jobstian error of only looking at the > spoke loading and mis-concluding that it's indicative of whole wheel > strength. He did a FEA. Where's yours? > ok, show me where, either in the book or in the faq's, where he even > begins to acknowledge manufacturer spoke tension specs! Show me the specs. If manufacturers commonly either didn't publish them or didn't even develop them, how could he? > and rim cracking, the obvious evidence that > his theory is incomplete, is mis-attributed to anodizing, again by > ignoring simple observational fact. This was proved to the satisfaction of most by both observation and fact. >>>> The obvious context of his method is where a spec and perhaps even a >>>> tensiometer weren't available. >>> >>> that's not the case today. $60 buys you a tensiometer. no excuse >>> not to buy and use it at that price. >> >> Well, by your logic, if there's no real minimum tension, why bother? > > no, that's not my logic. you /do/ need tension to avoid spoke slackness > which causes spoke fatigue No, it doesn't. We just had a long thread on that. > and spoke nipple unscrewing. You've got Locktite, right? You forgot buckling. > but tension > above that limit achieves nothing for wheel strength and is > *detrimental* in terms of rim cracking. Sure, and you don't need dish for a strong wheel either. What a load. >>>> What rim and what was your final tension? >>> >>> x517 = ~#"27" average over 5 spokes on the park gauge. for a 1.8mm >>> spoke, that's >175kgf. >>> x618 = ~#"26" average over 5 spokes. that's ~=175kgf. >>> >>> the others i've since re-tensioned but the open pros were in that range. >> >> Of course the first 2 rims are 559, since the buckle load varies with >> the square of length, that alone will give you a 25% or so error. > > but my open pro was about that level too. i'm not in a position to > re-measure for you as i've re-tensioned that wheel, You haven't retensioned the others? > but you could easily > verify for yourself. if you were genuinely curious of course. No tensiometer. >> If those are your final tensions, then your buckle tensions must have >> been over 200kg -- into plastic region of the spokes. > > still confused about plasticity? if a spoke has tensile strength of say > 1,100Nmm^-2 for a 1.8mm butted spoke, [d.t.'s web site], Really? I couldn't find that. > then yield is > 3,110N. 200kg is /well/ away from the plastic region of the spokes. You could save yourself the trouble. Jobst measured them. Yield is 2300N.                           Date: 02 Oct 2007 02:27:39 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-02, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: [...] > regarding spoke tension, jobst is incorrect when he says reducing spoke > count should increase spoke tension. there is /no/ reason a rim should > keep "constant" compression in this way. and tension does not increase > the strength of a wheel. hence, if you check manufacturer tension > figures for rims with different spoke counts, you'll find the same > tension spec regardless of count. Is that basically because low-spoke-count rims are stiffer? If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36?                             Date: 02 Oct 2007 02:51:47 From: Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:27:39 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-10-02, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >[...] >> regarding spoke tension, jobst is incorrect when he says reducing spoke >> count should increase spoke tension. there is /no/ reason a rim should >> keep "constant" compression in this way. and tension does not increase >> the strength of a wheel. hence, if you check manufacturer tension >> figures for rims with different spoke counts, you'll find the same >> tension spec regardless of count. > >Is that basically because low-spoke-count rims are stiffer? > >If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other >spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack >spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? Dear Ben, I _think_ that the idea is that yes, deep low-count rims are stiffer. Jobst added that distinction in the 3rd edition in 1993 when he said either raise the tension until the wheel goes out of true when spoke pairs are squeezed, or-- Raise the tension until the spokes start to wind up "excessively" with deep or low-spoke-count rims. The original method for finding the highest tension doesn't work on the deeper, stronger rims of low-count rims. They're stiffer and don't distort as easily. (To use an extreme example, imagine trying to raise the tension on a motorcycle rear rim until the rim went out of true when you squeezed spoke pairs. Ain't gonna happen. You couldn't squeeze the spokes enough to notice anything, and they'd pull through the rim long before it tacoed. For a less extreme example, try applying "The Bicycle Wheel" original method for 27-inch and 700c bicycle wheels to a small, wide recumbent wheel.) Again, "The Bicycle Wheel" was a sensible book written before the traditional 36 spoke wheel, 5-6-7 speed clusters, and friction shifters of 1981 were pretty much replaced by modern low-spoke-count deep rims, 8-9-10 speed clusters, and Ergo or STI brifters. Jobst's method of raising the tension until a hefty 450 gram 36-spoke MA2 couldn't hold its shape when spoke pairs were squeezed seems quite practical. After all, MA2 rims built that way last pretty well, despite a few photos of cracking around the spoke holes. The MA2 could stand spoke tension higher than it could stay true, so Jobst's approach was fine. If Mavic did recommend a maximum spoke tension for the MA2 back in 1981, Jobst's method probably came pretty close to it. (I suspect that there simply weren't any manufacturer recommended spoke tensions back then because tension gauges were rare and the technology was primitive. I'd love to have someone post the earliest material of that kind that can be found. But Jim Beam often points out that most modern manufacturers do _not_ recommend twice the tension when modern wheels have half the spokes, even though the spokes can stand that much tension. The rims don't need twice the tension to stay true, but will often crack at the spoke holes if builders keep turning the spoke nipples. Jim has repeatedly told us that modern deep rims are surprisingly strong without _any_ spokes, and I haven't seen anyone refute this. Whether the move to deep, low-spoke-count rims is good or bad, the modern rims may be a significantly different breed of cat. Tension high enough to avoid spokes going loose may be impractical, as suggested by numerous threads about how to lock the nipples. With any given rim, cracking around the spoke holes is an obvious indication that the spoke tension is too high for the design--and if the design is desired, then lowering the spoke tension is the solution. Most road pros have used deep, low-spoke-count rims for years. Riders like Armstrong train 20,000 miles or more per year. They may just swap the wheels out before problems can surface, but my impression is that broken spokes have not been much of a problem in this century for the riders who put considerable strain on them. The more I look at the wheel wars as history, the more it seems to explain things. Jobst's methods work very well for the sturdy 36-spoke rims that were the standard when he wrote "The Bicycle Wheel," but those methods may not be of much use with deep, low-spoke-count rims. Unfortunately, Jobst and Jim Beam tend to dismiss the new/old wheels as bad, rather than trying to understand the differences. Jobst considers modern deep low-spoke-count wheels flimsy and badly designed, while Jim Beam feels that MA2's were buggy whips full of obvious flaws. Your question about whether you'd want more spoke tension if you built an MA2 with only 18 spokes illustrates the problem. The MA2 was never designed to be a low-spoke-count rim. It's a sturdy 36-hole design. (It has some drawbacks, as Jim Beam often points out, but _all_ rims have drawbacks.) If you want to use only 18 spokes, then you need a modern deep rim that's designed for a low spoke count. (You can get some bad modern rims, of course, but you could get bad 36-spoke rims back in 1981, too.) To reverse the question, what good would it do to add 18 spokes to a modern deep low-spoke-count rim? It's already stiff and strong enough to do the job its way. (No one ever argued that the MA2 would have been improved by going to 48 holes.) Cheers, Carl Fogel                               Date: 02 Oct 2007 10:44:32 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:27:39 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >> If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other >> spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack >> spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? Yes. > > Dear Ben, > > I _think_ that the idea is that yes, deep low-count rims are stiffer. Stiffer radially, which they must be because they have a greater unsupported span. Not necessarily stiffer in buckle. > But Jim Beam often points out that most modern manufacturers do _not_ > recommend twice the tension when modern wheels have half the spokes, > even though the spokes can stand that much tension. http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/products/2_119.pdf ("Classic rims") Respect the appropriate spoke tensions; Mavic recommends spoke tensions between 70 and 90 kg (for a front or rear wheel on the free wheel side with a crossed 3 pattern). Inappropriate spoke tension can generate too much stress and damage the rim; http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/products/2_147.pdf KSYRIUM EQUIPE 08 (20 spoke rear) TENSION: Front: 80 to 90 kg Rear drive side: 130 to 145 kg > Jim has repeatedly > told us that modern deep rims are surprisingly strong without _any_ > spokes, and I haven't seen anyone refute this. Why does Mavic have a minimum spoke tension?                                 Date: 02 Oct 2007 20:57:28 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:27:39 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: > >>> If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other >>> spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack >>> spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? > > Yes. > >> >> Dear Ben, >> >> I _think_ that the idea is that yes, deep low-count rims are stiffer. > > Stiffer radially, which they must be because they have a greater > unsupported span. Not necessarily stiffer in buckle. er, if they have a bigger section area, as they will be by being radially stiffer, they are stiffer in buckle mode too. moment of inertia. > > >> But Jim Beam often points out that most modern manufacturers do _not_ >> recommend twice the tension when modern wheels have half the spokes, >> even though the spokes can stand that much tension. > > > http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/products/2_119.pdf > > ("Classic rims") > Respect the appropriate spoke tensions; Mavic recommends spoke tensions > between 70 and 90 kg (for a front or rear wheel on the free wheel side > with a crossed 3 pattern). Inappropriate spoke tension can generate too > much stress and damage the rim; > > http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/products/2_147.pdf > > > KSYRIUM EQUIPE 08 > (20 spoke rear) > > TENSION: > Front: 80 to 90 kg > Rear drive side: 130 to 145 kg > > > Jim has repeatedly > > told us that modern deep rims are surprisingly strong without _any_ > > spokes, and I haven't seen anyone refute this. > > Why does Mavic have a minimum spoke tension? >                                   Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:53:29 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:27:39 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >> >>>> If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every other >>>> spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack >>>> spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? >> >> Yes. >> >>> >>> Dear Ben, >>> >>> I _think_ that the idea is that yes, deep low-count rims are stiffer. >> >> Stiffer radially, which they must be because they have a greater >> unsupported span. Not necessarily stiffer in buckle. > > er, if they have a bigger section area, as they will be by being > radially stiffer, they are stiffer in buckle mode too. moment of inertia. Two different moments. Please try to keep up.                                     Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:32:57 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:27:39 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >>> >>>>> If I hypothetically build with a normal MA-2, but leave out every >>>>> other >>>>> spoke, then will I need more tension in the 18 I've got to avoid slack >>>>> spokes for a given load than I would have done if I'd used all 36? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> >>>> Dear Ben, >>>> >>>> I _think_ that the idea is that yes, deep low-count rims are stiffer. >>> >>> Stiffer radially, which they must be because they have a greater >>> unsupported span. Not necessarily stiffer in buckle. >> >> er, if they have a bigger section area, as they will be by being >> radially stiffer, they are stiffer in buckle mode too. moment of >> inertia. > > Two different moments. Please try to keep up. er, try not to avoid the relevant point! ah, but this is peter cole - what /am/ i thinking.                                       Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:41:48 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:L_edndXhgsxXeJvanZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> what /am/ i thinking. Eh, hookers for this weekend?                               Date: 02 Oct 2007 03:59:28 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals On 2007-10-02, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote: [...] > The more I look at the wheel wars as history... [...] Excellent summary, and those are very much the same conclusions I have also picked out of the flames of the discussions here.                                 Date: 03 Oct 2007 00:29:08 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals In article <slrnfg4233.5n9.spamspam@bowser.marioworld >, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: > On 2007-10-02, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: > [...] > > The more I look at the wheel wars as history... > [...] > > Excellent summary, and those are very much the same conclusions I have > also picked out of the flames of the discussions here. Okay, now that Carl has solved the Wheel Thing, what are we going to argue about? Anyone heard anything more about real-world hub-gear drivetrain efficiency? I have a bee in my bonnet to buy or hack together a San Jos8-style bike: CX bicycle with Shimano-8 hubgear. For mud racing. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos               Date: 29 Sep 2007 19:33:46 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Maintenance Manuals carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:38:15 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Frank Drackman wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:mZSdnW2KsY96yWPbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>> In article <1191039479.922619.176200@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> BigJulie <julianshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> sutherland's >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sutherlands-Handbook-bicycle-mechanics-Sutherland/dp/091 >>>>>> 4578065/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4791940-4852967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191039436&sr=8-2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 29, 12:05 am, Mark <mblackwell1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Well as I am increasingly intrigued by the mechanics of bikes. There >>>>>>> is a lot I just have never taken apart, put back together, and frankly >>>>>>> don't fully understand how things work. I wondered if there is a book >>>>>>> that is accepted as "the book to have on bike maintenance" that shows >>>>>>> pictures and step by step instructions much the way the Chiltons book >>>>>>> does for auto repair. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd also be interested in books on bike design. Now I would like to >>>>>>> keep the theory to a practical level. No I have no idea to turn this >>>>>>> into an engineering project. I am already married to an engineer and >>>>>>> the last thing one needs is two engineers in the same house. lol >>>>> At a much lower price, Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance (and >>>>> the similar Road Bike Maintenance) are good Chilton-level books. I'd just >>>>> get the one for your primary kind of ride, as much of the material >>>>> overlaps, and the differences aren't liable to catch you out unless >>>>> you're a roadie and you decide to start doing your own fork maintenance >>>>> on your MTB. >>>>> >>>>> Sheldonbrown.com seems like it has directions on virtually every >>>>> mechanical repair known to cycling, so it's almost as good as having your >>>>> own bike manual. >>>>> >>>>> I make no submission on most bike design books, but regular contributor >>>>> here Jobst Brandt literally wrote the book >>>> /a/ book. >>>> >>>>> on bicycle wheels, called "The Bicycle Wheel," and it covers both the >>>>> theory of wheels and the proper procedure for wheelbuilding. >>>>> >>>> procedure, yes. theory? some of it is badly awry. spoke tension "as >>>> high as the rim can bear" for example is based on a fundamental >>>> misunderstanding by the author and that is of the most practical [and >>>> costly] consequence to the novice builder - excess tension can cause a >>>> higher propensity for rim buckling and directly cause rim cracking. the >>>> book should should be amended to specify spoke tension "as determined by >>>> the rim manufacturer". >>> I guess that we all saw that coming...sad >>> >> And completely wrong, it's not what the book says at all. > > Dear Peter, > > Here's what the 3rd edition says: > > FINDING THE RIGHT TENSION > > The following method works well in determining proper spoke tension > for conventional road rims of up to 43 0 grams with 36 spokes. Tighten > all the spokes a quarter turn at a time, starting at the valve stem > hole. Once a distinct tone can be made by plucking, and spokes are not > easily squeezed together by grasping them in pairs, it is time to > check tension. After each round of tightening, test the tension by > stress relieving. If the wheel becomes untrue in two large waves > during stress relieving, the maximum, safe tension has been exceeded. > Approach this tension carefully to avoid major rim distortions. When > the wheel loses alignment from stress relieving, loosen all spokes a > half turn before retruing the wheel > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel which is as complete a description of how to achieve spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear" as there ever was!