Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Better than spoke squeezing?

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 6 posts · 416 views

← Back to Cycling Equipment

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postBetter than spoke squeezing?Email address hidden · 14 Nov 2006 02 / This pagePosts 1–6Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #6jim beam · 18 Nov 2006

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
14 November 2006
Last activity
18 November 2006
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
416
Views / 30 days
0
Topics
Wheel buildingSpoke countSpoke tension

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    Email address hidden
    Archived post
    #1

    Mavic used to recommend stress-relieving a wheel by laying it flat
    with the axle on a wooden block and leaning on the wheel with one hand
    on either side of the rim.

    The Mavic site is hard to navigate, so here's a copy of the Mavic pdf,
    which has a picture:

    http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf

    "Step 6 When there is no lateral or vertical movement, put the hub
    axle of the wheel on a wooden block and push on opposite sides of the
    rim with your hands. The spokes and nipples will now 'seat' in
    position (stress relieving)."

    The Mavic page indicates that this is first done at about 40-60 kgf
    spoke tension on a wheel that will end up at 90-110 kgf, and repeated
    as the tension is increased "until the wheel is perfect and the spokes
    make no more cracking sounds."

    Various posters commented, but no one had tested things, so . . .

    I leaned heavily on a 36-spoke steel front wheel whose spokes had been
    squeezed in the often-recommended fashion. The wheel made cracking
    noises, probably spokes and nipples unwinding on the rim.

    Another poster reported similar results.

    I leaned on a bathroom scale, which indicated that at 195 lbs I can
    put about 100 lbs onto a rim laid flat on a workbench.

    I set up a test like a roulette wheel by bolting a plain no-box steel
    MTB rim from a Fury RoadMaster with 36 2mm-straight spokes to a long
    metal bar and screwing the bar onto some 2x4's for lateral stability.

    To mimic leaning with my hands on either side of the flat rim, I laid
    a 2x4 across the wheel, with a hole bored in the middle to clear the
    end of the axle that was sticking up and some small 2x4 pieces nailed
    under the board to lift it higher off the rim.

    This rig made it easy to apply a Park tension gauge from underneath:

    http://i15.tinypic.com/2jcdcnt.jpg

    I measured spoke tension before and after I loaded the board and 100
    lbs of weights onto the horizontal wheel. Details appear at the end of
    this post.

    Here's a graph that shows the symmetrical effect, with one line
    showing the tension change for the 18 upper spokes around the wheel
    and another line showing the tension change for the 18 lower spokes:

    http://i10.tinypic.com/2njccc9.jpg

    Tension rise for the two top-side spokes under the ends of the board
    was around 85-95 lbs, a 50-55% increase, more than tension increases
    measured with the familiar two-handed method.

    A typical poster is unlikey to exceed 60 lbs of squeeze force with
    either hand. No spokes on any wheels measured in previous tests with
    60 lb squeeze forces ever gained more than 55~65 lbs in tension.

    (The bend angles are impressive, but most of the bend is due to slack
    gained as the four spokes distort the rim into a faint Z or N shape.)

    Whether the higher tension available with the Mavic block-of-wood
    technique is worthwhile is a separate matter. Tests involving heating
    tensioned spoke bends and measuring how much the bend angles changed
    suggest that practically all residual stresses are relieved before
    tension rises to ordinary wheel-building levels.

    Details of the block-of-wood measurements appear below.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

    A simple no-box steel MTB rim was used, with the tire deflated.
    There were 36 straight 2mm-spokes. The rim was horizontal and free to
    spin like roulette wheel.

    A 2x4 was laid flat across rim, with one end on the 1st top spoke
    counter-clockwise from the valve hole. Tension was measured before
    andafter ~100 lbs of weights were loaded onto the board.

    Spoke #36, a lower spoke, lost enormous tension and dropped to Park
    mark 13, off Park scale, so it was extrapolated.

    Figures are rounded in some columns

    Park marks are estimated in tenths, giving a spurious air of accuracy,
    but not as bad as estimating in quarters, which would give an even
    more spurious impression of 2-decimal accuracy. The graph shows a
    clear pattern.

    Below, spokes are numbered 1-36, with #1 being a top spoke under one
    end of the board, and spokes 17 and 19 being the top spokes under the
    other end of the board.

    no no
    load load load load
    | | | |
    spoke Park Park | | change %
    # mark mark lbs lbs lbs change
    ----- ----------- ------------ ---- ----
    1top 21 24.5 167.2 250.8 83.6 50.0% board
    2 23 19.4 209.0 141.7 -67.3 -32.2%
    3t 21 23.5 167.2 222.2 55.0 32.9%
    4 20.8 18.9 163.7 135.1 -28.6 -17.5%
    5t 21.9 22.5 185.0 198.0 13.0 7.0%
    6 20.4 20.9 156.6 165.4 8.8 5.6%
    7t 21 20.1 167.2 151.4 -15.8 -9.5%
    8 20.6 21.8 160.2 183.0 22.9 14.3%
    9t 22.1 21.5 189.2 177.1 -12.1 -6.4%
    10 22.4 23 195.8 209.0 13.2 6.7%
    11t 18.8 17 133.8 112.2 -21.6 -16.1%
    12 20.8 21.9 163.7 185.0 21.3 13.0%
    13t 22.1 22 189.2 187.0 -2.2 -1.2%
    14 21.1 20.5 169.2 158.4 -10.8 -6.4%
    15t 21.5 22.9 177.1 206.8 29.7 16.8%
    16 20.5 17 158.4 112.2 -46.2 -29.2%
    17t 20.8 24 163.7 235.4 71.7 43.8% board
    18 20.9 16.5 165.4 106.7 -58.7 -35.5% x
    19t 21 24.9 167.2 263.1 95.9 57.4% board
    20 22.5 19.2 198.0 139.0 -59.0 -29.8%
    21t 19.4 21.5 141.7 177.1 35.4 25.0%
    22 19.2 18.2 139.0 125.8 -13.2 -9.5%
    23t 22.9 23.6 206.8 224.8 18.0 8.7%
    24 20.2 20.7 153.1 161.9 8.8 5.7%
    25t 22 21.1 187.0 169.2 -17.8 -9.5%
    26 21.1 21.9 169.2 185.0 15.8 9.4%
    27t 22.1 20 189.2 149.6 -39.6 -20.9%
    28 20.1 21.1 151.4 169.2 17.8 11.8%
    29t 21.9 19.3 185.0 140.4 -44.7 -24.1%
    30 21.9 22 185.0 187.0 2.0 1.1%
    31t 22 21.2 187.0 171.2 -15.8 -8.5%
    32 20.9 21 165.4 167.2 1.8 1.1%
    33t 22.5 23.4 198.0 219.6 21.6 10.9%
    34 21.2 18.8 171.2 133.8 -37.4 -21.9%
    35t 21.3 23.2 173.1 214.3 41.1 23.8%
    36 19 13 136.4 72.6 -63.8 -46.8%
    data ends

    Report
  2. Ben C
    Archived post
    #2
    Quoted message said:

    Mavic used to recommend stress-relieving a wheel by laying it flat
    with the axle on a wooden block and leaning on the wheel with one hand
    on either side of the rim.


    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    Whether the higher tension available with the Mavic block-of-wood
    technique is worthwhile is a separate matter. Tests involving heating
    tensioned spoke bends and measuring how much the bend angles changed
    suggest that practically all residual stresses are relieved before
    tension rises to ordinary wheel-building levels.

    Thank you for another outstanding experiment.

    The way I see it is that if you're getting cracking sounds, you are
    probably doing something useful (pace Jobst who suggested it was as much
    use as cracking your knuckles, and may be right), whether this is
    relieving residual stresses, spoke windup, or seating the bends in the
    hub flange.

    I don't think Mavic made any claims about residual stresses per se,
    they seem to be more of an r.b.t. theme.

    Report
  3. Email address hidden
    Archived post
    #3
    Ben C said:
    Quoted message said:

    Mavic used to recommend stress-relieving a wheel by laying it flat
    with the axle on a wooden block and leaning on the wheel with one hand
    on either side of the rim.


    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    Whether the higher tension available with the Mavic block-of-wood
    technique is worthwhile is a separate matter. Tests involving heating
    tensioned spoke bends and measuring how much the bend angles changed
    suggest that practically all residual stresses are relieved before
    tension rises to ordinary wheel-building levels.

    Thank you for another outstanding experiment.

    The way I see it is that if you're getting cracking sounds, you are
    probably doing something useful (pace Jobst who suggested it was as much
    use as cracking your knuckles, and may be right), whether this is
    relieving residual stresses, spoke windup, or seating the bends in the
    hub flange.

    I don't think Mavic made any claims about residual stresses per se,
    they seem to be more of an r.b.t. theme.

    Dear Ben,

    It's confusing. Mavic doesn't mention residual stresses.

    But Mavic does call leaning on the rim "stress relieving."

    Except that they do it to "seat" the spokes and nipples.

    "Step 6 When there is no lateral or vertical movement, put the hub
    axle of the wheel on a wooden block and push on opposite sides of the
    rim with your hands. The spokes and nipples will now 'seat' in
    position (stress relieving)."

    http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf

    Both block-of-wood and spoke-squeezing increase spoke tension, which
    on RBT leads to debates about how much residual stress can be relieved
    where the spokes are bent or formed.

    Both techniques also lead to cracking noises as the spokes and nipples
    unwind.

    As far as I know, there's no debate about whether eliminating wind-up
    is possible and is a good thing. Wind-up is bad because it adds a
    torsional stress and because eventually the spoke will unwind and
    loosen, so it should be eliminated by backing off after turning the
    nipple and by increasing and then releasing the spoke tension, which
    may give a noise described as cracking, pinging, or popping.

    Both techniques also seat the spokes and nipples in the hubs and rims.
    Like spoke wind-up, there's no debate (as far as I know) about whether
    seating things is a good idea.

    Unike spoke-squeezing, the block-of-wood technique doesn't bend the
    spokes at any noticeable angle, so it may not seat things as much. But
    it does produce much greater tension decreases, so it will probably
    produce more cracking as spokes unwind. It also produces greater
    tension increases, whose value is open to question, but which are
    presumably better than smaller tension increases.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

    Report
  4. Ben C
    Archived post
    #4
    Quoted message said:

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 03:59:38 -0600, Ben C <[email hidden]> wrote:


    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    Both block-of-wood and spoke-squeezing increase spoke tension, which
    on RBT leads to debates about how much residual stress can be relieved
    where the spokes are bent or formed.

    Both techniques also lead to cracking noises as the spokes and nipples
    unwind.

    I see, so cracking = unwinding. That explains why I got much less
    cracking when I was working on a nice new rim with linseed oil on the
    spokes and being careful to turn a bit too far and come back again.

    Quoted message said:

    As far as I know, there's no debate about whether eliminating wind-up
    is possible and is a good thing. Wind-up is bad because it adds a
    torsional stress and because eventually the spoke will unwind and
    loosen, so it should be eliminated by backing off after turning the
    nipple and by increasing and then releasing the spoke tension, which
    may give a noise described as cracking, pinging, or popping.

    Both techniques also seat the spokes and nipples in the hubs and rims.
    Like spoke wind-up, there's no debate (as far as I know) about whether
    seating things is a good idea.

    Unike spoke-squeezing, the block-of-wood technique doesn't bend the
    spokes at any noticeable angle, so it may not seat things as much. But
    it does produce much greater tension decreases, so it will probably
    produce more cracking as spokes unwind. It also produces greater
    tension increases, whose value is open to question, but which are
    presumably better than smaller tension increases.

    The tension increases presumably help to seat the spokes.

    Report
  5. Email address hidden
    Archived post
    #5
    Ben C? said:
    Quoted message said:

    Both block-of-wood and spoke-squeezing increase spoke tension,
    which on RBT leads to debates about how much residual stress can be
    relieved where the spokes are bent or formed.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Both techniques also lead to cracking noises as the spokes and
    nipples unwind.

    Quoted message said:

    I see, so cracking = unwinding. That explains why I got much less
    cracking when I was working on a nice new rim with linseed oil on
    the spokes and being careful to turn a bit too far and come back
    again.

    If you didn't back off with the spoke wrench after adjusting tension,
    there was windup and this windup gets released when pressing the dim
    down with the hub supported. If you didn't hear as much noise, it may
    be because linseed oil suppressed the noise that is classically a
    metal to metal stick-slip phenomenon.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    As far as I know, there's no debate about whether eliminating
    wind-up is possible and is a good thing. Wind-up is bad because it
    adds a torsional stress and because eventually the spoke will
    unwind and loosen, so it should be eliminated by backing off after
    turning the nipple and by increasing and then releasing the spoke
    tension, which may give a noise described as cracking, pinging, or
    popping.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Both techniques also seat the spokes and nipples in the hubs and
    rims. Like spoke wind-up, there's no debate (as far as I know)
    about whether seating things is a good idea.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Unlike spoke-squeezing, the block-of-wood technique doesn't bend the
    spokes at any noticeable angle, so it may not seat things as much.
    But it does produce much greater tension decreases, so it will
    probably produce more cracking as spokes unwind. It also produces
    greater tension increases, whose value is open to question, but
    which are presumably better than smaller tension increases.

    Quoted message said:

    The tension increases presumably help to seat the spokes.

    Just because you didn't hear it, doesn't mean it wasn't there, unless
    you backed off after final adjustments. DT Revolution spokes and most
    flat spokes are so torsionally challenged that they require special
    handling while turning spoke nipples. With those spokes it is
    obvious, the revolution spokes just twisting as the thread no longer
    advances and flat spokes becoming helical ornaments while doing so.

    Jobst Brandt

    Report
  6. jim beam
    Archived post
    #6
    Quoted message said:
    Ben C said:
    Quoted message said:

    Mavic used to recommend stress-relieving a wheel by laying it flat
    with the axle on a wooden block and leaning on the wheel with one hand
    on either side of the rim.


    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    Whether the higher tension available with the Mavic block-of-wood
    technique is worthwhile is a separate matter. Tests involving heating
    tensioned spoke bends and measuring how much the bend angles changed
    suggest that practically all residual stresses are relieved before
    tension rises to ordinary wheel-building levels.


    Thank you for another outstanding experiment.

    The way I see it is that if you're getting cracking sounds, you are
    probably doing something useful (pace Jobst who suggested it was as much
    use as cracking your knuckles, and may be right), whether this is
    relieving residual stresses, spoke windup, or seating the bends in the
    hub flange.

    I don't think Mavic made any claims about residual stresses per se,
    they seem to be more of an r.b.t. theme.

    Dear Ben,

    It's confusing. Mavic doesn't mention residual stresses.

    But Mavic does call leaning on the rim "stress relieving."

    Except that they do it to "seat" the spokes and nipples.

    "Step 6 When there is no lateral or vertical movement, put the hub
    axle of the wheel on a wooden block and push on opposite sides of the
    rim with your hands. The spokes and nipples will now 'seat' in
    position (stress relieving)."

    http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf

    Both block-of-wood and spoke-squeezing increase spoke tension, which
    on RBT leads to debates about how much residual stress can be relieved
    where the spokes are bent or formed.

    Both techniques also lead to cracking noises as the spokes and nipples
    unwind.

    As far as I know, there's no debate about whether eliminating wind-up
    is possible and is a good thing. Wind-up is bad because it adds a
    torsional stress and because eventually the spoke will unwind and
    loosen, so it should be eliminated by backing off after turning the
    nipple and by increasing and then releasing the spoke tension, which
    may give a noise described as cracking, pinging, or popping.

    Both techniques also seat the spokes and nipples in the hubs and rims.
    Like spoke wind-up, there's no debate (as far as I know) about whether
    seating things is a good idea.

    Unike spoke-squeezing, the block-of-wood technique doesn't bend the
    spokes at any noticeable angle, so it may not seat things as much. But
    it does produce much greater tension decreases, so it will probably
    produce more cracking as spokes unwind. It also produces greater
    tension increases, whose value is open to question, but which are
    presumably better than smaller tension increases.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

    one more thing to look into - the difference in tension increase
    depending on side for a dished rear...

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionCycling Equipment Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.