wheels

jobst brandt said:

I have engaged the Google search service to find links to my older
ride reports:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=352427

I hope you will let us know if and when your query is successful.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover

Tom Nakashima said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have engaged the Google search service to find links to my older
ride reports:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=352427

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

I'm not sure if this is the correct link:
http://www-math.science.unitn.it/Bike/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/

No, Jobst is aware of those reports and frequently points people to
them, usually using TinyURL to reduce the length of the URL, which
doesn't wrap well in many newsreaders. He's referring to the reports
he's posted to rec.bicycles over 10 years ago, but which never made it
onto the Trento Bike Pages Web site (which is the site you cite). His
copies of those reports were lost when he retired, unfortunately, and
it seems as though the old rec.bicycles newsgroup archives were not
maintained after the transition to Google.

rec.bicycles is of course defunct, having been split up in to
r.b.tech, r.b.marketplace, r.b.racing, etc. I can't find any posts on
Google's archives that predate the split-up of rec.bicycles into the
various subgroups.

Tim McNamara said:

He's referring to the reports
he's posted to rec.bicycles over 10 years ago, but which never made it
onto the Trento Bike Pages Web site (which is the site you cite). His
copies of those reports were lost when he retired, unfortunately, and
it seems as though the old rec.bicycles newsgroup archives were not
maintained after the transition to Google.

Quoted message said:

rec.bicycles is of course defunct, having been split up in to
r.b.tech, r.b.marketplace, r.b.racing, etc. I can't find any posts on
Google's archives that predate the split-up of rec.bicycles into the
various subgroups.

I know there are/were other Usenet archives besides Google/DejaNews. But I
don't know anything about them, or who to contact about it. There's still a
good chance this stuff is sitting on a hard drive somewhere. I hope it can be
found.

Matt O.

Tim McNamara said:

No, Jobst is aware of those reports and frequently points people to
them, usually using TinyURL to reduce the length of the URL, which
doesn't wrap well in many newsreaders. He's referring to the reports
he's posted to rec.bicycles over 10 years ago, but which never made it
onto the Trento Bike Pages Web site (which is the site you cite). His
copies of those reports were lost when he retired, unfortunately, and
it seems as though the old rec.bicycles newsgroup archives were not
maintained after the transition to Google.

Quoted message said:

rec.bicycles is of course defunct, having been split up in to
r.b.tech, r.b.marketplace, r.b.racing, etc. I can't find any posts on
Google's archives that predate the split-up of rec.bicycles into the
various subgroups.

Actually there are a couple of years' worth of posts to
rec.bicycles in the Google groups archives. The split happened
in 1992, and there are posts in rec.bicycles dating back to
late 1989. There are a few posts from before late 1989,
but coverage is clearly very incomplete.

IIRC, the Dejanews archive became available in 1995 and went back
to somewhere around 1994. Google inherited this when they bought
Dejanews. Then Google went out and dug up earlier Usenet
archives - there were some CD-ROMs distributed, perhaps through
Usenix, and some people had private archives. Unfortunately,
these were never complete, probably due to the fragmentary
nature of early Usenet propagation and people's limited mass
storage capacity.

We've gotten so used to being able to easily Google things that
it is hard to remember when there was no searchable archive,
or even the interregnum after Dejanews sank and before Google
resuscitated the archive - at that time, it looked as if the
Web was going to leave Usenet behind and the archive might
simply disappear.

Here are some articles on the history of the archive:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/staff/magi/personal/usenet.html

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/07/saving_usenet/index.html

http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=90cbefb1.0112211728.4cfe9bb%40posting.google.com

Weisse Luft said:

But radial lacing the DRIVE side works to reduce dish ...

While this is widely reported, it is in fact a fallacy,
apparently based on an incomplete analysis of the spoke
angle changes.

The usual argument is that by using an all heads-out radial
spoking pattern on the left side, the effective left flange
offset is reduced by about half the flange thickness,
supposedly creating a smaller bracing angle of the left
spokes (and therefore less dish). Since the left flange of
a typical rear hub has a thickness of about 3.5mm and an
offset of about 35mm, the difference difference in the
relative spoke offset is about (3.5mm/2)/35mm, or about 5%.

However, this analysis is incomplete and overlooks other
consequences of radial lacing. On major difference is that
radial spokes are also shorter than crossed spokes. For a
typical small flange rear hub, the difference in spoke
length is about 15mm. Since the left spokes in a typical
rear wheel are about 300mm, the difference in length is
15mm/300mm, or about 5%.

So, while radial lacing moves the loading point on the
flange by about 5% closer to the center of the wheel (as
compared to cross lacing), it also moves the loading point
about 5% closer to the rim. The net effect is that there is
no change in the bracing angle of the left spokes, and
therefore no change in dish.

Since the idea that radially lacing the left spokes reduces
the wheel dish is so often asserted, I repeat:

Radially lacing the left spokes does not decrease dish!

Quoted message said:

Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non-
drive, my drive side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non-drive is 110
kgf. This is using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm,
right offset of 17mm.

This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset
nearly twice the right flange offset, the bracing angles of
the left spokes will be nearly twice the bracing angle of
the left spokes. Because spoke bracing angles are
relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension
will be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a
symmetric rim and equal number of spokes on each side of the
wheel described above, there is no possible way that the
ratio between the right and left spoke tensions on this
wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke pattern is
used).

Mark McMaster
[email hidden]

Matt O'Toole said:

Tim McNamara said:

rec.bicycles is of course defunct, having been split up in to
r.b.tech, r.b.marketplace, r.b.racing, etc. I can't find any posts
on Google's archives that predate the split-up of rec.bicycles into
the various subgroups.

I know there are/were other Usenet archives besides Google/DejaNews.
But I don't know anything about them, or who to contact about it.
There's still a good chance this stuff is sitting on a hard drive
somewhere. I hope it can be found.

Well, DejaNews was bought by Google and www.dejanews.com just dumps
you into the Google Groups page. Navigating to the rec.bicycles.*
hierarchy, one find notice that the group "rec.bicycles" is no longer
archived. [censored]. The oldest report from Jobst I coul dfind is
1990; it's interesting to see some of the old names in the threads,
like Scot Nicols- from the days when well-known guys like that could
openly participate in newsgroups without attracting stalkers and
wierdos.

I don't remember any other Usenet archives other than DejaNews and
Google. It's had to imagine that this old stuff is gone forever, but
it may not be online anywhere- which is as good as gone. Somewhere
there's a warehouse full of tapes with all that stuff on it...

Tim McNamara said:

Well, DejaNews was bought by Google and www.dejanews.com just dumps
you into the Google Groups page. Navigating to the rec.bicycles.*
hierarchy, one find notice that the group "rec.bicycles" is no longer
archived.

It's no longer archived, meaning no new posts are added, because
it doesn't exist anymore. If you use the Google groups advanced
search page to search rec.bicycles over a date range range of
interest (say 1990) it will find plenty of posts.

Mark McMaster said:

...

Quoted message said:

Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non- drive, my drive
side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non- drive is 110 kgf. This is
using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm, right
offset of 17mm.

This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset nearly twice
the right flange offset, the bracing angles of the left spokes will be
nearly twice the bracing angle of the left spokes. Because spoke bracing
angles are relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension will
be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a symmetric rim and
equal number of spokes on each side of the wheel described above, there
is no possible way that the ratio between the right and left spoke
tensions on this wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke
pattern is used).
Mark McMaster [email hidden]

Damon Rinard's SpokCalc gives bracing angles of 6.4 and 5.4 degrees for
left and right sides respectively. This gives a ratio of 85% so the
measured tensions are close. Since the left and right spokes are not of
the same lot (they are different lengths but same DT Revolution
brand/style), the variance could be explained as such. Tension was
measured with a Wheelsmith tensionometer.

The wheels are still in fine shape and I ride them daily. Because the
drive side spokes rotate slightly in the holes, there is a concern of
frettage. I frequently clean and lubricate this joint with dry
molybdenum disulfide when they start to make noise.

Back when I was building this set, I modeled the components in Solid
Works and when I decided to go with the 2X ND, Radial D, I exported this
model into Ansys finite element analysis. I had to estimate the rim
section from external measurements and weight but was able to get
accurate measurements off the hub. I held the rim fixed about a section
of one span between spokes, loaded the structure with 150 pounds of
force and added 50 ft*lbs of torque to the drive side flange. As
expected, the bottom spokes reduced tension but all spokes remained in
tension and no lateral imbalance in reduction was noted.

Yes, I was technically incorrect in stating radial lacing reduces dish
because the position of the flange and rim set dish, not the lacing. But
my wheels work and work well. And for a 700C clincher, they are feather
light at 1290 grams, sans rubber and skewers.

--

Mark McMaster said:

Weisse Luft said:

But radial lacing the DRIVE side works to reduce dish ...

While this is widely reported, it is in fact a fallacy, apparently based
on an incomplete analysis of the spoke angle changes.
The usual argument is that by using an all heads-out radial spoking
pattern on the left side, the effective left flange offset is reduced by
about half the flange thickness, supposedly creating a smaller bracing
angle of the left spokes (and therefore less dish). Since the left
flange of a typical rear hub has a thickness of about 3.5mm and an
offset of about 35mm, the difference difference in the relative spoke
offset is about (3.5mm/2)/35mm, or about 5%.
However, this analysis is incomplete and overlooks other consequences of
radial lacing. On major difference is that radial spokes are also
shorter than crossed spokes. For a typical small flange rear hub, the
difference in spoke length is about 15mm. Since the left spokes in a
typical rear wheel are about 300mm, the difference in length is
15mm/300mm, or about 5%.
So, while radial lacing moves the loading point on the flange by about
5% closer to the center of the wheel (as compared to cross lacing), it
also moves the loading point about 5% closer to the rim. The net effect
is that there is no change in the bracing angle of the left spokes, and
therefore no change in dish.
Since the idea that radially lacing the left spokes reduces the wheel
dish is so often asserted, I repeat:
Radially lacing the left spokes does not decrease dish!

Quoted message said:

Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non- drive, my drive
side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non- drive is 110 kgf. This is
using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm, right
offset of 17mm.

This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset nearly twice
the right flange offset, the bracing angles of the left spokes will be
nearly twice the bracing angle of the left spokes. Because spoke bracing
angles are relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension will
be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a symmetric rim and
equal number of spokes on each side of the wheel described above, there
is no possible way that the ratio between the right and left spoke
tensions on this wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke
pattern is used).
Mark McMaster [email hidden]

I tried to follow your argument because I want to help others understand
that radial spoking on either side of the rear wheel just isn't a good
idea. I follow your logic and some of your math, but I am lost in your
terminology of "load point" and maybe that is where I don't understand
that application of the math. I agree on the 3.5 mm flange thickness,
the ~35 mm left offset, and the ~15 mm reduction in spoke length from 3
cross down to radial. My math gives me ~ 7.1 degrees of left bracing
angle with 3 cross and ~ 5.7 degrees of left bracing angle with heads
out radial pattern. On the right: my math gives me ~ 4.1 degress of
right bracing angle with 3 cross, and ~6 degrees of bracing angle with
heads in radial pattern. I know that you must be using a different
method to arrive at your conclusions. Is there a write-up that you can
point me to that includes diagrams? I understand trigonometry and
physics well enough to follow diagrams and theory. Since there are no
standard quality rear hubs that cover radial spoking on either side, and
my experience is tha durability is effected, I am only interested in the
methods to arrive at your results.

--

Benjamin Weiner said:

Tim McNamara said:

Well, DejaNews was bought by Google and www.dejanews.com just dumps
you into the Google Groups page. Navigating to the rec.bicycles.*
hierarchy, one find notice that the group "rec.bicycles" is no
longer archived.

It's no longer archived, meaning no new posts are added, because it
doesn't exist anymore. If you use the Google groups advanced search
page to search rec.bicycles over a date range range of interest (say
1990) it will find plenty of posts.

Tried that with very little success. Google's archive is far from
comprehensive.

Tim McNamara said:

Benjamin Weiner said:

It's no longer archived, meaning no new posts are added, because it
doesn't exist anymore. If you use the Google groups advanced search
page to search rec.bicycles over a date range range of interest (say
1990) it will find plenty of posts.

Quoted message said:

Tried that with very little success. Google's archive is far from
comprehensive.

Well, it isn't going to help Jobst any, but at the advanced
search page I typed rec.bicycles into the groups box and selected
date limits from 1 Jan 1990 to 31 Jun 1990 and it claimed to find
4620 threads.

It falls off sharply before December 1989 because there
the archive is basically non-existent, for reasons which
are discussed in articles about the archive preservation,
whose links I posted elsewhere in this thread (basically the
archivists preserved mostly technical groups). Most or all
of the pre-Dec 1989 articles in the archive are ones that
were cross-posted to a group somebody was archiving, like
a sci.* group.

My point is that it's not a decision by Google whether or not to
archive rec.bicycles that is responsible. It's decisions that
individual unofficial archivists made a long time ago about what
was worthy of preservation. Who knew then that posts to rec.bicycles
might be of more interest now than details in comp.* of operating
systems long since defunct? Archiving is always part attention
to detail and part sheer guesswork. It's just like the seemingly
mundane records that provide future historians with their
treasure troves of data.

Ben

Benjamin Weiner said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's no longer archived, meaning no new posts are added, because
it doesn't exist anymore. If you use the Google groups advanced
search page to search rec.bicycles over a date range range of
interest (say w1990) it will find plenty of posts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tried that with very little success. Google's archive is far from
comprehensive.

Quoted message said:

Well, it isn't going to help Jobst any, but at the advanced search
page I typed rec.bicycles into the groups box and selected date
limits from 1 Jan 1990 to 31 Jun 1990 and it claimed to find 4620
threads.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am not looking for
technical or other postings but rather ride reports of tours from 1961
to 1989 that have titles containing the year as in:

http://tinyurl.com/ttp6

I know how to find all sorts of other reports and postings and know
about the Trento bike pages run by Andrea Caranti, who is my good
friend in the mathematics department there.

Quoted message said:

It falls off sharply before December 1989 because there the archive
is basically non-existent, for reasons which are discussed in
articles about the archive preservation, whose links I posted
elsewhere in this thread (basically the archivists preserved mostly
technical groups). Most or all of the pre-Dec 1989 articles in the
archive are ones that were cross-posted to a group somebody was
archiving, like a sci.* group.

That is the problem. However, I continue to get advice on how to find
things I have posted since the start of 1990, as though I hadn't heard
of the various search facilities on the web.

Quoted message said:

My point is that it's not a decision by Google whether or not to
archive rec.bicycles that is responsible. It's decisions that
individual unofficial archivists made a long time ago about what was
worthy of preservation. Who knew then that posts to rec.bicycles
might be of more interest now than details in comp.* of operating
systems long since defunct? Archiving is always part attention to
detail and part sheer guesswork. It's just like the seemingly
mundane records that provide future historians with their treasure
troves of data.

The best I got yet was from a reader overseas who said he had these
reports on his computer at home in the USA and would let me know when
he got back. He got back and found the directory empty. Too bad. I
have offered $20 reward on Google extended search, but I would
increase that if I could get more than one of these reports.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Weisse Luft said:

Mark McMaster said:

...

Quoted message said:

Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non- drive, my drive
side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non- drive is 110 kgf. This is
using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm, right
offset of 17mm.

This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset nearly twice
the right flange offset, the bracing angles of the left spokes will be
nearly twice the bracing angle of the left spokes. Because spoke bracing
angles are relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension will
be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a symmetric rim and
equal number of spokes on each side of the wheel described above, there
is no possible way that the ratio between the right and left spoke
tensions on this wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke
pattern is used).
Mark McMaster [email hidden]

Damon Rinard's SpokCalc gives bracing angles of 6.4 and 5.4 degrees for
left and right sides respectively. This gives a ratio of 85% so the
measured tensions are close. Since the left and right spokes are not of
the same lot (they are different lengths but same DT Revolution
brand/style), the variance could be explained as such. Tension was
measured with a Wheelsmith tensionometer.

It still doesn't add up. The left side spoke angle of 6.4
degrees sounds about right, but the right side spokes should
not be anywhere close to 5.4 degrees. Even with very short
spokes, say 270mm, a spoke angle of 5.4 degrees requires a
flange offset of 25.4mm. With the reported right flange
offset of 17mm, the right spokes would be at an angle of 3.6
degrees (or less, if the spokes are longer). This still
puts the left spokes at only 56% of the tension of the left
spokes.

The original length of the spokes does not in itself
determine spoke angle, since the affective length of the
spoke varies as the nipples are adjusted up and down the
threads. Spokes typically have about 10mm of threading, so
the effective length of the spoke can vary by almost this much.

Mark McMaster
[email hidden]

daveornee said:

Mark McMaster said:

Weisse Luft said:

But radial lacing the DRIVE side works to reduce dish ...

While this is widely reported, it is in fact a fallacy, apparently based
on an incomplete analysis of the spoke angle changes.
The usual argument is that by using an all heads-out radial spoking
pattern on the left side, the effective left flange offset is reduced by
about half the flange thickness, supposedly creating a smaller bracing
angle of the left spokes (and therefore less dish). Since the left
flange of a typical rear hub has a thickness of about 3.5mm and an
offset of about 35mm, the difference difference in the relative spoke
offset is about (3.5mm/2)/35mm, or about 5%.
However, this analysis is incomplete and overlooks other consequences of
radial lacing. On major difference is that radial spokes are also
shorter than crossed spokes. For a typical small flange rear hub, the
difference in spoke length is about 15mm. Since the left spokes in a
typical rear wheel are about 300mm, the difference in length is
15mm/300mm, or about 5%.
So, while radial lacing moves the loading point on the flange by about
5% closer to the center of the wheel (as compared to cross lacing), it
also moves the loading point about 5% closer to the rim. The net effect
is that there is no change in the bracing angle of the left spokes, and
therefore no change in dish.
Since the idea that radially lacing the left spokes reduces the wheel
dish is so often asserted, I repeat:
Radially lacing the left spokes does not decrease dish!

Quoted message said:

Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non- drive, my drive
side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non- drive is 110 kgf. This is
using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm, right
offset of 17mm.

This is physically impossible. With the left flange offset nearly twice
the right flange offset, the bracing angles of the left spokes will be
nearly twice the bracing angle of the left spokes. Because spoke bracing
angles are relatively acute, the lateral component of spoke tension will
be nearly proportional to the bracing angle. With a symmetric rim and
equal number of spokes on each side of the wheel described above, there
is no possible way that the ratio between the right and left spoke
tensions on this wheel can be that close (regardless of what spoke
pattern is used).
Mark McMaster [email hidden]

I tried to follow your argument because I want to help others understand
that radial spoking on either side of the rear wheel just isn't a good
idea. I follow your logic and some of your math, but I am lost in your
terminology of "load point" and maybe that is where I don't understand
that application of the math. I agree on the 3.5 mm flange thickness,
the ~35 mm left offset, and the ~15 mm reduction in spoke length from 3
cross down to radial. My math gives me ~ 7.1 degrees of left bracing
angle with 3 cross and ~ 5.7 degrees of left bracing angle with heads
out radial pattern. On the right: my math gives me ~ 4.1 degress of
right bracing angle with 3 cross, and ~6 degrees of bracing angle with
heads in radial pattern. I know that you must be using a different
method to arrive at your conclusions. Is there a write-up that you can
point me to that includes diagrams? I understand trigonometry and
physics well enough to follow diagrams and theory. Since there are no
standard quality rear hubs that cover radial spoking on either side, and
my experience is tha durability is effected, I am only interested in the
methods to arrive at your results.

When I referred to the spoke/flange "load point", I meant
the point where the spoke attached to the flange. A spoke
is what is referred to as a "one-force member", meaning it
can exerted only a single force, oriented directly on the
line from one end to the other. Therefore, the point at
which the spoke attaches (pulls) on the flange has a direct
affect on the angle at which the spoke pulls on the rim, and
therefore the lateral component (bracing force) contributed
by the spoke on the rim.

A typical spoke in a 32 spoke 700c wheel laced with a 3
cross pattern might be about 290mm. Because the spokes are
laced to both the inside and outside faces of the flange and
then interlaced on their way to the rim, they pull at an
angle as if they were attached to the flange at center of
its width. If the flange center is offset 35mm from the
wheel center, the effective bracing angle of the spokes is:

arcsine( 35mm/290mm ) = 6.93 degrees

For radial spoking, the spokes will be about 15mm shorter,
or about 275mm. If they are all laced heads out, then the
spokes will pull from the inner face of the flange, putting
the "load point" about 1.75mm closer to the center of the
wheel (half the flange thickness), or an effective flange
offset of 35mm - 1.75mm = 33.25mm. The effective spoke
bracing angle becomes:

arcsine( 33.25mm/275mm ) = 6.94 degrees

The two bracing angles are almost exactly the same with
either the crossed spoke pattern or the radial (heads out)
pattern. However, the radial pattern does not have some of
the advantages of the crossed pattern, the main one being
that they can not be interlaced. Interlacing allows spokes
that may become slackened in use to have some of their
tension taken up by their interlaced partner, thus slightly
decreasing their loading cycles by allowing their partner
spoke to take up some of the load.

Mark McMaster
[email hidden]

Benjamin Weiner said:

It falls off sharply before December 1989 because there
the archive is basically non-existent, for reasons which
are discussed in articles about the archive preservation,
whose links I posted elsewhere in this thread (basically the
archivists preserved mostly technical groups). Most or all
of the pre-Dec 1989 articles in the archive are ones that
were cross-posted to a group somebody was archiving, like
a sci.* group.

My point is that it's not a decision by Google whether or not to
archive rec.bicycles that is responsible. It's decisions that
individual unofficial archivists made a long time ago about what
was worthy of preservation. Who knew then that posts to rec.bicycles
might be of more interest now than details in comp.* of operating
systems long since defunct? Archiving is always part attention
to detail and part sheer guesswork. It's just like the seemingly
mundane records that provide future historians with their
treasure troves of data.

Ben

There was a great renaming of newsgroups. I don't remember the year, but
it was around 1987 or 1988. Before the great renaming, all newsgroups
were net.* or mod.*. The mod groups were moderated. The old name for
rec.bicycles was net.bicycle (yes, singular). I just found articles I
posted to net.bicycle in 1986. I know I was reading it in 1985, too. I
don't know why they don't have what I wrote then.

I'm pretty sure Jobst didn't join rec.bicycles until after the great
renaming.

Tom

Weisse Luft said:

Radial drive side lacing hubs require a hub body of at least 25mm OD and
2mm thickness. Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross non-
drive, my drive side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non-drive is 110
kgf. This is using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of 31mm,
right offset of 17mm. After 8000+ miles, no truing has been required but
then again, I'm a bit of a flyweight at 155 pounds.

My guess is that your weight, more than your engineering and
measurements, account for your luck. Try building wheels like yours for
your heavier friends. At your weight, you could ride almost anything.

Tom

Mark McMaster said:

When I referred to the spoke/flange "load point", I meant the point
where the spoke attached to the flange. A spoke is what is referred
to as a "one-force member", meaning it can exerted only a single
force, oriented directly on the line from one end to the other.
Therefore, the point at which the spoke attaches (pulls) on the
flange has a direct affect on the angle at which the spoke pulls on
the rim, and therefore the lateral component (bracing force)
contributed by the spoke on the rim.

Spokes do not exert any bending forces over their length, that is the
spoke axial centerline is a line of action of pure tensile force.
Therefore, "load point" is irrelevant. The effective origin of the
spoke at the hub is the straight line extension of its centerline
where it intersects the axle, Flange height and width only serve to
confuse the issue. For radial spoking this is simple while for
tangential spoking this intersection is effectively the projection of
the spoke line onto a plane defined by the axle centerline and spoke
nipple seat. This causes large and small flange hubs to make no
difference for truly tangent to the flange spoking (for flanges in the
sizes commonly used).

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Tom Reingold said:

Weisse Luft said:

Radial drive side lacing hubs require a hub body of at least 25mm OD
and 2mm thickness. Using heads in radial lacing drive side, 2 cross
non- drive, my drive side is tensioned to 115 kgf and my non-drive is
110 kgf. This is using a symmetric rim and a hub with a left offset of
31mm, right offset of 17mm. After 8000+ miles, no truing has been
required but then again, I'm a bit of a flyweight at 155 pounds.

My guess is that your weight, more than your engineering and
measurements, account for your luck. Try building wheels like yours for
your heavier friends. At your weight, you could ride almost anything.
Tom

I have. He is 220 pounds and I used a 32 spoke, Velocity Aerohead rim
for the rear and a 28 spoke for the front. All too is well on his wheels
after 4000+ miles.

The secret in radial drive side lacing is the hub body torsional
stiffness. I used an iterative process which took into account the minor
portion of torque transered through the drive side flange but for the
most part, it can be ignored.

The key is balancing the increase in tension from drive side windup with
the torque induced tension change on the non-drive side. Keep in mind,
bracing angles too if the difference in static tensions is greater than
1.5:1 (less than 75%) to maintain lateral stability.

--

ah, there's just not enough time withn this damn thing.

Tom Reingold said:

There was a great renaming of newsgroups. I don't remember the year,
but it was around 1987 or 1988. Before the great renaming, all
newsgroups were net.* or mod.*. The mod groups were moderated. The
old name for rec.bicycles was net.bicycle (yes, singular). I just
found articles I posted to net.bicycle in 1986. I know I was reading
it in 1985, too. I don't know why they don't have what I wrote then.

I'm pretty sure Jobst didn't join rec.bicycles until after the great
renaming.

When did rec.bicycles become rec.bicycles.tech, r.b.marketplace, etc?
I started very shortly after that, having finally got Usenet access-
Internet access in general was limited pretty much to universities
around here. Some of the same folks posting today were already here
in the rec.bikes.* groups by then, and a lot of them have gone away.