It seems to me that most of the antagonism towards paired-spoke pattern wheels is due to the possibility of them going way out of true after a spoke failure. Has anyone built a paired-spoke wheel with a 32 or 36 spokes? If this has been done, has the wheel been measured for the effect of a breakage and the mean time to failure? Obviously this would be best if compared to a 3x and radial wheel with the same (bar the drilling) hubs and rims. I'm wondering whether having 1 spoke pulling one way and 4 adjacent spokes pulling symetrically would be better or worse than have 2 adjacent spokes pulling to one side.
It seems to me that most of the antagonism towards paired-spoke pattern wheels is due to the possibility of them going way out of true after a spoke failure. Has anyone built a paired-spoke wheel with a 32 or 36 spokes? If this has been done, has the wheel been measured for the effect of a breakage and the mean time to failure? Obviously this would be best if compared to a 3x and radial wheel with the same (bar the drilling) hubs and rims. I'm wondering whether having 1 spoke pulling one way and 4 adjacent spokes pulling symetrically would be better or worse than have 2 adjacent spokes pulling to one side.
With 36 paired spokes the effect would be lost, there being too many spokes to make a visual difference. Mr. Lovelace, who patented the concept in 1890 originally had the spoke wire make a single pass from one flange to the rim where it went under a longitudinal loop to return to the opposite flange. The elegance of this design was obvious but the complexity and high failure rate called for a compromise. Conventional but staggered spoking was subsequently used, after which the whole thing went to sleep for 100 years, until Rolf Dietrich exhumed it as his invention.
What's worse? Someone who uses a nickname on Usenet to post a perfectly proper and sincere question -- or a grouchy, pretentious blow-hard who needlessly rags on said nicknamed person while at the same time flaunting his vaunted alumnus status in HIS user name due to either laziness or ego (can't think of any other reason not to simply use "Jobst Brandt", can you?!?)?!?
Dans le message de news:[email hidden], Sorni <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Skippy Peanut Butter writes:
What's worse? Someone who uses a nickname on Usenet to post a perfectly proper and sincere question -- or a grouchy, pretentious blow-hard who needlessly rags on said nicknamed person while at the same time flaunting his vaunted alumnus status in HIS user name due to either laziness or ego (can't think of any other reason not to simply use "Jobst Brandt", can you?!?)?!?
<eg> Ahhhhhhh. <eg>
Could you please clarify - or are you hiding behind a devilish pseudonym ?
-- Sandy
The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm, denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that "you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according to [insert NAME here].
Dans le message de news:[email hidden], Sorni <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Skippy Peanut Butter writes:
What's worse? Someone who uses a nickname on Usenet to post a perfectly proper and sincere question -- or a grouchy, pretentious blow-hard who needlessly rags on said nicknamed person while at the same time flaunting his vaunted alumnus status in HIS user name due to either laziness or ego (can't think of any other reason not to simply use "Jobst Brandt", can you?!?)?!?
<eg> Ahhhhhhh. <eg>
Could you please clarify - or are you hiding behind a devilish pseudonym ?
Don't worry... he's a mountain biker. They're all crazy. -- Phil, Squid-in-Training
Theoretically, paired spokes might allow the use of a less-stiff rim, while avoiding the problem of the rim "waving" back and forth from left to right between the spokes. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to help at all because the rim needs to be fairly stiff with low spoke counts anyway... so it solves a problem that doesn't exist.
actually a paired spoke design (with low spoke count) needs a very (radially) stiff rim to work. i laced up a std. rim (open pro) using every second hole (16 spokes on a 32 hole hub and rim) resulting in a long empty span between paired spokes, and it would shudder badly on braking because the rim bulged out between the spokes. getting it laterally true wasn't that hard if i recall.
this is also a potential problem on any low count design, but it will be worse in a paired design given the same number of spokes.
Theoretically, paired spokes might allow the use of a less-stiff rim, while avoiding the problem of the rim "waving" back and forth from left to right between the spokes. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to help at all because the rim needs to be fairly stiff with low spoke counts anyway... so it solves a problem that doesn't exist.
actually a paired spoke design (with low spoke count) needs a very (radially) stiff rim to work. i laced up a std. rim (open pro) using every second hole (16 spokes on a 32 hole hub and rim) resulting in a long empty span between paired spokes, and it would shudder badly on braking because the rim bulged out between the spokes. getting it laterally true wasn't that hard if i recall.
I had this same problem, too. I laced up two different 12-spoke wheels on 32-hole things. The single-wall one I built up first was shaped like a square, not a circle. The double-wall Rhyno Lite I laced up fared far better, but still totally out of round. I believe tall-section rims are the key to getting the design to work without too much weight.
What's worse? Someone who uses a nickname on Usenet to post a perfectly proper and sincere question -- or a grouchy, pretentious blow-hard who needlessly rags on said nicknamed person while at the same time flaunting his vaunted alumnus status in HIS user name due to either laziness or ego (can't think of any other reason not to simply use "Jobst Brandt", can you?!?)?!?
Quoted message said:
<eg> Ahhhhhhh. <eg>
I take it you don't recognize the difference between an email address and a sig. My sig is as you suggest, Jobst Brandt, my email address is the one captured by your newsreader.
What's worse? Someone who uses a nickname on Usenet to post a perfectly proper and sincere question -- or a grouchy, pretentious blow-hard who needlessly rags on said nicknamed person while at the same time flaunting his vaunted alumnus status in HIS user name due to either laziness or ego (can't think of any other reason not to simply use "Jobst Brandt", can you?!?)?!?
Quoted message said:
<eg> Ahhhhhhh. <eg>
Quoted message said:
I take it you don't recognize the difference between an email address and a sig. My sig is as you suggest, Jobst Brandt, my email address is the one captured by your newsreader.
I take it you don't recognize the difference between an e-mail address ("captured" -- how quaint) and a user name (displayed). Neither has anything to do with a sig.
Do you really require instructions on how to fix your user name? I'd be glad to help :-P
