Lateral strength of bicycle wheels



Hi alfeng, I forgot to mention re: spoke attachment, loose or fixed, that with J-bend or straight spokes when the spoke tension increases that the hub/spoke/rim structure, ie. wheel build, becomes more like a fixed/attached/welded spoke wheel (ie. fixed spoke or mag wheel, where BA becomes less critical and even irrelevant depending on the strength of the attached spokes). Spokes are very strong, so the limiting factor to spoke tension is hub and rim strength :=)

BTW, as mentioned in an earlier post it is possible to build a 10/11spd (and even 12/13/14spd) 130mm OLD rear wheel with a BA of DS=6 degrees and NDS=6 degrees, but it would require a different wheel construction :=)


thanks KL
smile.png
 
Originally Posted by alfeng

Oh!?!

Apparently, alienator was rejuvenated by dhk2's calculations enough so that we again have to deal with alienator's low reading comprehension (aka "listening") followed by a further expository bloviation where an inability to use "critical thought" or "reason" as they are understood in the Real World vs. in his dystopian situational world being foisted upon us as having been supposedly derived through the "scientific method" ...

Here, once again, YOU begin your rant with a false premise as a "given" whereby you unilaterally declare "that spokes with greater tension don't decrease how much a wheel deflects ...".

Worse, yet, due to your poor reading comprehension + your inability to comprehend the data in a matrix, we see here another example of your inability to demonstrate a "listening" (again, THAT would be "reading" what is in front of you in our non-oral Forum) ability beyond the voices which are apparently in your head AND we now see that you are suggesting that 'I' have been stating that a spoke's tension is the primary factor which affects the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have ...

So, in your schizophrenic confusion you are now suggesting that 'I' have been suggesting that spoke tension alone (?) has an effect on a wheel's lateral strength (where strength is resistance to lateral deflection) when it has ALWAYS been my contention that if a person wants a "stronger" wheel (again, one which will resist deflection) that s/he will choose straight 14g spokes laced x3 on the driveside & x2 on the non-driveside rather than a wheel laced with double-butted 14-15-14 spokes.

Of course, most-if-not-all of the followers of what I have previously referred to as the "religion of double-butted spokes" apparently believe that lacing a rear wheel x3 on both sides is a requisite part of the fore mentioned religion ...

  • Why don't ALL wheel builders use asymmetrical crossing?

  • Simply stated, it (certainly) takes (me) MORE TIME to use an alternate crossing pattern on the non-driveside because you either have to have to think about it OR have a wheel which you previously laced with the alternate crossing pattern as a template ...

Your inability to understand that a double-butted 14-15-14 gauge spoke has less lateral resistance to deflection at 100 kgf than a straight 14g spoke fabricated from the same material at 100 kgf speaks volumes to your lack of "critical thought" with an incorrect belief that 'I' am saying that a spokes tension, alone, affects a wheel's lateral strength.

OR, are you now going to say that "of course a thinner spoke is more easily deflected" despite your repeated bloviationg about Hooke's Law?

Because, as you have been presenting Hooke's Law in a linear analysis in the wrong Axis, you have been addressing a straight 14g spoke to be the same in a wheel as a double-butted 14-15-14 spoke (which is presumably of the same material) ...

And, extrapolating YOUR statement would logically suggest that a piece of rebar (if it were made of the same material) would have the same ability to resist lateral deflection.

What say you, now?!?

Your insistence that Hooke's Law is directly applicable to analyzing the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have via an analysis in the wrong axis reaffirms that ...
alienator apparently doesn't know the difference between Hooke's Law and Captain Hook.
Regardless, if you are going to pretend that Hooke's Law is applicable, then you would need to base your calculations on the Conic cross section of the different spokes ...

BUT, while the length of the spokes might vary by a small enough percentage to be negligibly different, if the double-butted 14-15-14 spoke's cross-section is approximately only 90% of the that of the straight 14 gauge spoke's cross-section, then the resultant calculation will not be a small amount....

The Park Tool tensiometer's matrix suggests a difference of roughly 76+ %.

If you don't like the precision of the Park Tool & matrix, then at the very least, THAT minimally suggests a difference of 81% ...

81% is hardly a small amount in the Real World.
Regardless, YOU are absolutely incorrect when you bloviate that a spoke merely needs to have enough tension so that it does not go slack ...

And, if one allows that your suggestion of "50 units" vs. "100 units" is translatable to "50 kgf" and "100 kgf" then it is really, REALLY TOO BAD that you don't still live in the Tucson-area-and-environs because if you were able to convince your AZ wheelbuilder (or, if you were to finally venture to actually build a set of wheels) to lace a set of wheels for you which were only tensioned to 50 kgf and then ride up to the summit of Mt. Lemmon (if you ever did so in the past ... OR, as far as you can go where you encounter switchbacks or curves which are taken in excess of a modest 20mph) then I'll bet you have a different song to sing after the descent on bicycle wheels whose spokes are laced at only 50+ kgf.

Hey, why don't you detension your current wheels ...

then see how you subsequently feel about a wheel's lateral strength [resistance to lateral deflection] on a roadway which you are familiar with that has some moderately high speed left-right turns in succession!
Hi alfeng, that post is worth repeating!

Descending with a front wheel whose spokes are tensioned at 50kgf, even with a BA of 6 degrees off each flange, would be pretty scary and dangerous!!!
  • Although, if it was a 48 spoke front wheel, it might be ok (maybe), but I would feel happier if the spoke tension was 90kgf :=)

Re: Rear wheel, what people tend to forget with 10/11spd rear wheels, that even though the NDS spoke tension can be as low as 60kgf (and occasionally a little lower) the NDS BA is greater than 6 degrees and generally between 7 and 9 degrees (a larger BA would require extremely high DS spoke tension due to a very low NDS tension ratio)...

thanks KL
smile.png
 
Hi ambal, perhaps what I should have written is that I would prefer to descend with a 20 or 24 spoke front wheel, where the spokes have been tensioned to 90 to 100 kgf, then descend with a 48 spoke front wheel, where the spokes have been tensioned to 50 kgf.

I definitely would not like to descend with a 20 or 24 spoke front wheel, where the spokes have been tensioned to 50 kgf, what about you :=)

thanks KL
smile.png
 
Who said anything about actually using wheels tensioned just so that they don't go slack, eh klabs? No one. That's willful misreading on your part. The point is, again, that increased tension does not improve wheel stiffness. If you had read carefully, you would have noticed that tension does effect dynamic response of the wheels. That dynamic response is dependent on the stiffness of the wheel and the damping characteristics of the wheel (which is a function of spoke tension). I'll copy this and send it to you in a pm so that you can study it.
 
Originally Posted by alfeng

Oh!?!

Apparently, alienator was rejuvenated by dhk2's calculations enough so that we again have to deal with alienator's low reading comprehension (aka "listening") followed by a further expository bloviation where an inability to use "critical thought" or "reason" as they are understood in the Real World vs. in his dystopian situational world being foisted upon us as having been supposedly derived through the "scientific method" ...

Here, once again, YOU begin your rant with a false premise as a "given" whereby you unilaterally declare "that spokes with greater tension don't decrease how much a wheel deflects ...".

Worse, yet, due to your poor reading comprehension + your inability to comprehend the data in a matrix, we see here another example of your inability to demonstrate a "listening" (again, THAT would be "reading" what is in front of you in our non-oral Forum) ability beyond the voices which are apparently in your head AND we now see that you are suggesting that 'I' have been stating that a spoke's tension is the primary factor which affects the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have ...

So, in your schizophrenic confusion you are now suggesting that 'I' have been suggesting that spoke tension alone (?) has an effect on a wheel's lateral strength (where strength is resistance to lateral deflection) when it has ALWAYS been my contention that if a person wants a "stronger" wheel (again, one which will resist deflection) that s/he will choose straight 14g spokes laced x3 on the driveside & x2 on the non-driveside rather than a wheel laced with double-butted 14-15-14 spokes.

Of course, most-if-not-all of the followers of what I have previously referred to as the "religion of double-butted spokes" apparently believe that lacing a rear wheel x3 on both sides is a requisite part of the fore mentioned religion ...

  • Why don't ALL wheel builders use asymmetrical crossing?

  • Simply stated, it (certainly) takes (me) MORE TIME to use an alternate crossing pattern on the non-driveside because you either have to have to think about it OR have a wheel which you previously laced with the alternate crossing pattern as a template ...

Your inability to understand that a double-butted 14-15-14 gauge spoke has less lateral resistance to deflection at 100 kgf than a straight 14g spoke fabricated from the same material at 100 kgf speaks volumes to your lack of "critical thought" with an incorrect belief that 'I' am saying that a spokes tension, alone, affects a wheel's lateral strength.

OR, are you now going to say that "of course a thinner spoke is more easily deflected" despite your repeated bloviationg about Hooke's Law?

Because, as you have been presenting Hooke's Law in a linear analysis in the wrong Axis, you have been addressing a straight 14g spoke to be the same in a wheel as a double-butted 14-15-14 spoke (which is presumably of the same material) ...

And, extrapolating YOUR statement would logically suggest that a piece of rebar (if it were made of the same material) would have the same ability to resist lateral deflection.

What say you, now?!?

Your insistence that Hooke's Law is directly applicable to analyzing the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have via an analysis in the wrong axis reaffirms that ...
alienator apparently doesn't know the difference between Hooke's Law and Captain Hook.
Regardless, if you are going to pretend that Hooke's Law is applicable, then you would need to base your calculations on the Conic cross section of the different spokes ...

BUT, while the length of the spokes might vary by a small enough percentage to be negligibly different, if the double-butted 14-15-14 spoke's cross-section is approximately only 90% of the that of the straight 14 gauge spoke's cross-section, then the resultant calculation will not be a small amount....

The Park Tool tensiometer's matrix suggests a difference of roughly 76+ %.

If you don't like the precision of the Park Tool & matrix, then at the very least, THAT minimally suggests a difference of 81% ...

81% is hardly a small amount in the Real World.
Regardless, YOU are absolutely incorrect when you bloviate that a spoke merely needs to have enough tension so that it does not go slack ...

And, if one allows that your suggestion of "50 units" vs. "100 units" is translatable to "50 kgf" and "100 kgf" then it is really, REALLY TOO BAD that you don't still live in the Tucson-area-and-environs because if you were able to convince your AZ wheelbuilder (or, if you were to finally venture to actually build a set of wheels) to lace a set of wheels for you which were only tensioned to 50 kgf and then ride up to the summit of Mt. Lemmon (if you ever did so in the past ... OR, as far as you can go where you encounter switchbacks or curves which are taken in excess of a modest 20mph) then I'll bet you have a different song to sing after the descent on bicycle wheels whose spokes are laced at only 50+ kgf.

Hey, why don't you detension your current wheels ...

then see how you subsequently feel about a wheel's lateral strength [resistance to lateral deflection] on a roadway which you are familiar with that has some moderately high speed left-right turns in succession!
Hi alfeng, your post is worth repeating, again...

thanks KL
smile.png
 
Eichers said:
Hi alfeng, your post is worth repeating, again...  thanks KL :smile:  
Using alfeng as reference on things scientific is a bit like seeking divine guidance from a pile of corgi poo. I will admit, however, that alfeng claims to know more about vectors....heh.
 
Where's the detailed pics of alien's roached Campy Record rear derailleur? The one his flexible wheel ate for lunch? The very same wheels he claimed professional riders could not discern being 'flexible'.
 
Originally Posted by alfeng

Oh!?!

Apparently, alienator was rejuvenated by dhk2's calculations enough so that we again have to deal with alienator's low reading comprehension (aka "listening") followed by a further expository bloviation where an inability to use "critical thought" or "reason" as they are understood in the Real World vs. in his dystopian situational world being foisted upon us as having been supposedly derived through the "scientific method" ...

Here, once again, YOU begin your rant with a false premise as a "given" whereby you unilaterally declare "that spokes with greater tension don't decrease how much a wheel deflects ...".

Worse, yet, due to your poor reading comprehension + your inability to comprehend the data in a matrix, we see here another example of your inability to demonstrate a "listening" (again, THAT would be "reading" what is in front of you in our non-oral Forum) ability beyond the voices which are apparently in your head AND we now see that you are suggesting that 'I' have been stating that a spoke's tension is the primary factor which affects the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have ...

So, in your schizophrenic confusion you are now suggesting that 'I' have been suggesting that spoke tension alone (?) has an effect on a wheel's lateral strength (where strength is resistance to lateral deflection) when it has ALWAYS been my contention that if a person wants a "stronger" wheel (again, one which will resist deflection) that s/he will choose straight 14g spokes laced x3 on the driveside & x2 on the non-driveside rather than a wheel laced with double-butted 14-15-14 spokes.

Of course, most-if-not-all of the followers of what I have previously referred to as the "religion of double-butted spokes" apparently believe that lacing a rear wheel x3 on both sides is a requisite part of the fore mentioned religion ...

  • Why don't ALL wheel builders use asymmetrical crossing?

  • Simply stated, it (certainly) takes (me) MORE TIME to use an alternate crossing pattern on the non-driveside because you either have to have to think about it OR have a wheel which you previously laced with the alternate crossing pattern as a template ...

Your inability to understand that a double-butted 14-15-14 gauge spoke has less lateral resistance to deflection at 100 kgf than a straight 14g spoke fabricated from the same material at 100 kgf speaks volumes to your lack of "critical thought" with an incorrect belief that 'I' am saying that a spokes tension, alone, affects a wheel's lateral strength.

OR, are you now going to say that "of course a thinner spoke is more easily deflected" despite your repeated bloviationg about Hooke's Law?

Because, as you have been presenting Hooke's Law in a linear analysis in the wrong Axis, you have been addressing a straight 14g spoke to be the same in a wheel as a double-butted 14-15-14 spoke (which is presumably of the same material) ...

And, extrapolating YOUR statement would logically suggest that a piece of rebar (if it were made of the same material) would have the same ability to resist lateral deflection.

What say you, now?!?

Your insistence that Hooke's Law is directly applicable to analyzing the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have via an analysis in the wrong axis reaffirms that ...
alienator apparently doesn't know the difference between Hooke's Law and Captain Hook.
Regardless, if you are going to pretend that Hooke's Law is applicable, then you would need to base your calculations on the Conic cross section of the different spokes ...

BUT, while the length of the spokes might vary by a small enough percentage to be negligibly different, if the double-butted 14-15-14 spoke's cross-section is approximately only 90% of the that of the straight 14 gauge spoke's cross-section, then the resultant calculation will not be a small amount....

The Park Tool tensiometer's matrix suggests a difference of roughly 76+ %.

If you don't like the precision of the Park Tool & matrix, then at the very least, THAT minimally suggests a difference of 81% ...

81% is hardly a small amount in the Real World.
Regardless, YOU are absolutely incorrect when you bloviate that a spoke merely needs to have enough tension so that it does not go slack ...

And, if one allows that your suggestion of "50 units" vs. "100 units" is translatable to "50 kgf" and "100 kgf" then it is really, REALLY TOO BAD that you don't still live in the Tucson-area-and-environs because if you were able to convince your AZ wheelbuilder (or, if you were to finally venture to actually build a set of wheels) to lace a set of wheels for you which were only tensioned to 50 kgf and then ride up to the summit of Mt. Lemmon (if you ever did so in the past ... OR, as far as you can go where you encounter switchbacks or curves which are taken in excess of a modest 20mph) then I'll bet you have a different song to sing after the descent on bicycle wheels whose spokes are laced at only 50+ kgf.

Hey, why don't you detension your current wheels ...

then see how you subsequently feel about a wheel's lateral strength [resistance to lateral deflection] on a roadway which you are familiar with that has some moderately high speed left-right turns in succession!
Hi alfeng, your post is worth repeating, again and again, or at least until alien's rubbish posts stop...

thanks KL
smile.png
 
Eichers said:
Hi alfeng, your post is worth repeating, again and again, or at least until alien's rubbish posts stop...  thanks KL :smile:  
By "rubbish" you must mean the scientific concepts you don't understand. I see. We'll talk it over in a PM, girlfriend. Oh, I got you present: Critical Thinking. I figured that if you read the link enough, you might eventually learn something and be able to think on your own. Then you'll be ready to learn stuff at a higher level, things like the meaning of and operations with vectors (alfeng, the village idiot, is allegedly an expert.....just ask him!), physics (you'll have to start slow as it's a big topic), and how to write in colorful fonts while using multiple font sizes and creative indenting. If you rest well, princess, you should be able to get a good start in the morning. See you later, nookums.
 
Originally Posted by alfeng

Oh!?!

Apparently, alienator was rejuvenated by dhk2's calculations enough so that we again have to deal with alienator's low reading comprehension (aka "listening") followed by a further expository bloviation where an inability to use "critical thought" or "reason" as they are understood in the Real World vs. in his dystopian situational world being foisted upon us as having been supposedly derived through the "scientific method" ...

Here, once again, YOU begin your rant with a false premise as a "given" whereby you unilaterally declare "that spokes with greater tension don't decrease how much a wheel deflects ...".

Worse, yet, due to your poor reading comprehension + your inability to comprehend the data in a matrix, we see here another example of your inability to demonstrate a "listening" (again, THAT would be "reading" what is in front of you in our non-oral Forum) ability beyond the voices which are apparently in your head AND we now see that you are suggesting that 'I' have been stating that a spoke's tension is the primary factor which affects the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have ...

So, in your schizophrenic confusion you are now suggesting that 'I' have been suggesting that spoke tension alone (?) has an effect on a wheel's lateral strength (where strength is resistance to lateral deflection) when it has ALWAYS been my contention that if a person wants a "stronger" wheel (again, one which will resist deflection) that s/he will choose straight 14g spokes laced x3 on the driveside & x2 on the non-driveside rather than a wheel laced with double-butted 14-15-14 spokes.

Of course, most-if-not-all of the followers of what I have previously referred to as the "religion of double-butted spokes" apparently believe that lacing a rear wheel x3 on both sides is a requisite part of the fore mentioned religion ...

  • Why don't ALL wheel builders use asymmetrical crossing?

  • Simply stated, it (certainly) takes (me) MORE TIME to use an alternate crossing pattern on the non-driveside because you either have to have to think about it OR have a wheel which you previously laced with the alternate crossing pattern as a template ...

Your inability to understand that a double-butted 14-15-14 gauge spoke has less lateral resistance to deflection at 100 kgf than a straight 14g spoke fabricated from the same material at 100 kgf speaks volumes to your lack of "critical thought" with an incorrect belief that 'I' am saying that a spokes tension, alone, affects a wheel's lateral strength.

OR, are you now going to say that "of course a thinner spoke is more easily deflected" despite your repeated bloviationg about Hooke's Law?

Because, as you have been presenting Hooke's Law in a linear analysis in the wrong Axis, you have been addressing a straight 14g spoke to be the same in a wheel as a double-butted 14-15-14 spoke (which is presumably of the same material) ...

And, extrapolating YOUR statement would logically suggest that a piece of rebar (if it were made of the same material) would have the same ability to resist lateral deflection.

What say you, now?!?

Your insistence that Hooke's Law is directly applicable to analyzing the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have via an analysis in the wrong axis reaffirms that ...
alienator apparently doesn't know the difference between Hooke's Law and Captain Hook.
Regardless, if you are going to pretend that Hooke's Law is applicable, then you would need to base your calculations on the Conic cross section of the different spokes ...

BUT, while the length of the spokes might vary by a small enough percentage to be negligibly different, if the double-butted 14-15-14 spoke's cross-section is approximately only 90% of the that of the straight 14 gauge spoke's cross-section, then the resultant calculation will not be a small amount....

The Park Tool tensiometer's matrix suggests a difference of roughly 76+ %.

If you don't like the precision of the Park Tool & matrix, then at the very least, THAT minimally suggests a difference of 81% ...

81% is hardly a small amount in the Real World.
Regardless, YOU are absolutely incorrect when you bloviate that a spoke merely needs to have enough tension so that it does not go slack ...

And, if one allows that your suggestion of "50 units" vs. "100 units" is translatable to "50 kgf" and "100 kgf" then it is really, REALLY TOO BAD that you don't still live in the Tucson-area-and-environs because if you were able to convince your AZ wheelbuilder (or, if you were to finally venture to actually build a set of wheels) to lace a set of wheels for you which were only tensioned to 50 kgf and then ride up to the summit of Mt. Lemmon (if you ever did so in the past ... OR, as far as you can go where you encounter switchbacks or curves which are taken in excess of a modest 20mph) then I'll bet you have a different song to sing after the descent on bicycle wheels whose spokes are laced at only 50+ kgf.

Hey, why don't you detension your current wheels ...

then see how you subsequently feel about a wheel's lateral strength [resistance to lateral deflection] on a roadway which you are familiar with that has some moderately high speed left-right turns in succession!
Hi alfeng, your post is worth repeating, again and again, or at least until alien's rubbish posts stop...

thanks KL
smile.png
 
I see you're unable to come up with a cogent response regarding your suppositions about wheels, so you instead act like a 5 y.o. "I know you are, but what am I?" "I know you are , but what am?" "I know you are but what am I?" Do you just have nothing to support your suppositions? Have you suffered a head injury, and are prone to perseveration? Are you still in high school (that would be sad at your age)?
 
Originally Posted by alfeng

Oh!?!

Apparently, alienator was rejuvenated by dhk2's calculations enough so that we again have to deal with alienator's low reading comprehension (aka "listening") followed by a further expository bloviation where an inability to use "critical thought" or "reason" as they are understood in the Real World vs. in his dystopian situational world being foisted upon us as having been supposedly derived through the "scientific method" ...

Here, once again, YOU begin your rant with a false premise as a "given" whereby you unilaterally declare "that spokes with greater tension don't decrease how much a wheel deflects ...".

Worse, yet, due to your poor reading comprehension + your inability to comprehend the data in a matrix, we see here another example of your inability to demonstrate a "listening" (again, THAT would be "reading" what is in front of you in our non-oral Forum) ability beyond the voices which are apparently in your head AND we now see that you are suggesting that 'I' have been stating that a spoke's tension is the primary factor which affects the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have ...

So, in your schizophrenic confusion you are now suggesting that 'I' have been suggesting that spoke tension alone (?) has an effect on a wheel's lateral strength (where strength is resistance to lateral deflection) when it has ALWAYS been my contention that if a person wants a "stronger" wheel (again, one which will resist deflection) that s/he will choose straight 14g spokes laced x3 on the driveside & x2 on the non-driveside rather than a wheel laced with double-butted 14-15-14 spokes.

Of course, most-if-not-all of the followers of what I have previously referred to as the "religion of double-butted spokes" apparently believe that lacing a rear wheel x3 on both sides is a requisite part of the fore mentioned religion ...

  • Why don't ALL wheel builders use asymmetrical crossing?

  • Simply stated, it (certainly) takes (me) MORE TIME to use an alternate crossing pattern on the non-driveside because you either have to have to think about it OR have a wheel which you previously laced with the alternate crossing pattern as a template ...

Your inability to understand that a double-butted 14-15-14 gauge spoke has less lateral resistance to deflection at 100 kgf than a straight 14g spoke fabricated from the same material at 100 kgf speaks volumes to your lack of "critical thought" with an incorrect belief that 'I' am saying that a spokes tension, alone, affects a wheel's lateral strength.

OR, are you now going to say that "of course a thinner spoke is more easily deflected" despite your repeated bloviationg about Hooke's Law?

Because, as you have been presenting Hooke's Law in a linear analysis in the wrong Axis, you have been addressing a straight 14g spoke to be the same in a wheel as a double-butted 14-15-14 spoke (which is presumably of the same material) ...

And, extrapolating YOUR statement would logically suggest that a piece of rebar (if it were made of the same material) would have the same ability to resist lateral deflection.

What say you, now?!?

Your insistence that Hooke's Law is directly applicable to analyzing the lateral stiffness which a bicycle wheel will have via an analysis in the wrong axis reaffirms that ...
alienator apparently doesn't know the difference between Hooke's Law and Captain Hook.
Regardless, if you are going to pretend that Hooke's Law is applicable, then you would need to base your calculations on the Conic cross section of the different spokes ...

BUT, while the length of the spokes might vary by a small enough percentage to be negligibly different, if the double-butted 14-15-14 spoke's cross-section is approximately only 90% of the that of the straight 14 gauge spoke's cross-section, then the resultant calculation will not be a small amount....

The Park Tool tensiometer's matrix suggests a difference of roughly 76+ %.

If you don't like the precision of the Park Tool & matrix, then at the very least, THAT minimally suggests a difference of 81% ...

81% is hardly a small amount in the Real World.
Regardless, YOU are absolutely incorrect when you bloviate that a spoke merely needs to have enough tension so that it does not go slack ...

And, if one allows that your suggestion of "50 units" vs. "100 units" is translatable to "50 kgf" and "100 kgf" then it is really, REALLY TOO BAD that you don't still live in the Tucson-area-and-environs because if you were able to convince your AZ wheelbuilder (or, if you were to finally venture to actually build a set of wheels) to lace a set of wheels for you which were only tensioned to 50 kgf and then ride up to the summit of Mt. Lemmon (if you ever did so in the past ... OR, as far as you can go where you encounter switchbacks or curves which are taken in excess of a modest 20mph) then I'll bet you have a different song to sing after the descent on bicycle wheels whose spokes are laced at only 50+ kgf.

Hey, why don't you detension your current wheels ...

then see how you subsequently feel about a wheel's lateral strength [resistance to lateral deflection] on a roadway which you are familiar with that has some moderately high speed left-right turns in succession!
Hi alfeng, it would appear that alien still can't read your post.

He doesn't understand seem to understand bracing angle (BA), a simple but very important concept), so I guess we can't expect more than his rubbish posts. Very disappointing, actually...

Nonetheless, alfeng your post is correct... thanks for posting...

thanks KL
smile.png
 
Eichers said:
Hi alfeng, it would appear that alien still can't read your post.  He doesn't understand seem to understand bracing angle (BA), a simple but very important concept), so I guess we can't expect more than his rubbish posts.  Very disappointing, actually...  Nonetheless, alfeng your post is correct... thanks for posting...  thanks KL :smile:  
You'll note that you cannot find a single instance in which I minimized the influence of bracing angle. In fact, you'll find several posts in which I specifically mention bracing angle as one of the factors that influences wheel stiffness. I also have never stated that stiffness from spoke diameter, length, and material (Young's modulus) was the only factor. That's willful misreading on your part, or a display of absolute ignorance on your part. I am saying that it is incorrect to state that spoke tension, beyond what is sufficient to prevent a spoke from going slack, is a factor in wheel stiffness. As I have stated several times, spoke tension is a factor in the dynamic response of a wheel to loading, as is spoke, rim, hub, and etc. stiffness. Note that those are not the only factors in the dynamic response of a wheel. Wheel stiffness however is a static, extrinsic property of a wheel. I'll wait for you to say something of value instead of playing your current role as Massive Headwound Harry
 
Originally Posted by alienator

You'll note that you cannot find a single instance in which I minimized the influence of bracing angle. In fact, you'll find several posts in which I specifically mention bracing angle as one of the factors that influences wheel stiffness. I also have never stated that stiffness from spoke diameter, length, and material (Young's modulus) was the only factor. That's willful misreading on your part, or a display of absolute ignorance on your part. I am saying that it is incorrect to state that spoke tension, beyond what is sufficient to prevent a spoke from going slack, is a factor in wheel stiffness. As I have stated several times, spoke tension is a factor in the dynamic response of a wheel to loading, as is spoke, rim, hub, and etc. stiffness. Note that those are not the only factors in the dynamic response of a wheel. Wheel stiffness however is a static, extrinsic property of a wheel.

I'll wait for you to say something of value instead of playing your current role as Massive Headwound Harry
Mate, it would appear that you only post rubbish posts like the one above rather than post something meaningful... alfeng, you are right again
smile.png


alien, just keep posting your rubbish. You are very good at it ... probably the only thing you are actually good at.

You call alfeng the village idiot (but he is enormously more intelligent than you) but you are most definitely the village idiot and you indeed act out the village idiot very well. There is no need for you to doubt yourself, re village idiot, because you act that out very well ... I guess your avatar is an example of your village idiot/BigW attitude ...

Best you just go away and stop trolling posters with your village idiot/BigW attitude ... I guess that will be impossible for you though because your self inflated unrealistic ego wouldn't allow you to understand that request. Pity but hey, we can only hope
smile.png


I guess you could try answering alfengs post, although that will require intelligence. I am happy to keep posting it, if need be. Best you just go away or hopefully you will run out of words ... could be soon then
smile.png


Hi alfeng, as previously mentioned your post is correct, and you are right again ... alien is a TROLL.

thanks KL
smile.png
 
Eichers said:
Mate.......drivel.....
Mate, you clearly have not paid attention to what I've written. After all, you have yet to respond to actual technical arguments. Note that quoting Alfeng is not a response. He doesn't respond either. Rather, he tries to argue climate change in a discussion about wheels. So if you've got an actual argument on the physics and engineering of wheels, provide it. Otherwise, you can quote alfeng and scream "troll" until the ****ing cows come home and cop a squat, and it will in no way validate your argument or prove anything that alfeng claims. My technical arguments stand fine on their own. If you don't get them, go to school and learn something. Alas, there's no need to answer alfeng's posts. He gets the science wrong. He gets the math wrong. He gets vectors wrong (The right hand rule implies a fourth dimension? That's rich and mathematically hysterical). Then, when he's flummoxed by the math and science, he throws out red herrings about politics, climate change, health care, or whatever else makes his finger stinky. Why the red herrings? Because he cannot argue the points at hand. Nothing he says about my daughter is going to prove his technical points worthy. Here have a look. Does the right hand rule imply a fourth dimension? Well let's see. We have a vector A = a1x + a2y + a3z and another vector B = b1x + b2y + b3z, where a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, and b3 are scalar coefficients of the unit vectors x, y, and z (the unit vectors each point along the respective axis and are....wait for it.....one unit long). The mathematical operation defined by the right hand rule is the cross product: A x B = C, where A, B, and C are vectors and C is perpendicular to the two other vectors. The operation is defined as follows: A x B = (a2*b3 - b2*a3)x - (a1*b3 - b1*a3)y + (a1*b2 - b1*a2)z = C. Why lookee there: we started with two vectors three dimensions (x,y,z) and ended up with another vector in the same damned three dimensions (x,y,z). You know what? That's what you get every time you do such a cross product. You don't get that fourth dimension BS. Nope you just get a vector in the same dimensions with which you started, and every single time the new vector is perpendicular to the other two. Just more proof of alfeng talking out of his ass, very possibly the same ass you're talking out of. So, unless you've actually got a statement of technical merit, I suggest you work on your flexibility so that you can find a new way of pleasuring yourself.
 
Originally Posted by alienator

Mate, you clearly have not paid attention to what I've written. After all, you have yet to respond to actual technical arguments. Note that quoting Alfeng is not a response. He doesn't respond either. Rather, he tries to argue climate change in a discussion about wheels. So if you've got an actual argument on the physics and engineering of wheels, provide it. Otherwise, you can quote alfeng and scream "troll" until the ****ing cows come home and cop a squat, and it will in no way validate your argument or prove anything that alfeng claims. My technical arguments stand fine on their own. If you don't get them, go to school and learn something.

Alas, there's no need to answer alfeng's posts. He gets the science wrong. He gets the math wrong. He gets vectors wrong (The right hand rule implies a fourth dimension? That's rich and mathematically hysterical). Then, when he's flummoxed by the math and science, he throws out red herrings about politics, climate change, health care, or whatever else makes his finger stinky. Why the red herrings? Because he cannot argue the points at hand. Nothing he says about my daughter is going to prove his technical points worthy.

Here have a look. Does the right hand rule imply a fourth dimension? Well let's see. We have a vector A = a1x + a2y + a3z and another vector B = b1x + b2y + b3z, where a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, and b3 are scalar coefficients of the unit vectors x, y, and z (the unit vectors each point along the respective axis and are....wait for it.....one unit long). The mathematical operation defined by the right hand rule is the cross product: A x B = C, where A, B, and C are vectors and C is perpendicular to the two other vectors. The operation is defined as follows:

A x B = (a2*b3 - b2*a3)x - (a1*b3 - b1*a3)y + (a1*b2 - b1*a2)z = C.

Why lookee there: we started with two vectors three dimensions (x,y,z) and ended up with another vector in the same damned three dimensions (x,y,z). You know what? That's what you get every time you do such a cross product. You don't get that fourth dimension BS. Nope you just get a vector in the same dimensions with which you started, and every single time the new vector is perpendicular to the other two. Just more proof of alfeng talking out of his ass, very possibly the same ass you're talking out of.

So, unless you've actually got a statement of technical merit, I suggest you work on your flexibility so that you can find a new way of pleasuring yourself.
Well alfeng, what do you think of the above post by alien? alien likes talking about asses a lot and way too much about ours and flexibility. What is alien trying to tell us about aliens-self. That alien likes selfy pleasuring... possibly?

Something doesn't look right with this equation ... A x B = (a2*b3 - b2*a3)x - (a1*b3 - b1*a3)y + (a1*b2 - b1*a2)z = C (this equation is just a simplified scalar function of A and B vectors which results in C which is perpendicular, as stated). The question is where does Lateral Stiffness (Bracing Angle) apply within this equation?
Perhaps alien can tell us... the question is can you
smile.png


Interesting thought...
Lateral motion theory ... although its equations of motion can be linearized, a bike is a nonlinear system. The variable(s) to be solved for cannot be written as a linear sum of independent components, ie. its behavior is not expressible as a sum of the behaviors of its descriptors. Generally, nonlinear systems are difficult to solve and are much less understandable than linear systems. In the idealized case, in which friction and any flexing is ignored, a bike is a conservative system. Damping however, can still be demonstrated: under the right circumstances, side-to-side oscillations will decrease with time. Energy added with a sideways jolt to a bike running straight and upright (demonstrating self-stability) is converted into increased forward speed, not lost, as the oscillations die out. A bike is a nonholonomic system because its outcome is path-dependent. In order to know its exact configuration, especially location, it is necessary to know not only the configuration of its parts, but also their histories: how they have moved over time. This complicates mathematical analysis...

thanks KL
smile.png
 
Eichers said:
Well alfeng, what do you think of the above post by alien?   alien likes talking about asses a lot and way too much about ours and flexibility.   What is alien trying to tell us about aliens-self.  That alien likes selfy pleasuring... possibly? Something doesn't look right with this equation ... A x B = (a2*b3 - b2*a3)x - (a1*b3 - b1*a3)y + (a1*b2 - b1*a2)z = C (this equation is just a simplified scalar function of A and B vectors which results in C which is perpendicular, as stated).   The question is where does Lateral Stiffness (Bracing Angle) apply within this equation?  Perhaps alien can tell us... the question is can you :smile:   Interesting thought...  Lateral motion theory ... although its equations of motion can be linearized, a bike is a nonlinear system.  The variable(s) to be solved for cannot be written as a linear sum of independent components, ie. its behavior is not expressible as a sum of the behaviors of its descriptors.  Generally, nonlinear systems are difficult to solve and are much less understandable than linear systems. In the idealized case, in which friction and any flexing is ignored, a bike is a conservative system.   Damping however, can still be demonstrated: under the right circumstances, side-to-side oscillations will decrease with time.   Energy added with a sideways jolt to a bike running straight and upright (demonstrating self-stability) is converted into increased forward speed, not lost, as the oscillations die out.  A bike is a nonholonomic system because its outcome is path-dependent. In order to know its exact configuration, especially location, it is necessary to know not only the configuration of its parts, but also their histories: how they have moved over time. This complicates mathematical analysis... thanks KL :smile:  
Interestingly, we're not talking about a bicycle. We're talking about a wheel, and in particular, whether or not spoke tension adds to stiffness, which it doesn't. So it isn't required to evaluate the path dependence of a bicycle system's outcome in order to understand what influences wheel stiffness. You should stay on topic. If you want to discuss the bike as a system, we can do that in another thread. You should have a bit of spine and respond directly. Also, the equation applies to alfeng's ignorant belief that the right rule--which is the result of a cross product--necessitates a 4th dimension, which is obviously false. It was alfeng who claimed to have massive knowledge of vectors, so it is a bit surprising that he completed screwed up something based on one of the basic vector operations. After all, things like torque are defined in terms of a cross product. Note also that not all energy in a "sideways jolt" is converted to forward motion as you claim. If that were the case, you would be well served to get a paper published so that you can stand in line for your Nobel Prize for proving wrong the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As for the above equation, it is exactly correct. The 'x' is not a multiplication sign but rather the symbol for a cross product. Perhaps you're confused by the negative sign on the second term of the cross product definition. If you yearn to see the common positive sign in front of that term, multiply through with the negative coefficient that I've expressed, and see what the result is.
 
Originally Posted by alienator
... whether or not spoke tension adds to stiffness, which it doesn't ...
Mate, that is all you seem to want to discuss. Perhaps, that's all you can discuss...
As previously mentioned, I will continue to ride my 90-100kgf spoke tensioned front wheel and let you continue to ride your 50kgf spoke tensioned front wheel.

50kgf is generally enough spoke tension for the spokes to not go slack ... is that correct? If yes, then alien you should be fine riding that front wheel...

I would rather discuss bracing angle (BA) re lateral stiffness ... regardless of your rants and name calling
smile.png

Actually, I am not very good at name calling but you have helped enormously wrto naming calling re yourself ... interesting
smile.png


thanks KL
smile.png
 
Eichers said:
Mate, that is all you seem to want to discuss.  Perhaps, that's all you can discuss... As previously mentioned, I will continue to ride my 90-100kgf spoke tensioned front wheel and let you continue to ride your 50kgf spoke tensioned front wheel. 50kgf is generally enough spoke tension for the spokes to not go slack ... is that correct?  If yes, then alien you should be fine riding that front wheel... I would rather discuss bracing angle (BA) re lateral stiffness ... regardless of your rants and name calling :smile: Actually, I am not very good at name calling but you have helped enormously wrto naming calling re yourself ... interesting :smile: thanks KL :smile:  
Yes, try to take the high road about name calling, what with you having to do so using someone else's--alfeng's--words. As for the topic at hand, I've no issue with bracing angle, lacing pattern, spoke number factors; however I do have an issue when someone incorrectly posits something physically incorrect, something like spoke tension being a factor in wheel stiffness. You'll note that nothing about wheels--note the topic is not bicycle dynamics, despite your attempt to claim otherwise, uhm, mate. :smile: :smile: :smile: Note that in your passive aggressive 50 kgf quip, you of course ignored the dynamic considerations, which as stated, do depend on spoke tension. Eh, mate? :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: So continue on and run away from your previous claims and keep diverting away from what the topic is, mate. You and your other mate, alfeng, are quite good at that. Perhaps you should throw in a snarky bit about climate change or political stances....or try some other equally insipid maneuver, mate. :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: