Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Oddball wheel question

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 23 posts · 764 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

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

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
22 October 2004
Last activity
25 October 2004
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
23
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
764
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 21–23 of 23
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "George Herbert Walker" wrote: I said the component in question- the
    spokes- make no contact with any external system.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    You are certainly correct on that point. My quibble is that the spokes ARE
    involved in transitting the load to the ground. Each spoke undergoes a
    cyclical variation in tension as the wheel rotates--this variation produces
    a resultant which pushes the axle upward. So, I do not see how it is
    relevant that the spoke does not connect directly to the rider's butt, or to
    the ground. :-)

  2. Quoted message said:

    This may be an old chestnut, but I'm curious what people
    have to say.

    Briefly, Kraig Willett took a 3-spoke rear wheel, cut a

    Bad news: Those aren't spokes. They're struts.

    You can't use 3 spokes on a wheel, because you can't
    maintain constant tension in that configuration (you could,
    if you had strong enough spokes).

    I have no doubt that, especially with one of the struts
    cut, the force in each changes from tension to compression as the
    wheel spins.

    And this statement is just false:

    "A little known semantic debate revolving around the details
    of how bicycle wheels structurally support loads has been
    raging on the usenet newsgroups for quite some time."

    IIRC, this was cleared up long before there was a Usenet,
    and then we cleared it up shortly after it started coming
    up on Usenet. So the only thing "raging" is people
    thinking there's any question that actual bike spokes are
    always under tension. Oh, and it's a physical debate,
    not a semantic one.

    --Blair
    "And yes, he voided the warranty."

  3. Werehatrack said:

    Rather than going through this Yet Again, might I suggest a bit of
    Googling and a trip to whatever library has a copy of Jobst's book?
    For a normal spoked bike wheel, if you look at it from a vector force
    change standpoint, the answer is that the largest vector change is in
    the spoke which most nearly points down, and by a perfectly valid but
    counterintuitive engineering principle, this means that the wheel
    "stands" on the spoke(s) at the bottom.

    Okay. *That* would start a "semantic" argument around what
    you are doing to change the meaning of the word "stand".
    But it would end when you realize you can't "stand" on
    something that your foot is pulling upward.

    Just because the "vector force change" is "largest" in
    the bottom spoke doesn't mean it results in a change from
    tension to compression in that spoke, or any other.

    The truth is, your hub hangs from the upper half of
    your wheel and pulls up on the lower half of your wheel.
    It also pulls forward on the rear half of the wheel and
    backward on the front half. In fact, if you split your
    wheel in half at any angle, the hub and spokes are pulling
    each half of the rim towards the other. All the time,
    from the time it's built until it's dismantled or broken.

    --Blair
    "Isn't this in the FAQ? And isn't it
    answered correctly?"

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.