Tying and soldering explained 1898

Quoted message said:

"The Modern Bicycle and its accessories" of 1898 has oodles of weird
mechanical details. Look at the chain section carefully, starting on
page 58, and you'll see some chains that were too weird for Sharp.

Anyway, there's a comment on the tie-and-sodler debate on page 69:

"The majority of them [tangent-spoke wheel makers] tie their spokes to
each other where they cross. There are a great many of the makers who
do not tie them at all, there being some difference of opinion as to
the benefit derived from this treatment."

"Those in favor of tying spokes say that tying two or more [!] spokes
together at the crossing some distance above the hub shortens the
leverage from the rim and practically gives the wheel an additional
hub; that they are also stiffer against side or lateral strain, and
that the only good tangent spoke is one that is tied at the crossing
with its mates. Those who are opposed to tying spokes say that tying
them together makes them too rigid and inflexible [!], and that the
process of wiring them and soldering them together has a tendency to
crystallize the spokes at this point owing to the heat required to
solder them. This part of the argument, however, has been met by by
not wiring and soldering the spokes at the crossing, but by pinching
on them at this point a metal clamp such as is used on the Humber
wheel. The opponents of tying the spokes assert that the very
stiffness and rigidness which the wheel possesses when the spokes are
tied has a tendency to also crystallize them at the hub flanges as
well as cause them to break [!]."

http://books.google.com/books?id=1CRyfR7JclIC&pg=PA69&dq=solder+tie+spokes&as_brr=1&ei=ZW4tR8-ZDYiUtgPP0eSuCQ#PPP5,M1

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase, and I
don't think that any modern tie-and-solder enthusiasts ever mention
radial, larger "hub" strength as a benefit. I'm just curious about the
origins of tying and soldering.)

I can't find the no-solder pinch things for the Humber wheel. Maybe
they're a version of the odd solder-fittings seen on this 1897 Pope
Columbia chainless bicycle:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/pic/?o=1gci&pic_id=120248&v=EK&size=large

Here's the beginning of an old thread about the murky origins of tying
and soldering:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2e4cd40105dbe082

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Oho! Another turn-of-the-century author comments on tying and
soldering, this one the head of a U.K. engineering department. The
only reason that he knows for tying and soldering is to reduce faint
noises:

"There is one other point of interest in connection with spokes,
namely, the manner in which they should cross one another."

"Many makers pass the spokes that start on the outside of the
hub-flange behind those that start on the inside. They are then all
slightly bent, and press against one another where they cross. To
prevent them from creaking or buzzing [!], they are wound at this
crossing with fine wire and soldered."

"Other makers keep the outside spokes outside right to the rim, and
the inside spokes inside, though they still bind them together and
solder them where they cross."

"A third method is to keep the outside and inside spokes independent
of one another altogether, as they naturally clear one another by
about 1/16", and neither bind them nor solder them in any way. The
spokes are thus quite straight. The author distinctly prefers the last
of these three methods, and after years of experience has been quite
unable to discover any advantage in the wiring and soldering process,
and on the whole has had considerably less trouble with the unwired
independent spokes. . . ."

"This is not a matter of much importance, but the unwired spokes are
more easily replaced than the wired ones, if by chance some one puts
his foot through your wheel or in any other way breaks the spokes. It
is also easier to tell when they are all at exactly the same tension,
as the tone is a truer indication of their tightness than it is in the
case of the wired and soldered ones. The wired spokes may have some
subtle advantages, but the author has entirely failed to discover them
or hear of them, and is therefore constrained to omit them."

"The Modern Safety Bicycle," 1899, p. 114, Herbert Alfred Garratt,
head of the Engineering Department of the Northern Polytechnic
Institute, Holloway, U.K.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NMgeFMDBE18C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Modern+Safety+Bicycle&as_brr=1&ei=x7EuR7DxDZzuoAKKk_T3CQ

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

"The Modern Bicycle and its accessories" of 1898 has oodles of weird
mechanical details. Look at the chain section carefully, starting on
page 58, and you'll see some chains that were too weird for Sharp.

Anyway, there's a comment on the tie-and-sodler debate on page 69:

"The majority of them [tangent-spoke wheel makers] tie their spokes to
each other where they cross. There are a great many of the makers who
do not tie them at all, there being some difference of opinion as to
the benefit derived from this treatment."

"Those in favor of tying spokes say that tying two or more [!] spokes
together at the crossing some distance above the hub shortens the
leverage from the rim and practically gives the wheel an additional
hub; that they are also stiffer against side or lateral strain, and
that the only good tangent spoke is one that is tied at the crossing
with its mates. Those who are opposed to tying spokes say that tying
them together makes them too rigid and inflexible [!], and that the
process of wiring them and soldering them together has a tendency to
crystallize the spokes at this point owing to the heat required to
solder them. This part of the argument, however, has been met by by
not wiring and soldering the spokes at the crossing, but by pinching
on them at this point a metal clamp such as is used on the Humber
wheel. The opponents of tying the spokes assert that the very
stiffness and rigidness which the wheel possesses when the spokes are
tied has a tendency to also crystallize them at the hub flanges as
well as cause them to break [!]."

http://books.google.com/books?id=1CRyfR7JclIC&pg=PA69&dq=solder+tie+spokes&as_brr=1&ei=ZW4tR8-ZDYiUtgPP0eSuCQ#PPP5,M1

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase, and I
don't think that any modern tie-and-solder enthusiasts ever mention
radial, larger "hub" strength as a benefit. I'm just curious about the
origins of tying and soldering.)

I can't find the no-solder pinch things for the Humber wheel. Maybe
they're a version of the odd solder-fittings seen on this 1897 Pope
Columbia chainless bicycle:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/pic/?o=1gci&pic_id=120248&v=EK&size=large

Here's the beginning of an old thread about the murky origins of tying
and soldering:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2e4cd40105dbe082

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Oho! Another turn-of-the-century author comments on tying and
soldering, this one the head of a U.K. engineering department. The
only reason that he knows for tying and soldering is to reduce faint
noises:

"There is one other point of interest in connection with spokes,
namely, the manner in which they should cross one another."

"Many makers pass the spokes that start on the outside of the
hub-flange behind those that start on the inside. They are then all
slightly bent, and press against one another where they cross. To
prevent them from creaking or buzzing [!], they are wound at this
crossing with fine wire and soldered."

"Other makers keep the outside spokes outside right to the rim, and
the inside spokes inside, though they still bind them together and
solder them where they cross."

"A third method is to keep the outside and inside spokes independent
of one another altogether, as they naturally clear one another by
about 1/16", and neither bind them nor solder them in any way. The
spokes are thus quite straight. The author distinctly prefers the last
of these three methods, and after years of experience has been quite
unable to discover any advantage in the wiring and soldering process,
and on the whole has had considerably less trouble with the unwired
independent spokes. . . ."

"This is not a matter of much importance, but the unwired spokes are
more easily replaced than the wired ones, if by chance some one puts
his foot through your wheel or in any other way breaks the spokes. It
is also easier to tell when they are all at exactly the same tension,
as the tone is a truer indication of their tightness than it is in the
case of the wired and soldered ones. The wired spokes may have some
subtle advantages, but the author has entirely failed to discover them
or hear of them, and is therefore constrained to omit them."

"The Modern Safety Bicycle," 1899, p. 114, Herbert Alfred Garratt,
head of the Engineering Department of the Northern Polytechnic
Institute, Holloway, U.K.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NMgeFMDBE18C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Modern+Safety+Bicycle&as_brr=1&ei=x7EuR7DxDZzuoAKKk_T3CQ

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel said:

Oho! Another turn-of-the-century author comments on tying and
soldering, this one the head of a U.K. engineering department. The
only reason that he knows for tying and soldering is to reduce faint
noises:

Quoted message said:

"There is one other point of interest in connection with spokes,
namely, the manner in which they should cross one another."

Quoted message said:

"Many makers pass the spokes that start on the outside of the
hub-flange behind those that start on the inside. They are then all
slightly bent, and press against one another where they cross. To
prevent them from creaking or buzzing [!], they are wound at this
crossing with fine wire and soldered."

Quoted message said:

"Other makers keep the outside spokes outside right to the rim, and
the inside spokes inside, though they still bind them together and
solder them where they cross."

Quoted message said:

"A third method is to keep the outside and inside spokes independent
of one another altogether, as they naturally clear one another by
about 1/16", and neither bind them nor solder them in any way. The
spokes are thus quite straight. The author distinctly prefers the
last of these three methods, and after years of experience has been
quite unable to discover any advantage in the wiring and soldering
process, and on the whole has had considerably less trouble with the
unwired independent spokes..."

Quoted message said:

"This is not a matter of much importance, but the unwired spokes are
more easily replaced than the wired ones, if by chance some one puts
his foot through your wheel or in any other way breaks the spokes.
It is also easier to tell when they are all at exactly the same
tension, as the tone is a truer indication of their tightness than
it is in the case of the wired and soldered ones. The wired spokes
may have some subtle advantages, but the author has entirely failed
to discover them or hear of them, and is therefore constrained to
omit them."

Quoted message said:

"The Modern Safety Bicycle," 1899, p. 114, Herbert Alfred Garratt,
head of the Engineering Department of the Northern Polytechnic
Institute, Holloway, U.K.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NMgeFMDBE18C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Modern+Safety+Bicycle&as_brr=1&ei=x7EuR7DxDZzuoAKKk_T3CQ

As you see, religious beliefs are hard to squelch. The tying and
soldering faithful are still alive although only faintly audible these
days. That is probably less so from the process having been debunked,
than that it doesn't fit well with the "high-tech" wheels that have
stepped in to offer a new paradigm. Carbon!

Jobst Brandt

Carl Fogel said:

Oho! Another turn-of-the-century author comments on tying and
soldering, this one the head of a U.K. engineering department. The
only reason that he knows for tying and soldering is to reduce faint
noises:

Quoted message said:

"There is one other point of interest in connection with spokes,
namely, the manner in which they should cross one another."

Quoted message said:

"Many makers pass the spokes that start on the outside of the
hub-flange behind those that start on the inside. They are then all
slightly bent, and press against one another where they cross. To
prevent them from creaking or buzzing [!], they are wound at this
crossing with fine wire and soldered."

Quoted message said:

"Other makers keep the outside spokes outside right to the rim, and
the inside spokes inside, though they still bind them together and
solder them where they cross."

Quoted message said:

"A third method is to keep the outside and inside spokes independent
of one another altogether, as they naturally clear one another by
about 1/16", and neither bind them nor solder them in any way. The
spokes are thus quite straight. The author distinctly prefers the
last of these three methods, and after years of experience has been
quite unable to discover any advantage in the wiring and soldering
process, and on the whole has had considerably less trouble with the
unwired independent spokes..."

Quoted message said:

"This is not a matter of much importance, but the unwired spokes are
more easily replaced than the wired ones, if by chance some one puts
his foot through your wheel or in any other way breaks the spokes.
It is also easier to tell when they are all at exactly the same
tension, as the tone is a truer indication of their tightness than
it is in the case of the wired and soldered ones. The wired spokes
may have some subtle advantages, but the author has entirely failed
to discover them or hear of them, and is therefore constrained to
omit them."

Quoted message said:

"The Modern Safety Bicycle," 1899, p. 114, Herbert Alfred Garratt,
head of the Engineering Department of the Northern Polytechnic
Institute, Holloway, U.K.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NMgeFMDBE18C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Modern+Safety+Bicycle&as_brr=1&ei=x7EuR7DxDZzuoAKKk_T3CQ

As you see, religious beliefs are hard to squelch. The tying and
soldering faithful are still alive although only faintly audible these
days. That is probably less so from the process having been debunked,
than that it doesn't fit well with the "high-tech" wheels that have
stepped in to offer a new paradigm. Carbon!

Jobst Brandt

Carl,

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave more
lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly it kept the
spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Chas.

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

Quoted message said:

"The Modern Bicycle and its accessories" of 1898 has oodles of weird
mechanical details. Look at the chain section carefully, starting on
page 58, and you'll see some chains that were too weird for Sharp.

Anyway, there's a comment on the tie-and-sodler debate on page 69:

"The majority of them [tangent-spoke wheel makers] tie their spokes to
each other where they cross. There are a great many of the makers who
do not tie them at all, there being some difference of opinion as to
the benefit derived from this treatment."

"Those in favor of tying spokes say that tying two or more [!] spokes
together at the crossing some distance above the hub shortens the
leverage from the rim and practically gives the wheel an additional
hub; that they are also stiffer against side or lateral strain, and
that the only good tangent spoke is one that is tied at the crossing
with its mates. Those who are opposed to tying spokes say that tying
them together makes them too rigid and inflexible [!], and that the
process of wiring them and soldering them together has a tendency to
crystallize the spokes at this point owing to the heat required to
solder them. This part of the argument, however, has been met by by
not wiring and soldering the spokes at the crossing, but by pinching
on them at this point a metal clamp such as is used on the Humber
wheel. The opponents of tying the spokes assert that the very
stiffness and rigidness which the wheel possesses when the spokes are
tied has a tendency to also crystallize them at the hub flanges as
well as cause them to break [!]."

http://books.google.com/books?id=1CRyfR7JclIC&pg=PA69&dq=solder+tie+spokes&as_brr=1&ei=ZW4tR8-ZDYiUtgPP0eSuCQ#PPP5,M1

Quoted message said:

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase, and I
don't think that any modern tie-and-solder enthusiasts ever mention
radial, larger "hub" strength as a benefit. I'm just curious about the
origins of tying and soldering.)

I can't find the no-solder pinch things for the Humber wheel. Maybe
they're a version of the odd solder-fittings seen on this 1897 Pope
Columbia chainless bicycle:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/pic/?o=1gci&pic_id=120248&v=EK&size=large

Quoted message said:

Here's the beginning of an old thread about the murky origins of tying
and soldering:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2e4cd40105dbe082

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl,

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave more
lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly it kept the
spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Chas.

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

Quoted message said:

"The Modern Bicycle and its accessories" of 1898 has oodles of weird
mechanical details. Look at the chain section carefully, starting on
page 58, and you'll see some chains that were too weird for Sharp.

Anyway, there's a comment on the tie-and-sodler debate on page 69:

"The majority of them [tangent-spoke wheel makers] tie their spokes to
each other where they cross. There are a great many of the makers who
do not tie them at all, there being some difference of opinion as to
the benefit derived from this treatment."

"Those in favor of tying spokes say that tying two or more [!] spokes
together at the crossing some distance above the hub shortens the
leverage from the rim and practically gives the wheel an additional
hub; that they are also stiffer against side or lateral strain, and
that the only good tangent spoke is one that is tied at the crossing
with its mates. Those who are opposed to tying spokes say that tying
them together makes them too rigid and inflexible [!], and that the
process of wiring them and soldering them together has a tendency to
crystallize the spokes at this point owing to the heat required to
solder them. This part of the argument, however, has been met by by
not wiring and soldering the spokes at the crossing, but by pinching
on them at this point a metal clamp such as is used on the Humber
wheel. The opponents of tying the spokes assert that the very
stiffness and rigidness which the wheel possesses when the spokes are
tied has a tendency to also crystallize them at the hub flanges as
well as cause them to break [!]."

http://books.google.com/books?id=1CRyfR7JclIC&pg=PA69&dq=solder+tie+spokes&as_brr=1&ei=ZW4tR8-ZDYiUtgPP0eSuCQ#PPP5,M1

Quoted message said:

There's no mention at all of tying to restrain broken spokes, a common
explanation in RBT threads on the matter--and the notion of a "hub" as
big as a circle drawn around the crossings is a new notion to me.

(I should add that it's pretty much all wishful thinking, as far as I
can tell. Jobst's tests showed no lateral strength increase, and I
don't think that any modern tie-and-solder enthusiasts ever mention
radial, larger "hub" strength as a benefit. I'm just curious about the
origins of tying and soldering.)

I can't find the no-solder pinch things for the Humber wheel. Maybe
they're a version of the odd solder-fittings seen on this 1897 Pope
Columbia chainless bicycle:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/pic/?o=1gci&pic_id=120248&v=EK&size=large

Quoted message said:

Here's the beginning of an old thread about the murky origins of tying
and soldering:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2e4cd40105dbe082

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

* * Chas said:

Carl,

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave more
lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly it kept the
spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Chas.

Dear Chas,

Rattling is a possibility mentioned in that link.

Limiting broken spokes is strangely not mentioned in any contemporary
accounts.

More stiffness in any direction is rather unlikely, given that they
were up to cross-8 and two feet long, while Jobst's tests on tiny
modern wheels with high and low flanges showed no measurable effect on
lateral or radial wheel deflection greater than the variation of
repeated tests with a dial indicator.

Increased stiffness has always been a baffling claim, given that
radial wheels are hardly a cause for concern and that the spoke
crossing on a tangent is hardly where you'd try to brace things. It's
not even as plausible as the second top tube that occasionally crops
up on RBT.

But I'm having fun digging through old books and finding that no one
seemed to have much notion why things were tied and soldered back in
the 1890's.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

* * Chas said:

Carl,

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave more
lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly it kept the
spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Chas.

Dear Chas,

Rattling is a possibility mentioned in that link.

Limiting broken spokes is strangely not mentioned in any contemporary
accounts.

More stiffness in any direction is rather unlikely, given that they
were up to cross-8 and two feet long, while Jobst's tests on tiny
modern wheels with high and low flanges showed no measurable effect on
lateral or radial wheel deflection greater than the variation of
repeated tests with a dial indicator.

Increased stiffness has always been a baffling claim, given that
radial wheels are hardly a cause for concern and that the spoke
crossing on a tangent is hardly where you'd try to brace things. It's
not even as plausible as the second top tube that occasionally crops
up on RBT.

But I'm having fun digging through old books and finding that no one
seemed to have much notion why things were tied and soldered back in
the 1890's.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

As you see, religious beliefs are hard to squelch. The tying and
soldering faithful are still alive although only faintly audible these
days. That is probably less so from the process having been debunked,
than that it doesn't fit well with the "high-tech" wheels that have
stepped in to offer a new paradigm. Carbon!

I can't seem to solder carbon. Am I using the wrong type of flux?

Quoted message said:

As you see, religious beliefs are hard to squelch. The tying and
soldering faithful are still alive although only faintly audible these
days. That is probably less so from the process having been debunked,
than that it doesn't fit well with the "high-tech" wheels that have
stepped in to offer a new paradigm. Carbon!

I can't seem to solder carbon. Am I using the wrong type of flux?

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave
more lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly
it kept the spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Quoted message said:

Rattling is a possibility mentioned in that link.

Quoted message said:

Limiting broken spokes is strangely not mentioned in any
contemporary accounts.

Quoted message said:

More stiffness in any direction is rather unlikely, given that they
were up to cross-8 and two feet long, while Jobst's tests on tiny
modern wheels with high and low flanges showed no measurable effect
on lateral or radial wheel deflection greater than the variation of
repeated tests with a dial indicator.

Quoted message said:

Increased stiffness has always been a baffling claim, given that
radial wheels are hardly a cause for concern and that the spoke
crossing on a tangent is hardly where you'd try to brace things.
It's not even as plausible as the second top tube that occasionally
crops up on RBT.

Quoted message said:

But I'm having fun digging through old books and finding that no one
seemed to have much notion why things were tied and soldered back in
the 1890's.

I'm sorry now that I didn't record where I read that John Starley
introduced crossed spoking for high wheelers for the purpose of
preventing crashes when a spoke broke, something they did often
considering what poor material they had and how large in diameter
(inelastic) they were. Being threaded at both ends, it was possible
they even bore some compression. "Rattling spokes" sounds like that
to me.

When I read that item, it was so "obvious" to me, there being no other
plausible reason, that I barely noticed where I read it shortly
thereafter. With your good searching abilities, I hope you can find
that again. It could be linked to Starley and not under wheels at
all.

Jobst Brandt

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave
more lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly
it kept the spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Quoted message said:

Rattling is a possibility mentioned in that link.

Quoted message said:

Limiting broken spokes is strangely not mentioned in any
contemporary accounts.

Quoted message said:

More stiffness in any direction is rather unlikely, given that they
were up to cross-8 and two feet long, while Jobst's tests on tiny
modern wheels with high and low flanges showed no measurable effect
on lateral or radial wheel deflection greater than the variation of
repeated tests with a dial indicator.

Quoted message said:

Increased stiffness has always been a baffling claim, given that
radial wheels are hardly a cause for concern and that the spoke
crossing on a tangent is hardly where you'd try to brace things.
It's not even as plausible as the second top tube that occasionally
crops up on RBT.

Quoted message said:

But I'm having fun digging through old books and finding that no one
seemed to have much notion why things were tied and soldered back in
the 1890's.

I'm sorry now that I didn't record where I read that John Starley
introduced crossed spoking for high wheelers for the purpose of
preventing crashes when a spoke broke, something they did often
considering what poor material they had and how large in diameter
(inelastic) they were. Being threaded at both ends, it was possible
they even bore some compression. "Rattling spokes" sounds like that
to me.

When I read that item, it was so "obvious" to me, there being no other
plausible reason, that I barely noticed where I read it shortly
thereafter. With your good searching abilities, I hope you can find
that again. It could be linked to Starley and not under wheels at
all.

Jobst Brandt

In article
<[email hidden]>,

still me said:

Quoted message said:

As you see, religious beliefs are hard to squelch. The tying and
soldering faithful are still alive although only faintly audible these
days. That is probably less so from the process having been debunked,
than that it doesn't fit well with the "high-tech" wheels that have
stepped in to offer a new paradigm. Carbon!

I can't seem to solder carbon. Am I using the wrong type of flux?

Yes, but I am not giving it away. Now that I have tied
and soldered my radial carbon spokes, the squirrels
are having a bad time of it.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

still me said:

Quoted message said:

As you see, religious beliefs are hard to squelch. The tying and
soldering faithful are still alive although only faintly audible these
days. That is probably less so from the process having been debunked,
than that it doesn't fit well with the "high-tech" wheels that have
stepped in to offer a new paradigm. Carbon!

I can't seem to solder carbon. Am I using the wrong type of flux?

Yes, but I am not giving it away. Now that I have tied
and soldered my radial carbon spokes, the squirrels
are having a bad time of it.

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave
more lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly
it kept the spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Quoted message said:

Rattling is a possibility mentioned in that link.

Quoted message said:

Limiting broken spokes is strangely not mentioned in any
contemporary accounts.

Quoted message said:

More stiffness in any direction is rather unlikely, given that they
were up to cross-8 and two feet long, while Jobst's tests on tiny
modern wheels with high and low flanges showed no measurable effect
on lateral or radial wheel deflection greater than the variation of
repeated tests with a dial indicator.

Quoted message said:

Increased stiffness has always been a baffling claim, given that
radial wheels are hardly a cause for concern and that the spoke
crossing on a tangent is hardly where you'd try to brace things.
It's not even as plausible as the second top tube that occasionally
crops up on RBT.

Quoted message said:

But I'm having fun digging through old books and finding that no one
seemed to have much notion why things were tied and soldered back in
the 1890's.

I'm sorry now that I didn't record where I read that John Starley
introduced crossed spoking for high wheelers for the purpose of
preventing crashes when a spoke broke, something they did often
considering what poor material they had and how large in diameter
(inelastic) they were. Being threaded at both ends, it was possible
they even bore some compression. "Rattling spokes" sounds like that
to me.

When I read that item, it was so "obvious" to me, there being no other
plausible reason, that I barely noticed where I read it shortly
thereafter. With your good searching abilities, I hope you can find
that again. It could be linked to Starley and not under wheels at
all.

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Still looking, but no luck. The highwheelers flourished only from
about 1875 to 1890, so literature is scarce. Besides, many of them
were laced radially, so there were no crossings to tie and solder,
much less to make up explanations about.

Most of the time, pre-1900 comments about tying and soldering refer to
early safeties and simply state that it is well-known that all proper
tangent wheels are invariably tied and soldered. (There are [censored]
tangent wheels, which are treated with considerable scorn.)

After announcing that it is customary to tie and solder at the
crossing (without any explanation why this is customary), the
commentators then usually disagree with each other about which
particular crossing should be tied and soldered--first, second, or
last.

Luckily, their blissful ignorance of each other's contradictory
announcements preserves a cheerful atmosphere. There seem to be no
heated debates, much less our modern internet name-calling, but I keep
hoping to find some turn-of-the-century bicycling column filled with
scurrilous remarks about long-dead bicycling enthusiasts.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave
more lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly
it kept the spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Quoted message said:

Rattling is a possibility mentioned in that link.

Quoted message said:

Limiting broken spokes is strangely not mentioned in any
contemporary accounts.

Quoted message said:

More stiffness in any direction is rather unlikely, given that they
were up to cross-8 and two feet long, while Jobst's tests on tiny
modern wheels with high and low flanges showed no measurable effect
on lateral or radial wheel deflection greater than the variation of
repeated tests with a dial indicator.

Quoted message said:

Increased stiffness has always been a baffling claim, given that
radial wheels are hardly a cause for concern and that the spoke
crossing on a tangent is hardly where you'd try to brace things.
It's not even as plausible as the second top tube that occasionally
crops up on RBT.

Quoted message said:

But I'm having fun digging through old books and finding that no one
seemed to have much notion why things were tied and soldered back in
the 1890's.

I'm sorry now that I didn't record where I read that John Starley
introduced crossed spoking for high wheelers for the purpose of
preventing crashes when a spoke broke, something they did often
considering what poor material they had and how large in diameter
(inelastic) they were. Being threaded at both ends, it was possible
they even bore some compression. "Rattling spokes" sounds like that
to me.

When I read that item, it was so "obvious" to me, there being no other
plausible reason, that I barely noticed where I read it shortly
thereafter. With your good searching abilities, I hope you can find
that again. It could be linked to Starley and not under wheels at
all.

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Still looking, but no luck. The highwheelers flourished only from
about 1875 to 1890, so literature is scarce. Besides, many of them
were laced radially, so there were no crossings to tie and solder,
much less to make up explanations about.

Most of the time, pre-1900 comments about tying and soldering refer to
early safeties and simply state that it is well-known that all proper
tangent wheels are invariably tied and soldered. (There are [censored]
tangent wheels, which are treated with considerable scorn.)

After announcing that it is customary to tie and solder at the
crossing (without any explanation why this is customary), the
commentators then usually disagree with each other about which
particular crossing should be tied and soldered--first, second, or
last.

Luckily, their blissful ignorance of each other's contradictory
announcements preserves a cheerful atmosphere. There seem to be no
heated debates, much less our modern internet name-calling, but I keep
hoping to find some turn-of-the-century bicycling column filled with
scurrilous remarks about long-dead bicycling enthusiasts.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave
more lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly
it kept the spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Rattling is a possibility mentioned in that link.
Limiting broken spokes is strangely not mentioned in any
contemporary accounts.
More stiffness in any direction is rather unlikely, given that they
were up to cross-8 and two feet long, while Jobst's tests on tiny
modern wheels with high and low flanges showed no measurable effect
on lateral or radial wheel deflection greater than the variation of
repeated tests with a dial indicator.
Increased stiffness has always been a baffling claim, given that
radial wheels are hardly a cause for concern and that the spoke
crossing on a tangent is hardly where you'd try to brace things.
It's not even as plausible as the second top tube that occasionally
crops up on RBT.
But I'm having fun digging through old books and finding that no one
seemed to have much notion why things were tied and soldered back in
the 1890's.

I'm sorry now that I didn't record where I read that John Starley
introduced crossed spoking for high wheelers for the purpose of
preventing crashes when a spoke broke, something they did often
considering what poor material they had and how large in diameter
(inelastic) they were. Being threaded at both ends, it was possible
they even bore some compression. "Rattling spokes" sounds like that
to me.

When I read that item, it was so "obvious" to me, there being no other
plausible reason, that I barely noticed where I read it shortly
thereafter. With your good searching abilities, I hope you can find
that again. It could be linked to Starley and not under wheels at
all.

Jobst Brandt

Starley, it seems, died in a plane crash in 1902:
---
In due course, motor-driven bicycles became motor-cycles and were
followed by motor cars. John Kemp Starley experimented with an
electric tri-car around 1888 but the petrol-driven Rover 8 h.p. car
was released in 1904, two years after his death in a tragic plane
crash.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Starley

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

The explanation I heard for tie-and solder spokes was that it gave
more lateral stiffness on penny farthing bikes but more importantly
it kept the spokes from rattling against each other while riding.

Rattling is a possibility mentioned in that link.
Limiting broken spokes is strangely not mentioned in any
contemporary accounts.
More stiffness in any direction is rather unlikely, given that they
were up to cross-8 and two feet long, while Jobst's tests on tiny
modern wheels with high and low flanges showed no measurable effect
on lateral or radial wheel deflection greater than the variation of
repeated tests with a dial indicator.
Increased stiffness has always been a baffling claim, given that
radial wheels are hardly a cause for concern and that the spoke
crossing on a tangent is hardly where you'd try to brace things.
It's not even as plausible as the second top tube that occasionally
crops up on RBT.
But I'm having fun digging through old books and finding that no one
seemed to have much notion why things were tied and soldered back in
the 1890's.

I'm sorry now that I didn't record where I read that John Starley
introduced crossed spoking for high wheelers for the purpose of
preventing crashes when a spoke broke, something they did often
considering what poor material they had and how large in diameter
(inelastic) they were. Being threaded at both ends, it was possible
they even bore some compression. "Rattling spokes" sounds like that
to me.

When I read that item, it was so "obvious" to me, there being no other
plausible reason, that I barely noticed where I read it shortly
thereafter. With your good searching abilities, I hope you can find
that again. It could be linked to Starley and not under wheels at
all.

Jobst Brandt

Starley, it seems, died in a plane crash in 1902:
---
In due course, motor-driven bicycles became motor-cycles and were
followed by motor cars. John Kemp Starley experimented with an
electric tri-car around 1888 but the petrol-driven Rover 8 h.p. car
was released in 1904, two years after his death in a tragic plane
crash.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Starley

Quoted message said:

Starley, it seems, died in a plane crash in 1902:
---
In due course, motor-driven bicycles became motor-cycles and were
followed by motor cars. John Kemp Starley experimented with an
electric tri-car around 1888 but the petrol-driven Rover 8 h.p. car
was released in 1904, two years after his death in a tragic plane
crash.

Carl -

Perhaps this is another example of the intrusion of the world of jim beam
(where time, space, and geomotry seem to have different, flexible
definitions) into our Real World...Orville and Wilbur were aloft at Kitty
Hawk for the first time in 1903.