wheels

jobst brandt said:

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

answers.google.comthreadviewOpen ↗

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

--
Benjamin Lewis

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

Tom Nakashima said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

answers.google.comthreadviewOpen ↗

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

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

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

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

Tim McNamara said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Matt O.

Tim McNamara said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

Here are some articles on the history of the archive:

csd.uwo.causenet.htmlOpen ↗

salon.comsalon.comOpen ↗
index.html

google.comarchive announce 20.htmlOpen ↗

groups.google.comgroupsOpen ↗
fe9bb%40posting.google.com

Weisse Luft said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radially lacing the left spokes does not decrease dish!

Quoted message said:

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

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

Mark McMaster [email hidden]

Matt O'Toole said:

Tim McNamara said:

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

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

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

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

Tim McNamara said:

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

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

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark McMaster
...

Quoted message said:

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

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

Mark McMaster [email hidden] [/B]

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

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

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

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

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark McMaster

BWeisse Luft said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radially lacing the left spokes does not decrease dish!

Quoted message said:

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

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

Mark McMaster [email hidden] [/B]

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

Benjamin Weiner said:

Tim McNamara said:

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

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

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

Tim McNamara said:

Benjamin Weiner said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

Ben

Benjamin Weiner said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

tinyurl.comttp6Open ↗

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Weisse Luft said:

Mark McMaster said:

...

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

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

Mark McMaster [email hidden]

daveornee said:

Mark McMaster said:

Weisse Luft said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

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

arcsine( 35mm/290mm ) = 6.93 degrees

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

arcsine( 33.25mm/275mm ) = 6.94 degrees

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

Mark McMaster [email hidden]

Benjamin Weiner said:

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

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

Ben

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

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

Tom

Weisse Luft said:

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

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

Tom

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Tom Reingold

BWeisse Luft said:

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

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

Tom [/B]

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

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

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

Mark McMaster said:

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

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

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

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

Tom Reingold said:

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

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

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