Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
> Robert wrote in message ...
>
>>Considering the amount of quasi-technospeak that has come oozing out of
>>your keyboard as of late, I'm surprised that you can't describe a spoke
>>tightness test that can be *reasonably* used by a reader of this NG.
>
>
> I try to reduce technical language to the minimum, but it is not possible to
> eliminate the language which defines the subject. If you have trouble with
> it, use a standard English dictionary, if the difficult words are not there
> use an Engineering dictionary and then another.
My undergraduate level applied maths gives me enough coverage for most
of your reasoning. It also tells me that you're basing most of what you
say on (perfect) theoretical models. But what say your fingers when you
build your wheels, compared with what your head tells you?
You do build wheels don't you?
The memory in *my* fingers from building wheelsets tells me that most of
the theory in this and related threads should stay as just that -
theory. Useful, as long as it's not abused.
Let's face it. Back in 1979 I built my first wheels with crud spokes and
Fiamme red (or was it Ambrosio Arc-en-Ciel). Way too low spoke tension
compared with what I know today, no lubricating of threads, no
stress-relieving done, riding on awful Australian roads (as they were
back then, at least). Broke 1 spoke in 5 years of training/competing.
Nowadays my rims are called Open Pro, I can afford really nice spokes, I
use grease, I now know how to get right tension and I stress relieve,
they're extremely round, true, and stay that way, but I don't think
they're that much better than what I made 25 years ago. The point here
is that the wheel components can be slapped together in lots of ways
(way outside the very fine tolerances that you're implying) and you'll
still get a wheel that's hard to break and will stay pretty straight.
I had considerable
> difficulty upon reading the advanced books upon fatigue causation because my
> non-familiarity of all the terminology and expressions concerned. I assure
> you that what I have wrote is not meant to veil over anything and that all
> terminology is used and understood within its field. Once a person has
> studied detailed technical literature, it becomes difficult to use standard
> regular 30,000 word English to explain accurately that which a few technical
> words will do.
>
> Of which "quasi-technospeak" do you have difficulty with?
Just about all of it. My view is that you are going to all ends of the
earth to try to save millimetres of territory. For what purpose? Do you
never concede to a good argument from an opponent, or do you believe
that everyone who's gone up against you in this thread is just plain wrong?
You're like a dog in the middle of a major pissing contest.
/Robert
