Yet another broken spoke

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>> On 2007-09-04, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But the other spoke can only drop from 100 pounds of pre-tension down
>>>>> to 0. After it loses only 100 pounds of tension, it just rattles.
>>>>
>>>> I get it! Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Of course whether it does rattle harmlessly or flex horribly, rapidly
>>>> fatiguing itself to death, is another matter.
>>>
>>> It could only "flex horribly" (or at all) if the spoke was bowed.
>>> Even in that case, you'd have to consider where the flex occurred vs
>>> where the spokes broke. The "flexing horribly" speculation also needs
>>> to consider the actual amount of rim deflection which bounds the
>>> degree of "horribleness".
>>>
>>> A worst case scenario would be where the spoke elbow angle did not
>>> match the angle of the spoke hole to flange. In that case,
>>> fluctuations in tension could cause elbow bending when the overall
>>> tension wasn't high enough to keep the spoke fully supported. To have
>>> that happen the angular mismatch would have had to survived the
>>> initial wheel tensioning and stress relief. If a wheel was built with
>>> low tension and not stress relieved, and a spoke subsequently became
>>> loose enough to lose support at the elbow, it might bend enough to
>>> fatigue rapidly, but I would consider this to be the consequence of a
>>> bad initial build rather than a loose spoke per se.
>>
>> wow! how to admit something you've previously denied, while phrasing
>> it as further denial!!! quite masterful.
>
> Only in your world. In the first paragraph, I was referring to the spoke
> bending along its whole length, the second only at the elbow -- in case
> that wasn't clear.
>
> I think the burden is on you to explain how the spoke elbow is
> unsupported (or how it can bend if it isn't).

er, the light gap between the hub and the spoke ought to be proof to
anyone whose intent is not to ******** and deceive...

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What is bending the elbow in your perception?
>>>>
>>>> simple loading!!! the spoke elbow is offset from the spoke axis,
>>>> thus is it subject to bending - by definition!!!
>>>
>>> If
>>
>> "if"??
>>
>>> the spoke elbow is fully supported on its inside radius it can't
>>> bend. By definition!!!!!!!!
>>
>> but it's not. so you're bullshitting.
>
> It is if you've built your wheel right.
>
>
>>>> except that it /is/ being bent back and forth more, simply because
>>>> it's interleaved.
>>>
>>> Do the math. How much force (tension) does it take to fully
>>> straighten a clothesline with a 5lb weight in the center?
>>>
>>
>> false example - the usual peter cole deceit.
>
> No, the interleaving force is in the middle of the spoke, like the
> clothesline. Consider the vectors.

and we're discussing loosening and /angle/ increase. /you/ are trying
to deceive with /tension/ increase and straightening which can never be
achieved - as you well know.

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ben C? writes:
>
>>>>> Loose spokes also wear the holes in the hubs - and wear the
>>>>> spokes where they go through the hub.
>
>>>> I hadn't thought of that. That would explain the phenomenon
>>>> (loose spokes breaking) in a way that's consistent with my
>>>> understanding of Jobst's earlier suggestion that there is a bit of
>>>> clearance down there.
>
>>>> I thought the reasoning was: the spoke can't easily be bent since
>>>> it isn't firmly held in the hub hole but free to wobble a bit.
>>>> But if it's wobbling up and down it can wear and that can initiate
>>>> fatigue.
>
>>>>> I've replaced numerous spokes that were worn half way through
>>>>> before breaking (and some that had not yet broken)
>
>>>> Maybe this is something datakoll's practice of putting Teflon wax
>>>> in the hub holes before you put the spokes in could help with.
>
>>> he lives in a hot salty climate, so in his case, it's more likely
>>> that it mitigates corrosion or stress corrosion. sticky **** that
>>> retains grit sure isn't going to do a thing to mitigate wear.
>
>> Good point. IIRC he may also have reported this was a way to get
>> more life out of generic spokes. I don't know if those are the
>> galvanized kind, but also some kinds of Chinese "stainless" steel do
>> rust in little spots. I know because I've seen it happen to
>> teaspoons.
>
> You needn't fly your kite on every breeze that comes along. Remember,
> it's the jam nut on valve stems that caused stem separations about a
> year ago, information that was brought to this newsgroup by the same
> folks who say spokes break from low tension.

specious **** - rubber usage has /nothing/ to do with metal fatigue.

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> clare who? writes:
>
>>>>> Loose spokes also wear the holes in the hubs - and wear the
>>>>> spokes where they go through the hub.
>
>>>> I hadn't thought of that. That would explain the phenomenon
>>>> (loose spokes breaking) in a way that's consistent with my
>>>> understanding of Jobst's earlier suggestion that there is a bit of
>>>> clearance down there.
>
>>> You'll have to show some evidence of loose spokes wearing thin at
>>> the elbow. That has not been observed by anyone building wheels
>>> around here and I've been watching this sort of thing for more
>>> years than most. Spoke failures are from residual stress and
>>> stress concentrations, not loose spokes or flexing from
>>> interleaving.
>
>> I just threw out a couple spokes I pulled from a 1970 CCM that were
>> worn noticeably - and ONE of them was broken.Same on a 1963 Schwinn
>> American that had sat for about 15 years. Replaced 6 spokes on that
>> one.Only one was initially broken.
>
> You say "noticeably". What did you notice other than a clean area
> where the spokes contacted the flange?
>
>> All the spokes were loose on all 4 wheels.
>
> Your experience being different from the norm, how about some pictures
> of these worn spokes? How much wear did they have? How much was the
> spoke cross section reduced from the original? As I said, no one I
> know in the wheel building business has observed such wear, so it
> makes your findings unusual enough to be questioned. Something that
> could be resolved with some photos of the worn spokes.
>

but you have admitted to existence of this phenomenon in other writings
- why ******** and deny now?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/d7dd514160221d16

"These are typically a fretting notch where they cross,
such that if you slide them apart with the fingers, they pop out of
engagement and readily snap back in"

 

[jim beam]

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Ben C? writes:
>
<snip for clarity>

>> 1. Residual stress from manufacture
>> 2. Retained stress in elbow from the build
>> 3. Shank too long/bad spoke line
>> 4. Surface finish of spokes poor (**** spokes)
>> 5. Corrosion
>> 6. Stress corrosion
>
>> 8. Rim flat spot causing slack spokes at the flat spot
>> 9. Riding with too much weight on the bike so spokes go slack
>> 10. Wear at the elbow
>> 7. Not enough tension, so spokes go slack
>
> These are all the same issue

eh? no they're not. to pick just one, there's no way stress corrosion
can be confused with low cycle fatigue.


> and you slipped them in with valid
> causes. However, that is what we are pursuing in this thread. How
> does low tension cause spoke failure?

how about getting facts straight first?


>
>> They all have varying degrees of supporting evidence, mostly indirect,
>> and of theoretical plausibility.
>
> The first three have direct theoretical and practical evidence and
> were resolved with the solutions I proposed.

no they don't because "residual stress" is a red herring. the fatigue
initiation point is /not/ that of a high residual stress point - as
you'd know if you'd properly examined the fatigue fracture surfaces.


> You can skip 4 through 5
> for the spokes most of us use.

why? too inconvenient to discuss anything that can't be misconstrued in
the context of "residual stress".


> As I have often mentioned, I have
> wheels that went 300,000 miles with the same spokes

except for the spokes that you've replaced because they've failed...


> (replacing rims)
> when they wore out and no failures on the front wheel and outbound
> right side spokes that got damaged by the chain.

what happened to the excuse about having a stick in the spokes? any
other excuses or omissions?


>
>> I have not seen anyone provide any convincing evidence that (1) and (2)
>> are the dominant factors to the total exclusion of all the others.
>> Personally I suspect (4), (7) and (9) are also quite a big part of the
>> picture.
>
> Basic material science spends great effort to make them credible,
> through theory and lab testing.

indeed it does. and then it gets ignored by "engineers" that didn't
bother to research beyond the presumption that would allow them to claim
credit for the work of others.


> I think we have discussed this at
> great length with only a "former metallurgist" claiming that new
> materials resolved those causes rather than going back to short elbows
> (that DT did) and to properly shape spokes and stress relieve after
> building

truth is jobst, if you ever properly addressed the points i have had to
repeatedly raise with you, or ever bothered to read the cites i've given
you, went to the library and did your own homework, or even bought a
decent magnifier and bothered to examine fracture surfaces from actual
failures, you might, just might, be able to finally start to understand
a little about fatigue. instead, you continue to write suppositional
******** based on a shamefully poor grasp of the facts. if you even
understood the difference between materials that strain age and those
that don't, you might evidence some potential for understanding. but as
things stand, you continue to confirm the truth of the saying,
"ignorance can be cured, stupid is forever".

 

[Gary Young]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:59:17 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>> clare who? writes:
>>
>>>>>> Loose spokes also wear the holes in the hubs - and wear the
>>>>>> spokes where they go through the hub.
>>
>>>>> I hadn't thought of that. That would explain the phenomenon
>>>>> (loose spokes breaking) in a way that's consistent with my
>>>>> understanding of Jobst's earlier suggestion that there is a bit of
>>>>> clearance down there.
>>
>>>> You'll have to show some evidence of loose spokes wearing thin at
>>>> the elbow. That has not been observed by anyone building wheels
>>>> around here and I've been watching this sort of thing for more
>>>> years than most. Spoke failures are from residual stress and
>>>> stress concentrations, not loose spokes or flexing from
>>>> interleaving.
>>
>>> I just threw out a couple spokes I pulled from a 1970 CCM that were
>>> worn noticeably - and ONE of them was broken.Same on a 1963 Schwinn
>>> American that had sat for about 15 years. Replaced 6 spokes on that
>>> one.Only one was initially broken.
>>
>> You say "noticeably". What did you notice other than a clean area
>> where the spokes contacted the flange?
>>
>>> All the spokes were loose on all 4 wheels.
>>
>> Your experience being different from the norm, how about some pictures
>> of these worn spokes? How much wear did they have? How much was the
>> spoke cross section reduced from the original? As I said, no one I
>> know in the wheel building business has observed such wear, so it
>> makes your findings unusual enough to be questioned. Something that
>> could be resolved with some photos of the worn spokes.
>>
>
> but you have admitted to existence of this phenomenon in other writings
> - why ******** and deny now?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/d7dd514160221d16
>
> "These are typically a fretting notch where they cross,
> such that if you slide them apart with the fingers, they pop out of
> engagement and readily snap back in"

The discussion is about fretting at spoke elbows.

 

[Gary Young]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:56:58 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>>> On 2007-09-04, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But the other spoke can only drop from 100 pounds of pre-tension down
>>>>>> to 0. After it loses only 100 pounds of tension, it just rattles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I get it! Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course whether it does rattle harmlessly or flex horribly, rapidly
>>>>> fatiguing itself to death, is another matter.
>>>>
>>>> It could only "flex horribly" (or at all) if the spoke was bowed.
>>>> Even in that case, you'd have to consider where the flex occurred vs
>>>> where the spokes broke. The "flexing horribly" speculation also needs
>>>> to consider the actual amount of rim deflection which bounds the
>>>> degree of "horribleness".
>>>>
>>>> A worst case scenario would be where the spoke elbow angle did not
>>>> match the angle of the spoke hole to flange. In that case,
>>>> fluctuations in tension could cause elbow bending when the overall
>>>> tension wasn't high enough to keep the spoke fully supported. To have
>>>> that happen the angular mismatch would have had to survived the
>>>> initial wheel tensioning and stress relief. If a wheel was built with
>>>> low tension and not stress relieved, and a spoke subsequently became
>>>> loose enough to lose support at the elbow, it might bend enough to
>>>> fatigue rapidly, but I would consider this to be the consequence of a
>>>> bad initial build rather than a loose spoke per se.
>>>
>>> wow! how to admit something you've previously denied, while phrasing
>>> it as further denial!!! quite masterful.
>>
>> Only in your world. In the first paragraph, I was referring to the spoke
>> bending along its whole length, the second only at the elbow -- in case
>> that wasn't clear.
>>
>> I think the burden is on you to explain how the spoke elbow is
>> unsupported (or how it can bend if it isn't).
>
> er, the light gap between the hub and the spoke ought to be proof to
> anyone whose intent is not to ******** and deceive...

One can greatly reduce that gap by correcting the spoke line, something
you've previously said was unnecessary and even harmful. Has your position
changed?

 

[Joe Riel]

jim beam <[email protected]> writes:

> Peter Cole wrote:
>> I think the burden is on you to explain how the spoke elbow is
>> unsupported (or how it can bend if it isn't).
>
> er, the light gap between the hub and the spoke [...]

I don't see any light gap on my wheels. The outbound spokes
are fully bedded into the flange. The inbound spokes less so,
but still no visible gap.

--
Joe Riel

 

[jim beam]

Joe Riel wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> I think the burden is on you to explain how the spoke elbow is
>>> unsupported (or how it can bend if it isn't).
>> er, the light gap between the hub and the spoke [...]
>
> I don't see any light gap on my wheels. The outbound spokes
> are fully bedded into the flange. The inbound spokes less so,
> but still no visible gap.
>


http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1313347532/

xtr hub, d.t. spokes. gaps on heads in and heads out spokes. not an
atypical build i think you'll agree.

 

[Joe Riel]

jim beam <[email protected]> writes:

> Joe Riel wrote:
>> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> I think the burden is on you to explain how the spoke elbow is
>>>> unsupported (or how it can bend if it isn't).
>>> er, the light gap between the hub and the spoke [...]
>>
>> I don't see any light gap on my wheels. The outbound spokes
>> are fully bedded into the flange. The inbound spokes less so,
>> but still no visible gap.
>>
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1313347532/
>
> xtr hub, d.t. spokes. gaps on heads in and heads out spokes. not an
> atypical build i think you'll agree.
>

Here's a picture of my front hub. Hard to see the inbound spokes;
lighting wasn't ideal.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12733237@N05/

--
Joe Riel

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-09-06, Gary Young <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:59:17 -0700, jim beam wrote:
[...]
>> but you have admitted to existence of this phenomenon in other writings
>> - why ******** and deny now?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/d7dd514160221d16
>>
>> "These are typically a fretting notch where they cross,
>> such that if you slide them apart with the fingers, they pop out of
>> engagement and readily snap back in"
>
> The discussion is about fretting at spoke elbows.

Indeed, but why not? If they fret at the crossing why not at the elbow
(if they're too loose)?

 

[_]

On 06 Sep 2007 02:32:56 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

> clare who? writes:
>
>>>>> Loose spokes also wear the holes in the hubs - and wear the
>>>>> spokes where they go through the hub.
>
>>>> I hadn't thought of that. That would explain the phenomenon
>>>> (loose spokes breaking) in a way that's consistent with my
>>>> understanding of Jobst's earlier suggestion that there is a bit of
>>>> clearance down there.
>
>>> You'll have to show some evidence of loose spokes wearing thin at
>>> the elbow. That has not been observed by anyone building wheels
>>> around here and I've been watching this sort of thing for more
>>> years than most. Spoke failures are from residual stress and
>>> stress concentrations, not loose spokes or flexing from
>>> interleaving.
>
>> I just threw out a couple spokes I pulled from a 1970 CCM that were
>> worn noticeably - and ONE of them was broken.Same on a 1963 Schwinn
>> American that had sat for about 15 years. Replaced 6 spokes on that
>> one.Only one was initially broken.
>
> You say "noticeably". What did you notice other than a clean area
> where the spokes contacted the flange?
>
>> All the spokes were loose on all 4 wheels.
>
> Your experience being different from the norm, how about some pictures
> of these worn spokes? How much wear did they have? How much was the
> spoke cross section reduced from the original? As I said, no one I
> know in the wheel building business has observed such wear, so it
> makes your findings unusual enough to be questioned. Something that
> could be resolved with some photos of the worn spokes.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Jobst, that bike-shaped-object (the CCM) may well have had steel hubs; and
as I recall, those had no countersinking on the spoke holes.

Wear at the inside of the spoke elbow (especially if the wheel was built a
la jim beam) would be more likely in such a combination...

 

[jim beam]

Joe Riel wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> I think the burden is on you to explain how the spoke elbow is
>>>>> unsupported (or how it can bend if it isn't).
>>>> er, the light gap between the hub and the spoke [...]
>>> I don't see any light gap on my wheels. The outbound spokes
>>> are fully bedded into the flange. The inbound spokes less so,
>>> but still no visible gap.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1313347532/
>>
>> xtr hub, d.t. spokes. gaps on heads in and heads out spokes. not an
>> atypical build i think you'll agree.
>>
>
> Here's a picture of my front hub. Hard to see the inbound spokes;
> lighting wasn't ideal.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/12733237@N05/
>

heads in touch and heads out don't? can't see clearly in that pic.

 

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:16:00 GMT, _
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 06 Sep 2007 02:32:56 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> clare who? writes:
>>
>>>>>> Loose spokes also wear the holes in the hubs - and wear the
>>>>>> spokes where they go through the hub.
>>
>>>>> I hadn't thought of that. That would explain the phenomenon
>>>>> (loose spokes breaking) in a way that's consistent with my
>>>>> understanding of Jobst's earlier suggestion that there is a bit of
>>>>> clearance down there.
>>
>>>> You'll have to show some evidence of loose spokes wearing thin at
>>>> the elbow. That has not been observed by anyone building wheels
>>>> around here and I've been watching this sort of thing for more
>>>> years than most. Spoke failures are from residual stress and
>>>> stress concentrations, not loose spokes or flexing from
>>>> interleaving.
>>
>>> I just threw out a couple spokes I pulled from a 1970 CCM that were
>>> worn noticeably - and ONE of them was broken.Same on a 1963 Schwinn
>>> American that had sat for about 15 years. Replaced 6 spokes on that
>>> one.Only one was initially broken.
>>
>> You say "noticeably". What did you notice other than a clean area
>> where the spokes contacted the flange?
>>
>>> All the spokes were loose on all 4 wheels.
>>
>> Your experience being different from the norm, how about some pictures
>> of these worn spokes? How much wear did they have? How much was the
>> spoke cross section reduced from the original? As I said, no one I
>> know in the wheel building business has observed such wear, so it
>> makes your findings unusual enough to be questioned. Something that
>> could be resolved with some photos of the worn spokes.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
>Jobst, that bike-shaped-object (the CCM) may well have had steel hubs; and
>as I recall, those had no countersinking on the spoke holes.
>
>Wear at the inside of the spoke elbow (especially if the wheel was built a
>la jim beam) would be more likely in such a combination...

Definitely steel hubs. Alloy hubs on lowcost bikes in the seventies?
Didn't happen.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>>> On 2007-09-04, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But the other spoke can only drop from 100 pounds of pre-tension down
>>>>>> to 0. After it loses only 100 pounds of tension, it just rattles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I get it! Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course whether it does rattle harmlessly or flex horribly, rapidly
>>>>> fatiguing itself to death, is another matter.
>>>>
>>>> It could only "flex horribly" (or at all) if the spoke was bowed.
>>>> Even in that case, you'd have to consider where the flex occurred vs
>>>> where the spokes broke. The "flexing horribly" speculation also
>>>> needs to consider the actual amount of rim deflection which bounds
>>>> the degree of "horribleness".
>>>>
>>>> A worst case scenario would be where the spoke elbow angle did not
>>>> match the angle of the spoke hole to flange. In that case,
>>>> fluctuations in tension could cause elbow bending when the overall
>>>> tension wasn't high enough to keep the spoke fully supported. To
>>>> have that happen the angular mismatch would have had to survived the
>>>> initial wheel tensioning and stress relief. If a wheel was built
>>>> with low tension and not stress relieved, and a spoke subsequently
>>>> became loose enough to lose support at the elbow, it might bend
>>>> enough to fatigue rapidly, but I would consider this to be the
>>>> consequence of a bad initial build rather than a loose spoke per se.
>>>
>>> wow! how to admit something you've previously denied, while phrasing
>>> it as further denial!!! quite masterful.
>>
>> Only in your world. In the first paragraph, I was referring to the
>> spoke bending along its whole length, the second only at the elbow --
>> in case that wasn't clear.
>>
>> I think the burden is on you to explain how the spoke elbow is
>> unsupported (or how it can bend if it isn't).
>
> er, the light gap between the hub and the spoke ought to be proof to
> anyone whose intent is not to ******** and deceive...

Why don't you compute the bending moment for that distance and compare
its contribution to skin stress to that of the static and dynamic spoke
tension and get back to us?

 

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> What is bending the elbow in your perception?
>>>>>
>>>>> simple loading!!! the spoke elbow is offset from the spoke axis,
>>>>> thus is it subject to bending - by definition!!!
>>>>
>>>> If
>>>
>>> "if"??
>>>
>>>> the spoke elbow is fully supported on its inside radius it can't
>>>> bend. By definition!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> but it's not. so you're bullshitting.
>>
>> It is if you've built your wheel right.
>>
>>
>>>>> except that it /is/ being bent back and forth more, simply because
>>>>> it's interleaved.
>>>>
>>>> Do the math. How much force (tension) does it take to fully
>>>> straighten a clothesline with a 5lb weight in the center?
>>>>
>>>
>>> false example - the usual peter cole deceit.
>>
>> No, the interleaving force is in the middle of the spoke, like the
>> clothesline. Consider the vectors.
>
> and we're discussing loosening and /angle/ increase. /you/ are trying
> to deceive with /tension/ increase and straightening which can never be
> achieved - as you well know.

I don't know what you are discussing, I was discussing the change in
angle with the change in tension -- it's immaterial which direction you
want to reference.

 

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Ben C? writes:
>>
>>>>>> Loose spokes also wear the holes in the hubs - and wear the
>>>>>> spokes where they go through the hub.
>>
>>>>> I hadn't thought of that. That would explain the phenomenon
>>>>> (loose spokes breaking) in a way that's consistent with my
>>>>> understanding of Jobst's earlier suggestion that there is a bit of
>>>>> clearance down there.
>>
>>>>> I thought the reasoning was: the spoke can't easily be bent since
>>>>> it isn't firmly held in the hub hole but free to wobble a bit.
>>>>> But if it's wobbling up and down it can wear and that can initiate
>>>>> fatigue.
>>
>>>>>> I've replaced numerous spokes that were worn half way through
>>>>>> before breaking (and some that had not yet broken)
>>
>>>>> Maybe this is something datakoll's practice of putting Teflon wax
>>>>> in the hub holes before you put the spokes in could help with.
>>
>>>> he lives in a hot salty climate, so in his case, it's more likely
>>>> that it mitigates corrosion or stress corrosion. sticky **** that
>>>> retains grit sure isn't going to do a thing to mitigate wear.
>>
>>> Good point. IIRC he may also have reported this was a way to get
>>> more life out of generic spokes. I don't know if those are the
>>> galvanized kind, but also some kinds of Chinese "stainless" steel do
>>> rust in little spots. I know because I've seen it happen to
>>> teaspoons.
>>
>> You needn't fly your kite on every breeze that comes along. Remember,
>> it's the jam nut on valve stems that caused stem separations about a
>> year ago, information that was brought to this newsgroup by the same
>> folks who say spokes break from low tension.
>
> specious **** - rubber usage has /nothing/ to do with metal fatigue.

Does this mean you won't repeat your spew of everything (off topic) you
disagree with when he posts?

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 4, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> The spokes lose huge amounts of pre-tension as they roll under the
> wheel. The individual the spokes all the way around the wheel show an
> increase of only up to 10% in tension, compared to the spoke directly
> under the axle's loss of tension.

Right. Under what criteria is a 10% increase in tension insignificant,
as it was described by Brandt? And in your testing, as well as
everyone else's, the greatest loss of tension was in the spokes
perpendicular to the spokes that lost tension.

The loss of tension caused by the local flexing of the rim cannot be
balanced by a rise in tension by the rest of the spokes; OTOH, the
flexing of the rim caused by the ovalization of the hoop _must_ be
offset by a rise in tension by the rest of the spokes. The latter
effect is where the wheel gets its strength; it is ridiculous to
suggest that the rise in tension of the other spokes is insignificant
because without that rise in tension you might as well be riding a
wheel with all the spokes detensioned to the point that all the wheel
strength derives completely from the strength of the rim alone. To say
that the rise in tension of the other spokes is insignificant is just
utterly ridiculous.

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:15:00 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:

>On Sep 4, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The spokes lose huge amounts of pre-tension as they roll under the
>> wheel. The individual the spokes all the way around the wheel show an
>> increase of only up to 10% in tension, compared to the spoke directly
>> under the axle's loss of tension.
>
>And in your testing, as well as
>everyone else's, the greatest loss of tension was in the spokes
>perpendicular to the spokes that lost tension.

[snip]

Dear SSTW,

I have never posted any test of tension loss as spokes roll under the
wheel.

Apart from that, the sentence is incoherent, possibly due to some
typo.

You still seem to be confused.

Please try again.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:23:29 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:15:00 -0700, [email protected]
>wrote:
>
>>On Sep 4, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> The spokes lose huge amounts of pre-tension as they roll under the
>>> wheel. The individual the spokes all the way around the wheel show an
>>> increase of only up to 10% in tension, compared to the spoke directly
>>> under the axle's loss of tension.
>>
>>And in your testing, as well as
>>everyone else's, the greatest loss of tension was in the spokes
>>perpendicular to the spokes that lost tension.
>
>[snip]
>
>Dear SSTW,
>
>I have never posted any test of tension loss as spokes roll under the
>wheel.
>
>Apart from that, the sentence is incoherent, possibly due to some
>typo.
>
>You still seem to be confused.
>
>Please try again.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

I haven't checked yet, but I now remember a rig (but not the test) for
putting weights on the handlebar.

The only purpose that I can think of would been for testing either
tire contact patch or for testing spoke tension.

If it was for spoke tension, then my memory was bad and I was wrong.

I'll try to find that test.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel