daveornee wrote:
Peter Cole Wrote:
Ben C wrote:

The controversy here is not that brief overload relieves stress or
that
stress relief improves fatigue life.
Not true.

It's the claim that this is known
to be _the significant beneficial effect_ of spoke-squeezing, the
Mavic
method, and other "stabilization" practices that people do when
wheel-building.
Not true. The specific claim (originally by Jobst) is that spoke
squeezing causes stress relief by the exact mechanism described in the
sources I cited. "Stabilization" is your word -- and a meaningless
one,
too. Stress relief is a specific term. That there are residual
stresses
in spokes is not a matter of faith. Overloading in the direction of
the
working load will either diminish undesirable residual stresses or
create desirable residual stresses or both. That is the whole point.
It
needs no other qualifications.
"Stabilizing" is a term used Barnett Bicycle Institute in thier wheel
building classes. It is not meaningless. Stabilizing makes sure the
spokes are embeded and residual windup removed. The process also
temporarily overloads spokes in the direction of the working load....
likely better than the spoke squeezing method. I can see and
immediately measure the results of the process. I know that if a wheel
isn't stabilized it will detension as it is ridden... sometimes to the
point where nipples will back-off and the wheel will have spokes that
are totally slack.




indeed. and it's easy to test this observation at home - it's not like
this is inaccessible rocket surgery.