Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?

On Jan 5, 3:52*pm, wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
It doesn't need to be exceptionally low because the rim distributed
spoke stiffness circumferentially if it isn't terminally radially
flexible, and fails to transfer the stiffness of spokes around the
rim.
Really? "Exceptionally low?" Are you sure it wasn't "exceptionally
exceptionally low?"

Exceptional, because such rims are not readily available because they
are useless for bicycling but apply to the circumstances described.


What is this "readily" stuff? Are these rims available or not?


Please leave the fluff out of your writing. *People who use such
modifiers are generally trying to use bluff and bluster to cover
their lack of understanding.

You're probably correct there. *I suppose I should have mad my
response a few sentences longer to cover that problem.

You suppose? Either you should have or you should not have. This is a
technical newsgroup and we are not interested in suppositions.

And why "a few sentences" longer? Could you not have simply said your
response should have been been longer? How many are a "few?" What are
you trying to hide with all these extra fluff words in your writing?

Simplify!


At least that's what a "friend of mine" once told me. *Are you sure

he was your-friend and not just a friend known to other bikies?


He's a friend of all and a great critic of extraneous modifiers in
writing. Take his advice!

--Jim

Jim Rogers wrote:
On Jan 4, 8:52Â*pm, wrote:

It doesn't need to be exceptionally low because the rim distributed
spoke stiffness circumferentially if it isn't terminally radially
flexible, and fails to transfer the stiffness of spokes around the
rim.


Really? "Exceptionally low?" Are you sure it wasn't "exceptionally
exceptionally low?"

Please leave the fluff out of your writing.


Perhaps he meant to write "very low" or "damn low"?

per Mark Twain:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/2913


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

On Jan 5, 5:38*pm, SMS wrote:
On 1/5/2011 8:56 AM, Chalo wrote:

Just like Euro racers win races with fatter tires when the racecourse
includes stretches of cobbles, those of us who ride on normal non-
groomed streets are faster on tires that are fatter than currently
fashionable for road bikes. *It's not even clear what that size might
be, because most current go-fast bikes can't accommodate a tire larger
than 28mm, and thus tires of thinnest low-loss construction top out at
that size.

There's no debate that a wider, lower pressure, tire often ends up
resulting in being able to be faster overall. But it's a mistake to say
that a wider tire has less rolling resistance than a narrower tire when
both are inflated to the proper pressure. If rolling resistance went
down as width went up, we could all get those Surly Large Marge wheels
with 3.7" Endomorph tires pumped up to 28 psi, and have our rolling
resistance approaching zero

If you're trying to persuade someone that a narrower tire is not
necessarily a better choice for them, it's probably best to deal with
facts, and explain the real reasons that they would be happier with a
700x28 or 700x32 tire than a 700x23.

Avoidance of need to keep accurate pressure, avoidance of pinch
flats. A wider tyre should wear longer.

Alas so few bicycle buyers look at
the big picture when they choose a bicycle, I don't know how much
success any of us would have in convincing someone that ensuring that
the frame and brakes can accommodate 32mm tires is an important
consideration. As Grant Peterson writes on this subject, "Logic always
loses arguments with emotion!"
http://www.rivbike.com/article/bicycle_making/the_big_picture. If
people used logic when choosing a bicycle, we'd have no compact frames,
handlebar heights would be higher, and we'd have no carbon fiber frames,
which would be devastating to the entire industry.

Jim Rogers wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:52 pm, wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
It doesn't need to be exceptionally low because the rim distributed
spoke stiffness circumferentially if it isn't terminally radially
flexible, and fails to transfer the stiffness of spokes around the
rim.
Really? "Exceptionally low?" Are you sure it wasn't "exceptionally
exceptionally low?"

Exceptional, because such rims are not readily available because they
are useless for bicycling but apply to the circumstances described.


What is this "readily" stuff? Are these rims available or not?


Please leave the fluff out of your writing. People who use such
modifiers are generally trying to use bluff and bluster to cover
their lack of understanding.

You're probably correct there. I suppose I should have mad my
response a few sentences longer to cover that problem.

You suppose? Either you should have or you should not have. This is a
technical newsgroup and we are not interested in suppositions.

And why "a few sentences" longer? Could you not have simply said your
response should have been been longer? How many are a "few?" What are
you trying to hide with all these extra fluff words in your writing?

Simplify!


At least that's what a "friend of mine" once told me. Are you sure

he was your-friend and not just a friend known to other bikies?


He's a friend of all and a great critic of extraneous modifiers in
writing. Take his advice!

--Jim

Fascinating that anyone has the chutzpah to try and explain how bicycle
wheels work to Jobst. The man literally wrote the book, and he does not
waste words, either. I don't know who you are, Jim, but you don't know
to whom you're talking.

Mind you, I don't agree with everything Jobst says, but the last thing
I'm going to disagree with him about is the way a bicycle wheel works.

-S-

Steve Freides wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:52 pm, wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
It doesn't need to be exceptionally low because the rim distributed
spoke stiffness circumferentially if it isn't terminally radially
flexible, and fails to transfer the stiffness of spokes around the
rim.
Really? "Exceptionally low?" Are you sure it wasn't "exceptionally
exceptionally low?"
Exceptional, because such rims are not readily available because they
are useless for bicycling but apply to the circumstances described.

What is this "readily" stuff? Are these rims available or not?


Please leave the fluff out of your writing. People who use such
modifiers are generally trying to use bluff and bluster to cover
their lack of understanding.
You're probably correct there. I suppose I should have mad my
response a few sentences longer to cover that problem.
You suppose? Either you should have or you should not have. This is a
technical newsgroup and we are not interested in suppositions.

And why "a few sentences" longer? Could you not have simply said your
response should have been been longer? How many are a "few?" What are
you trying to hide with all these extra fluff words in your writing?

Simplify!


At least that's what a "friend of mine" once told me. Are you sure
he was your-friend and not just a friend known to other bikies?

He's a friend of all and a great critic of extraneous modifiers in
writing. Take his advice!

--Jim

Fascinating that anyone has the chutzpah to try and explain how bicycle
wheels work to Jobst.

Is that what Jim is doing?

JS.

On Jan 6, 12:44*am, "Steve Freides" wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:52 pm, wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
It doesn't need to be exceptionally low because the rim distributed
spoke stiffness circumferentially if it isn't terminally radially
flexible, and fails to transfer the stiffness of spokes around the
rim.
Really? "Exceptionally low?" Are you sure it wasn't "exceptionally
exceptionally low?"

Exceptional, because such rims are not readily available because they
are useless for bicycling but apply to the circumstances described.

What is this "readily" stuff? Are these rims available or not?

Please leave the fluff out of your writing. People who use such
modifiers are generally trying to use bluff and bluster to cover
their lack of understanding.

You're probably correct there. I suppose I should have mad my
response a few sentences longer to cover that problem.

You suppose? Either you should have or you should not have. This is a
technical newsgroup and we are not interested in suppositions.

And why "a few sentences" longer? Could you not have simply said your
response should have been been longer? How many are a "few?" What are
you trying to hide with all these extra fluff words in your writing?

Simplify!

At least that's what a "friend of mine" once told me. Are you sure

he was your-friend and not just a friend known to other bikies?

He's a friend of all and a great critic of extraneous modifiers in
writing. Take his advice!

--Jim

Fascinating that anyone has the chutzpah to try and explain how bicycle
wheels work to Jobst. *The man literally wrote the book, and he does not
waste words, either. *I don't know who you are, Jim, but you don't know
to whom you're talking.

Mind you, I don't agree with everything Jobst says, but the last thing
I'm going to disagree with him about is the way a bicycle wheel works.

-S-

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=r9ZuAAAAEBAJ

Jobst is a fraud. He says spokes were tied together to prevent
entanglement. Here is the absolute proof that the tied and soldered
wheel was the original tangent spoked wheel.

A tied and soldered wheel constructed in this manner far beats any
method described by JB in terms of load capacity, tracking, general
stability, avoidance of buckling (rather smelly things), specifically
lateral stability (torsional as Rudge describes it), climbing and
sprinting efficiency.

The interlaced spoke wheel came lalter as an economy measure with the
claim that it was as good as a tied and soldered wheel. It never was
and still isn't. It remains a production method for cheap bicycles
where a wheel can be built in about 5 minutes. In UK, the tied and
soldered wheel still lived on as racing and heavy duty touring
equipment where requested by wheelbuilders who had the skill. Mostly
this had been long forgotton by about 1990, new shop owners
uninterested in aquiring the skills to mark them above the rest. Many
takeovers from the old mechanics failed and the businesses folded
within two years, the knowledge just was not there to sustain the
business.

Jim Rogers wrote:

It doesn't need to be exceptionally low because the rim distributed
spoke stiffness circumferentially if it isn't terminally radially
flexible, and fails to transfer the stiffness of spokes around the
rim.

Really? "Exceptionally low?" Are you sure it wasn't "exceptionally
exceptionally low?"

Exceptional, because such rims are not readily available because they
are useless for bicycling but apply to the circumstances described.

What is this "readily" stuff? Are these rims available or not?

Try to find ultra light aluminum rims that can be collapsed with bare
hands pushing the rim against the floor. As I said, I recall years
ago how weight weenies rode the to destruction. I haven't seen any
since, but one brand used the former pre-WWII German sprint ace's name
"Scheeren Weltmeisters". Gustav Scheeren, himself a lightweight
sprinter, but probably not a world champion.

Scheeren rims had balsa wood plugs at each spoke to prevent collapse
from spoke tension, using no eyelets, the aluminum being
dimpled into the wood for supporting spoke nipples.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49353569@N00/876808090/

Please leave the fluff out of your writing. Â*People who use such
modifiers are generally trying to use bluff and bluster to cover
their lack of understanding.

You're probably correct there. Â*I suppose I should have mad my
response a few sentences longer to cover that problem.

You suppose? Either you should have or you should not have. This is a
technical newsgroup and we are not interested in suppositions.

And why "a few sentences" longer? Could you not have simply said your
response should have been been longer? How many are a "few?" What are
you trying to hide with all these extra fluff words in your writing?

Simplify!

At least that's what a "friend of mine" once told me.

Â*Are you sure he was your-friend and not just someone known to
other bikies?

He's a friend of all and a great critic of extraneous modifiers in
writing. Take his advice!
--
Jobst Brandt

Jim Rogers wrote:

It doesn't need to be exceptionally low because the rim distributed
spoke stiffness circumferentially if it isn't terminally radially
flexible, and fails to transfer the stiffness of spokes around the
rim.

Really? "Exceptionally low?" Are you sure it wasn't "exceptionally
exceptionally low?"

Exceptional, because such rims are not readily available because they
are useless for bicycling but apply to the circumstances described.

Please leave the fluff out of your writing. People who use such
modifiers are generally trying to use bluff and bluster to cover
their lack of understanding.

You're probably correct there. I suppose I should have made my
response a few sentences longer to cover that problem.

At least that's what a "friend of mine" once told me. Are you sure
he was your-friend and not just a friend known to other bikies?
--
Jobst Brandt

On Jan 5, 8:40*pm, thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:44*am, "Steve Freides" wrote:



Jim Rogers wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:52 pm, wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
It doesn't need to be exceptionally low because the rim distributed
spoke stiffness circumferentially if it isn't terminally radially
flexible, and fails to transfer the stiffness of spokes around the
rim.
Really? "Exceptionally low?" Are you sure it wasn't "exceptionally
exceptionally low?"

Exceptional, because such rims are not readily available because they
are useless for bicycling but apply to the circumstances described.

What is this "readily" stuff? Are these rims available or not?

Please leave the fluff out of your writing. People who use such
modifiers are generally trying to use bluff and bluster to cover
their lack of understanding.

You're probably correct there. I suppose I should have mad my
response a few sentences longer to cover that problem.

You suppose? Either you should have or you should not have. This is a
technical newsgroup and we are not interested in suppositions.

And why "a few sentences" longer? Could you not have simply said your
response should have been been longer? How many are a "few?" What are
you trying to hide with all these extra fluff words in your writing?

Simplify!

At least that's what a "friend of mine" once told me. Are you sure

he was your-friend and not just a friend known to other bikies?

He's a friend of all and a great critic of extraneous modifiers in
writing. Take his advice!

--Jim

Fascinating that anyone has the chutzpah to try and explain how bicycle
wheels work to Jobst. *The man literally wrote the book, and he does not
waste words, either. *I don't know who you are, Jim, but you don't know
to whom you're talking.

Mind you, I don't agree with everything Jobst says, but the last thing
I'm going to disagree with him about is the way a bicycle wheel works.

-S-

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=r9ZuAAAAEBAJ

Jobst is a fraud. *He says spokes were tied together to prevent
entanglement. *Here is the absolute proof that the tied and soldered
wheel was the original tangent spoked wheel.

*A tied and soldered wheel constructed in this manner far beats any
method described by JB in terms of load capacity, tracking, general
stability, avoidance of buckling (rather smelly things), specifically
lateral stability (torsional as Rudge describes it), climbing and
sprinting efficiency.

The interlaced spoke wheel came lalter as an economy measure with the
claim that it was as good as a tied and soldered wheel. *It never was
and still isn't. *It remains a production method for cheap bicycles
where a wheel can be built in about 5 minutes. *In UK, the tied and
soldered wheel still lived on as racing and heavy duty touring
equipment where requested by wheelbuilders who had the skill. *Mostly
this had been long forgotton by about 1990, new shop owners
uninterested in aquiring the skills to mark them above the rest. *Many
takeovers from the old mechanics failed and the businesses folded
within two years, the knowledge just was not there to sustain the
business.

the skill to tie and solder wheels? what skill? To wrap the crosses
with solder and you heat up. Why do that? Its a waste of time if a
properly built wheel will last you forever. There are thousands of
heavy duty tourists, cycle cross racers, pro racers, track sprinters,
kerin racers and pro cyclists that put a hell of abuse on their wheels
and yet they do great. If applying and melting some solder around the
spokes would strengthen the wheels, everyone would do it. Fact is,
Regular built wheels are pretty good. and plenty strong.

On 1/5/2011 10:24 PM, aka Andrés Muro wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:40 pm, wrote:
[...]
Jobst is a fraud. He says spokes were tied together to prevent
entanglement. Here is the absolute proof that the tied and soldered
wheel was the original tangent spoked wheel.

A tied and soldered wheel constructed in this manner far beats any
method described by JB in terms of load capacity, tracking, general
stability, avoidance of buckling (rather smelly things), specifically
lateral stability (torsional as Rudge describes it), climbing and
sprinting efficiency.

The interlaced spoke wheel came lalter as an economy measure with the
claim that it was as good as a tied and soldered wheel. It never was
and still isn't. It remains a production method for cheap bicycles
where a wheel can be built in about 5 minutes. In UK, the tied and
soldered wheel still lived on as racing and heavy duty touring
equipment where requested by wheelbuilders who had the skill. Mostly
this had been long forgotton by about 1990, new shop owners
uninterested in aquiring the skills to mark them above the rest. Many
takeovers from the old mechanics failed and the businesses folded
within two years, the knowledge just was not there to sustain the
business.

the skill to tie and solder wheels? what skill? To wrap the crosses
with solder and you heat up. Why do that? Its a waste of time if a
properly built wheel will last you forever. There are thousands of
heavy duty tourists, cycle cross racers, pro racers, track sprinters,
kerin racers and pro cyclists that put a hell of abuse on their wheels
and yet they do great. If applying and melting some solder around the
spokes would strengthen the wheels, everyone would do it. Fact is,
Regular built wheels are pretty good. and plenty strong.

Remember that Trevor lives in an alternate Universe.

Spokes are *tied* with bee keeper's wire [1], then soldered (assuming
one believes in the Myth & Lore™.)

[1] E.g.
http://www.cyclingcloseouts.com/Products/DT-Swiss-ProLine-Beekeepers-Wire--100m-Spool-of-037mm-Diameter-Wire__TL1920.aspx.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.