Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?

On 1/11/2011 3:19 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Duane wrote:

On 1/7/2011 11:02 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Duane wrote:


You must have learned C?
In C++ the void is not required and not usually used. I don't think
that it causes a diagnostic on any compiler either way though. Unlike
void main(){}g

You can get the diagnostic if you work at it.

$ cat blivet.c
int main() { return 0; }

$ cc -Wstrict-prototypes blivet.c
blivet.c:1: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype

In C++, either is correct.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.80).aspx

C++ is not C. Correctness only matters for portability
and robust code; and not for its own sake. Compiler warnings
are a benefit, not a hindrance.

Not saying that they're not. Our rules require using W4 (VS's highest.)
Just saying that in C++, neither emit a diagnostic. Though most SEs
using C++ don't mark the empty arg list with VOID.

Greg Comeau's compiler is one of the most compliant (at least for C++ -
not sure about for C but I imagine it's the same) You can test
C++ code here http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout/

How did we get this off topic again?

You posted a code fragment without comment,
and I made of it what I wanted to.

Sounds like a design problem. At least there are no
helmets involved...

On 1/11/2011 10:13 AM, aka Andrés Muro wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:00 pm, wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:24 am, wrote:





On Jan 5, 8:40 pm, wrote:

On Jan 6, 12:44 am, "Steve 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.

That is not how a tied and soldered wheel is correctly built. You're
ignorance is clear. It's not a waste, it improves wheel tracking under
heavy loading and rough conditions, permitting greater acceleration
during sprinting and faster climbing. The interlaced wheel is a
relatively poor performer, particularly on thick flanges. It is
suitable for economy bicycles only.

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.

Common interlaced wheels suffer from poor lateral stability when using
thick flanged hubs. The original tangent wheel was tied and soldered
and superior to the economy interlaced wheel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know anything about solderning wheels as you say. Still, you
hae not been able to explain the advantages to me or to the thousands
of cyclists that ride succesfully with inexpesnive wheels for miles on
end.

You said:

"Common interlaced wheels suffer from poor lateral stability when
using
thick flanged hubs."

I don't know about the thinckness of my hubs, not about the lateral
stability of my wheels. I ride, climg, sprint, carry heavy loads on my
inexpensive wheels and the seem to last, last and last.

Are you saying that tied and solder wheels would be less expensive and
last longer?

I put thousands of miles on wheels over 25 years of riding. I've never
spend more than $200 on wheels and they last forever. The only ones
that sucked were some Mavics that cracked at the spoke holes. Im sure
that you are going to tell me that by tieng a soldering tem I would
have been able to use less tension. Better yet, I bought better rims,
and rebuilt the wheels myself and saved a lot of money.

Again, you tout that advantages of tied and soldered wheels. You need
to be able to articulate with specifics of the advantages.

How is ti that I am at a disadvantage with my wheels? You mean my
bike is less stable and I don't realize it? Do you mean that it is
carrying less weight that it could potentially carry? Am I losing
speed while sprinting? Is my descending less efficient? Am I losing
time in the TTs. Is my bike less comfortable when touring long
distances?

You coulda argue that it is a lost art and the aesthetics of tied and
soldered wheels are better. I like lugged bikes. They offer no
advantage. I find them just prettier even if they cost more than Tig
welded bikes. That is, to me, a legitimate argument for having lugged
bikes. However, I don't go around trying to convince others of the
invisible and impossible to articulate technical advatages of lugged
bikes.

Andres


Tied and soldered wheels work better in Trevor's universe, but not ours.

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

On Jan 11, 12:33 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/11/2011 3:19 PM, Michael Press wrote:



In ,
Duane wrote:

On 1/7/2011 11:02 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Duane wrote:

You must have learned C?
In C++ the void is not required and not usually used. I don't think
that it causes a diagnostic on any compiler either way though. Unlike
void main(){}g

You can get the diagnostic if you work at it.

$ cat blivet.c
int main() { return 0; }

$ cc -Wstrict-prototypes blivet.c
blivet.c:1: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype

In C++, either is correct.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.80).aspx

C++ is not C. Correctness only matters for portability
and robust code; and not for its own sake. Compiler warnings
are a benefit, not a hindrance.

Not saying that they're not. Our rules require using W4 (VS's highest.)
Just saying that in C++, neither emit a diagnostic. Though most SEs
using C++ don't mark the empty arg list with VOID.

Greg Comeau's compiler is one of the most compliant (at least for C++ -
not sure about for C but I imagine it's the same) You can test
C++ code herehttp://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout/

How did we get this off topic again?

You posted a code fragment without comment,
and I made of it what I wanted to.

Sounds like a design problem. At least there are no
helmets involved...

I really like having C right there as a subset of C++, in case I want
to get down and dirty.

Of course, I adhere to "coding style" standards sort of like I adhere
to "proper cycling".

Dan O wrote:

I really like having C right there as a subset of C++, in case I want
to get down and dirty.

Of course, I adhere to "coding style" standards sort of like I adhere
to "proper cycling".

Dan, stop pussy footing around.

C is *the* language, assembly for the down and dirty ;-)

JS

(Currently hacking out chunks of C for an STM32 based project.)

On Jan 11, 4:13*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:00*pm, thirty-six wrote:



On Jan 6, 4:24*am, " wrote:

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.

That is not how a tied and soldered wheel is correctly built. *You're
ignorance is clear. It's not a waste, it improves wheel tracking under
heavy loading and rough conditions, permitting greater acceleration
during sprinting and faster climbing. *The interlaced wheel is a
relatively poor performer, particularly on thick flanges. *It is
suitable for economy bicycles only.

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.

Common interlaced wheels suffer from poor lateral stability when using
thick flanged hubs. *The original tangent wheel was tied and soldered
and superior to the economy interlaced wheel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know anything about solderning wheels as you say. Still, you
hae not been able to explain the advantages to me or to the thousands
of cyclists that ride succesfully with inexpesnive wheels for miles on
end.

You said:

"Common interlaced wheels suffer from poor lateral stability when
using
thick flanged hubs."

I don't know about the thinckness of my hubs, not about the lateral
stability of my wheels. I ride, climg, sprint, carry heavy loads on my
inexpensive wheels and the seem to last, last and last.

Are you saying that tied and solder wheels would be less expensive and
last longer?

If you consider lateral wheel stability accurate tracking and a more
comfortable and energy preserving ride important, then the use of
tying and soldering the spokes plays a valuable role.

I put thousands of miles on wheels over 25 years of riding. I've never
spend more than $200 on wheels and they last forever. The only ones
that sucked were some Mavics that cracked at the spoke holes. Im sure
that you are going to tell me that by tieng a soldering tem I would
have been able to use less tension.

Got it, and they'd have been better wheels for it.

Better yet, I bought better rims,
and rebuilt the wheels myself and saved a lot of money.

Soldering is not a black art, neither is the method of binding.

Again, you tout that advantages of tied and soldered wheels. *You need
to be able to articulate with specifics of the advantages.

*How is ti that I am at a disadvantage with my wheels? You mean my
bike is less stable and I don't realize it?

You probably do realise there is instability but refuse to accept it
is the wheels, because it is an acceptable instability t o you.

Do you mean that it is
carrying less weight that it could potentially carry?

Tying and soldering does permit greater load capacities on medium
weight rims.

Am I losing
speed while sprinting?

Quite probable that your rear wheel is squirming which will via
feedback reduce your force on the pedals. That your rear wheel is
travelling further than your body will slow you down.


*Is my descending less efficient?
If you get the shakes, sometimes treferred to as shimmy, it is almost
certainly due to poor lateral stability of your wheels. Tying and
soldering will correct this.

Am I losing
time in the TTs.

Probably if you like pushing a big gear, just for maintaining a
straight line.

Is my bike less comfortable when touring long
distances?
Yes, get yourself ondouble tied and soldered race training wheels with
the spoke tension adjusted for comfort. If I had it in me there is no
reason (other than wear) why I would not use 24mm tubulars for
touring.

You coulda argue that it is a lost art and the aesthetics of tied and
soldered wheels are better.

I havn't made any so pretty. It requires the use of thinner wire
which I didn't have to hand. And then polishing with a buff (I should
have done that around the joints anywzy).

I like lugged bikes. They offer no
advantage. I find them just prettier even if they cost more than Tig
welded bikes. That is, to me, a legitimate argument for having lugged
bikes. However, I don't go around trying to convince others of the
invisible and impossible to articulate technical advatages of lugged
bikes.

It's easier than fillet brazing.

Andres

On Jan 12, 1:53*am, thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:13*pm, " wrote:



On Jan 6, 8:00*pm, thirty-six wrote:

On Jan 6, 4:24*am, " wrote:

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.

That is not how a tied and soldered wheel is correctly built. *You're
ignorance is clear. It's not a waste, it improves wheel tracking under
heavy loading and rough conditions, permitting greater acceleration
during sprinting and faster climbing. *The interlaced wheel is a
relatively poor performer, particularly on thick flanges. *It is
suitable for economy bicycles only.

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.

Common interlaced wheels suffer from poor lateral stability when using
thick flanged hubs. *The original tangent wheel was tied and soldered
and superior to the economy interlaced wheel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know anything about solderning wheels as you say. Still, you
hae not been able to explain the advantages to me or to the thousands
of cyclists that ride succesfully with inexpesnive wheels for miles on
end.

You said:

"Common interlaced wheels suffer from poor lateral stability when
using
thick flanged hubs."

I don't know about the thinckness of my hubs, not about the lateral
stability of my wheels. I ride, climg, sprint, carry heavy loads on my
inexpensive wheels and the seem to last, last and last.

Are you saying that tied and solder wheels would be less expensive and
last longer?

If you consider lateral wheel stability accurate tracking and *a more
comfortable and energy preserving ride important, then the use of
tying and soldering the spokes plays a valuable role.



I put thousands of miles on wheels over 25 years of riding. I've never
spend more than $200 on wheels and they last forever. The only ones
that sucked were some Mavics that cracked at the spoke holes. Im sure
that you are going to tell me that by tieng a soldering tem I would
have been able to use less tension.

Got it, and they'd have been better wheels for it.

Better yet, I bought better rims,
and rebuilt the wheels myself and saved a lot of money.

Soldering is not a black art, neither is the method of binding.



Again, you tout that advantages of tied and soldered wheels. *You need
to be able to articulate with specifics of the advantages.

*How is ti that I am at a disadvantage with my wheels? You mean my
bike is less stable and I don't realize it?

You probably do realise there is instability but refuse to accept it
is the wheels, because it is an acceptable instability t o *you.

Do you mean that it is
carrying less weight that it could potentially carry?

Tying and soldering does permit greater load capacities on medium
weight rims.

Am I losing
speed while sprinting?

Quite probable that your rear wheel is squirming which will via
feedback reduce your force on the pedals. *That your rear wheel is
travelling further than your body will slow you down.

*Is my descending less efficient?

If you get the shakes, sometimes treferred to as shimmy, it is almost
certainly due to poor lateral stability of your wheels. *Tying and
soldering will correct this.

Am I losing
time in the TTs.

Probably if you like pushing a big gear, just for maintaining a
straight line.

Is my bike less comfortable when touring long
distances?

Yes, get yourself ondouble tied and soldered race training wheels with
the spoke tension adjusted for comfort. *If I had it in me there is no
reason (other than wear) why I would not use 24mm tubulars for
touring.



You coulda argue that it is a lost art and the aesthetics of tied and
soldered wheels are better.

I havn't made any so pretty. *It requires the use of thinner wire
which I didn't have to hand. *And then polishing with a buff (I should
have done that around the joints anywzy).

I like lugged bikes. They offer no
advantage. I find them just prettier even if they cost more than Tig
welded bikes. That is, to me, a legitimate argument for having lugged
bikes. However, I don't go around trying to convince others of the
invisible and impossible to articulate technical advatages of lugged
bikes.

It's easier than fillet brazing.



Andres

BTW part of my consideration for tying and soldering was the repeated
bleating about how useless they are. If the same people can complain
about something they have never properly tried as being useless and
vehementlyu they do, there must be something in it. So I did it and
yes, the track with absolute precision. It is difficult to judge
actual spoke tension, because they don't ring as individual spokes
anymore, but it is possibly even lower than before, giving a greater
load and shock capacity (certainly welll above that of the tyre).

In article
,
Dan O wrote:

On Jan 11, 12:33 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/11/2011 3:19 PM, Michael Press wrote:



In ,
Duane wrote:

On 1/7/2011 11:02 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Duane wrote:

You must have learned C?
In C++ the void is not required and not usually used. I don't think
that it causes a diagnostic on any compiler either way though. Unlike
void main(){}g

You can get the diagnostic if you work at it.

$ cat blivet.c
int main() { return 0; }

$ cc -Wstrict-prototypes blivet.c
blivet.c:1: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype

In C++, either is correct.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.80).aspx

C++ is not C. Correctness only matters for portability
and robust code; and not for its own sake. Compiler warnings
are a benefit, not a hindrance.

Not saying that they're not. Our rules require using W4 (VS's highest.)
Just saying that in C++, neither emit a diagnostic. Though most SEs
using C++ don't mark the empty arg list with VOID.

Greg Comeau's compiler is one of the most compliant (at least for C++ -
not sure about for C but I imagine it's the same) You can test
C++ code herehttp://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout/

How did we get this off topic again?

You posted a code fragment without comment,
and I made of it what I wanted to.

Sounds like a design problem. At least there are no
helmets involved...

I really like having C right there as a subset of C++, in case I want
to get down and dirty.

Of course, I adhere to "coding style" standards sort of like I adhere
to "proper cycling".

C is not a subset of C++.

--
Michael Press

On 1/11/2011 8:32 PM, James wrote:
Dan O wrote:

I really like having C right there as a subset of C++, in case I want
to get down and dirty.

Of course, I adhere to "coding style" standards sort of like I adhere
to "proper cycling".

Dan, stop pussy footing around.

C is *the* language, assembly for the down and dirty ;-)

Assembly is for wimps. Machine language is for the down and dirty.
Especially the DEC Octal version for the PDP10.

(Currently hacking out chunks of C for an STM32 based project.)

duane (Currently trying to fix some humongous class structured code
written in German by a C developer with no concept of objects)

On 1/11/2011 8:12 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 11, 12:33 pm, Duane wrote:
On 1/11/2011 3:19 PM, Michael Press wrote:



In ,
Duane wrote:

On 1/7/2011 11:02 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Duane wrote:

You must have learned C?
In C++ the void is not required and not usually used. I don't think
that it causes a diagnostic on any compiler either way though. Unlike
void main(){}g

You can get the diagnostic if you work at it.

$ cat blivet.c
int main() { return 0; }

$ cc -Wstrict-prototypes blivet.c
blivet.c:1: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype

In C++, either is correct.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.80).aspx

C++ is not C. Correctness only matters for portability
and robust code; and not for its own sake. Compiler warnings
are a benefit, not a hindrance.

Not saying that they're not. Our rules require using W4 (VS's highest.)
Just saying that in C++, neither emit a diagnostic. Though most SEs
using C++ don't mark the empty arg list with VOID.

Greg Comeau's compiler is one of the most compliant (at least for C++ -
not sure about for C but I imagine it's the same) You can test
C++ code herehttp://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout/

How did we get this off topic again?

You posted a code fragment without comment,
and I made of it what I wanted to.

Sounds like a design problem. At least there are no
helmets involved...

I really like having C right there as a subset of C++, in case I want
to get down and dirty.

According to Stroustrup http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html

"In the strict mathematical sense, C isn't a subset of C++. There are
programs that are valid C but not valid C++ and even a few ways of
writing code that has a different meaning in C and C++. However, C++
supports every programming technique supported by C. Every C program can
be written in essentially the same way in C++ with the same run-time and
space efficiency. It is not uncommon to be able to convert tens of
thousands of lines of ANSI C to C-style C++ in a few hours. Thus, C++ is
as much a superset of ANSI C as ANSI C is a superset of K&R C and much
as ISO C++ is a superset of C++ as it existed in 1985. "

On Jan 11, 6:53*pm, thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:13*pm, " wrote:



On Jan 6, 8:00*pm, thirty-six wrote:

On Jan 6, 4:24*am, " wrote:

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.

That is not how a tied and soldered wheel is correctly built. *You're
ignorance is clear. It's not a waste, it improves wheel tracking under
heavy loading and rough conditions, permitting greater acceleration
during sprinting and faster climbing. *The interlaced wheel is a
relatively poor performer, particularly on thick flanges. *It is
suitable for economy bicycles only.

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.

Common interlaced wheels suffer from poor lateral stability when using
thick flanged hubs. *The original tangent wheel was tied and soldered
and superior to the economy interlaced wheel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know anything about solderning wheels as you say. Still, you
hae not been able to explain the advantages to me or to the thousands
of cyclists that ride succesfully with inexpesnive wheels for miles on
end.

You said:

"Common interlaced wheels suffer from poor lateral stability when
using
thick flanged hubs."

I don't know about the thinckness of my hubs, not about the lateral
stability of my wheels. I ride, climg, sprint, carry heavy loads on my
inexpensive wheels and the seem to last, last and last.

Are you saying that tied and solder wheels would be less expensive and
last longer?

If you consider lateral wheel stability accurate tracking and *a more
comfortable and energy preserving ride important, then the use of
tying and soldering the spokes plays a valuable role.



I put thousands of miles on wheels over 25 years of riding. I've never
spend more than $200 on wheels and they last forever. The only ones
that sucked were some Mavics that cracked at the spoke holes. Im sure
that you are going to tell me that by tieng a soldering tem I would
have been able to use less tension.

Got it, and they'd have been better wheels for it.

Better yet, I bought better rims,
and rebuilt the wheels myself and saved a lot of money.

Soldering is not a black art, neither is the method of binding.



Again, you tout that advantages of tied and soldered wheels. *You need
to be able to articulate with specifics of the advantages.

*How is ti that I am at a disadvantage with my wheels? You mean my
bike is less stable and I don't realize it?

You probably do realise there is instability but refuse to accept it
is the wheels, because it is an acceptable instability t o *you.

Do you mean that it is
carrying less weight that it could potentially carry?

Tying and soldering does permit greater load capacities on medium
weight rims.

Am I losing
speed while sprinting?

Quite probable that your rear wheel is squirming which will via
feedback reduce your force on the pedals. *That your rear wheel is
travelling further than your body will slow you down.

*Is my descending less efficient?

If you get the shakes, sometimes treferred to as shimmy, it is almost
certainly due to poor lateral stability of your wheels. *Tying and
soldering will correct this.

Am I losing
time in the TTs.

Probably if you like pushing a big gear, just for maintaining a
straight line.

Is my bike less comfortable when touring long
distances?

Yes, get yourself ondouble tied and soldered race training wheels with
the spoke tension adjusted for comfort. *If I had it in me there is no
reason (other than wear) why I would not use 24mm tubulars for
touring.



You coulda argue that it is a lost art and the aesthetics of tied and
soldered wheels are better.

I havn't made any so pretty. *It requires the use of thinner wire
which I didn't have to hand. *And then polishing with a buff (I should
have done that around the joints anywzy).

I like lugged bikes. They offer no
advantage. I find them just prettier even if they cost more than Tig
welded bikes. That is, to me, a legitimate argument for having lugged
bikes. However, I don't go around trying to convince others of the
invisible and impossible to articulate technical advatages of lugged
bikes.

It's easier than fillet brazing.



Andres

Actually, my wheels feel awesome and I don't feel any instability.
But, since you claim all these magic advantages to to them, you may be
able to cite some studies that demonstrate the overwhelming
superiority of them. I am kind of insensitive to subtle differences
between equipment. My bike is heavey and my tires are cheap. Yet, when
I have used lightweight tires and tried lighter, fancier frames they
feel about the same. I have no desire to spend more that what I
already spent.

I am just questioning the magic that you attribute to your preferred
wheel building method. Again, can you refer us to any studies with
blind tests showing that with otherwise the same equipment people
notice significant differences between tied and solder wheels and the
regular kind?
Can you refer us to studies that show that in a race, the same
distance can be covered faster with tie and soldered wheels?

Im a surprised that most professional cyclists that invest a load of
money on the best equipment would not tie and soldered the wheels to
get the best advantage.

Finally, I've descended at speeds of 50 mph/80kmh. I regulrarly go
down a hill at 64kmh. I have never in my life expereinced shimmy on
any of my bikes.

Since you tout the advantages of a certain wheel type, all I am asking
is that you offer some objective evidence.Surely, there must be some
such studies.