A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Understanding Wheel Building



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old January 6th 09, 05:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Understanding Wheel Building

aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
Seems to me that wreck.bike has turned into a debating society without
monitor or rules. In other words, its a Troldhaugen Fest.

http://www.kunstmuseene.no/Default.a...n&kat=388&sp=2

The group does seem to have been invaded by several posters who are
either psychotic or have anti-social personality disorders, as wild
false claims as to what others wrote and ardent defenses of ridiculous
statements occur.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll
Ads
  #72  
Old January 6th 09, 06:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,758
Default Understanding Wheel Building

wrote:
Seems to me that wreck.bike has turned into a debating society without
monitor or rules. In other words, its a Troldhaugen Fest.

http://www.kunstmuseene.no/Default.a...n&kat=388&sp=2


reap what you sow.

  #73  
Old January 6th 09, 07:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Brian Nystrom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Understanding Wheel Building

Ron Ruff wrote:
Brian Nystrom wrote:
Interlacing helps spread to maintain tension in the spokes that are
detensioned by the torque load, by putting a side load on them as the
spokes bearing the try to straighten.


True... but a very small effect.

The Mavic wheels I spoke of
have low spoke counts and relatively high spoke tension, which works
well.


It works anyway. The reason Mavic does it is because it doesn't make
sense to lace those fat aluminum spokes, and... they can. A lot of
this biz is just doing things different so you can claim that you are
using some new "technology".


No doubt, particularly in Mavic's case.
  #74  
Old January 6th 09, 08:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
_[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,228
Default Understanding Wheel Building

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:00:31 -0800, jim beam wrote:


And irrelevant - read beamo's post again, and you will see that he is not
saying that more than one phenomenon produces x, but that there are *two*
different types of that "phenomenon" (torque) which somehow are
distinguishable by the presumably sentient spokes.


no i'm not, idiot. jeepers - the bull**** some people come up with...


Did you or did you not post the following:

"braking torque increases spoke tension more than pedaling
torque."

  #75  
Old January 6th 09, 08:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ron Ruff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,304
Default Understanding Wheel Building

wrote:
If I follow Sharp, the 71 kg that you're getting is not the increase
in tension.

It's the difference between what a tangent pair of spokes t1 and t2
gains _and_ loses, t1 - t2.

That is, from the same initial tension, a pulling spoke's new
increased tension minus a trailing spoke's decreased tension is 71 kg.


I converted to Sharp's units to check and see. For my example above:

P= 802lb (peak crank force x crank length / chainring radius)
R= 2.15"
n= 14
r= .787"

So t1-t2= 2* 802 * 2.15/ 14/ .787= 142kg

So I'm getting the same result as before... spoke tension change of +-
71kg.
  #76  
Old January 6th 09, 08:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ron Ruff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,304
Default Understanding Wheel Building

Ron Ruff wrote:
So t1-t2= 2* 802 * 2.15/ 14/ .787= 142kg


Make that =313lb = 142kg
  #77  
Old January 6th 09, 10:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Understanding Wheel Building

In article ,
_ wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:00:31 -0800, jim beam wrote:


And irrelevant - read beamo's post again, and you will see that he
is not saying that more than one phenomenon produces x, but that
there are *two* different types of that "phenomenon" (torque)
which somehow are distinguishable by the presumably sentient
spokes.


no i'm not, idiot. jeepers - the bull**** some people come up
with...


Did you or did you not post the following:

"braking torque increases spoke tension more than pedaling
torque."


As much as I enjoy seeing "jim beam" roasted over the coals of his own
foolishness, you're really pushing this beyond all recognition and
seeing something that IMHO isn't there. I read "jim's" sentence as
meaning "torque resulting from braking increases spoke tension more than
torque resulting from pedaling" and not as you are doing, which is to
claim that jim is positing two "types" of torque. What's your point?
  #78  
Old January 7th 09, 04:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,758
Default Understanding Wheel Building

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
_ wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:00:31 -0800, jim beam wrote:


And irrelevant - read beamo's post again, and you will see that he
is not saying that more than one phenomenon produces x, but that
there are *two* different types of that "phenomenon" (torque)
which somehow are distinguishable by the presumably sentient
spokes.
no i'm not, idiot. jeepers - the bull**** some people come up
with...

Did you or did you not post the following:

"braking torque increases spoke tension more than pedaling
torque."


As much as I enjoy seeing "jim beam" roasted over the coals of his own
foolishness, you're really pushing this beyond all recognition and
seeing something that IMHO isn't there. I read "jim's" sentence as
meaning "torque resulting from braking increases spoke tension more than
torque resulting from pedaling" and not as you are doing, which is to
claim that jim is positing two "types" of torque. What's your point?



quoth timmy the retard. tell us timmy, and this is not a trick
question, which number is the larger, 1800 or 5000?

and since you've gotten this question wrong a number of times before,
based on your firm grasp of gaussain distributions, for bonus points,
what is the probability you'll get it right this time?

  #79  
Old January 7th 09, 04:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,758
Default Understanding Wheel Building

_ wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:00:31 -0800, jim beam wrote:


And irrelevant - read beamo's post again, and you will see that he is not
saying that more than one phenomenon produces x, but that there are *two*
different types of that "phenomenon" (torque) which somehow are
distinguishable by the presumably sentient spokes.

no i'm not, idiot. jeepers - the bull**** some people come up with...


Did you or did you not post the following:

"braking torque increases spoke tension more than pedaling
torque."


yes, those are my words. but you don't seem to understand what they
mean. you should go back to your old high school and have a word with
the teachers that let you down so badly.


  #80  
Old January 7th 09, 05:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Understanding Wheel Building

"jim beam" wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
_ wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:00:31 -0800, jim beam wrote:


And irrelevant - read beamo's post again, and you will see that he
is not saying that more than one phenomenon produces x, but that
there are *two* different types of that "phenomenon" (torque) which
somehow are distinguishable by the presumably sentient spokes.
no i'm not, idiot. jeepers - the bull**** some people come up with...
Did you or did you not post the following:

"braking torque increases spoke tension more than pedaling torque."


As much as I enjoy seeing "jim beam" roasted over the coals of his own
foolishness, you're really pushing this beyond all recognition and
seeing something that IMHO isn't there. I read "jim's" sentence as
meaning "torque resulting from braking increases spoke tension more
than torque resulting from pedaling" and not as you are doing, which
is to claim that jim is positing two "types" of torque. What's your
point?



quoth timmy the retard. tell us timmy, and this is not a trick
question, which number is the larger, 1800 or 5000?

and since you've gotten this question wrong a number of times before,
based on your firm grasp of gaussain distributions, for bonus points,
what is the probability you'll get it right this time?

Hey "jim", Tim just agreed with you.

Furthermore, stalking Tim is NOT "tech".

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WHEEL BUILDING 273 datakoll Techniques 2 January 11th 08 09:54 AM
Building a BC Wheel - Help! galvin.ben Unicycling 14 July 30th 07 03:06 AM
wheel building Ricky W Unicycling 18 October 28th 06 01:30 AM
building a BC wheel brockfisher05 Unicycling 1 April 18th 05 07:35 AM
Wheel building Beener Unicycling 10 November 18th 03 03:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.