|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
I recently came across an article saying that the writer laced his rear wheel cross 2 on the drive side and cross 3 on the other side. and said that this lacing had proved itself over the past ten years of his riding. Somehow, without doing any calculations this seemed backward to me and without giving the subject much thought I think I would have laced the wheel cross 3 on the drive side and possibly cross 2 on the other side. Anyone know anything about this? Good? Bad? Why? -- cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
On 8/25/2015 7:06 PM, John B. wrote:
Anyone know anything about this? Good? Bad? Why? It flies in the face of conventional wisdom, and happens to be correct. The side with more crossings (left) does most of the pulling, and the highly-stressed drive side does less. My own touring wheel, not used in quite a few years, is radial right and 3x left, on a Phil Wood high-low flange hub. I had nothing bad to say about it. Art |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
On 8/25/2015 9:06 PM, John B. wrote:
I recently came across an article saying that the writer laced his rear wheel cross 2 on the drive side and cross 3 on the other side. and said that this lacing had proved itself over the past ten years of his riding. Somehow, without doing any calculations this seemed backward to me and without giving the subject much thought I think I would have laced the wheel cross 3 on the drive side and possibly cross 2 on the other side. Anyone know anything about this? Good? Bad? Why? -- cheers, John B. Completely depends on the number of spokes. 2x is a good spoke angle for 28h but not for 40 spokes! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
"John B." wrote in message news I recently came across an article saying that the writer laced his rear wheel cross 2 on the drive side and cross 3 on the other side. and said that this lacing had proved itself over the past ten years of his riding. Somehow, without doing any calculations this seemed backward to me and without giving the subject much thought I think I would have laced the wheel cross 3 on the drive side and possibly cross 2 on the other side. Anyone know anything about this? Good? Bad? Why? The first time I ever became aware of the number of crosses was on the Sturmey Archer 3-speed + dynamo. Apparently all the spokes are the same length, but the flange is bigger around the dynamo - so the spokes cross 3 times on the dynamo side to use up the length. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
On 27/08/15 06:44, Ian Field wrote:
"John B." wrote in message news I recently came across an article saying that the writer laced his rear wheel cross 2 on the drive side and cross 3 on the other side. and said that this lacing had proved itself over the past ten years of his riding. Somehow, without doing any calculations this seemed backward to me and without giving the subject much thought I think I would have laced the wheel cross 3 on the drive side and possibly cross 2 on the other side. Anyone know anything about this? Good? Bad? Why? The first time I ever became aware of the number of crosses was on the Sturmey Archer 3-speed + dynamo. Apparently all the spokes are the same length, but the flange is bigger around the dynamo - so the spokes cross 3 times on the dynamo side to use up the length. That smacks of manufacturing efficiency over engineering reason. Order all the same length spokes is more efficient than keeping stock of two different lengths. -- JS |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:14:23 +1000, James
wrote: On 27/08/15 06:44, Ian Field wrote: "John B." wrote in message news I recently came across an article saying that the writer laced his rear wheel cross 2 on the drive side and cross 3 on the other side. and said that this lacing had proved itself over the past ten years of his riding. Somehow, without doing any calculations this seemed backward to me and without giving the subject much thought I think I would have laced the wheel cross 3 on the drive side and possibly cross 2 on the other side. Anyone know anything about this? Good? Bad? Why? The first time I ever became aware of the number of crosses was on the Sturmey Archer 3-speed + dynamo. Apparently all the spokes are the same length, but the flange is bigger around the dynamo - so the spokes cross 3 times on the dynamo side to use up the length. That smacks of manufacturing efficiency over engineering reason. Order all the same length spokes is more efficient than keeping stock of two different lengths. I think that you are likely correct. As, after all a cross 3 normally isn't considered a poorly designed wheel nor is a cross 2, and it does simplify the logistics. -- cheers, John B. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
"John B." wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:14:23 +1000, James wrote: On 27/08/15 06:44, Ian Field wrote: "John B." wrote in message news I recently came across an article saying that the writer laced his rear wheel cross 2 on the drive side and cross 3 on the other side. and said that this lacing had proved itself over the past ten years of his riding. Somehow, without doing any calculations this seemed backward to me and without giving the subject much thought I think I would have laced the wheel cross 3 on the drive side and possibly cross 2 on the other side. Anyone know anything about this? Good? Bad? Why? The first time I ever became aware of the number of crosses was on the Sturmey Archer 3-speed + dynamo. Apparently all the spokes are the same length, but the flange is bigger around the dynamo - so the spokes cross 3 times on the dynamo side to use up the length. That smacks of manufacturing efficiency over engineering reason. Order all the same length spokes is more efficient than keeping stock of two different lengths. I think that you are likely correct. As, after all a cross 3 normally isn't considered a poorly designed wheel nor is a cross 2, and it does simplify the logistics. There seemed to be an awful lot of over zealous mathematicians about back then! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:44:21 +0100, "Ian Field"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:14:23 +1000, James wrote: On 27/08/15 06:44, Ian Field wrote: "John B." wrote in message news I recently came across an article saying that the writer laced his rear wheel cross 2 on the drive side and cross 3 on the other side. and said that this lacing had proved itself over the past ten years of his riding. Somehow, without doing any calculations this seemed backward to me and without giving the subject much thought I think I would have laced the wheel cross 3 on the drive side and possibly cross 2 on the other side. Anyone know anything about this? Good? Bad? Why? The first time I ever became aware of the number of crosses was on the Sturmey Archer 3-speed + dynamo. Apparently all the spokes are the same length, but the flange is bigger around the dynamo - so the spokes cross 3 times on the dynamo side to use up the length. That smacks of manufacturing efficiency over engineering reason. Order all the same length spokes is more efficient than keeping stock of two different lengths. I think that you are likely correct. As, after all a cross 3 normally isn't considered a poorly designed wheel nor is a cross 2, and it does simplify the logistics. There seemed to be an awful lot of over zealous mathematicians about back then! True. After all a student at MIT "proved" that a bumble bee cannot fly. I believe that he used wing area and horse, well bee, power to calculate the energy available to lift the mass. The Bee can't possibly produce that much energy. Absolutely Cannot Fly! Some years later another student undertook the same experiment and proved, using a different formula, that the bumble bee actually can fly. -- cheers, John B. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
On 8/27/2015 10:29 PM, John B. wrote:
After all a student at MIT "proved" that a bumble bee cannot fly. I believe that he used wing area and horse, well bee, power to calculate the energy available to lift the mass. The Bee can't possibly produce that much energy. Absolutely Cannot Fly! Some years later another student undertook the same experiment and proved, using a different formula, that the bumble bee actually can fly. http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp According to a book I read last year, there's still serious work being done studying the flight of insects. Given the very small sizes involved, the very unsteady flow of air, the very short stroke of the wings, etc. the physics of flapping flight and especially insect flight are complicated indeed. IIRC, at insect sizes and wing velocities, air acts much more viscous than it does for our conventional airplanes. The book I read indicated that they are just beginning to make sense of the way insect wings rely on unsteady vortex flow reinforcing wing motion, and vice versa. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Wheel technology
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:13:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/27/2015 10:29 PM, John B. wrote: After all a student at MIT "proved" that a bumble bee cannot fly. I believe that he used wing area and horse, well bee, power to calculate the energy available to lift the mass. The Bee can't possibly produce that much energy. Absolutely Cannot Fly! Some years later another student undertook the same experiment and proved, using a different formula, that the bumble bee actually can fly. http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp According to a book I read last year, there's still serious work being done studying the flight of insects. Given the very small sizes involved, the very unsteady flow of air, the very short stroke of the wings, etc. the physics of flapping flight and especially insect flight are complicated indeed. IIRC, at insect sizes and wing velocities, air acts much more viscous than it does for our conventional airplanes. The book I read indicated that they are just beginning to make sense of the way insect wings rely on unsteady vortex flow reinforcing wing motion, and vice versa. I'm not sure That Snopes story is what I read. I definitely remember that the article I read stated that a group of MIT students had proven that the bumble bee could fly (Ta! Da!) and part of the article recounted the story about a previous effort that proved that it couldn't fly. The article spelled out that the "new" study had used a "moving wing" theory as opposed to the previous study that had used a fixed wing theorem. But as for insect flight think of a house fly cruising along in the kitchen and he/she/it decides to land on the ceiling. Does the fly do a half roll? Or a half loop? -- cheers, John B. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Yet More Technology | John B. | Techniques | 189 | August 24th 15 01:25 AM |
New helmet technology? | [email protected] | Techniques | 15 | March 4th 12 04:41 AM |
RAAM technology | [email protected] | Racing | 5 | June 4th 10 12:24 AM |
New helmet technology | [email protected] | Techniques | 6 | August 3rd 09 09:26 PM |
seat technology | muniracer | Unicycling | 4 | December 2nd 03 04:40 PM |