|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
For a few months now, I've been squeezing spoke pairs on various
aluminum 700c wheels and measuring spoke tension changes for this often-recommended procedure. Most of the testing was just to convince myself that my results were accurate, so I'll spare you page after page of tables and graphs. The test is simple. Surprisingly, so were the results. Measure the initial tension of the four spokes. Hang a 60-lb weight from the midspan of the upper spoke of a horizontal pair of parallel spokes, and support the lower spoke with a ceiling rope. Squeeze the parallel pair of spokes on the other side of the bike together with a screw-clamp until the gap matches the gap measured when that pair was roped and weighted with 60 lbs. Measure the tension of the four spokes again. Repeat for more spoke quartets around the wheel. Raise the spoke tension. Match initial tensions. Let tensions vary. Measure rising tension as the screw-clamp is tightened, turn by turn. Do wheels with straight or butted spokes. Test dished rear wheels and symmetrical front wheels, obviously with different hub widths. The spoke pairs on the dished wheels start out with different initial tensions. Different flange heights. Include 32 and 36 spoke rims. Cheap rims with no box section (just a U-curve), sockets, or eyelets. Better rims with box section and eyelets, but no sockets. Rims with box section, eyelets, and sockets. None of these variations made any significant difference. Spoke tension kept rising roughly as much as the squeeze force. That is, a 60-lb squeeze on each pair raises the tension in each of the 4 spokes about 55 to 65 pounds. So I'm curious if anyone can find and measure a reasonably normal 700c aluminum wheel whose 32-36 spokes behave significantly differently, say a 120-lb tension increase for a 60-lb squeeze. (A few months ago, I was the only poster to greet with skepticism a post that estimated in good faith a 156-lb tension increase for a 30-lb squeeze, while my initial tests with much lower results provoked comments such as "impossible" and "cheesy wheels" from engineers.) Steel rims, really deep aero rims, extra-wide hubs, super-tall flanges, and higher and lower spoke counts are obviously not normal, though I don't know if they'd behave differently. I tested only cross-3 lacing, but I'm willing to call even radial lacing normal. If you're curious and want some details about how to test, feel free to ask--it's a little trickier than weighing a sack of wheat. (Don't waste time trying to use the wheel itself as a makeshift tension gauge. You can't calculate tension by spoke displacement or bend angles. That approach assumes no rim distortion and leads to wildly exaggerated tension estimates that suggest that a 90-lb squeeze would stretch a spoke like taffy. Measure the actual tension by slapping a tension gauge on the spoke between the rim and the squeeze point.) If you're curious and lazy--er, efficient . . . Wheels don't cost much to ship and I'm willing to test a few wheels whose owners think that they might produce different results. You'd pay to ship it to me, and I'd pay to ship it back. As for why the mechanical advantage seems to be only 1-to-1, it may be that squeezing two pairs of parallel spokes distorts the circular rim weirdly. Viewed in a truing stand, the rim and the four spoke nipples A-B-C-D look like the exaggerated view below. When squeezed together, A & C pull the rim to the left. When squeezed together, B & D pull the rim to the right. Obviously, the forces are unbalanced and pull the rim into a zig-zag. rim | | y / | z / | spoke ----A \ \ B----- spoke | | | spoke -------C \ \ D--- spoke | / e | / f | | rim The crude ASCII diagram doesn't show things well, but the point is that the upper rim is pulled left, while the lower rim is pulled to the right. The rim distortion can be emphasized by squeezing just one pair of spokes on one side (not two pairs) with 60 lbs of force. Tension increases in both spokes in the squeezed pair, but the increase is noticeably less than 55-65 lbs. Tension also increases in one spoke of the unsqueezed pair, but again the increase is noticeably less than 55-65 lbs. Weirdly, the other spoke in the unsqueezed pair loses significant tension. If you start squeezing the unsqueezed pair, spoke tension slowly rises. Tension rises slowly for the two spokes in the already-squeezed pair, faster for unsqueezed spoke that showed the initial rise in tension, and even faster for the spoke that originally lost tension. When both pairs are squeezed with 60 lbs of force, all four spokes have gained about 55-65 lbs of tension. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
snippage of a lotta stuff
Cheers, Carl Fogel You have way too much time on your hands. Perhaps a more productive pursuit? This commentary from an inveterate futzer ;-) D'ohBoy |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
Well I probably missed out out all the discussions of this a while back. So
I don't have the whole story. But although I can see how this is causing what you discuss below, I am still sort of curious as to how this applies to me riding a bike along on the wheels like this. Maybe I need more coffee of something. I do not see the correlation yet. As I understand it, when you are riding along, the spokes on the bottom go through a compression phase (getting more slack), with the spokes on top going though a tension phase (getting more taut) at the same time. I don't see anything causing a squeezing phase on the spokes when I ride along. wrote in message ... For a few months now, I've been squeezing spoke pairs on various aluminum 700c wheels and measuring spoke tension changes for this often-recommended procedure. Most of the testing was just to convince myself that my results were accurate, so I'll spare you page after page of tables and graphs. The test is simple. Surprisingly, so were the results. Measure the initial tension of the four spokes. Hang a 60-lb weight from the midspan of the upper spoke of a horizontal pair of parallel spokes, and support the lower spoke with a ceiling rope. Squeeze the parallel pair of spokes on the other side of the bike together with a screw-clamp until the gap matches the gap measured when that pair was roped and weighted with 60 lbs. Measure the tension of the four spokes again. Repeat for more spoke quartets around the wheel. Raise the spoke tension. Match initial tensions. Let tensions vary. Measure rising tension as the screw-clamp is tightened, turn by turn. Do wheels with straight or butted spokes. Test dished rear wheels and symmetrical front wheels, obviously with different hub widths. The spoke pairs on the dished wheels start out with different initial tensions. Different flange heights. Include 32 and 36 spoke rims. Cheap rims with no box section (just a U-curve), sockets, or eyelets. Better rims with box section and eyelets, but no sockets. Rims with box section, eyelets, and sockets. None of these variations made any significant difference. Spoke tension kept rising roughly as much as the squeeze force. That is, a 60-lb squeeze on each pair raises the tension in each of the 4 spokes about 55 to 65 pounds. So I'm curious if anyone can find and measure a reasonably normal 700c aluminum wheel whose 32-36 spokes behave significantly differently, say a 120-lb tension increase for a 60-lb squeeze. (A few months ago, I was the only poster to greet with skepticism a post that estimated in good faith a 156-lb tension increase for a 30-lb squeeze, while my initial tests with much lower results provoked comments such as "impossible" and "cheesy wheels" from engineers.) Steel rims, really deep aero rims, extra-wide hubs, super-tall flanges, and higher and lower spoke counts are obviously not normal, though I don't know if they'd behave differently. I tested only cross-3 lacing, but I'm willing to call even radial lacing normal. If you're curious and want some details about how to test, feel free to ask--it's a little trickier than weighing a sack of wheat. (Don't waste time trying to use the wheel itself as a makeshift tension gauge. You can't calculate tension by spoke displacement or bend angles. That approach assumes no rim distortion and leads to wildly exaggerated tension estimates that suggest that a 90-lb squeeze would stretch a spoke like taffy. Measure the actual tension by slapping a tension gauge on the spoke between the rim and the squeeze point.) If you're curious and lazy--er, efficient . . . Wheels don't cost much to ship and I'm willing to test a few wheels whose owners think that they might produce different results. You'd pay to ship it to me, and I'd pay to ship it back. As for why the mechanical advantage seems to be only 1-to-1, it may be that squeezing two pairs of parallel spokes distorts the circular rim weirdly. Viewed in a truing stand, the rim and the four spoke nipples A-B-C-D look like the exaggerated view below. When squeezed together, A & C pull the rim to the left. When squeezed together, B & D pull the rim to the right. Obviously, the forces are unbalanced and pull the rim into a zig-zag. rim | | y / | z / | spoke ----A \ \ B----- spoke | | | spoke -------C \ \ D--- spoke | / e | / f | | rim The crude ASCII diagram doesn't show things well, but the point is that the upper rim is pulled left, while the lower rim is pulled to the right. The rim distortion can be emphasized by squeezing just one pair of spokes on one side (not two pairs) with 60 lbs of force. Tension increases in both spokes in the squeezed pair, but the increase is noticeably less than 55-65 lbs. Tension also increases in one spoke of the unsqueezed pair, but again the increase is noticeably less than 55-65 lbs. Weirdly, the other spoke in the unsqueezed pair loses significant tension. If you start squeezing the unsqueezed pair, spoke tension slowly rises. Tension rises slowly for the two spokes in the already-squeezed pair, faster for unsqueezed spoke that showed the initial rise in tension, and even faster for the spoke that originally lost tension. When both pairs are squeezed with 60 lbs of force, all four spokes have gained about 55-65 lbs of tension. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:48:19 -0500, "Earl Bollinger"
wrote: Well I probably missed out out all the discussions of this a while back. So I don't have the whole story. But although I can see how this is causing what you discuss below, I am still sort of curious as to how this applies to me riding a bike along on the wheels like this. Maybe I need more coffee of something. I do not see the correlation yet. As I understand it, when you are riding along, the spokes on the bottom go through a compression phase (getting more slack), with the spokes on top going though a tension phase (getting more taut) at the same time. I don't see anything causing a squeezing phase on the spokes when I ride along. Dear Earl, When ridden, a wheel's pre-tensioned spokes lose tension as they roll under the hub, just as you say. Theory and computer models predict this, and strain gauges confirm it. The wheels are designed for this. Spoke-squeezing is an entirely different matter, a step often recommended in the wheel-building process. Sitting in front of the wheel at a truing stand, grab two pairs of parallel spokes, one pair in each hand, and "vigorously" squeeze each pair of spokes together. (Think of a harp player.) The wheels are not designed for this, and it doesn't happen in any remotely normal riding--it's purely a wheelbuilding procedure in which spokes are squeezed to bend sideways toward each other. A large number of posters claim that squeezing spokes like this has beneficial results due solely to the increase in tension in the spokes. (Other posters add that there are other benefits, such as seating nipples and spoke elbows.) My question was how much the tension in the squeezed spokes actually rises. Curiously, there were no measurements, just offhand calculations scattered through posts over many years. Unfortunately, the calculations assumed that the rim-spoke-hub structure worked like a giant makeshift tension gauge. If a known force deflected the spoke sideways a known distance, and the details of the spoke's elasticity were known, then the tension could be calculated by some simple geometry. That's how a spoke tension gauge works--two posts support the spoke, which is bent sideways by a spring exerting a known force, and the sideways deflection is measured by a dial gauge. But a spoke tension gauge works only because its two supporting posts are massively braced and are distorted in the frame by only a tiny spring force. The geometrical calculation depends on the two posts staying the same distance apart. When spoke pairs are squeezed together, the force is massive (compared to what a tension gauge uses), and one of the two "posts" (the rim) hub) distorts wildly. You can see this distortion by simply squeezing a parallel pair of spokes lined up with the brake pads--the rim will move quite visibly. Squeezing two spoke pairs, one on each side of the bike, complicates things. The two inner spokes kinda-sorta balance each other in the middle, but the two outer spokes are obviously pulling the rim into a zig-zag. So calculations made in good faith on a bad model invariably produced very high tension increases. Perhaps because these results suited the theory, they weren't questioned. When I began squeezing spokes together with known forces and measuring the tension changes with an actual spoke tension gauge, I found what I described--squeeze two parallel spoke pairs together, each with 60 lbs of force, one one each side of the bike, and the tension rises 55-65 lbs for each spoke. The rim design, hub flange, dishing, initial tension, and so forth just didn't seem to matter. Compare this measured 60 lb tension increase for a 60 lb squeeze to the most recent calculation (made in good faith) that a 30 lb squeeze would produce a 156 lb tension increase. So far, measurements show only a 1-to-1 mechanical advantage, while calculations that went unchallenged predicted a 5-to-1 mechanical advantage. "So far" is the key point. I'm asking if anyone can measure a significantly higher tension increase for a 60 lb squeeze on a reasonably normal wheel. I tested a number of wheels, since my earlier results were called "impossible" or just the result of a "cheesy wheel" by engineers who never actually measured any tension increases. So I'm trying to find out if someone else has a wheel whose spokes behave differently when squeezed. The wheels that I tested might somehow be "cheesy," meaning the rims and hubs are unusually flexible, or they might be built or laced in some strangely weak fashion, or my testing could just be wildly inaccurate on wheel after wheel and spoke after spoke over a wide range of squeeze forces and initial tensions. I doubt that I'm wrong, but the wheels and spokes don't care what I think, so I want to know what tension changes other people measure when they squeeze spokes on other wheels. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
Earl Bollinger wrote: As I understand it, when you are riding along, the spokes on the bottom go through a compression phase (getting more slack), with the spokes on top going though a tension phase (getting more taut) at the same time. Surprisingly, the spokes at the top don't show that much tension increase, certainly nothing to match the loss of tension underneath the hub. Also surprisingly, the spokes at 90o and 180o show a notable increase in tension. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:43:56 -0700, jim beam
wrote: wrote: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:48:19 -0500, "Earl Bollinger" wrote: Well I probably missed out out all the discussions of this a while back. So I don't have the whole story. But although I can see how this is causing what you discuss below, I am still sort of curious as to how this applies to me riding a bike along on the wheels like this. Maybe I need more coffee of something. I do not see the correlation yet. As I understand it, when you are riding along, the spokes on the bottom go through a compression phase (getting more slack), with the spokes on top going though a tension phase (getting more taut) at the same time. I don't see anything causing a squeezing phase on the spokes when I ride along. Dear Earl, When ridden, a wheel's pre-tensioned spokes lose tension as they roll under the hub, just as you say. Theory and computer models predict this, and strain gauges confirm it. The wheels are designed for this. Spoke-squeezing is an entirely different matter, a step often recommended in the wheel-building process. Sitting in front of the wheel at a truing stand, grab two pairs of parallel spokes, one pair in each hand, and "vigorously" squeeze each pair of spokes together. (Think of a harp player.) The wheels are not designed for this, and it doesn't happen in any remotely normal riding--it's purely a wheelbuilding procedure in which spokes are squeezed to bend sideways toward each other. A large number of posters claim that squeezing spokes like this has beneficial results due solely to the increase in tension in the spokes. (Other posters add that there are other benefits, such as seating nipples and spoke elbows.) My question was how much the tension in the squeezed spokes actually rises. Curiously, there were no measurements, just offhand calculations scattered through posts over many years. Unfortunately, the calculations assumed that the rim-spoke-hub structure worked like a giant makeshift tension gauge. If a known force deflected the spoke sideways a known distance, and the details of the spoke's elasticity were known, then the tension could be calculated by some simple geometry. That's how a spoke tension gauge works--two posts support the spoke, which is bent sideways by a spring exerting a known force, and the sideways deflection is measured by a dial gauge. But a spoke tension gauge works only because its two supporting posts are massively braced and are distorted in the frame by only a tiny spring force. The geometrical calculation depends on the two posts staying the same distance apart. When spoke pairs are squeezed together, the force is massive (compared to what a tension gauge uses), and one of the two "posts" (the rim) hub) distorts wildly. You can see this distortion by simply squeezing a parallel pair of spokes lined up with the brake pads--the rim will move quite visibly. Squeezing two spoke pairs, one on each side of the bike, complicates things. The two inner spokes kinda-sorta balance each other in the middle, but the two outer spokes are obviously pulling the rim into a zig-zag. So calculations made in good faith on a bad model invariably produced very high tension increases. Perhaps because these results suited the theory, they weren't questioned. When I began squeezing spokes together with known forces and measuring the tension changes with an actual spoke tension gauge, I found what I described--squeeze two parallel spoke pairs together, each with 60 lbs of force, one one each side of the bike, and the tension rises 55-65 lbs for each spoke. The rim design, hub flange, dishing, initial tension, and so forth just didn't seem to matter. Compare this measured 60 lb tension increase for a 60 lb squeeze to the most recent calculation (made in good faith) that a 30 lb squeeze would produce a 156 lb tension increase. So far, measurements show only a 1-to-1 mechanical advantage, while calculations that went unchallenged predicted a 5-to-1 mechanical advantage. "So far" is the key point. I'm asking if anyone can measure a significantly higher tension increase for a 60 lb squeeze on a reasonably normal wheel. I tested a number of wheels, since my earlier results were called "impossible" or just the result of a "cheesy wheel" by engineers who never actually measured any tension increases. So I'm trying to find out if someone else has a wheel whose spokes behave differently when squeezed. The wheels that I tested might somehow be "cheesy," meaning the rims and hubs are unusually flexible, or they might be built or laced in some strangely weak fashion, or my testing could just be wildly inaccurate on wheel after wheel and spoke after spoke over a wide range of squeeze forces and initial tensions. I doubt that I'm wrong, but the wheels and spokes don't care what I think, so I want to know what tension changes other people measure when they squeeze spokes on other wheels. Cheers, Carl Fogel carl, i've just done a rough and ready test and confirm that a ma3 rim/105 hub combo has spoke tension rise roughly in accordance with your measurements, i.e. that tension increase ~= squeeze force. there doesn't seem to be a geometric increase in tension as rigid rim theory would predict. Dear Jim, Neither did a 32-spoke MA3 front wheel that I tested. Again, anyone can see that the rim that is impressively rigid in normal use is not rigid in opposition to spoke squeezing. Simply squeeze a single pair of spokes with one hand and watch as that section of the rim moves toward the brake pad. Squeeze two pairs of spokes, and the ends of the 4-spoke section move in opposite directions. The movement is less obvious, but suggests a curve over twice as much of the rim. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Spoke-squeezing tension effects
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Broke another spoke. Fix or get new wheel? | Bob | Techniques | 156 | May 24th 06 09:14 PM |
rim life.. questions... | Ravi | Techniques | 308 | September 6th 05 05:59 PM |
The Basics of Wheel Alignment and Wheelbuilding | Jeff Napier | Techniques | 338 | August 23rd 04 09:17 PM |
MA3 rim failure, where to now | B | Techniques | 258 | October 10th 03 08:46 PM |
(Un)even spoke tension | Ted Bennett | Techniques | 2 | July 17th 03 12:33 PM |