|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Wheel Building
Ron Ruff wrote:
So t1-t2= 2* 802 * 2.15/ 14/ .787= 142kg Make that =313lb = 142kg |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WHEEL BUILDING 273 | datakoll | Techniques | 2 | January 11th 08 08:54 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 02:00 PM |