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

Forces on Cranks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 28th 10, 03:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Forces on Cranks

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the actual forces a crank has to
resolve to lighten/decorate it on its top and bottom surface rather
than at the front and the back?

****
Something about what has been called the "vanity" machining/forging on
bicycle cranks bothers me.

Consider a crank in action. At the pedal end there are two directions
of force on the crank, a circular motion roughly in the plane of the
crank (if we ignore the angling on the crank to clear the gubbins),
plus an offset twisting moment to the outside on the pedal, which is
at right angles to the crank. The offset force is stayed by the bottom
bracket end of the crank, and the observed twist will therefore be
larger at the pedal end. From the point of highest twist there is then
an unwinding action as the crank rotates. It seems to me likely that
over a full rotation the force in the up-down plane will be larger
than the twisting force on the crank. Whether at the point in the
rotation where the twisting force is the largest, it is fact larger
than the vertical force in the crank's plane of rotation would depend
on the design of the crank, the force of the pedalist, and the exact
offset of the pedals from the plane of the crank's rotation; we can
abstract from these details because my problem concerns the principle
of force in the crank, not an exact measurement.

Given this description of the forces on a crank, surely it follows
that any lightening (or vanity machining/forging) should be done on
the crank's top and bottom surfaces, not its outside and inside
permanently vertical faces. The tendency for vanity fluting by
machining or stamping on the classic model is towards creating an H-
beam or U-beam crank. In practice, as commonly seen on bicycle cranks,
the beam lies on its side with the connecting web vertical. That's
what bothers me. Shouldn't the two deepest faces be applied in the
vertical plane where they will be able to resolve the most torque,
with the web perpendicular to them? That is exactly the opposite of
the arrangement we invariably see now.

It seems to me that, because of the engineering considerations I have
laid out above, such "vanity" flutes on the vertical face of the crank
can have no structural justification, indeed the opposite applies:
their engineering effect is negative and destructive. Such fluting
merely creates undercuts which won't survive years of flexing without
becoming the locus of a fracture. Lightening machining/forging if
considered necessary should, if I am right, be carried out on the top
and/or bottom face of the crank.

Andre Jute
"The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be
protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo
Ricart Medina

Ads
  #2  
Old April 28th 10, 06:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Forces on Cranks

Andre Jute wrote:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the actual forces a crank has to
resolve to lighten/decorate it on its top and bottom surface rather
than at the front and the back?

****
Something about what has been called the "vanity" machining/forging on
bicycle cranks bothers me.

Consider a crank in action. At the pedal end there are two directions
of force on the crank, a circular motion roughly in the plane of the
crank (if we ignore the angling on the crank to clear the gubbins),
plus an offset twisting moment to the outside on the pedal, which is
at right angles to the crank. The offset force is stayed by the bottom
bracket end of the crank, and the observed twist will therefore be
larger at the pedal end. From the point of highest twist there is then
an unwinding action as the crank rotates. It seems to me likely that
over a full rotation the force in the up-down plane will be larger
than the twisting force on the crank. Whether at the point in the
rotation where the twisting force is the largest, it is fact larger
than the vertical force in the crank's plane of rotation would depend
on the design of the crank, the force of the pedalist, and the exact
offset of the pedals from the plane of the crank's rotation; we can
abstract from these details because my problem concerns the principle
of force in the crank, not an exact measurement.

Given this description of the forces on a crank, surely it follows
that any lightening (or vanity machining/forging) should be done on
the crank's top and bottom surfaces, not its outside and inside
permanently vertical faces. The tendency for vanity fluting by
machining or stamping on the classic model is towards creating an H-
beam or U-beam crank. In practice, as commonly seen on bicycle cranks,
the beam lies on its side with the connecting web vertical. That's
what bothers me. Shouldn't the two deepest faces be applied in the
vertical plane where they will be able to resolve the most torque,
with the web perpendicular to them? That is exactly the opposite of
the arrangement we invariably see now.

It seems to me that, because of the engineering considerations I have
laid out above, such "vanity" flutes on the vertical face of the crank
can have no structural justification, indeed the opposite applies:
their engineering effect is negative and destructive. Such fluting
merely creates undercuts which won't survive years of flexing without
becoming the locus of a fracture. Lightening machining/forging if
considered necessary should, if I am right, be carried out on the top
and/or bottom face of the crank.

Andre Jute
"The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be
protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo
Ricart Medina


Jobst has frequently posted on crank failures and causes. Several
pictures he

http://www.pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html
  #3  
Old April 28th 10, 09:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Forces on Cranks

On Apr 28, 11:25*am, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the actual forces a crank has to
resolve to lighten/decorate it on its top and bottom surface rather
than at the front and the back?
****
Something about what has been called the "vanity" machining/forging on
bicycle cranks bothers me.
Consider a crank in action. *At the pedal end there are two
directions of force on the crank, a circular motion roughly in the
plane of the crank (if we ignore the angling on the crank to clear
the gubbins), plus an offset twisting moment to the outside on the
pedal, which is at right angles to the crank. *The offset force is
stayed by the bottom bracket end of the crank, and the observed
twist will therefore be larger at the pedal end. *From the point of
highest twist there is then an unwinding action as the crank
rotates.
It seems to me likely that over a full rotation the force in the
up-down plane will be larger than the twisting force on the crank.
Whether at the point in the rotation where the twisting force is
the largest, it is fact larger than the vertical force in the
crank's plane of rotation would depend on the design of the crank,
the force of the pedalist, and the exact offset of the pedals from
the plane of the crank's rotation; we can abstract from these
details because my problem concerns the principle of force in the
crank, not an exact measurement.
Given this description of the forces on a crank, surely it follows
that any lightening (or vanity machining/forging) should be done on
the crank's top and bottom surfaces, not its outside and inside
permanently vertical faces. *The tendency for vanity fluting by
machining or stamping on the classic model is towards creating an
H-beam or U-beam crank. *In practice, as commonly seen on bicycle
cranks, the beam lies on its side with the connecting web vertical.
That's what bothers me. *Shouldn't the two deepest faces be applied
in the vertical plane where they will be able to resolve the most
torque, with the web perpendicular to them? *That is exactly the
opposite of the arrangement we invariably see now.
It seems to me that, because of the engineering considerations I
have laid out above, such "vanity" flutes on the vertical face of
the crank can have no structural justification, indeed the opposite
applies: their engineering effect is negative and destructive.
Such fluting merely creates undercuts which won't survive years of
flexing without becoming the locus of a fracture. *Lightening
machining/forging if considered necessary should, if I am right, be
carried out on the top and/or bottom face of the crank.

Jobst has frequently posted on crank failures and causes. *Several
pictures he


*http://www.pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html

The whole crank problem falls apart when the effective forces are
analyzed. *Above all, a left hand thread and significant fretting
damage to both cranks at the pedal shaft shoulder indicate why many
cranks break across the "pedal eye" where the pedal is attached.

Beyond that, the torsion, radial (torque) loading and lateral bending
from the center of pressure on the pedal are consistently ignored.
The fretting of the pedal shaft face is the most important one to me
because I broke at least one crank per 10,000 miles for 30 years,
until I modified the interface to emulate the conical face on an
automobile lug nut. *I have not had a crank failure in the last 20
years as a result.

Talking to crank manufacturers at InterBike trade show, I am convinced
that few if any have an idea where the forces are and have made no
stress concentration tests. *That was brought out by the recent
failure of a Shimano Hollowtech crank right where one would expect it,
there where the crank diverges from the disk of the chainwheel
"spider" that in this design is extremely rigid.

I am amazed when one of these component manufacturers introduces a
reliable design, such as Shimano free-hubs that do not use screw-on
sprockets that warp and become extremely hard to remove... and of
course no screw-on freewheel.

Jobst Brandt


Would the crank arm be a suitable candidate for power (Watts)
measurement through the use of strain gauges and other circuitry?

-Tony
  #4  
Old April 28th 10, 09:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Forces on Cranks



Peter Cole wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the actual forces a crank has to
resolve to lighten/decorate it on its top and bottom surface rather
than at the front and the back?

****
Something about what has been called the "vanity" machining/forging on
bicycle cranks bothers me.

Consider a crank in action. At the pedal end there are two directions
of force on the crank, a circular motion roughly in the plane of the
crank (if we ignore the angling on the crank to clear the gubbins),
plus an offset twisting moment to the outside on the pedal, which is
at right angles to the crank. The offset force is stayed by the bottom
bracket end of the crank, and the observed twist will therefore be
larger at the pedal end. From the point of highest twist there is then
an unwinding action as the crank rotates. It seems to me likely that
over a full rotation the force in the up-down plane will be larger
than the twisting force on the crank. Whether at the point in the
rotation where the twisting force is the largest, it is fact larger
than the vertical force in the crank's plane of rotation would depend
on the design of the crank, the force of the pedalist, and the exact
offset of the pedals from the plane of the crank's rotation; we can
abstract from these details because my problem concerns the principle
of force in the crank, not an exact measurement.

Given this description of the forces on a crank, surely it follows
that any lightening (or vanity machining/forging) should be done on
the crank's top and bottom surfaces, not its outside and inside
permanently vertical faces. The tendency for vanity fluting by
machining or stamping on the classic model is towards creating an H-
beam or U-beam crank. In practice, as commonly seen on bicycle cranks,
the beam lies on its side with the connecting web vertical. That's
what bothers me. Shouldn't the two deepest faces be applied in the
vertical plane where they will be able to resolve the most torque,
with the web perpendicular to them? That is exactly the opposite of
the arrangement we invariably see now.

It seems to me that, because of the engineering considerations I have
laid out above, such "vanity" flutes on the vertical face of the crank
can have no structural justification, indeed the opposite applies:
their engineering effect is negative and destructive. Such fluting
merely creates undercuts which won't survive years of flexing without
becoming the locus of a fracture. Lightening machining/forging if
considered necessary should, if I am right, be carried out on the top
and/or bottom face of the crank.

Andre Jute
"The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be
protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo
Ricart Medina


Jobst has frequently posted on crank failures and causes. Several
pictures he

http://www.pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html


I've seen those, thanks. I didn't mention Jobst for fear that he would
go into a masochistic ecstacy about the bee in his bonnet about left-
hand threads, and never get around to what I want to discuss, which is
exactly what happened. -- AJ
  #5  
Old April 28th 10, 10:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Forces on Cranks



* Still Just Me * wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:54:33 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:


It seems to me that, because of the engineering considerations I have
laid out above, such "vanity" flutes on the vertical face of the crank
can have no structural justification, indeed the opposite applies:
their engineering effect is negative and destructive. Such fluting
merely creates undercuts which won't survive years of flexing without
becoming the locus of a fracture. Lightening machining/forging if
considered necessary should, if I am right, be carried out on the top
and/or bottom face of the crank.


Maybe The key question would be whether or not the crank actually
flexes significantly in the direction you suggest. If not, then the
vanity flutes are irrelevant.

IMHE, the (my vintage steel) frame flexes by large, visible amounts. I
think the stiffness of the crank is far greater than the frame, based
on observation with the bike in a trainer.

At the same time, I do see some flex apparently introduced in the
chainwheels from the cranks when on the road if I start to pedal in a
poor way, pushing out towards the right when pushing hard. I think
that's more of a technique issue than an engineering issue.

So, my rough field observation tells me it's not an issue. But, there
may be laboratory results that further detail. I can say that without
pushing hard, it's all immaterial. It's only when you really "get on
it" that it's noticeable.


I'm not viewing this as problem or a concern for my current cranks. I
have steel cranks and they don't appear to be stressed in the least.
But I'm thinking of designing cranks of my own and having them
machined, and then the question of the forces on the cranks comes up.
Not much point in having plain steel cranks cut just to have your own
design of plain steel crank -- I have plain steel cranks already! So
the question of decor/lightening arises, and with the question of
where it will do the least harm, and we're back at forces and vectors.

Andre Jute
The rest is magic hidden in the hub.
For rare hub gear bikes, visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html

  #6  
Old April 28th 10, 10:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Forces on Cranks

On Apr 28, 7:25*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the actual forces a crank has to
resolve to lighten/decorate it on its top and bottom surface rather
than at the front and the back?
****
Something about what has been called the "vanity" machining/forging on
bicycle cranks bothers me.
Consider a crank in action. *At the pedal end there are two
directions of force on the crank, a circular motion roughly in the
plane of the crank (if we ignore the angling on the crank to clear
the gubbins), plus an offset twisting moment to the outside on the
pedal, which is at right angles to the crank. *The offset force is
stayed by the bottom bracket end of the crank, and the observed
twist will therefore be larger at the pedal end. *From the point of
highest twist there is then an unwinding action as the crank
rotates.
It seems to me likely that over a full rotation the force in the
up-down plane will be larger than the twisting force on the crank.
Whether at the point in the rotation where the twisting force is
the largest, it is fact larger than the vertical force in the
crank's plane of rotation would depend on the design of the crank,
the force of the pedalist, and the exact offset of the pedals from
the plane of the crank's rotation; we can abstract from these
details because my problem concerns the principle of force in the
crank, not an exact measurement.
Given this description of the forces on a crank, surely it follows
that any lightening (or vanity machining/forging) should be done on
the crank's top and bottom surfaces, not its outside and inside
permanently vertical faces. *The tendency for vanity fluting by
machining or stamping on the classic model is towards creating an
H-beam or U-beam crank. *In practice, as commonly seen on bicycle
cranks, the beam lies on its side with the connecting web vertical.
That's what bothers me. *Shouldn't the two deepest faces be applied
in the vertical plane where they will be able to resolve the most
torque, with the web perpendicular to them? *That is exactly the
opposite of the arrangement we invariably see now.
It seems to me that, because of the engineering considerations I
have laid out above, such "vanity" flutes on the vertical face of
the crank can have no structural justification, indeed the opposite
applies: their engineering effect is negative and destructive.
Such fluting merely creates undercuts which won't survive years of
flexing without becoming the locus of a fracture. *Lightening
machining/forging if considered necessary should, if I am right, be
carried out on the top and/or bottom face of the crank.

Jobst has frequently posted on crank failures and causes. *Several
pictures he


*http://www.pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html

The whole crank problem falls apart when the effective forces are
analyzed. *Above all, a left hand thread and significant fretting
damage to both cranks at the pedal shaft shoulder indicate why many
cranks break across the "pedal eye" where the pedal is attached.

Beyond that, the torsion, radial (torque) loading and lateral bending
from the center of pressure on the pedal are consistently ignored.


I just included them all in my analysis above.

The fretting of the pedal shaft face is the most important one to me
because I broke at least one crank per 10,000 miles for 30 years,
until I modified the interface to emulate the conical face on an
automobile lug nut. *I have not had a crank failure in the last 20
years as a result.


Congratulations. Okay, now that you have that off your chest, dear
Jobst, do you agree with me that if fluting on a crank turns it into
some kind of an H or U sectional shape, the longer sides should be
vertical and the web horizontal (when the pedal is at the quarter to
three position)? In short, do you agree with me that lightening/
decoration is best applied to the top and bottom of the arm rather
than the vertical faces to the outside and the inside of the crank?

Snipped, more whining about component manufacturers that would be
amusingly scurrilous if I were not so ****ed off at having my thread
diverted by the swarm of wasps on Jobst's belfry.

Do try to stick to the point, Jobst. I already know what to do about
the pedal/crank interface fretting: you've told us all that. Now I
want to move on to dealing with the other forces.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
  #7  
Old April 29th 10, 12:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Forces on Cranks

Jobst, the question we're discussing is:

***Given that someone *will* decorate/lighten a bicycle crank, is the
balance of forces on it such that material is less damagingly removed
from the top and bottom faces than from the outer and inner faces, as
happens now?***

"Given that someone will decorate/lighten a bicycle crank" means we're
not interested in the normative case (engineers telling us we can't do
what we already decided to do) but in starting at the managerial
decision already arrived at and moving forward. If you can't (or more
likely won't) help, at least try not to get in the way.

Andre Jute
Check out Andre's recipes at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/FOOD.html

  #8  
Old April 29th 10, 02:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Forces on Cranks

On Apr 28, 10:54*am, Andre Jute wrote:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the actual forces a crank has to
resolve to lighten/decorate it on its top and bottom surface rather
than at the front and the back?

****
Something about what has been called the "vanity" machining/forging on
bicycle cranks bothers me.

Consider a crank in action. At the pedal end there are two directions
of force on the crank, a circular motion roughly in the plane of the
crank (if we ignore the angling on the crank to clear the gubbins),
plus an offset twisting moment to the outside on the pedal, which is
at right angles to the crank. The offset force is stayed by the bottom
bracket end of the crank, and the observed twist will therefore be
larger at the pedal end. From the point of highest twist there is then
an unwinding action as the crank rotates. It seems to me likely that
over a full rotation the force in the up-down plane will be larger
than the twisting force on the crank. Whether at the point in the
rotation where the twisting force is the largest, it is fact larger
than the vertical force in the crank's plane of rotation would depend
on the design of the crank, the force of the pedalist, and the exact
offset of the pedals from the plane of the crank's rotation; we can
abstract from these details because my problem concerns the principle
of force in the crank, not an exact measurement.

Given this description of the forces on a crank, surely it follows
that any lightening (or vanity machining/forging) should be done on
the crank's top and bottom surfaces, not its outside and inside
permanently vertical faces. The tendency for vanity fluting by
machining or stamping on the classic model is towards creating an H-
beam or U-beam crank. In practice, as commonly seen on bicycle cranks,
the beam lies on its side with the connecting web vertical. That's
what bothers me. Shouldn't the two deepest faces be applied in the
vertical plane where they will be able to resolve the most torque,
with the web perpendicular to them? That is exactly the opposite of
the arrangement we invariably see now.

It seems to me that, because of the engineering considerations I have
laid out above, such "vanity" flutes on the vertical face of the crank
can have no structural justification, indeed the opposite applies:
their engineering effect is negative and destructive. Such fluting
merely creates undercuts which won't survive years of flexing without
becoming the locus of a fracture. Lightening machining/forging if
considered necessary should, if I am right, be carried out on the top
and/or bottom face of the crank.


At first glance, I assumed this post was intended as a parody of 17th
century technical writing - the sort produced before current
engineering vocabulary terms like vertical (vs. "up-down") tangential
(vs. "circular motion") torque (vs. "twisting force") were well
known. Based on that, I skipped the rest, as usual.

Now that I see that others are taking the question somewhat seriously,
the short answer to the question is:

No.

- Frank Krygowski
  #9  
Old April 29th 10, 03:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Forces on Cranks

On Apr 28, 5:34*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
*The torsional stiffness of an element with other than round
cross section is like that of the largest inscribed solid circle.


Well, for some value of "like." A solid square bar is about 1.4 times
as stiff in torsion as the solid round bar whose diameter equals the
side of the square. The square is less efficient on a weight basis,
though.

To visualize torque capacity, relative stress levels and stress
directions of a non-circular torsion member, google "membrane analogy
torsion" or "soap bubble analogy torsion."

- Frank Krygowski
  #10  
Old April 29th 10, 05:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,934
Default Forces on Cranks

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:20:29 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Apr 28, 5:34*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
*The torsional stiffness of an element with other than round
cross section is like that of the largest inscribed solid circle.


Well, for some value of "like." A solid square bar is about 1.4 times
as stiff in torsion as the solid round bar whose diameter equals the
side of the square. The square is less efficient on a weight basis,
though.

To visualize torque capacity, relative stress levels and stress
directions of a non-circular torsion member, google "membrane analogy
torsion" or "soap bubble analogy torsion."

- Frank Krygowski


Dear Frank,

Just to make sure that I'm following you, the square cross-section
covering a circle like this . . .
http://i43.tinypic.com/6r7zog.jpg

.. . . is stiffer in torsion because of the extra material at the
corners.

But if you melt the square bar and recast it as a circle, it becomes
even stiffer than the original bar because the extra material is
evenly distributed?

Maybe a dumb question, but would a triangle encompassing a circle be
even stiffer in torsion than a square encompassing the same circle,
while a pentagram would be less stiff?

That is, I'm wondering if the triangle is the stiffest and things
gradually decline with more sides until a circle is approximated, or
if something about the triangle makes it less stiff in torsion than
the square.

triangle stiffer than squware in torsion as inset circle

square 1.4 times as stiff in torsion as inset circle

pentagram between 1.4 and 1.0 times as stiff in torsion

hexagram less stiff than pentagram, stiffer than circle

.. . . and so on, adding more and more sides to reach a circle

circle 1.0 stiff in torsion

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 




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
Fraudsters join forces at RatSchack Keith Racing 3 August 26th 09 04:36 AM
Gyroscopic forces revisited [email protected] Techniques 183 November 1st 07 03:00 PM
$39 test device for forces on spokes [email protected] Techniques 4 October 1st 06 10:49 PM
Forces on spokes bicycle_disciple Techniques 420 September 27th 06 10:53 PM
Wife forces sale: cycling clothes steve Marketplace 2 July 11th 04 01:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 AM.


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.