How many strands of wire in a cable? Twist rate?
carl...@comcast.net
a bicycle cable, what the twist rate is, and why.
Honesty being the best policy, I replied that I don't know and that
it's probably none of his damned business, but that I'd ask.
He pointed out that he can answer the question for ethernet cables.
I know that cable housing varies between brakes and gearshifts, but I
have no idea about the cables that go inside them.
Does anyone know how many little wire strands make up a typical cable
and how many twists are normal per inch or foot? Do all cables use a
standard number of strands and twist rate? If so, do more strands
twisted more tightly make a better cable? Rated strength? Do cable
manufacturers disagree?
I'd appreciate any details that will help to wipe the smug look off
his face.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
John F. Flogittodeathlinson
I don't know.
JFT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jft10000.com
****************************
winnard
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ntgtd25spuvuaisvb...@4ax.com...
> A friend just gleefully asked me how many strands of wire there are in
> a bicycle cable, what the twist rate is, and why.
>
> Honesty being the best policy, I replied that I don't know and that
> it's probably none of his damned business, but that I'd ask.
>
> He pointed out that he can answer the question for ethernet cables.
>
Just kick him in the nuts.
winnard
jtaylor
"John F. Flogittodeathlinson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:NVzDg.162$S_5...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Readers should be aware that the above reply was most likely made by the
usenet entity sometimes known as Sorni.
For more of Sorni's contributions to this newsgroup posters can examine the
various helmet threads; where the headers from his posts will bear an
uncommon resemblance to those of this post.
For those who are curious as to why Sorni would post as he has above (using
a alias designed to insult another frequent contibutor, with a post that
essentially a complete waste) it may help to know that in the helmet wars,
Sorni is on the pro-helmet zealot side.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>I don't know.
Ozark, did you post this?
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
John Forrest Tomlinson
<as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>I don't know.
Sorni, did you write this?
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
jtaylor
> a bicycle cable, what the twist rate is, and why.
>
> Honesty being the best policy, I replied that I don't know and that
> it's probably none of his damned business, but that I'd ask.
>
> He pointed out that he can answer the question for ethernet cables.
>
> I know that cable housing varies between brakes and gearshifts, but I
> have no idea about the cables that go inside them.
>
> Does anyone know how many little wire strands make up a typical cable
> and how many twists are normal per inch or foot? Do all cables use a
> standard number of strands and twist rate? If so, do more strands
> twisted more tightly make a better cable? Rated strength? Do cable
> manufacturers disagree?
>
Cables are commonly made in any number of configurations; cycle cables are a
small subset of these.
The most basic construction of a cable uses seven starnds of the same
diameter; conveniently for those of us who operate in Euclidean geometry six
such starnds will completely surround the seventh. The twist is either
right-hand or left-hand; from the reading I did several decades ago
right-hand twist was more common - but which way was "right" and which
"left" I cannot remember, and it probably does not matter.
Surround a seven strand core requires a total of nineteen (7 + 12). Cable
constructiion can be quite complex as the size and requirements go up - some
cables can be (were?) made with hemp cores, which were soaked in oil for
lubrication and corrosion resistance, and there are various combinations of
left and right twists of left- and right-twisted starnds. Thicker strands
are more wear resistant, but are less flexible, and the twist arrangements
also have particular characteristics.
For your question, why don't you take an old cable - or snip a bit off the
end - and count?
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Or as "Bill Sornson".
> For more of Sorni's contributions to this newsgroup posters can examine the
> various helmet threads; where the headers from his posts will bear an
> uncommon resemblance to those of this post.
>
> For those who are curious as to why Sorni would post as he has above (using
> a alias designed to insult another frequent contibutor, with a post that
> essentially a complete waste) it may help to know that in the helmet wars,
> Sorni is on the pro-helmet zealot side.
I suspect the response in this thread is related to this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/dec5cc3ea2ae598a?dmode=source>
and the ensuing discussion.
--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Impact is not a synonym of affect or effect
M-gineering
> A friend just gleefully asked me how many strands of wire there are in
> a bicycle cable, what the twist rate is, and why.
>
> Honesty being the best policy, I replied that I don't know and that
> it's probably none of his damned business, but that I'd ask.
>
> He pointed out that he can answer the question for ethernet cables.
>
> I know that cable housing varies between brakes and gearshifts, but I
> have no idea about the cables that go inside them.
>
> Does anyone know how many little wire strands make up a typical cable
1+6+12
innerstrand is 6 strands wrapped around 1 in the middle, which is
traditional for twisted cables. 12 are wrapped around these as this is
the number of strands which fit
> and how many twists are normal per inch or foot? Do all cables use a
> standard number of strands and twist rate? If so, do more strands
> twisted more tightly make a better cable? Rated strength?
more twists make for a more flexible (good) and stretchy (bad) cable. So
the chosen angle is a compromise
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
Jeff Starr
<jta...@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know.
>>
>> JFT
>>
>> ****************************
>> Remove "remove" to reply
>> Visit http://www.jft10000.com
>> ****************************
>>
>
>
>Readers should be aware that the above reply was most likely made by the
>usenet entity sometimes known as Sorni.
>
>For more of Sorni's contributions to this newsgroup posters can examine the
>various helmet threads; where the headers from his posts will bear an
>uncommon resemblance to those of this post.
>
>For those who are curious as to why Sorni would post as he has above (using
>a alias designed to insult another frequent contibutor, with a post that
>essentially a complete waste) it may help to know that in the helmet wars,
>Sorni is on the pro-helmet zealot side.
>
And just as importantly, readers should know that the jtaylor is a
pathetic weasel who won't answer simple questions. Some of us, doubt
that he actually even rides a bicycle.
He likes to snip content to change context, and then attack that
altered point of view. Alias' include jflaylor, jflailor and PW.
Only an anti-helmet zealot [AHZ] like himself, would consider the
debate on the wisdom of choosing to wear a helmet, as the helmet wars.
Life is Good!
Jeff
RonSonic
<sunset...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>--
>Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Tom,
Please, what is in front of the Cheddar Curtain?
Ron
jtaylor
"Jeff Starr" <jst...@animalpc.com> wrote in message
news:8eaud2p1oeohl625i...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 08:18:50 -0300, "jtaylor"
> <jta...@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> I don't know.
> >>
> >> JFT
> >>
> >> ****************************
> >> Remove "remove" to reply
> >> Visit http://www.jft10000.com
> >> ****************************
> >>
> >
> >
> >Readers should be aware that the above reply was most likely made by the
> >usenet entity sometimes known as Sorni.
> >
> >For more of Sorni's contributions to this newsgroup posters can examine
the
> >various helmet threads; where the headers from his posts will bear an
> >uncommon resemblance to those of this post.
> >
> >For those who are curious as to why Sorni would post as he has above
(using
> >a alias designed to insult another frequent contibutor, with a post that
> >essentially a complete waste) it may help to know that in the helmet
wars,
> >Sorni is on the pro-helmet zealot side.
> >
>
> And just as importantly, readers should know that the jtaylor is a
> pathetic weasel who won't answer simple questions. Some of us, doubt
> that he actually even rides a bicycle.
>
Insults are evidence that the person using them has no other support.
"Jeff Starr" may even surpass "Sorni" in this respect.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
A hoard of FIBs (aka Illinois residents).
--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:47:09 GMT, "John F. Flogittodeathlinson"
> <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I don't know.
>
> Ozark, did you post this?
>
>
I don't know.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
I'll support Jeff's opinion that you are a pathetic weasel.
> "Jeff Starr" may even surpass "Sorni" in this respect.
I see you snipped out Jeff's comments about how you snip posts to
change context. Why is thet, you POS?
John Forrest Tomlinson
You're lying.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2006 09:37:53 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:47:09 GMT, "John F. Flogittodeathlinson"
> >> <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I don't know.
> >>
> >> Ozark, did you post this?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't know.
>
> You're lying.
>
>
You don't know.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 13 Aug 2006 09:37:53 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:47:09 GMT, "John F. Flogittodeathlinson"
>> >> <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't know.
>> >>
>> >> Ozark, did you post this?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >I don't know.
>>
>> You're lying.
>>
>>
>
>You don't know.
I surely don't know who wrote the post I asked about, but I know
you're lying: you'd know if you wrote it and you'd know if you didn't
write it.
If you didn't write it, the "I don't know" is actually a pretty funny
joke - kudos for that.
If you did write it, the "I don't know" is a sign of cowardice.
Leo Lichtman
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote: (clip) He pointed out that he can answer the
question for ethernet cables.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That puts a different twist on the use of the word "cable."
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2006 09:57:39 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On 13 Aug 2006 09:37:53 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:47:09 GMT, "John F. Flogittodeathlinson"
> >> >> <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I don't know.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ozark, did you post this?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I don't know.
> >>
> >> You're lying.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You don't know.
>
> I surely don't know who wrote the post I asked about, but I know
> you're lying: you'd know if you wrote it and you'd know if you didn't
> write it.
>
> If you didn't write it, the "I don't know" is actually a pretty funny
> joke - kudos for that.
>
Ask yourself this simple question: "Who is it that refers to me as
Flogittodeathlinson?".
See?
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
- Bob - wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:32:00 -0600, carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >A friend just gleefully asked me how many strands of wire there are in
> >a bicycle cable, what the twist rate is, and why.
> >
> >Honesty being the best policy, I replied that I don't know and that
> >it's probably none of his damned business, but that I'd ask.
> >
> >He pointed out that he can answer the question for ethernet cables.
> >
>
> too much).
>
> With Ethernet cables, the twist rate is controlled by standards. For
> example, the twist rate of a cat-3 cable is lower than that of a cat-5
> cable. It has to do with the integrity of the signal. The twist rates
> and proper connector use (not un-twisting more than 1/2" of cable at
> the connector, etc is part of any basic Ethernet wiring education.
> Anyone who goes through basic Ethernet training learns about twist
> rates.
>
> Bicycle cables, on the other hand are not controlled by formal
> standards. There is no twist rate discussed in bicycle mechanic
> school. In fact, last I checked, there was no bicycle mechanic school.
>
Guess again:
Not an endorsement, etc., etc. Just the facts.
> All that said, it would be interesting to note the construction and
> performance characteristics of various cables from various bicycle
> cable manufacturers.
jtaylor
<o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
news:1155487488.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
[ for the benefit of those new to usenet and the method of indicating
quotes, the portion of this post below prefixed by THREE quote marks (">")
was written by Sorni; the portion of this post below prefixed by TWO quote
marks was written by me; and the portion of this post below prefixed by ONE
quote mark was written by "Ozark" ]
> > >
> > > And just as importantly, readers should know that the jtaylor is a
> > > pathetic weasel who won't answer simple questions. Some of us, doubt
> > > that he actually even rides a bicycle.
> > >
> >
> > Insults are evidence that the person using them has no other support.
> >
>
> I'll support Jeff's opinion that you are a pathetic weasel.
>
>
> > "Jeff Starr" may even surpass "Sorni" in this respect.
>
> I see you snipped out Jeff's comments about how you snip posts to
> change context. Why is thet, you POS?
>
a) "snipping" is a normal - and desired - part of usenet; do you need
further instruction on usenet conventions? I have attempted to help you
with your previous difficulties (see the "for the benefit..." note above);
and
b) I see you are attempting to draw even with Messrs. Starr and Sornson
insofar as your use of invective and insult; I do hope that you do not
believe that anyone will mistake such for reason.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
jtaylor wrote:
> <o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1155487488.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> [ for the benefit of those new to usenet and the method of indicating
> quotes, the portion of this post below prefixed by THREE quote marks (">")
> was written by Sorni; the portion of this post below prefixed by TWO quote
> marks was written by me; and the portion of this post below prefixed by ONE
> quote mark was written by "Ozark" ]
>
>
> > > >
> > > > And just as importantly, readers should know that the jtaylor is a
> > > > pathetic weasel who won't answer simple questions. Some of us, doubt
> > > > that he actually even rides a bicycle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Insults are evidence that the person using them has no other support.
> > >
> >
> > I'll support Jeff's opinion that you are a pathetic weasel.
> >
> >
> > > "Jeff Starr" may even surpass "Sorni" in this respect.
> >
> > I see you snipped out Jeff's comments about how you snip posts to
> >
>
>
> a) "snipping" is a normal - and desired - part of usenet; do you need
> further instruction on usenet conventions? I have attempted to help you
> with your previous difficulties (see the "for the benefit..." note above);
> and
>
You snip to change context, not for brevity. As others have pointed
out, you are a weasel.
> b) I see you are attempting to draw even with Messrs. Starr and Sornson
> insofar as your use of invective and insult; I do hope that you do not
> believe that anyone will mistake such for reason.
Does anyone ever mistake you for anything other than the trolling,
crossposting POS you are?
carl...@comcast.net
Dear J.,
So are there bicycle cables with 12 outer strands twisted one way
around 7 inner strands twisted the other way?
As for why I didn't start cutting up an old cable, studying a single
cable wouldn't do much good if there are different varieties of cable,
with different thicknesses, number of strands, or twist rates. Asking
a newsgroup full of know-it-alls is simpler and more likely to yield
accurate results.
Similarly, I didn't get very far looking on the internet. Sheldon and
Wiki explain that the whole assembly is technically a Bowden cable,
but I don't care about the housing, just the inner cable--how many
strands, twist rate, why they work, and even how they're manufactured
would be nice to know.
Thanks for the details.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Marten,
Not trying to start an argument, just seeing what people are saying.
JTaylor suggested 7 + 12 wires for 19 total, while you're giving the
same 19-strand total as 12 wrapped around 6, wrapped around 1, right?
So there are at least two votes for a 19-strand standard.
There are thinner and thicker bike cables, so presumably the thinner
cables just use 19 thinner strands?
As for the twist rate, it sounds like a compromise, but I vaguely
recall posts about how cables don't stretch--possibly meaning that
they don't stretch permanently?
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:32:00 -0600, carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>A friend just gleefully asked me how many strands of wire there are in
>>a bicycle cable, what the twist rate is, and why.
>>
>>Honesty being the best policy, I replied that I don't know and that
>>it's probably none of his damned business, but that I'd ask.
>>
>>He pointed out that he can answer the question for ethernet cables.
>>
>
>(He's twisting something other than cables. I hope it does not hurt
>too much).
>
>With Ethernet cables, the twist rate is controlled by standards. For
>example, the twist rate of a cat-3 cable is lower than that of a cat-5
>cable. It has to do with the integrity of the signal. The twist rates
>and proper connector use (not un-twisting more than 1/2" of cable at
>the connector, etc is part of any basic Ethernet wiring education.
>Anyone who goes through basic Ethernet training learns about twist
>rates.
>
>Bicycle cables, on the other hand are not controlled by formal
>standards. There is no twist rate discussed in bicycle mechanic
>school. In fact, last I checked, there was no bicycle mechanic school.
>
>All that said, it would be interesting to note the construction and
>performance characteristics of various cables from various bicycle
>cable manufacturers.
Dear Bob,
For what it's worth, the twist rate is different for each of the four
twisted pairs within an ethernet cable.
There are bicycle mechanic schools, but I doubt that they mention the
details of bike cables. For that, I think that we have to go to
posters on RBT who know something about the manufacturers and the
physics.
So far, the votes are for a standard 19-strand arrangement, probably a
central strand surrounded by 6 middle strands, wrapped with 12 outer
strands.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Bill Sornson
> <o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1155487488.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> [ for the benefit of those new to usenet and the method of indicating
> quotes, the portion of this post below prefixed by THREE quote marks
> (">") was written by Sorni;
You pathetic asswipe. NOTHING quoted by you was written by me. (Go ahead,
check. I know you'll never admit it, but you're just flat wrong. AGAIN.)
You're truly delusional.
(BTW, what's so hard about learning to quote/attribute correctly and
accurately? Hell, the newsreader does it FOR you.)
Friday
Hey! Some of my best friends are pro-helmet zealots!
Friday
Jeff Starr
Yeah, I saw it too. What I wrote was attributed to you. Just proves
how useless jflaylor is.
He has never had an original thought, that crap about insults was
first posted by someone else.
Life is Good!
Jeff
Friday
I know that with electrical cables more strands of a smaller diameter
makes the cable more flexible. Is a better brake cable more or less
flexible, and what about gear change cables?
Fiday
jtaylor
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aruud254bc8bo8nrh...@4ax.com...
This sounds right for standard gear mech and brake cables; those for
new-fangled mechs that click may well be different.
G.T.
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:47:09 GMT, "John F. Flogittodeathlinson"
> <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I don't know.
>
>
> Ozark, did you post this?
>
Why don't you call him up and ask him? I thought you were best buddies?
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
jtaylor
"Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:hcLDg.579$Cs3...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > <o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> > news:1155487488.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [ for the benefit of those new to usenet and the method of indicating
> > quotes, the portion of this post below prefixed by THREE quote marks
> > (">") was written by Sorni;
>
> You pathetic asswipe. NOTHING quoted by you was written by me.
Yes, you are right; of course.
I suppose I could plead that
a) the two/three/four of you have such a monochromatic lexicon,
b) at least one of you keeps changing his alias; and
c) one of you, when directly asked if he posted such-and-such, admitted that
he did not know; but
it occurs to me that perhaps you _are_ all the same troll.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:47:09 GMT, "John F. Flogittodeathlinson"
>> <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know.
>>
>> Ozark, did you post this?
>
>Why don't you call him up and ask him? I thought you were best buddies?
I'd ask him in person when he comes to NYC but he's ducking out on
that, even though he's the one who suggested other people are afraid
to meet face-to-face.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
jtaylor
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:juk0e2t487cnhiamr...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:49:53 -0700, "G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:47:09 GMT, "John F. Flogittodeathlinson"
> >> <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't know.
> >>
> >> Ozark, did you post this?
> >
> >Why don't you call him up and ask him? I thought you were best buddies?
>
> I'd ask him in person when he comes to NYC but he's ducking out on
> that, even though he's the one who suggested other people are afraid
> to meet face-to-face.
>
Wasn't he the one who suggested in the first place that you two meet?
Bill Sornson
How about that you're just such a hateful, obsessed moron that you often
can't distinguish the true from the false? I'd buy that.
jtaylor
>
> > Yes, you are right; of course.
> >
> > I suppose I could plead that
> >
> > a) the two/three/four of you have such a monochromatic lexicon,
> >
> > b) at least one of you keeps changing his alias; and
> >
> > c) one of you, when directly asked if he posted such-and-such,
> > admitted that he did not know; but
> >
> > it occurs to me that perhaps you _are_ all the same troll.
>
> How about that you're just such a hateful, obsessed moron that you often
> can't distinguish the true from the false? I'd buy that.
>
>
Insults are evidence that the person using them has no other support.
Bill Sornson
> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:uV%Dg.640$Cs3...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Um, WHO WROTE WHAT COMES NEXT?!?
LOL You're just too funny! LOL
>>> Yes, you are right; of course.
>>>
>>> I suppose I could plead that
>>>
>>> a) the two/three/four of you have such a monochromatic lexicon,
>>>
>>> b) at least one of you keeps changing his alias; and
>>>
>>> c) one of you, when directly asked if he posted such-and-such,
>>> admitted that he did not know; but
>>>
>>> it occurs to me that perhaps you _are_ all the same troll.
>> How about that you're just such a hateful, obsessed moron that you
>> often can't distinguish the true from the false? I'd buy that.
> Insults are evidence that the person using them has no other support.
This from a moron who constantly barges into exchanges not involving him
just to add his little snipes 'n wipes.
Too freaking rich, flailor. T o o f r e a k i n g r i c h.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
"jtaylor" is a little lacking in the self-awareness department: he
can't see himself as the total a**hole that he is.
Werehatrack
>A friend just gleefully asked me how many strands of wire there are in
>a bicycle cable, what the twist rate is, and why.
In order: It depends on the cable and the maker, it depends on the
cable and the maker, and because the engineer specified that choice.
>Honesty being the best policy, I replied that I don't know and that
>it's probably none of his damned business, but that I'd ask.
>
>He pointed out that he can answer the question for ethernet cables.
An Ethernet cable is not expected to bear a physical load under
tension, and to move frequently with little friction longitudinally
through a flexible conduit under less than ideal environmental
conditions. It has a completely different set of operational
parameters defining its conductor count (eight, because no more are
required and no fewer will function) and its pair twist (determined by
factors that are irrelevant to bikes).
>I know that cable housing varies between brakes and gearshifts, but I
>have no idea about the cables that go inside them.
>
>Does anyone know how many little wire strands make up a typical cable
Usually an odd number, with seven on the cheapest cables and a higher
count on better ones.
>and how many twists are normal per inch or foot?
Anywhere from ten to over twenty twists per foot in my experience.
>Do all cables use a
>standard number of strands and twist rate?
No.
>If so, do more strands
>twisted more tightly make a better cable?
Not necessarily; there are multiple factors that must be considered.
Sometimes "more is better", sometimes "less is better". Other
considerations, such as whether a cable is drawn through a die to
produce a smooth surface, may have more of a bearing on a cable's
suitability for a specific application than its mere strand count and
twist rate.
Ask him if his CAT-5e is die-drawn for smooth motion, and whether he
favors the slipperiness of Teflon or the durability of PVC liners in
his high-network-load applications.
In bicycles, we have *choices*, not industry-wide specs, because our
applications aren't static.
>Rated strength?
Sufficient for the pupose, and excessive by at least a factor of ten
in most cases.
>Do cable
>manufacturers disagree?
I sincerely doubt that they even confer, thus I would expect that
there is no opportunity for disagreement. Certainly they *differ* in
their opinions of what constitutes a properly-made product, but it
would be foolish to state that any one cable maker had the only
correct view of the subject.
>I'd appreciate any details that will help to wipe the smug look off
>his face.
If he wears shoes that employ them, ask him if he can tell you the
precise twist and number of threads in a shoelace, and why they were
chosen; he uses them every day, why is he ignorant of this vital piece
of information?
If he persists in his myopic and ill-informed pseudopedantry, I
suggest employing a squirt gun full of this:
http://www.basspro.com/servlet/catalog.TextId?hvarTextId=26541&hvarDept=400&hvarEvent=&hvarClassCode=8&hvarSubCode=3&hvarTarget=browse
or
http://tinyurl.com/fm6z6
That should take his mind off the subject.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Werehatrack,
Er, to summarize . . .
Seven (or more) strands.
An odd (or even) number of strands.
Ten to twenty twists per foot (in your experience).
Multiple factors must be considered.
Ten times as strong as they need to be--however much that is.
It depends.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Chalo
>
> JTaylor suggested 7 + 12 wires for 19 total, while you're giving the
> same 19-strand total as 12 wrapped around 6, wrapped around 1, right?
>
> So there are at least two votes for a 19-strand standard.
Most Bowden cables used in bikes are of 19 strand construction, while
some few are composed of 49 strands in 7x7 rope lay. Such cables are
easy to distinguish not only because of their different surface
texture, but because they are so much more flexible than 19-strand
cables.
In my experience, 49-strand cables exhibit noticeably more stretch than
the normal 19-strand kind.
Chalo
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Chalo,
Thanks--no one else mentioned the less common 7x7 cables, much less
their flexibility or different texture, so I suppose that they (like
me) weren't aware of it.
So if the 19-strand and the 49-strand cables are roughly the same
thickness, then the 49-strand cables must use much thinner strands,
and it's the use of many thin stands that makes them more flexible and
presumably gives them a smoother texture?
Very timidly and trying not to start any arguments, but am I wrong in
thinking that I remember emphatic statements from other posters that
cables don't stretch?
Or is cable "stretch" something like the fuss about chain "stretch"
and I'm just not following a point on which everyone knowledgeable
agrees?
Thanks again for the details.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
jtaylor
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3952e2hsvk73m4raa...@4ax.com...
Bowden cables "stretch" in four ways:
a) elastic deformation - the wires get longer but return after stress
b) non-elastic deformation - they don't return
c) untwisting of the helix
d) wearing of the starnds, one against another, which allows a permanent
form of c).
a) and c) are temporary; c) is to some extent reduced by (some) arrangements
of the cable strands; b) is unlikely to occur with the forces extant in
cycle cables, even brake cables; and so the primary form of "stretch" that
concerns cyclists is that of d), and is indeed analogous to the "stretch"
that occurs in (normal) roller chain wear.
Lube and adjust as required.
Chalo
>
> So if the 19-strand and the 49-strand cables are roughly the same
> thickness, then the 49-strand cables must use much thinner strands,
> and it's the use of many thin stands that makes them more flexible and
> presumably gives them a smoother texture?
That's why they are more supple, but their texture is coarser (since
they are essentially seven-strand cables made of wound filaments).
> Very timidly and trying not to start any arguments, but am I wrong in
> thinking that I remember emphatic statements from other posters that
> cables don't stretch?
I've seen the assertions myself. Whether the elasticity of a 19-strand
cable is significant within the relevant range of tensions I simply
don't know. However, the additional stretch in a 7x7 rope lay cable is
easy to discern. I have assumed that this is due to relative movement
of the 49-strand cable's less compacted filaments.
Chalo
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Chalo,
So it's seven strands wound together to make a bigger strand, and then
seven of those bigger strands wound together to make a coarser cable
than a 1 inner x 6 middle x 12 outer single strands.
Here's an interesting page with a stretch calculator and some
comments. It assumes the 7x7 construction that you mention, stainless
steel wire, and "60% proof loading":
"Handling the cable as little as possible after prestretching helps
eliminate putting constructional stretch back in."
These thinner-than-bike-cable wires are used in electrical
applications, so they're probably much more sensitive even than
brifter cables.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Chalo,
I forgot this link:
http://www.thecableconnection.com/wireropeassemblies/spec2.htm
I think that the bottom diagrams show the 1x6x12 and the 7x7 cables,
though the 1x6x12 is called a 1x9. The coarser surface of the 7x7 is
shown.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Blair P. Houghton
Does he roll them or fold them when storing or taking up slack?
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
>
> http://www.bbinstitute.com
Ya gotta love a school that starts off its hype with a trail map.
--Blair
data...@yahoo.com
lineman's pliers and a small $2 wal vise grip
hold cable with grips above fray, twist cable
in the correct direction stupid( i forget which direction quick quick
what direction????)
from start of fray to end of fray/cable
then say what??
cheez off course
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> >Whether the elasticity of a 19-strand
> >cable is significant within the relevant range of tensions I simply
> >don't know. However, the additional stretch in a 7x7 rope lay cable is
> >easy to discern. I have assumed that this is due to relative movement
> >of the 49-strand cable's less compacted filaments.
>
> seven of those bigger strands wound together to make a coarser cable
> than a 1 inner x 6 middle x 12 outer single strands.
Such a cable is not only coarser in texture, but it has more internal
voids than a 1x19 cable of equal cross-sectional area. These seem to
be the physical source of the "constructional stretch" described at the
link you provided.
> Here's an interesting page with a stretch calculator and some
> comments. It assumes the 7x7 construction that you mention, stainless
> steel wire, and "60% proof loading":
>
> http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/calcstre.htm?MA%5B0%5D=50&MA%5B2%5D=60&MA%5B1%5D=0.04&Submit=Calculate
When I enter values that would be characteristic of a rear brake cable
on one of my bikes (1.6mm dia, 200 lbf, and 38" length, I get stretch
quantities of about a quarter inch, roughly one third of the usable
range of a conventional brake lever. This is apart from compression in
the cable housing and flex at the anchor points. It makes sense in the
context of my experience with 7x7 cables.
Many nicer-quality 1x19 bike cables are die drawn (e.g. Quality
Cables). The drawing process gives them a noticeably smoother surface,
and it is on this basis that they are marketed. However, I think that
drawn cables are certain to have much less constructional flex than
undrawn cables, as well as having more cross-sectional area for a given
outside diameter.
Chalo
Road Man
"Werehatrack" <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
news:vbj1e218r332qod1d...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:32:00 -0600, carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>>>Do all cables use a
>>standard number of strands and twist rate?
>
> No.
>
>>If so, do more strands
>>twisted more tightly make a better cable?
>
> Not necessarily; there are multiple factors that must be considered.
> Sometimes "more is better", sometimes "less is better". Other
> considerations, such as whether a cable is drawn through a die to
> produce a smooth surface, may have more of a bearing on a cable's
> suitability for a specific application than its mere strand count
> and
> twist rate.
>
>
Though I'm inspired by Werehatrack's response, this is really a
response Carl's original question (almost gave up wading through all
that flame and invective!).
There are design rules and conventions in making cables, such as the
geometry that says that a single strand needs 6 strands of the same
diameter to cover it, and that those 7 strands need another 12 similar
strands to cover them. It's just what geometry says is necessary to
pack circles together neatly into a round cross-section. It's not a
standard in any other way, such as a regulation or an ISO standard,
AFAIK. More layers can be added if one wishes.
Another thing other than basic science that tends to make the
appearance of a standard is the availability of machines that can help
fabricate the part economically. I would think cabling machines with
7-reels are very common in the field, but isn't that just because of
the convenient science?
Yet another one is that to make a cable that maintains its
cross-section and stretches minimally with tension, wind (or "cable")
the strands in the 6-strand and 12-strand layers in opposite
directions. The flexibility and stretch are affected by winding
pitch. I don't think there's (don't know of) any good reason why the
winding pitches or lay angles should be the same.
Packing of the layers, hardness of the strands, and elasticity of the
strands also affects the mechanical properties.
Note that the 7x7 construction is another 1 "strand" covered by 6
similar "strands" configuration, except that in this case the
"strands" are themselves cabled out of single filaments.
I had a book on this once, I think it was a technical manual and
catalog from Brand Wire.
The idea of a "better" cable and how to make it must start with a
concrete definition of what a "good" cable is, in other words, what
the requirements are. Those statements must then be translated into
engineering terms that would serve to guide the designer to make the
most appropriate choices. Certainly strand selection, layer count,
cabling angles, and packing force are among the designer's variables.
Hope this helps, even if it's a bit pedantic.
Ken
jtaylor
"Road Man" <kenfr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XdCdncma79gS73_Z...@comcast.com...
Not to worry, the more data one has, the more likely one is to come to a
correct conclusion, especially if the data is produced by scientific means;
for the case of geometry and material properties this is relatively simple,
but even so the principle holds in such more difficult situations such as
population effects of mass behavioural changes.
Blair P. Houghton
jtaylor wrote:
> Not to worry, the more data one has, the more likely one is to come to a
> correct conclusion, especially if the data is produced by scientific means;
> for the case of geometry and material properties this is relatively simple,
> but even so the principle holds in such more difficult situations such as
> population effects of mass behavioural changes.
There are a couple of fallacies acting there.
First, statistics are what they are, and the tails of a distribution do
exist, so if the distribution shows that a result can exist, then you
can't say that the result is impossible if it does exist. That is,
having more data may reduce the probability of an error in your
analysis, but it won't eliminate it entirely.
Second, "especially if the data is produced by scientific means"
doesn't really mean anything. Science is a process of making a
hypothesis and then designing an experiment that can falsify it. Then
collecting the un-falsified hypotheses into a theory. Essentially, all
data is scientific, because it can be applied to some hypothesis,
eventually. And even what appear to be carefully designed experiments
can actually be ill-designed and can produce data that tell you the
wrong thing. The entire woo-woo science industry is based on the
process of presenting nonsense in the patterns of scientific
literature.
--Blair
Road Man
statistics, but I don't understand these two posts. Anybody care to
share?
Ken
"Blair P. Houghton" <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155776479.7...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Jeff Starr
Now, if you only understood, that top posting is not the best way to
reply, we could snip some of this post, without it losing its context.
Ok, to answer your question, jflaylor is a pathetic weasel who likes
to inject his little comments and nonsense about statistics and his
AHZ [Anti-Helmet Zealot] obsession, anywhere he can. I believe Blair,
in this case, was just replying to that post.
The posts most likely have little or nothing to do with the original
topic. If your newsreader allows it, you may as well kill-file
jflaylor, as his posts are deceitful, inaccurate, and context altered.
HTH
Life is Good!
Jeff
dabac
jtaylor Wrote:
> .. The twist is either
> right-hand or left-hand; from the reading I did several decades ago
> right-hand twist was more common - but which way was "right" and which
> "left" I cannot remember, and it probably does not matter.
When dealing with ropes the words used are "S", or "Z" laid ropes. Hold
a piece vertically in front of you and look at how the slant goes.
--
dabac
dabac
carl...@comcast.net Wrote:
> ..
> So if the 19-strand and the 49-strand cables are roughly the same
> thickness, then the 49-strand cables must use much thinner strands,
> and it's the use of many thin stands that makes them more flexible and
voids in the cross-section. As the cable is put under load these voids
compress, giving the cable a certain (and for bike brake applications
not particularly desirable) elasticity.
carl...@comcast.net Wrote:
> ..Very timidly and trying not to start any arguments, but am I wrong in
> thinking that I remember emphatic statements from other posters that
> cables don't stretch?
>
As opposed to chain stretch(which is dominantly permanent), most cables
displays both elasticity (as above) and a certain amount of permanent
stretch. Whether these are of a degree worthy of attention or not is
another question. With bikes (particularly brakes) there are numerous
other components that flexes, compresses and wear that is likely to
have a greater impact than the stretch of a reasonably well suited
cable. The permanent stretch have several contributors, one might be
referred to as "bedding in" and is very similar to what happens when
spokes are laced to a brand-new hub. The cable has to settle properly
at its anchor point(s). Then, as use progresses more and more permanent
deformations will occur (particularly for the 7x7) which will cause the
cable to stretch some. In extreme cases (marine/industrial
applications) the cable will actually elongate due to the strands
getting thinner through corrosion and abrasion. As the cross-section
gets smaller the cable will become longer. The strands are wound around
each other, so with less to go around, the longer it gets.
--
dabac
dvt
> http://www.thecableconnection.com/wireropeassemblies/spec2.htm
>
> I think that the bottom diagrams show the 1x6x12 and the 7x7 cables,
> though the 1x6x12 is called a 1x9. The coarser surface of the 7x7 is
> shown.
Interesting that they label the 1x9 as "non-flexible."
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)
carl...@comcast.net
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>> http://www.thecableconnection.com/wireropeassemblies/spec2.htm
>>
>> I think that the bottom diagrams show the 1x6x12 and the 7x7 cables,
>> though the 1x6x12 is called a 1x9. The coarser surface of the 7x7 is
>> shown.
>
>Interesting that they label the 1x9 as "non-flexible."
Dear Dave,
That's the odd "1x9" term (maybe a misprint for "19"?) that the site
uses for 12 strands wrapped around 6 strands wrapped around 1 strand,
the usual bicycle cable.
Chalo pointed the different flexibility earlier in this thread:
"Most Bowden cables used in bikes are of 19 strand construction, while
some few are composed of 49 strands in 7x7 rope lay. Such cables are
easy to distinguish not only because of their different surface
texture, but because they are so much more flexible than 19-strand
cables."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/643603bdc122d660
If you think about how typical bike cables resist coiling, the term
"non-flexible" seems reasonable.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
dabac
carl...@comcast.net Wrote:
>
> If you think about how typical bike cables resist coiling, the term
> "non-flexible" seems reasonable.
What do you mean by resistance to coiling here? With anything spun I
can think of at least two:
1) resistance when being bent to a small radius
2) a tendency for each successive loop to strive for another angle in
the plane than the loop prior, i.e. not creating a nice and flat coil
as you go along.
#1 will always occur. Different cables will have different ideas of
what the critical radius is though.
#2 Can easily be avoided if the lay of the cable is considered and
compensated for during coiling. The fool-proof way of doing this is to
lay the cable flat, and then coiling it as if rolling it around an
imaginary wheel.
--
dabac