Tied and soldered spokes.
thirty-six
Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded.
Marc
> Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
> radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded.
Just zis Guy, you know?
In your opinion. Virtually nobody else agrees and you've already lost
that argument more than once under different nyms, so that's an end to
it really.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
bugbear
> Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
> radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded.
When did USENET get a F***king twitter feed?
BugBear
Louis Genou
> Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
> radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded.
Rubbing a raw Cumberland sausage on your garden gate will diminish the
possibility of an elephant running rampage in your garden.
--
Louis Genou
President of teh Europes
Zog The Undeniable
> Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
> radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded.
Hello Trevor. Are they being nasty to you over in r.b.t. again?
I remember when this used to be a newsgroup.
Tom Anderson
Played for, and got.
tom
--
Space Travel is Another Word for Love!
Ian Smith
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Marc wrote:
>
> > thirty-six wrote:
> >> Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
> >> radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded.
> >
> > A desperate troll for attention.
>
> Played for, and got.
Out of interest, however, has anyone ever seen a purely radial buckle
on a bicycle wheel?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Marc
You mean on the same sort of lines as
"how do you hide an elephant in a lemon tree?"
"Paint it's toe nails yellow!
"I've never seen an elephant in a lemon tree!"
"See? That's how well the disguise works"!
thirty-six
that passed a long time back.
thirty-six
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:22:32 +0000, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Marc wrote:
>
> > > thirty-six wrote:
> > >> Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
> > >> radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded.
>
> > > A desperate troll for attention.
>
> > Played for, and got.
>
> Out of interest, however, has anyone ever seen a purely radial buckle
> on a bicycle wheel?
If you find yourself a 400g shallow section rim I can give you a
description of horw to perform a radial buckle when 'building', for
that is how i managed to get mine. It takes a bit of effort to get it
this wrong, but actually doing it this bad was enlightening to me.
james...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:22:32 +0000, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Marc wrote:
>
> > > thirty-six wrote:
> > >> Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
> > >> radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded.
>
> > > A desperate troll for attention.
>
> > Played for, and got.
>
> Out of interest, however, has anyone ever seen a purely radial buckle
> on a bicycle wheel?
I've dented a rim wall (think severe pinch flat territory). Does that
count?
James
Ian Smith
I don't think so. In fact, it would tend to demonstrate the case that
they don't happen - you can hit the rim hard enough to cause plastic
material failure and no radial buckle occurred.
But wait - did you have tied-and-soldered spokes?
Perhaps that prevented it becoming a radial buckle?
Naqerj
> On Fri, 20 Nov, james...@gmail.com <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 3:38 am, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Out of interest, however, has anyone ever seen a purely radial
>>> buckle on a bicycle wheel?
>> I've dented a rim wall (think severe pinch flat territory). Does
>> that count?
>
> I don't think so. In fact, it would tend to demonstrate the case that
> they don't happen - you can hit the rim hard enough to cause plastic
> material failure and no radial buckle occurred.
>
Like James, I've dented a rim wall but without buckling the rim as a
whole - I have seen a radial buckle, but in a motor cycle wheel. I
reckon it is possible to radial buckle a wheel but you have to hit it
very hard indeed. The other thing with a pedal cycle wheel is that to
get a purely radial buckle you'd not only have to hit it very hard, but
also dead square, otherwise it will buckle laterally as well. Then you
could argue for days about whether that counts as a radial buckle.
--
Andrew
Naqerj
> On Fri, 20 Nov, james...@gmail.com <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 3:38 am, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Out of interest, however, has anyone ever seen a purely radial
>>> buckle on a bicycle wheel?
>> I've dented a rim wall (think severe pinch flat territory). Does
>> that count?
>
> I don't think so. In fact, it would tend to demonstrate the case that
> they don't happen - you can hit the rim hard enough to cause plastic
> material failure and no radial buckle occurred.
>
Like James, I've dented a rim wall but without buckling the rim as a
thirty-six
> Ian Smith wrote:
I'm guessing this wasn't a motocross wheel which had the crossings
tied and soldered, because they do it so as not to collapse wheels.
More likely the trailing and leading spokes dont touch so the wheel is
unable to benefit from the locking together of spokes as required by
Palmer. (No not Harold, but C A). When the load is big enough in
comparison to the radial stiffness, the rim will buckle, this is
epecially prevelant in lightweight bicycle rims and I mean 10oz and
less. These do get trashed (did) because of radial buckling. The
wheels which were susceptible were not tied and soldered, those that
were tied would have their ties examined and possibly re-soldered
before the start of a new season.
Ian Smith
It would be relatively simple to determine whether it was a radial
buckle - you'd need to plot distance of rim from hub centre and
see if you had an elastic-type variation from constant, then destress
the wheel and see if it recovers.
Every lateral buckle I've seen on a bicycle wheel looks like a
near-enough purely lateral buckle - the 'pringles' look. I don't
think you can load a bicycle wheel on a bicycle to a level that causes
a radial buckle without first triggering either a plastic failure, or
a lateral buckle.
It's like an euler strut - you can't actually make pin-ended strut
buckle into a two-half-wave mode (even though such a load and failure
exists mathematically) , because it will fail to a one-half-wave mode
first.
Clive George
news:slrnhght3...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...
> It's like an euler strut - you can't actually make pin-ended strut
> buckle into a two-half-wave mode (even though such a load and failure
> exists mathematically) , because it will fail to a one-half-wave mode
> first.
Is the former S-shape and the latter C-shape? (or maybe (-shape :-) )
Ian Smith
Yes - if you load a pin-ended strut axially it can (in theory) buckle
to one of any number of modes, but because the first buckling mode can
occur at a lower force than any of the others, it happens first.
So in principle you can load a strut and have it buckle in an S-shape
with two half waves, but in practice, unless you do very specific
things, it will buckle to a C-shape before you get to the load that
the maths says can cause a S-shape. [Specific things would include
restraining the mid-point in such a way that it can't deflect but can
rotate - then you'd be likely to get a S-shape buckle].
Likewise, I think you'll always get a lateral buckle from a wheel
before you get a radial buckle. You might get a material failure
before you get a radial buckle, but I'm not sure about that (which can
also occur in the strut case - if your strut is stiff enough, you
might actually crush it before it buckles).
thirty-six
> Likewise, I think you'll always get a lateral buckle from a wheel
> before you get a radial buckle.
If always, then wheels have too poor a lateral stability. The loads
are predominantly radial so radial failures should be the dominant
failure mode. The radial buckle is caused by rotation of the rim wrt
the hub, making 1/2 the spokes tighten and half of them slacken. It's
something you may see on a motorcross wheel but unlikely on anything
but the lightest rimmed bicycle wheels prbably powered by Chris Hoy.
> You might get a material failure
> before you get a radial buckle, but I'm not sure about that (which can
> also occur in the strut case - if your strut is stiff enough, you
> might actually crush it before it buckles).
Thin walled rims, less than 1mm have curved braking surfaces which
help to prevent crumpling.
Naqerj
Ah, we're not talking about quite the same thing, I think. The motor
cycle wheel I saw had a plastic failure of the rim - the rim ended up
heart-shaped.
--
Andrew
Naqerj
> On 22 Nov, 18:08, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Likewise, I think you'll always get a lateral buckle from a wheel
>> before you get a radial buckle.
>
> If always, then wheels have too poor a lateral stability.
The other way round: it that the radial stability than is greater than
strictly necessary, rather than lateral stability being poor. Even
lateral stability is greater than necessary - a bicycle wheel works
perfectly well in a tricycle, which subjects it to more lateral force
than a bicycle does.
The high proportion of radial stability compared to lateral is pretty
much determined by the shape of the space the wheel has to fit into.
--
Andrew
thirty-six
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:16:35 +0000, Naqerj <pat...@globalnet.co.invalid> wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
Which doesn't mean it was not radially buckled and it is still a cycle
wheel.
thirty-six
> thirty-six wrote:
> > On 22 Nov, 18:08, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Likewise, I think you'll always get a lateral buckle from a wheel
> >> before you get a radial buckle.
>
> > If always, then wheels have too poor a lateral stability.
>
> The other way round: it that the radial stability than is greater than
> strictly necessary, rather than lateral stability being poor.
I dont comprehend this. ^
> Even
> lateral stability is greater than necessary - a bicycle wheel works
> perfectly well in a tricycle, which subjects it to more lateral force
> than a bicycle does.
A tricycle wheel usually has cantilever axles which are thicker and
flange offset is greater on the dual track axle. A bicycle wheel can
only be used for the single track axle, if the machine is ridden hard.
>
> The high proportion of radial stability compared to lateral is pretty
> much determined by the shape of the space the wheel has to fit into.
If the 3" flange spacing on 27/28" wheels was determined to be good a
century ago and so standardized then, then it's good for today.
Materials have changed. Specifically the choice of stainless spokes.
These require specific attention if they are to match the performance
of carbon steel spokes.
Clive George
news:9f22db95-df98-4853...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>Materials have changed. Specifically the choice of stainless spokes.
>These require specific attention if they are to match the performance
>of carbon steel spokes.
Filing notches or applying strong acid?
The weird thing is despite the peculiarities of your build process, your
wheels probably turn out ok, because you probably do put enough tension in
them rather than the low value you claim to. Come to Settle and I'll measure
your spoke tension. The riding here is good - lots of steep hills to
practice descending on.
thirty-six
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
i'VE ASSESSED tension using musical pitch and it equated to 170lbf
for a 36 spoke heavy duty sprint wheel usin g 15swg carbon steel
spokes. But I dont build to a tension. I build to a desired wheel
response. Stop being obsessed about spoke tension, it is wheel
response which is important, not some number on a hoogywotsit. There
is an ideal spoke tension which is best determined through testing of
the completed wheel. I use a cobbled road if I am unsure after using
static load testing.
Keitht
> > i'VE ASSESSED tension using musical pitch and it equated to 170lbf
> for a 36 spoke heavy duty sprint wheel usin g 15swg carbon steel
> spokes.
How do you get from pitch to lbf?
It's got me baffled, you must have some amazing testing gear.
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
thirty-six
A micrometer to check the spoke gauge at 14swg (0.080DIA) a steel
ruler to check spoke length (12") and a chromatic tuner with a clip
on microphone to measure musical pitch. Of course I don't need to use
any of these to build wheels to excellent standards. It is though,
nice to check the wheel, following a few good whacks, with the tuner
to see that its stability has remained. Very slight variences are
sometimes observed but have not been more than 15% of a semitone and
dont get any worse if left. It is necessary in this instance to
accurately balance pitch in the first place using the tuner so as to
provide a reference pitch.
leandr42
> thirty-six wrote:
>
>> > i'VE ASSESSED tension using musical pitch and it equated to 170lbf
>> for a 36 spoke heavy duty sprint wheel usin g 15swg carbon steel
>> spokes.
>
>
> How do you get from pitch to lbf?
>
> It's got me baffled, you must have some amazing testing gear.
I know you probably weren't expecting a serious answer, but there is one:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/string.html
Should work pretty well if you use guitar strings (preferably unwound) in
place of spokes.
How well it works for double butted I wouldn't like to guess, but it
should get you in the right ball park.
--
Rob
thirty-six
Forgot to answer your put question. I used a table to give the
frequency of the musical pitch notation indicated on my £5 Lidl
tuner. I then used an algerbraic formula to determine the tension in
the wire based on its weight, length and frequency IIRC. The actual
tension of the spoke makes no difference to me because I work well
within the safe stresses of the materials in hand. If I was to build
up wheels will stupid light rims, as well as using steel washers, I
would make some calculations on wether the resulting spoke tension
could be continually carried by the rim. I have been happy to build
28 spoke and up wheels without recourse to measuring spoke tension or
calculation. A lightweight 24 spoke is pushing it for me because I
dont have the experience with these rare rims.
Naqerj
>
> A tricycle wheel usually has cantilever axles which are thicker
and make no difference to the strength of the wheel.
> and
> flange offset is greater on the dual track axle.
The rear hubs on my Holdsworth trike are 3" across the flanges. The
front hub on my son's Dawes road bike is 3" across the flanges. (I
compared with the Dawes, because that's a normal hub. The front hub in
the Holdsworth trike is a large flanged drum brake and narrower than a
normal bike hub [1] - it needs spacers between the lock nuts and the
fork ends.)
The only trike wheels I have that are wider than normal are from atandem
trike.
> A bicycle wheel can
> only be used for the single track axle,
Well, yes, because that's the only place it will fit!
> if the machine is ridden hard.
>
>> The high proportion of radial stability compared to lateral is pretty
>> much determined by the shape of the space the wheel has to fit into.
>
> If the 3" flange spacing on 27/28" wheels was determined to be good a
> century ago and so standardized then, then it's good for today.
Exactly. So if it's good, how can you say that wheels have too poor a
lateral stability?
[1] I do not know why it is narrower - it just is.
--
Andrew
Naqerj
Agreed - it is a bit like changing the rules in the middle of the game
to disallow plastic failure at this point but, in fairness, it does seem
to be what Ian meant all along, even if he didn't say it. After all, if
you're determined enough, you can get plastic failure of a wheel in
pretty much any direction you choose.
--
Andrew
Ian Smith
> thirty-six wrote:
> > On 23 Nov, 22:29, Naqerj <pat...@globalnet.co.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Ah, we're not talking about quite the same thing, I think. The
> >> motor cycle wheel I saw had a plastic failure of the rim - the
> >> rim ended up heart-shaped.
> >
> > Which doesn't mean it was not radially buckled and it is still a
> > cycle wheel.
>
> Agreed - it is a bit like changing the rules in the middle of the
> game to disallow plastic failure at this point but, in fairness, it
> does seem to be what Ian meant all along, even if he didn't say it.
Eh? At what point was the conversation about anything other than
buckling? I only recall discussion about radial buckling, so I'm at a
loss to understand why it would automatically be assumed that all
other modes of failure are deemed to be included.
I said (the totality of my posting that started this part of teh
thread) "Out of interest, however, has anyone ever seen a purely
radial buckle on a bicycle wheel?"
How is that NOT setting out that the case I was considering was
buckling (indeed, _purely_ radial buckling).
It was in response (with a few intervening postings) to teh assertion
"Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded."
In what possible way is it unclear that this was not about buckling?
All teh stuff about analogy with euler struts - if it wasn't evidently
an elastic regime, what did you think that was about?
For the record, my comments were not addressing the case of melting of
the wheel, either. Nor vaporisation, or combustion. In fact, there
are a very great number of things that could happen to a wheel that
render it non-serviceable, but which are not buckling, and I wasn't
thinking about while discussing buckling.
Also - since it's apparently reasonable to criticise someone for not
saying what they are not talking about, I would like to clarify that
my postings about bicycle wheels had nothing whatsoever to do with
meringues, aardvarks, talcum powder or power-over-ethernet midspan
injectors.
I hope that clears up the outstanding confusion amongst people that
thought that when talking about radial buckling of bicycle wheels I
might have intended the topic of conversation to encompass lots of
other things too.
thirty-six
> thirty-six wrote:
>
> > A tricycle wheel usually has cantilever axles which are thicker
>
> and make no difference to the strength of the wheel.
Yeah, but it means you cant use a bicycle wheel on the dual track
axle, it must be a tricycle wheel. ; )
>
> > and
> > flange offset is greater on the dual track axle.
>
> The rear hubs on my Holdsworth trike are 3" across the flanges. The
> front hub on my son's Dawes road bike is 3" across the flanges. (I
> compared with the Dawes, because that's a normal hub. The front hub in
> the Holdsworth trike is a large flanged drum brake and narrower than a
> normal bike hub [1] - it needs spacers between the lock nuts and the
> fork ends.)
>
> The only trike wheels I have that are wider than normal are from atandem
> trike.
What I was getting at was that the rim is offset to the flanges. I
realise this is not necessarily always the case but that is what I
have seen on lightweight tricycles.
> > If the 3" flange spacing on 27/28" wheels was determined to be good a
> > century ago and so standardized then, then it's good for today.
>
> Exactly. So if it's good, how can you say that wheels have too poor a
> lateral stability?
>
What wheel, what did I say?
thirty-six
I did manage to achieve radial plastic buckling of a bike rim through
being pig-headed. It was not on the agenda.
Naqerj
>
> What I was getting at was that the rim is offset to the flanges. I
> realise this is not necessarily always the case but that is what I
> have seen on lightweight tricycles.
Oh, I see. I don't think that's generally the case though - none of my
trikes has offset wheels and I've never noticed an offset on anyone
else's trikes at TA rides. Mind you, I haven't been looking for it.
I'll have to take more notice at our next gathering.
It's a neat idea though. I was about to start arguing that such an
offset would be pointless because, at first sight, it doesn't seem as if
it would make any difference - it would increase lateral strength in one
direction, but lessen it the other and, with a pair of wheels, the
effect would near enough balance out. But then I realised that, when
you're cornering quickly, most of the weight is on the outside wheel, so
offsetting the rim towards the middle could be advantageous...
I'm tempted to try it.
Oh, come to think of it, I already have ... sort of ... a bit. But at
the opposite end of the scale from a lightweight trike - it's an Ivy
carrier tricycle dating from around 1910 - beaded edge rims and those
strange solid rubber tyres that you only get on carrier trikes. You'd
think a thing like that would be difficult to forget but, somehow, I
often do when I'm talking about trikes. Maybe I don't think of it as
coming into the category of trikes; it's better catalogued under
deathtraps. Anyway, the front wheels have drum brakes on the inside.
However, the outside flange, the hub body and the brake drum are not
fixed to one another, which means that the brake can't transmit any
torsion to the outer flange. So I spoked it tangentially on the inside
and radially on the outside...
>
>>> If the 3" flange spacing on 27/28" wheels was determined to be good a
>>> century ago and so standardized then, then it's good for today.
>> Exactly. So if it's good, how can you say that wheels have too poor a
>> lateral stability?
>>
> What wheel, what did I say?
Ian said:
> I think you'll always get a lateral buckle from a wheel
> before you get a radial buckle.
To which you replied
> If always, then wheels have too poor a lateral stability. The loads
> are predominantly radial so radial failures should be the dominant
> failure mode.
...but don't fret about it.
--
Andrew
Naqerj
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Naqerj <pat...@globalnet.co.invalid> wrote:
>> thirty-six wrote:
>>> On 23 Nov, 22:29, Naqerj <pat...@globalnet.co.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Ah, we're not talking about quite the same thing, I think. The
>>>> motor cycle wheel I saw had a plastic failure of the rim - the
>>>> rim ended up heart-shaped.
>>> Which doesn't mean it was not radially buckled and it is still a
>>> cycle wheel.
>> Agreed - it is a bit like changing the rules in the middle of the
>> game to disallow plastic failure at this point but, in fairness, it
>> does seem to be what Ian meant all along, even if he didn't say it.
>
> Eh? At what point was the conversation about anything other than
> buckling? I only recall discussion about radial buckling, so I'm at a
> loss to understand why it would automatically be assumed that all
> other modes of failure are deemed to be included.
According to my dictionary [1] 'buckle' means to crumple under pressure.
This does not exclude plastic failure.
Why do you insist on being so belligerently argumentative about everything?
>
> I said (the totality of my posting that started this part of teh
> thread) "Out of interest, however, has anyone ever seen a purely
> radial buckle on a bicycle wheel?"
>
> How is that NOT setting out that the case I was considering was
> buckling (indeed, _purely_ radial buckling).
>
> It was in response (with a few intervening postings) to teh assertion
> "Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
> radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded."
>
> In what possible way is it unclear that this was not about buckling?
>
> All teh stuff about analogy with euler struts - if it wasn't evidently
> an elastic regime, what did you think that was about?
Now you're just being dishonest. The Euler strut business is obviously
elastic but that posting came later, didn't it? You've just quoted the
*totality* of your posting that started this and neither "Euler" or
"strut" appears in it.
Clearly, you believe that you are incapable of ever making any mistakes,
however trivial, and will even redefine the language rather than
compromise your illusion of infallibility.
It's clearly pointless to try and have any sort of reasonable
conversation with you, so I won't try to any longer. Goodbye.
[1] Pocket Oxford was the one that fell to hand.
--
Andrew
thirty-six
> thirty-six wrote:
>
> > What I was getting at was that the rim is offset to the flanges. I
> > realise this is not necessarily always the case but that is what I
> > have seen on lightweight tricycles.
>
> Oh, I see. I don't think that's generally the case though - none of my
> trikes has offset wheels and I've never noticed an offset on anyone
> else's trikes at TA rides. Mind you, I haven't been looking for it.
> I'll have to take more notice at our next gathering.
>
> It's a neat idea though. I was about to start arguing that such an
> offset would be pointless because, at first sight, it doesn't seem as if
> it would make any difference - it would increase lateral strength in one
> direction, but lessen it the other and, with a pair of wheels, the
> effect would near enough balance out. But then I realised that, when
> you're cornering quickly, most of the weight is on the outside wheel, so
> offsetting the rim towards the middle could be advantageous...
I'm not entirely convinced it is advantageous and it may have been a
peculiarity of a a local barrow builder. If an offset is beneficial
II think the maximum woul be a 2:1 ratio. Because of the side forces
a trike rider cannot avoid, it becomes more important to ensure
interlacing stability. It was poor lateral stability on a racing
wheel which promted me to look at the interlace significance.
>
> I'm tempted to try it.
>
> Oh, come to think of it, I already have ... sort of ... a bit. But at
> the opposite end of the scale from a lightweight trike - it's an Ivy
> carrier tricycle dating from around 1910 - beaded edge rims and those
> strange solid rubber tyres that you only get on carrier trikes. You'd
> think a thing like that would be difficult to forget but, somehow, I
> often do when I'm talking about trikes. Maybe I don't think of it as
> coming into the category of trikes; it's better catalogued under
> deathtraps. Anyway, the front wheels have drum brakes on the inside.
> However, the outside flange, the hub body and the brake drum are not
> fixed to one another, which means that the brake can't transmit any
> torsion to the outer flange. So I spoked it tangentially on the inside
> and radially on the outside...
>
>
>
> >>> If the 3" flange spacing on 27/28" wheels was determined to be good a
> >>> century ago and so standardized then, then it's good for today.
> >> Exactly. So if it's good, how can you say that wheels have too poor a
> >> lateral stability?
>
> > What wheel, what did I say?
>
> Ian said:
>
> > I think you'll always get a lateral buckle from a wheel
> > before you get a radial buckle.
>
> To which you replied
>
// If always, then [THOSE] wheels have too poor a lateral
stability.
Sorry if it was left a little ambiguous for you.
Ian Smith
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Naqerj <pat...@globalnet.co.invalid> wrote:
> >> thirty-six wrote:
> >>> On 23 Nov, 22:29, Naqerj <pat...@globalnet.co.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> Agreed - it is a bit like changing the rules in the middle of the
> >> game to disallow plastic failure at this point but, in fairness, it
> >> does seem to be what Ian meant all along, even if he didn't say it.
> >
> > Eh? At what point was the conversation about anything other than
> > buckling? I only recall discussion about radial buckling, so I'm
> > at a loss to understand why it would automatically be assumed that
> > all other modes of failure are deemed to be included.
>
> According to my dictionary [1] 'buckle' means to crumple under pressure.
> This does not exclude plastic failure.
>
> Why do you insist on being so belligerently argumentative about
> everything?
You seem to have mis-spelled "accurate".
I like to be accurate. In a technical discussion on a technical
topic, I tend to assume that it's a pre-requisite to be accurate.
If I wanted to discuss plastic failure, I would say something about
plastic failure. I was specifically addressing the case of buckling,
which seemed to be what 36 was specifically talking about, and as a
consequence I only said anything about buckling.
For some reason, when you realised that I was actually talking about
what I was talking about you characterised this as "changing the rules
in the middle of the game".
Why do you insist on being so snide about everything?
> > I said (the totality of my posting that started this part of teh
> > thread) "Out of interest, however, has anyone ever seen a purely
> > radial buckle on a bicycle wheel?"
> >
> > How is that NOT setting out that the case I was considering was
> > buckling (indeed, _purely_ radial buckling).
> >
> > It was in response (with a few intervening postings) to teh assertion
> > "Tying and soldering the spokes will diminish the possibility of a
> > radial buckle in a lighweight rim when heavily loaded."
> >
> > In what possible way is it unclear that this was not about buckling?
> >
> > All teh stuff about analogy with euler struts - if it wasn't evidently
> > an elastic regime, what did you think that was about?
>
> Now you're just being dishonest. The Euler strut business is obviously
> elastic but that posting came later, didn't it? You've just quoted the
> *totality* of your posting that started this and neither "Euler" or
> "strut" appears in it.
"All the stuff" was subsequent in the thread - between the first post
and the last post. I don't think it's dishonest to refer to things
said in the thread. I didn't claim it was in the first post - indeed,
I explicitly provided what was in the first post. I don't know how
much clearer it can be that Euler struts wer enot in teh first post
other than post the entirety of the thread into every single message.
I did not say Euler struts was in my first post. I explicitly
provided the totality of the first post, and there's nothing about
struts in it. You've just decided to pretend I made claims I have not
in order to make some more insinuations. Why so snide?
> Clearly, you believe that you are incapable of ever making any
> mistakes, however trivial, and will even redefine the language
> rather than compromise your illusion of infallibility.
You forget that it is me that is using the word buckling to refer to
buckling. It is you that is using the word "buckle" to mean
(apparently) any failure of any sort (or at least, one of an undefined
range of different failures). I'm quite happy to discuss other
failure modes if you want to introduce them, but when I discuss
buckling, I am (shock!) discussing buckling.
You, on the other hand, would rather make repeated insinuation and
accusation - now you've decided that me insisting that when I talk
about buckling I'm talking about buckling must mean that I think I am
incapable of making mistakes.
Do you like presenting this nasty, poisonous, snide persona?
Mark McNeill
> Anyway, the front wheels have drum brakes on the inside.
> However, the outside flange, the hub body and the brake drum are not
> fixed to one another, which means that the brake can't transmit any
> torsion to the outer flange. So I spoked it tangentially on the
> inside and radially on the outside...
Same arrangement on the all-carbon Windcheetahs, if memory serves.
--
Mark, UK.