Straight-pull spoked wheels snapping spokes
Paul Dale
strong, but
they snap spokes quite often. (5, on 2 occasions, in about 150 miles). Hubs
are Rond cartridge bearing, Rims Mavic 517, the straight spokes don't have a
name on them. They always snap right at the head, rear wheel.
My riding is not too heavy, and my previous wheels, (Suntour hub, Ritchey
Vantage Comp rims), went 6 years no real problems. (Certainly no snapped
spokes.) My riding style hasn't changed, but I expected this type of wheel
to be stronger.
Some local bike shops say the wheels were built 'OK'; I've looked on the
web, but can't find any opinions on straight-pull wheels.
Should I consider having them rebuilt with different spokes?
Or is this type of wheel a dud?
(Remove X from email name to reply, ta).
ERust3
simple as bad spokes, it's rare, but it happens. It could be the tension isn't
correct - your shop should be able to check this. If all else fails, contact
the manufacturer for assistance, maybe they can suggest a reason why your
spokes are breaking. And, last but not least, if you are a heavy rider riding
on light-weight wheels or any rider abusing equipment it will break. I haven't
had very many problems with any quality wheelset that was built properly and
tensioned/trued correctly also. Hope this helps.
trey
Andy Dingley
>I bought some straight-pull spoke wheels for my MTB,
What's a "straight pull" here ? You're talking about hubs where the
spoke head is in-line, not bent into an elbow ?
>They always snap right at the head, rear wheel.
What's the lacing pattern ? 3 cross, radial or half-radial ? Which
side snaps; drive or non-drive ?
--
Smert' Spamionam
Phil Holman
quality spokes can break at any position on a wheel. They are breaking at
the point which is supposed to be the advantage of a straight pull spoke so
I figure they have a stress concentration at that location. Maybe a
manufacturing/engineering problem with the forming of the head combined with
inferior spoke material. One of many possibilities.
Phil Holman
Andy Dingley wrote in message ...
Damon Rinard
>
> They are breaking at
> the point which is supposed to be the advantage of a straight pull spoke so
> I figure they have a stress concentration at that location.
You bet they do. It's the sudden change in cross section between the
spoke shaft and the spoke head.
> Maybe a
> manufacturing/engineering problem with the forming of the head
You bet it is. Residual stresses from forming the head.
See http://www.goride.com/framet3.htm for an artist's rendering and an
explanation.
And from http://www.goride.com/framefaq.html:
"While it was generally believed that common straight pull spokes would
be stronger than conventional spokes with an "elbow" bend, this has not
proven to be the case. In addition, common straight pull spokes have
some notable disadvantages. First, there is nothing to keep the spoke
from spinning in the hub during tensioning. This means that you may have
manually inhibit the spoke from rotating by using pliers or similar.
These tools can damage the surface of the spoke. Even a tiny surface
nick can lead to a stress riser in the shaft of the spoke, which creates
an area susceptible to breakage.
"The second disadvantage is that the head, which is the weakest part of
the spoke, is directly loaded in tension, i.e. - the weakest part of the
spoke bears the most load. Dynamic stresses concentrate precisely in the
area that is least capable of handling them."
> combined with
> inferior spoke material. One of many possibilities.
> Phil Holman
> Andy Dingley wrote in message ...
> >"Paul Dale" <Xpaul...@dtn.ntl.com> a écrit :
> >
> >>I bought some straight-pull spoke wheels for my MTB,
> >
> >What's a "straight pull" here ? You're talking about hubs where the
> >spoke head is in-line, not bent into an elbow ?
> >
> >>They always snap right at the head, rear wheel.
> >
> >What's the lacing pattern ? 3 cross, radial or half-radial ? Which
> >side snaps; drive or non-drive ?
> >
> >--
> >Smert' Spamionam
--
Damon Rinard
Damon Rinard's Bicycle Tech Site:
http://www.damonrinard.com/
Paul Dale
I think the links from Damon Rinards posting explain the problem. Guess I'll
have the rear rebuilt with the strongest spoke I can find. (Anyone know what
that is?)
If they still keep snapping after that, I'll sell them. Not here though, eh?
;-)
Regards, Paul.
Paul Dale wrote in message ...
Jobst Brandt
> I think the links from Damon Rinards posting explain the problem.
> Guess I'll have the rear rebuilt with the strongest spoke I can
> find. (Anyone know what that is?) If they still keep snapping after
> that, I'll sell them.
I don't think that is the conclusion upon which you should arrive from
the discussion, at least not in the sense of highest tensile strength.
You would do best with a swaged spoke because you need one that is
more durable against stress cycles, of which a spoke should withstand
millions. A straight gauge fat spoke will give the greatest tensile
strength but not the most durable one for your use.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
>> They are breaking at the point which is supposed to be the
>> advantage of a straight pull spoke so I figure they have a stress
>> concentration at that location.
> You bet they do. It's the sudden change in cross section between the
> spoke shaft and the spoke head.
>> Maybe a manufacturing/engineering problem with the forming of the
>> head.
> You bet it is. Residual stresses from forming the head.
It's probably that but more importantly, structure in the head is
about as unpredictable as crushing paper. Grain alignment in drawn
wire is longitudinal and cold forming a head onto the end of a wire
disturbs this uniform structure. That is the main reason why this is
the weakest place on a spoke. The elbowed spoke does not pull
directly on the head, and therefore, transfers most of its load to the
flange by a stronger part of the spoke.
> See http://www.goride.com/framet3.htm for an artist's rendering and an
> explanation.
* Velomax eliminates this work hardened head by threading the spokes
* directly into the hub. It's a simple, elegant solution to an age
* old problem - but it's based on sound engineering principles.
This is an even older solution that has its own problems both with
spoke failure and spoke thread extraction. Spoke threads are full of
residual stress that results in failures even with swaged spokes if
not adequately stress relieved. Even then, the reduction in cross
section causes a stress concentration that can initiate cracks. When
such a spoke fails, it often fails several thread inside the hub, that
being the place where load transfer takes place. Spoke extraction is a
difficult problem in such a failure. That is one reason why these
hubs vanished with high wheel bicycles, the other is that one damaged
thread ruins the entire hub.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Paul Dale
Thanks for guiding me... My conclusions from the postings are:
i. Straight pull spokes with a head are putting most force on the weakest
point, (The head), so they are prone to snapping there;
ii. Velomax puts threads on both ends of their straight spokes to help this
problem;
iii. Swaged, (butted ?), spokes are more elastic than straight gauge ones,
so will put less stress on the head, also helping the problem.
My spokes at present are double butted, (thick at hub, thinner in middle,
thick at nipple). So I assume I should rebuild using tripple butted, (more
elasticity?), and properly 'stress-relieve' spokes after building?
Regards,
Paul.
Jobst Brandt wrote in message <8bocf3$gv6$5...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>...
Jobst Brandt
> Hi Jobst!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not send me personal mail that ends up posted on a news group.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for guiding me... My conclusions from the postings are:
> i. Straight pull spokes with a head are putting most force on the weakest
> point, (The head), so they are prone to snapping there;
> ii. Velomax puts threads on both ends of their straight spokes to help this
> problem;
> iii. Swaged, (butted ?), spokes are more elastic than straight gauge ones,
> so will put less stress on the head, also helping the problem.
> My spokes at present are double butted, (thick at hub, thinner in middle,
> thick at nipple). So I assume I should rebuild using tripple butted, (more
> elasticity?), and properly 'stress-relieve' spokes after building?
> Regards,
> Paul.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Nick Keyes
<Xpaul...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
#I bought some straight-pull spoke wheels for my MTB, expecting they'd
be
#strong, but
#they snap spokes quite often. (5, on 2 occasions, in about 150
miles). Hubs
They always snap right at the head, rear wheel.
I have read through 10 postings under the header and there is some
great information. The one one aspect of this I haven't seen is: I
thought straight spokes on a rear wheel was nearly taboo due to
rotational forces from pedal and traction. This is an even bigger
problem on a Mountain Bike with lower gearing. Everything I have read
about it says you need to use a cross pattern on at least one side of
your drive wheel.
alex wetmore
news:38e0fe3e...@news.cmc.net...
> I have read through 10 postings under the header and there is some
> great information. The one one aspect of this I haven't seen is: I
> thought straight spokes on a rear wheel was nearly taboo due to
> rotational forces from pedal and traction. This is an even bigger
> problem on a Mountain Bike with lower gearing. Everything I have read
> about it says you need to use a cross pattern on at least one side of
> your drive wheel.
This thread has been about straight-pull spokes (ie, those with no bend at
the hub end), not radially spoked wheels. I think that you are getting the
two confused. They are different things.
I do have a question about straight pull spoked. Jobst had mentioned a
wheel system where the hub was threaded, the spokes had threads on both
ends, and then a nipple was used in the rim. The problem with this was that
the hub threads could strip, trashing the hub. Has anyone built a system
which uses nipples at the hub interface and the rim interface?
I don't see an advantage for this system, except that a wheel building
company could easily modify existing spokes (just buy long ones, cut off the
bend/head and thread the spoke there), rims, and nipples. They would just
need to make a special hub.
alex
Jobst Brandt
> I have read through 10 postings under the header and there is some
> great information. The one one aspect of this I haven't seen is: I
> thought straight spokes on a rear wheel was nearly taboo due to
> rotational forces from pedal and traction. This is an even bigger
> problem on a Mountain Bike with lower gearing. Everything I have
> read about it says you need to use a cross pattern on at least one
> side of your drive wheel.
Wheels with elbow-less spokes have cross laced pattern for that
reason. They are not radially spoked.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Phil Holman
>wheel system where the hub was threaded, the spokes had threads on both
>ends, and then a nipple was used in the rim. The problem with this was
that
>the hub threads could strip, trashing the hub. Has anyone built a system
>which uses nipples at the hub interface and the rim interface?
>
>I don't see an advantage for this system, except that a wheel building
>company could easily modify existing spokes (just buy long ones, cut off
the
>bend/head and thread the spoke there), rims, and nipples. They would just
>need to make a special hub.
>
>alex
goes through an elaborately machined hub flange. The touted advantage is
higher spoke tension with less spokes and the additional nipple mass on a
much smaller turning radius. Don't look to be able to notice any performance
improvement.
Phil Holman
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> I do have a question about straight pull spoked. Jobst had mentioned a
> wheel system where the hub was threaded, the spokes had threads on both
> ends, and then a nipple was used in the rim. The problem with this was that
> the hub threads could strip, trashing the hub. Has anyone built a system
> which uses nipples at the hub interface and the rim interface?
Yes, there are several on the market, I believe. IIRC the Cane Creek
wheels use this design.
I saw another option last Thursday at the LBS- a Shimano wheel with the
spoke elbow hooked into a hole in the sidewall of the rim and the
nipples threaded through an "arm" on the hub. Looks like a recipe for
rim failure to me, with all the spoke tension being loaded onto a very
small area in the sidewall of the rim- resulting in highly localized
stresses and probably some deformation of the sidewall. Any opinions
about the engineering of this design?
> I don't see an advantage for this system, except that a wheel building
> company could easily modify existing spokes (just buy long ones, cut off the
> bend/head and thread the spoke there), rims, and nipples. They would just
> need to make a special hub.
The cheaper alternative would be just to order them from the spoke
manufacturer already threaded at both ends. The labor costs for doing
what you suggest would exceed the cost of the spokes.
Bob Mitke
>Looks like a recipe for
>rim failure to me, with all the spoke tension being loaded onto a very
>small area in the sidewall of the rim- resulting in highly localized
>stresses and probably some deformation of the sidewall. Any opinions
>about the engineering of this design?
This localized stress and deformation occurs on the spoke bed of
traditionally designed rims also. Furthermore, traditionally designed hub
flanges provide the same boundary conditions as the Shimano rim does.
The rim needs to be properly designed.
Anyone sectioned the Shimano rim to measure the wall thickness and
internal geometry?
-Bob Mitke
alex wetmore
news:280320002235586041%tim...@mr.net...
> > I don't see an advantage for this system, except that a wheel building
> > company could easily modify existing spokes (just buy long ones, cut off
the
> > bend/head and thread the spoke there), rims, and nipples. They would
just
> > need to make a special hub.
>
> The cheaper alternative would be just to order them from the spoke
> manufacturer already threaded at both ends. The labor costs for doing
> what you suggest would exceed the cost of the spokes.
Yes, I was mostly thinking of this as an advantage once the company goes
under and their special spokes are no longer available.
That said, I've had custom length spokes cut and rolled for me for only
about 5 to 10 cents more then the regular per spoke price.
alex
Jobst Brandt
> I saw another option last Thursday at the LBS- a Shimano wheel with
> the spoke elbow hooked into a hole in the sidewall of the rim and
> the nipples threaded through an "arm" on the hub. Looks like a
> recipe for rim failure to me, with all the spoke tension being
> loaded onto a very small area in the sidewall of the rim- resulting
> in highly localized stresses and probably some deformation of the
> sidewall.
If you look closely, you'll see that the side wall is wrinkled at the
spoke attachment even though the spoke load rests on a stress
spreading washer. This means the side wall is at the yield stress and
will probably have a short fatigue life, but we can wait and see.
There are enough people who will try anything. On the 0other hand, I
admire the innovation that they achieved with the hub. It's elegant
and functional.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Tim McNamara
<jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
Thanks! Do you think Shimano would have been better off with nipples
at both ends of the spoke, using a more conventional rim with the
current hub? That was what I thought when I saw it. My presumption
was that they were trying to reduce weight at the perimeter of the
wheel by moving the spoke nipples to the hub, but with fewer spokes to
begin with the additional weight of nipples and ferrules at the rim
would have been negligible.
Damon Rinard
http://damonrinard.com/wheel/7700/wh7700spokerim.jpg
Jobst Brandt wrote:
>
> Tim McNamara writes:
>
> > I saw another option last Thursday at the LBS- a Shimano wheel with
> > the spoke elbow hooked into a hole in the sidewall of the rim and
> > the nipples threaded through an "arm" on the hub. Looks like a
> > recipe for rim failure to me, with all the spoke tension being
> > loaded onto a very small area in the sidewall of the rim- resulting
> > in highly localized stresses and probably some deformation of the
> > sidewall.
>
> If you look closely, you'll see that the side wall is wrinkled at the
> spoke attachment even though the spoke load rests on a stress
> spreading washer. This means the side wall is at the yield stress and
> will probably have a short fatigue life, but we can wait and see.
> There are enough people who will try anything. On the 0other hand, I
> admire the innovation that they achieved with the hub. It's elegant
> and functional.
>
> Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
> Thanks! Do you think Shimano would have been better off with nipples
> at both ends of the spoke, using a more conventional rim with the
> current hub? That was what I thought when I saw it. My presumption
> was that they were trying to reduce weight at the perimeter of the
> wheel by moving the spoke nipples to the hub, but with fewer spokes to
> begin with the additional weight of nipples and ferrules at the rim
> would have been negligible.
I don't believe they are making any hay on the old rotating weight
fable. My perception of this wheel is that Shimano wanted to respond
to Rolf and Shamal wheels, and at the same time offer something that
could be touted as NEW. Their design seems to me to achieve this and
also avoids Rolf patents that I don't believe anticipated inverted
spokes going to he sides of the rim. I think Trek (aka Rolf) are
trying to show that this is only a semantic dodge and that Shimano is
infringing the paired spoke patent. Wait and see who wins this tussle.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jay Beattie
Jobst Brandt wrote in message
For the Rolf patent, go to
http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm and
search for patent No. 5,445,439 (I would give you
the mile-long URL for the patent, but it won't
copy). The abstract makes the amazing claim that
"[a] bicycle is not susceptible to speed shimmy or
wobble when it includes a front wheel according to
the invention." So all of you people on the
ubiquitous shimmy and wobble threads, your
problems are now solved -- just go and buy Rolf
wheels. Actually, to be fair to Rolf, the patent
is comparing the Rolf wheel (the "invention") to
the "prior art" (i.e. earlier, minimal spoke
wheels) and stating that the prior art was
susceptible to speed shimmy and wobble, whereas
the "invention" is not. -- Jay Beattie.
bobm...@my-deja.com
jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) wrote:
> Tim McNamara writes:
>
> > Thanks! Do you think Shimano would have been better off with nipples
> > at both ends of the spoke, using a more conventional rim with the
> > current hub? That was what I thought when I saw it. My presumption
> > was that they were trying to reduce weight at the perimeter of the
> > wheel by moving the spoke nipples to the hub, but with fewer spokes
to
> > begin with the additional weight of nipples and ferrules at the rim
> > would have been negligible.
>
> I don't believe they are making any hay on the old rotating weight
> fable. My perception of this wheel is that Shimano wanted to respond
> to Rolf and Shamal wheels, and at the same time offer something that
> could be touted as NEW. Their design seems to me to achieve this and
> also avoids Rolf patents that I don't believe anticipated inverted
> spokes going to he sides of the rim. I think Trek (aka Rolf) are
> trying to show that this is only a semantic dodge and that Shimano is
> infringing the paired spoke patent. Wait and see who wins this tussle.
Spinergy precedes them both (Trek and Shimano) in the paired spokes
department...
-Bob Mitke
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bobm...@my-deja.com
rin...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Photo here:
>
> http://damonrinard.com/wheel/7700/wh7700spokerim.jpg
A little bit more wall thickness in the right spots,
maybe a slight geometry change, slightly lower
specified build tension, and ta da: 3 months later,
problem fixed (with a weight penalty, of course)...
Perhaps it already has been done...
Jobst Brandt
>> http://damonrinard.com/wheel/7700/wh7700spokerim.jpg
> A little bit more wall thickness in the right spots, maybe a slight
> geometry change, slightly lower specified build tension, and ta da:
> 3 months later, problem fixed (with a weight penalty, of course)...
Extrusions cannot be made locally thicker around a spoke hole, all
features are linearly continuous. Adding a ring of thicker material
would be the opposite of what they are advertising, namely that the
bed of the rim is not made thicker for spoke support.
Reducing spoke tension is also out of the question because that
compromises wheel strength (load carrying ability), something of which
these wheels don't have do not have in excess. I don't know what you
have in mind for a "slight geometry change". Maybe you could expand
on that.
> Perhaps it already has been done...
Heavier rim is what Rolf had to do when the rims came apart at spoke
locations. No doubt this would help Shimano but then "where's the
beef", so to speak if it isn't the lighter wheel that it is now.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Bob Mitke
>Bob Mitke writes:
>
>>> http://damonrinard.com/wheel/7700/wh7700spokerim.jpg
>
>> A little bit more wall thickness in the right spots, maybe a slight
>> geometry change, slightly lower specified build tension, and ta da:
>> 3 months later, problem fixed (with a weight penalty, of course)...
>
>Extrusions cannot be made locally thicker around a spoke hole, all
>features are linearly continuous. Adding a ring of thicker material
>would be the opposite of what they are advertising, namely that the
>bed of the rim is not made thicker for spoke support.
Well, I guess you could make it locally thicker if you properly masked
and chemically etched the part, but I am guessing they probably didn't
have the budget for that...
What would I do? Iterate the solution to death on a CAD/FEA station
until I knew the solution was pretty darn close. Or I would iterate
it do death using physical prototypes, but that takes a real long time
between iterations, and gets expensive really quick.
Just looking at the picture I would say: get rid of the eyelet,
increase the wall thickness above/below the spoke hole
(on the 2-d rim drawing), and increase the radius on the transition from
the bottom side of the tire bed to the sidewall.
As for a geometry change, I would look at the angle of the rim
sidewall. It appears that it is putting a large bending moment at the
tire bed/wall junction. Change the sidewall angle a little bit and the
spoke load induced bending moment decreases.
>Reducing spoke tension is also out of the question because that
>compromises wheel strength (load carrying ability), something of which
>these wheels don't have do not have in excess
Who is to say that a 10-20% nominal decrease in tension would
effect _this_ wheels durability? The wheel has not even been out 1 year.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. The only thing that would answer
that question (in the short term) would be a lab fatigue test where everything
else but spoke tension was held constant. Neither I, nor Dr. Gross (Tour
magazine may eventually), has done that. Maybe you know someone who
has already done this test. Perhaps you could share that info?
>Heavier rim is what Rolf had to do when the rims came apart at spoke
>locations. No doubt this would help Shimano but then "where's the
>beef", so to speak if it isn't the lighter wheel that it is now
I didn't say this wheel was full of beef. I just said that it could, or
already
has been, fixed.
Maybe they take the additional weight out of the hub, since rotating mass
doesn't effect anything...
What, specifically, would you do to fix the rim (just curious, that's all)?
-Bob Mitke
Stephe
Jobst Brandt wrote in message <8bqnjf$qsk$2...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>...
>Paul Dale writes (in personal e-mail to me):
>
>> Hi Jobst!
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>Please do not send me personal mail that ends up posted on a
news group.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Have you considered therapy for your hostility?
Jobst Brandt
>> Heavier rim is what Rolf had to do when the rims came apart at
>> spoke locations. No doubt this would help Shimano but then
>> "where's the beef", so to speak if it isn't the lighter wheel that
>> it is now
> I didn't say this wheel was full of beef. I just said that it
> could, or already has been, fixed.
This refers to a hamburger ad in which there was a lot of talk but
ultimately no beef. In this case the whole exercise was touted as
being lighter. Reinforcing the rim deflates that concept leaving it
in the "where's the beef" category.
> Maybe they take the additional weight out of the hub, since rotating mass
> doesn't effect anything...
Nor does your comment affect anything.
> What, specifically, would you do to fix the rim (just curious, that's all)?
I wouldn't fix the rim, I would use the hub and run the spokes into
the rim the conventional way like other wheels. Spokes coming out of
the sidewall present brake and safety problems and present compression
loads in a thin sidewall that defy fixing. Since this infringes on
the Rolf patent, I think they are in a tight spot.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Tim McNamara
<ste...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> Jobst Brandt wrote in message <8bqnjf$qsk$2...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>...
> >Paul Dale writes (in personal e-mail to me):
> >
> >> Hi Jobst!
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> >Please do not send me personal mail that ends up posted on a
> news group.
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> Have you considered therapy for your hostility?
Sending e-mail that is also a post to a newsgroup has long been
considered poor netiquette. I know I hate it because I often end up
having to write two replies. Jobst's reponse was direct and to the
point, but not hostile. Hostile would have been "Hey f&*khead, don't
send me personal mail that ends up posted on a news group or I'll come
over there and kick your ass!"
Bob Mitke
>ultimately no beef. In this case the whole exercise was touted as
>being lighter. Reinforcing the rim deflates that concept leaving it
>in the "where's the beef" category.
>
No wonder I didn't quite understand... I don't own a TV... And try
not to let wacky advertising influence me...
>> What, specifically, would you do to fix the rim (just curious, that's all)?
>
>I wouldn't fix the rim, I would use the hub and run the spokes into
>the rim the conventional way like other wheels. Spokes coming out of
>the sidewall present brake and safety problems
Perhaps you could expand on these ideas more. I usually don't run my
pads that far below the base of the brake track. Granted, some people
might not adjust their pads perfect, but wouldn't Shimano be covered if
they included a warning sticker or other literature instructing the user on
how to adjust their brakes. On the last set of hubs I bought, I got a three
paragraph multiple illustration booklet showing me how to tighten a
skewer...
>Since this infringes on
>the Rolf patent, I think they are in a tight spot.
I have read the Rolf patent, but have not read Shimano's. Does one
exist? I wonder if Rolf's patent applies to wheels built with rims that have a
different OD than what TREK rolls their rims to. Or, for that matter, spokes
of a different length. I know that Rolf's paired spoke patent doesn't apply to
spokes of a different material because Spinergy Rev-X's predate Rolf's.
I realize these are picky points, but from my experience with
patents every minute detail omitted from the language of the patent opens
a loophole a mile wide...
-Bob Mitke
Damon Rinard
http://damonrinard.com/wheel/7700/wh7700warning.jpg
Jobst wrote:
> > Spokes coming out of
> >the sidewall present brake and safety problems
Bob Mitke wrote:
> Granted, some people
> might not adjust their pads perfect, but wouldn't Shimano be covered if
> they included a warning sticker or other literature instructing the user on
> how to adjust their brakes.
--
Jobst Brandt
>> This refers to a hamburger ad in which there was a lot of talk but
>> ultimately no beef. In this case the whole exercise was touted as
>> being lighter. Reinforcing the rim deflates that concept leaving
>> it in the "where's the beef" category.
> No wonder I didn't quite understand... I don't own a TV... And try
> not to let wacky advertising influence me...
You don't have to watch TV to be abreast of this story. I had not
seen it but read about it in the newspaper because it was such a well
presented advertisement. The gal was a no nonsense down-to-earth
woman who didn't put up with smokescreens about great looking
hamburger buns and onions. There was no beef. The phrase "where's
the beef" from this ad has become part of the vernacular.
>>> What, specifically, would you do to fix the rim (just curious,
>>> that's all)?
>> I wouldn't fix the rim, I would use the hub and run the spokes into
>> the rim the conventional way like other wheels. Spokes coming out
>> of the sidewall present brake and safety problems
> Perhaps you could expand on these ideas more. I usually don't run
> my pads that far below the base of the brake track. Granted, some
> people might not adjust their pads perfect, but wouldn't Shimano be
> covered if they included a warning sticker or other literature
> instructing the user on how to adjust their brakes. On the last set
> of hubs I bought, I got a three paragraph multiple illustration
> booklet showing me how to tighten a skewer...
In fact Shimano warns people to not use brake pads with wheel
insertion guides that extend below the pad, common on many brakes,
because they pose a safety hazard. So much for that, directly from
Shimano.
>> Since this infringes on the Rolf patent, I think they are in a
>> tight spot.
> I have read the Rolf patent, but have not read Shimano's. Does one
> exist? I wonder if Rolf's patent applies to wheels built with rims
> that have a different OD than what TREK rolls their rims to. Or,
> for that matter, spokes of a different length. I know that Rolf's
> paired spoke patent doesn't apply to spokes of a different material
> because Spinergy Rev-X's predate Rolf's.
I think they are relying on the unorthodox spoke orientation to clear
that hurdle. By having the elbow on the periphery and the nipple at
the hub, using what otherwise is a conventional spoke.
> I realize these are picky points, but from my experience with
> patents every minute detail omitted from the language of the patent
> opens a loophole a mile wide...
Also, if you go to court, mounting a massive legal fog also helps.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>