Rider's weight vs. spoke tension
@hotmail.com_no_spam Alex Yeung
A friend of mine weights 250+ lbs, should the spoke tension (especially the
rear) of his cross-country bike be lowered and how much (say, from the
standard 100kgf)?
Thanks!
Alex
jim beam
cT = 1.0
Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:
No. Spoke tension pretty much should be the same for any wheel, rim,
spoke combo. 100 kgf for the front and right side rear.
Big guy means 'big guy' components. Strong rims, enough spokes, 14/15
butted spokes, built well.
Andre Jute
wrote:
I've never built a wheel from scratch though I've rebuilt a couple
that came from the manufacturer in a less than impressive state of
tension. So these remarks are from a close study of Brandt's The
Bicycle Wheel and some more accessible sources, including the net,
working outwards from Sheldon Brown.
Since spoke tension reacts the rider's weight, the answer is: No, on
the contrary, in theory you want to increase spoke tension for a
heavier rider. In practice the rim makers limit the amount of force
that can be applied to rims by each spoke and the weight the rim is
supposed to carry when properly spoked. The solution is thus heftier
rims but even they have roughly the same individual spoke tension
limits. So more spokes are required to divide the service. Thicker
spokes, butted if possible, can also contribute to a wheel that can
carry heavier riders/bikes securely. Close inspection of tandem and
cargo bike wheels, or just the heavier kind of loaded touring design,
will soon demonstrate best practice.
Andre Jute
Perpetual student
landotter
wrote:
> Does the spoke tension has to be lowered, if the rider is a quite a big guy?
Nope. The spoke tension should be what the rim can bear. Check the
specs.
Worry more about using strong, non-heroic components, and 3x lacing.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Alex,
As Qui si parla and landotter suggest, normal tension and possibly
more spokes, not lower tension.
The reason that you don't lower spoke tension is that the wheel relies
on the pre-tension to work.
When you sit on the bike, the rim flattens (very slightly) at the
contact patch under the axle.
In other words, that part of the rim moves a little closer to the
axle.
So the spokes near the contact patch actually relax, losing some of
their tension.
If you lowered the tension when you built the wheel, they'd go slack
even sooner under a heavier rider.
When you ride, an electronic stress gauge on a single spoke will show
that the spoke's tension rises a little bit for most of the spin, but
drops dramatically as it passes under the axle, a graph that looks
like a series of icicles:
http://i42.tinypic.com/n2ltt0.jpg
The graph is from Professor Gavin's paper:
http://www.duke.edu/~hpgavin/papers/HPGavin-Wheel-Paper.pdf
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Nick L Plate
wrote:
From Pippard and Francis's article The Stresses in a Radially Spoked
Wire Wheel of 1931
" and every spoke was given an initial tension sufficient to ensure
that it would remain taught under any load which was to be applied to
the rim."
There is no requirement for any more.
100kgf is an awful lot. If the rim is a heavyweight, don't worry. If
it's a road rim you'll need to be careful because not only do you risk
rim fracture, but also overload of the wheel resulting in rim buckle.
There is no need to go beyond that stated in the 1931 article.
You have to consider that the load is variable according to
application and moment in time. It would be a minimum to start with a
tension within the spokes that when loaded to twice the riders weight
would remain taught at the bottom of the wheel.
It may be preferable to ensure that the spokes are 2mm or 14gauge
front and rear if the bike is to be ridden at speed over rocks and
boulders.
TJ
Ron Ruff
> From Pippard and Francis's article The Stresses in a Radially Spoked
> Wire Wheel of 1931
> " and every spoke was given an initial tension sufficient to ensure
> that it would remain taught under any load which was to be applied to
> the rim."
Good advice. The problem is knowing what the max load will be... and
if you are trying to optimize strength/weight then you will end up
with the tension being quite high... usually at the limit of what the
rim will take.
Nick L Plate
I don't believe the tension is required to be anywhere near 100kgf
I don't believe many common rims can safely take this sort of spoke
tension for long.
Although the actual momentary load may be 7-10 times the rider mass,
this is not sustainable for long enough to affect wheel build as the
rider would likely lose control before wheel instability takes
effect. It is therefore innapropriate to attempt to make a rim
outperform its required function in the futile attempt of increasing
spoke tension. If the spoke nipples are difficult to turn with a
simple nipple key, a larger x-section in spoke will enable the desired
build at lower spoke tension.
Precisely what load to build for is dependant on the riders style
as well as usage and mass. I say start at the lower end of tension
because it permits a greater overload, the precise amount is unknown,
only that the rim buckles determining the point of failure due to
excessive overload.
TJ
russell...@yahoo.com
> On 18 Feb, 03:51, "Alex Yeung" <imdee_yeah @ hotmail.com_NO_SPAM>
> wrote:
>
> > Does the spoke tension has to be lowered, if the rider is a quite a big guy?
> > A friend of mine weights 250+ lbs, should the spoke tension (especially the
> > rear) of his cross-country bike be lowered and how much (say, from the
> > standard 100kgf)?
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > Alex
>
> From Pippard and Francis's article The Stresses in a Radially Spoked
> Wire Wheel of 1931
> " and every spoke was given an initial tension sufficient to ensure
> that it would remain taught under any load which was to be applied to
> the rim."
> There is no requirement for any more.
> 100kgf is an awful lot. If the rim is a heavyweight, don't worry. If
> it's a road rim you'll need to be careful because not only do you risk
> rim fracture, but also overload of the wheel resulting in rim buckle.
> There is no need to go beyond that stated in the 1931 article.
> You have to consider that the load is variable according to
> application and moment in time. It would be a minimum to start with a
> tension within the spokes that when loaded to twice the riders weight
> would remain taught at the bottom of the wheel.
But spokes don't remain taut at the bottom of the wheel when riding.
No matter how high a tension you put on them. They are trying to bear
load by being pushed into the nipple. And spokes don't work that way.
Nick L Plate
original attempt.
On 18 Feb, 19:44, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't believe the tension is required to be anywhere near 100kgf
I don't believe many common rims can safely take this sort of spoke
tension for long.
Although the actual momentary load may be 7-10 times the rider
mass, this is not sustainable for long enough to determin wheel
build. The rider would likely lose control because of insufficient
strength before wheel instability takes effect. It is innapropriate
to attempt to make a given rim outperform its required function by
increasing spoke tension. If the spoke nipples are difficult to turn
with a simple nipple key, a larger x-section in spoke will enable the
desired build at lower spoke tension. The desired build is only
sufficient tension within the spokes so that none of the spokes become
loose when applying the test load. There are occasions when this load
is exceeded, that is not a problem. An application of linseed oil,
glue, laquer or proprietary spoke preparation will prevent the nipples
unturning.
Precisely what load to build for is dependant on the riders style
as well as usage and mass. I say start at the lower end of tension
because it permits a greater overload. The precise amount of overload
is unknown,
only that the rim buckles determining the point of failure due to
excessive overload. Far better to be at the safe end of the spectrum.
TJ
mike.a...@gmail.com
<russellseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> But spokes don't remain taut at the bottom of the wheel when riding.
> No matter how high a tension you put on them. They are trying to bear
> load by being pushed into the nipple. And spokes don't work that way.
>
In that case, go with a half -radial on the non-drive side.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
> On 18 Feb, 19:44, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Nick L Plate wrote:
> > > From Pippard and Francis's article The Stresses in a Radially Spoked
> > > Wire Wheel of 1931
> > > " and every spoke was given an initial tension sufficient to ensure
> > > that it would remain taught under any load which was to be applied to
> > > the rim."
>
> > Good advice. The problem is knowing what the max load will be... and
> > if you are trying to optimize strength/weight then you will end up
> > with the tension being quite high... usually at the limit of what the
> > rim will take.
>
> I don't believe the tension is required to be anywhere near 100kgf
> I don't believe many common rims can safely take this sort of spoke
> tension for long.
All modern rims whether they be from Mavic, Velocity, DT, Sun, Alex,
or any other can safely 'take' 100 kgf w/o problem or issue. Of the
400 or so wheels we build each year(for 9 years) ALL are very close to
100 kgf and we see no problems.
Ron Ruff
> Precisely what load to build for is dependant on the riders style
> as well as usage and mass.
How about the typical "lightest wheel that will hold up"? In that case
you light rims and minimal spokes for light riders, and heavier rims
and more spokes for heavier riders. Spoke tension ends up being about
the same for all.
> I say start at the lower end of tension
> because it permits a greater overload. The precise amount of overload
> is unknown,
> only that the rim buckles determining the point of failure due to
> excessive overload. Far better to be at the safe end of the spectrum.
But it isn't the safe side. Overload is more likely to result in
spokes going slack. An increase in spoke tension only occurs during
torque and lateral loads... which are generally much lower than radial
ones. When spokes go slack the wheel becomes weak and is more likely
to buckle.
Michael Press
"Alex Yeung" <imdee_yeah @ hotmail.com_NO_SPAM> wrote:
Answer is no. The spokes at the contact patch lose tension
to support the load. Large load means more loss of tension.
You can do the experiment. Ping the spokes of a wheel and
note the pitch. Now load the wheel by having a helper sit
on the bicycle. Ping the spokes. Repeat several times
with different spokes. The spokes at the contact patch
will ping at a very much lower pitch when the bicycle is
loaded. The other spokes will vary much less in pitch
when loaded and unloaded.
--
Michael Press
carl...@comcast.net
<tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>I don't believe the tension is required to be anywhere near 100kgf
>I don't believe many common rims can safely take this sort of spoke
>tension for long.
[snip]
Dear Trevor,
Many common rims obviously take such tension for long periods--it's
practically the rim industry's standard recommendation.
But never mind that . . .
What do you believe the spoke tension should be?
Did that 1931 article mention anything specific?
Of course, any 1931 article was probably written about wood or steel
rims, not aluminum, since Mavic claims to have introduced the first
aluminum rim in 1934:
"In 1934, Mavic manufactured the first aluminum rim. Against the rules
at the time, Antoine Magne secretly used this revolutionary rim,
albeit painted to appear to be wood, to ride to Paris and win the
Tour."
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/mountain-bikes/review-wheel/Mavic-CrossTrail-Disc-Wheels_141.html
Anyway, a more specific recommendation than not "anywhere near 100
kgf" would help posters who hope to build wheels your way. If you
don't actually know, borrow a tension gauge and reveal the results.
90 kgf
80 kgf
70 kgf
60 kgf
50 kgf
40 kgf
30 kgf
20 kgf
10 kgf
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Clive George
news:eqhpp4tnijohlacsl...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:12:04 -0800 (PST), Nick L Plate
> <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>I don't believe the tension is required to be anywhere near 100kgf
>>I don't believe many common rims can safely take this sort of spoke
>>tension for long.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Trevor,
Let's forget about beating about the bush here, none of this "Dear X crap".
It appears that Nick/Trevor builds wheels with too low spoke tension. The
spoke bending and tying/soldering are an attempt to recover some strength
from this flawed build - this would explain the non-tied ones being crap at
climbing in his experience. But it would be rather better to simply build
with the correct, higher, tension in the first place.
Fair summary?
Nick L Plate
> But it isn't the safe side. Overload is more likely to result in
> spokes going slack. An increase in spoke tension only occurs during
> torque and lateral loads... which are generally much lower than radial
> ones. When spokes go slack the wheel becomes weak and is more likely
> to buckle.
When a bike wheel has loose spokes all around, the bike is still
ridable but will drift down the camber of the road. It is clear that
there is something wrong, yet it remains safe. When a wheel is highly
strung, if inadequate precautions are taken to ensure good lateral
stability, the rim will tend to buckle. The bike will ride fine until
the rim buckles. There is no warning. It is high compression within
the rim which cause buckling, rim compression increases with load.
Initial spoke tension loads the rim, the rim will support the load
until the point of buckling when its load capacity has exceeded.
TJ
Nick L Plate
> All modern rims whether they be from Mavic, Velocity, DT, Sun, Alex,
> or any other can safely 'take' 100 kgf w/o problem or issue. Of the
> 400 or so wheels we build each year(for 9 years) ALL are very close to
> 100 kgf and we see no problems.
Has something to do with product liability in the US I believe.
I have rims from before 1990, some I didn't even realise were
particularly light, such as a wired on Mavic Open 4
My approach is rather different. I have suffered because of a buckled
wheel, and have seen others suffer.
The result of loose spokes is mild inconvenience at best. It's a
matter of tightening up a 1/4 turn with some threadlock.
I cannot see the attraction of overly tight spokes. What sort of
milages do these wheels attain before rim replacement or failure?
Are these "100 kgf" tensioned wheels have 32 or more spokes. What is
the rim weight and width? Rider weight?
I really do not understand this one size fits all mentality from a
users perspective.
Do you have to issue a warning notice about limitations of use to
satisfy your insurers?
Those open 4's whip about quite a bit without spoke line correction,
no matter what tension.
TJ
Nick L Plate
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:12:04 -0800 (PST), Nick L Plate
> What do you believe the spoke tension should be?
Initial spoke tension should be that which ensures they remain taut
under any load.
The load and so the tension, at build, will vary with the extrusion,
with rider mass, usage, speed, terrain.
The Pippard/Francis article in Philisophical magazine is an attempt at
analysis of a tension wheel. The "Experimental Investigation" is not
what I first thought, the tests nearly show that the theory lined up
except in the lightest rim, 1" x 1/4" which showed a 13% error from
predicted results. For convenience, the rim was pressed away from the
hub, opposed to the normal force. I do not have any faith in the
article. I do believe the statement on the tensioning is the correct
method and was prevalent at the time.
> Anyway, a more specific recommendation than not "anywhere near 100
> kgf" would help posters who hope to build wheels your way. If you
> don't actually know, borrow a tension gauge and reveal the results.
>
I dont need a tension gauge. I load the wheel, and if the bottom
spokes stay taut, the spokes are tight enough. Any more is excess
work.
TJ
Nick L Plate
> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
No, it is apparent that wheels built by keeping the spokes straight
are not sensitive to tension changes resulting in unstable wheels.
The bending of the spokes- aligning those inside the flange,to the
flange - is to satisfy those who think that they will suffer from
broken spokes. It was untied spokes with low tension that proved to
me that there was a greater efficiency in my build. The tying of
spokes is purely an experiment yet to be completed. It is necessary
to tie at the second crossing to diminish the angle of deviation from
the flange still further. There are some who like their spokes tyed
and soldered. There is no evidence to show that, spoke tension in
excess of that which would remain taut under any load, results in a
'better build', whatever that implies.
TJ
@hotmail.com_no_spam Alex Yeung
spoke tension for a heavy rider, which indeed was what I perceived.
However, many cyclists around me said having lowered-tension spokes is the
way for a trail riding bike, which I doubted to be true.
"Alex Yeung" <imdee_yeah @ hotmail.com_NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:499b85d9$1...@127.0.0.1...
mike.a...@gmail.com
The second paragraph is what is happening when the low tension non-
drive side leading spokes loose tension and push the nipples through
the rim strip toward the tire. You are seeing this pushing every 4th
nipple, right?
The fourth paragraph explains how the half-radial will solve this
problem.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Trevor,
But what's your spoke tension?
Just ride by a shop, borrow a tension gauge, measure a few spokes on
each side of the rear wheel, and give us some rough figure of whatever
you say is not "anywhere near 100 kgf"--we really can't tell what you
have in mind.
Heck, you might even be surprised at how high or how low your tension
is compared to 100 kgf.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Clive,
I just peeked at Trevor's reply, which began thus:
"No."
Who am I to do anything more than guess at what's going on?
I don't really know if climbing suffers noticeably for the rest of us
on bikes with lower spoke tension.
I just asked Trevor again to pedal past a bike shop, borrow a tension
gauge, and let us know what kind of tension he actually uses.
I really am curious if Trevor is riding around on spokes closer to 0
kgf or to 100 kgf.
What do you think? Is he pedaling around with his front spokes at 90
kgf? Down around 50 kgf? Even lower?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Qui si parla Campagnolo
> On 19 Feb, 00:00, Qui si parla Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> > All modern rims whether they be from Mavic, Velocity, DT, Sun, Alex,
> > or any other can safely 'take' 100 kgf w/o problem or issue. Of the
> > 400 or so wheels we build each year(for 9 years) ALL are very close to
> > 100 kgf and we see no problems.
>
> Has something to do with product liability in the US I believe.
?
> I have rims from before 1990, some I didn't even realise were
> particularly light, such as a wired on Mavic Open 4
> My approach is rather different. I have suffered because of a buckled
> wheel, and have seen others suffer.
> The result of loose spokes is mild inconvenience at best. It's a
> matter of tightening up a 1/4 turn with some threadlock.
?
> I cannot see the attraction of overly tight spokes. What sort of
> milages do these wheels attain before rim replacement or failure?
> Are these "100 kgf" tensioned wheels have 32 or more spokes. What is
> the rim weight and width? Rider weight?
28, 32 36 and 40 spoke. Some wheels, like some of mine, have 10-15
years and thousands of miles. Sidewalls wear out, get thin before
anything else happens, unless they get dented from a pothole or
something. Rims from low 400s to 600 gram range. Widrhs normally 20mm.
Rider weight from 300 pounds to women in the 130 pound range.
> I really do not understand this one size fits all mentality from a
> users perspective.
See above. We design thew wheels according to the rider's needs.
> Do you have to issue a warning notice about limitations of use to
> satisfy your insurers?
Huh?
> Those open 4's whip about quite a bit without spoke line correction,
> no matter what tension.
?
> TJ
landotter
wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:12 pm, Nick L Plate <tj-j...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 18 Feb, 19:44, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nick L Plate wrote:
> > > > From Pippard and Francis's article The Stresses in a Radially Spoked
> > > > Wire Wheel of 1931
> > > > " and every spoke was given an initial tension sufficient to ensure
> > > > that it would remain taught under any load which was to be applied to
> > > > the rim."
>
> > > Good advice. The problem is knowing what the max load will be... and
> > > if you are trying to optimize strength/weight then you will end up
> > > with the tension being quite high... usually at the limit of what the
> > > rim will take.
>
> > I don't believe the tension is required to be anywhere near 100kgf
> > I don't believe many common rims can safely take this sort of spoke
> > tension for long.
>
> All modern rims whether they be from Mavic, Velocity, DT, Sun, Alex,
> or any other can safely 'take' 100 kgf w/o problem or issue. Of the
> 400 or so wheels we build each year(for 9 years) ALL are very close to
> 100 kgf and we see no problems.
>
Ya. Got 120kgf F/DS on my tour n' scoot, and it's pretty much a solid
state wheelset. The SS has 80-100 on the factory wheels which I didn't
quite take all the way up to tension, and they do need a little yearly
truing. 100kfg is right where most spokes go from "twong" to "twang"
when ya pluck em, that's when you know they're happy. ;-)
Seems to me, more important for your average non-stupid light rim,
once you're in the reasonable three digit range, is simply making sure
the tension is even. I've seen some ghastly builds on deep dish rims
that would have tacoed a regular box rim in the truing stand.
Myths do spread like herpes. My favorite was from my buddy D, who
sells bikes, and isn't a hell of a wrench--when he checked out my last
wheelset--he warned that I needed to loosen the spokes some to absorb
shock...Haha!
Nick L Plate
> On Feb 18, 8:48 pm, Nick L Plate <tj-j...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 19 Feb, 00:00, Qui si parla Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> > > All modern rims whether they be from Mavic, Velocity, DT, Sun, Alex,
> > > or any other can safely 'take' 100 kgf w/o problem or issue. Of the
> > > 400 or so wheels we build each year(for 9 years) ALL are very close to
> > > 100 kgf and we see no problems.
I had to replace a buckled Mavic MA40 which had been built according
to the method given by Jobst. I wanted it replaced quick because I
needed it for early season training. I could not get hold of one
despite scouting around many shops. I bought an Open4 because it was
available and visually appealing. I later found out that rim was
considered a lightweight at an advertised weight of 395g and a maximum
recommended tyre width of 23mm This is absolutely fine for a front
wheel fitted with 32x16swg The rear rim was replaced after 18months
to match the front which I had been totally satisfied with. As a
rear wheel 32x16swg 3cross on a 126mm axle and compact7 block, the
wheel was far from stable. Tension was high on the block side, slight
rim distortion could be seen around the nipple hole. The instability
presented itself when climbing, riding over cobbles and cornering, the
swaying became more than obvious when I rode the bike with a
passenger. I put up with this rear wheel for some years, using a 36
spoke Mixte rim when I knew I would be spending time in the hills.
Without changing the spoke gauge, I was able to reduce the flexing of
the wheel by kinking the spokes at the first crossing so that the
spoke is straight between crossing and rim with the nipple removed. A
retensioning to a lesser level provided a stiffer wheel.
Is it possible to purchase a newly manufactured wired on rim
under 400g at reasonable cost without the aid of a time machine?
I cannot see the attraction of overly tight spokes. What sort of
> > milages do these wheels attain before rim replacement or failure?
> 28, 32 36 and 40 spoke. Some wheels, like some of mine, have 10-15
> years and thousands of miles.
Are you speaking of 10 000 miles or 100 000 miles?
>Sidewalls wear out, get thin before
> anything else happens, unless they get dented from a pothole or
> something. Rims from low 400s to 600 gram range. Widrhs normally 20mm.
> Rider weight from 300 pounds to women in the 130 pound range.
So with a 400g wired on rim 19mm wide with 40 spokes, do you tension
all spokes to 100kgf
Say rider weight 180lbs
Do the wheels buckle when they are dented?
TJ
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Trevor,
When you write "wired on rim," what do you mean?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
A Muzi
> When you write "wired on rim," what do you mean?
Likely "not a tubular rim".
As you know, the term "clincher" is a misnomer for modern wire-on
tire/rim systems. And yet, it's becoming a widely accepted, or at least
widely (mis)used, term[1].
[1]which could easily devolve to a descriptive/proscriptive usage
argument, which I'm avoiding.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Probably thousands, 5 figures, not over 100,000 miles
>
> >Sidewalls wear out, get thin before
> > anything else happens, unless they get dented from a pothole or
> > something. Rims from low 400s to 600 gram range. Widrhs normally 20mm.
> > Rider weight from 300 pounds to women in the 130 pound range.
>
> So with a 400g wired on rim 19mm wide with 40 spokes, do you tension
> all spokes to 100kgf
> Say rider weight 180lbs
> Do the wheels buckle when they are dented?
Yes, 100 kgf right side rear or front and no they don't buckle, taco
or go completely outta wack.
>
> TJ
Qui si parla Campagnolo
You are starting to write like another(1) guy with footnotes
(1) Sherman, J Sunset guy
Nick L Plate
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:26:52 -0800 (PST), Nick L Plate
>
>
>
Takes a wired on tyre. A tyre mounted on its wires.
TJ
John Forrest Tomlinson
>I had to replace a buckled Mavic MA40 which had been built according
>to the method given by Jobst.
I built wheels with that rim following the instructions in his book
and they came out great.
Nick L Plate
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:26:52 -0800 (PST), Nick L Plate
>
> >I had to replace a buckled Mavic MA40 which had been built according
> >to the method given by Jobst.
>
> I built wheels with that rim following the instructions in his book
> and they came out great.
I built wheels with that rim following the instructions in his book
and they came out great until the front buckled when I was
sprinting. This is why I think it is good to check your build by
doing a stability test.
TJ
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Trevor,
Do you have any theories about flexible Kevlar-bead tires versus
wire-bead tires?
I ask because your posts about spoke tension and tying spokes together
for superior climbing hint that you may have interesting things to say
about modern tires.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
John Forrest Tomlinson
Sounds like fabricator error. Or else I just got lucky a number of
times.
Clive George
news:tiorp41gr125psibs...@4ax.com...
> Dear Trevor,
>
> When you write "wired on rim," what do you mean?
That one's fairly common - clincher.
Nick L Plate
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:34:43 -0800 (PST), Nick L Plate
>
>
>
They could be as good as a tub, if you sew the beads together.
Start with an excellent wide kevlar bead tyre, sew it up with carpet
thread round a latex tube. If your lucky it still wouldn't fit a
standard rim. So you couldnt compare the wired tyre to a training
tub.
You could use them as an emergency bandage for first aiders.
Especially useful after a front pucture at high speed on a latex tube
with kevlar beads. Cutting out the bead, you can use it as a
torniquet to stop the bleeding from your femoral artery that has just
benn punctured by your bladed spoke that snapped due to excess tension
and was unrestrained because you failed to tie and solder your
wheels. The bead could also be used as an emergency ligature to
sticth up that hole in your abdomen caused by the handlebars as it
passed through on its journey to your liver because you didn't glue
the end plug in place. You can also use them as a sling for when you
break your collar bone after falling because of your obsession with
speed made you use a bald treaded skinny wired on tyre at rock hard
pressure.
All these things are much harder with a tub. You need to clean a
Weinmann A124 rim extremely well with detergent, and the tyre so that
they squeak, otherwise the kevlar bead tyre peels off at about
105psi They are nearly as good as a tub, but they're not a tub.
They will not outperform a tubular tyre when teamed with a heavy rider
on a bendy or bumpy course.
TJ
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Clive,
Yes, Trevor already explained that he meant that, which was what I
_thought_ he had in mind.
I just tend to be cautious, since his posts are sometimes a bit hard
to follow--and he wires spokes together.
And of course, Trevor he seems to have been using clinchers back in
the 1980s for bicycling feats that would have astonished most
contemporary racers.
I confess that for a moment I entertained wild hopes of this kind of
"wired on" rim:
http://www.tampere.fi/kuvat/5mv0TWCr7/velomania_isop_det.jpg
Or this kind of "wired on" tire:
http://www.bikeroute.com/HiWheelers/HowMountTire.php
But even Trevor with his 1931 pre-aluminum rims and 27-inch tires
doesn't go quite that far back.
:-)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Nick L Plate
wrote:
I was drunk when I buckled the wheel, and I was quite vicious when
sprinting anyway. There have been claims that there is a natural
variation in rim extrusion due to die wear, that could mean an ounce
difference in a rim weight. It is possible I got a clean extrusion,
and I was one of few that would buckle a wheel when sprinting.
TJ
carl...@comcast.net
<tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> . . .when you break your collar bone after falling because of your obsession with
>speed made you use a bald treaded skinny wired on tyre at rock hard pressure.
[snip]
Dear Trevor,
Dare I ask if you have some well-considered opinions on the value of
tread patterns, tire width, and inflation?
Or something interesting to tell us about tubulars versus wired on
tires?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Nick L Plate
> Nick L Plate <tj-j...@blueyonder.co.uk> considered Thu, 19 Feb 2009
> splint for the broken limb(s), and how you plan on cobbling together a
> unicycle from the remainder so you can recover yourself to the ER.
>
> ;)
That's why you should carry a full metal barrelled pump. And if you
failed to carry spare tyres you could use your cloth handlebar tape or
the rim tape to affix your broken leg to the pump.
I rather think it would be a little silly if not difficult to ride a
makeshift unicycle with a punctured liver, a splinted leg, the other
dangling useless because you've cut off the blood supply, a broken
collarbone with arm in a sling. I think you better use your good arm
to reach for your mobile phone and telephone...the bike shop to see if
they can fix the bike before next weekend as your riding a 100 mile
reliability trial.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Trevor,
"Drunken bicyclist buckles wheel, blames spoke tension, cleanly
extruded rim, Jobst Brandt!"
--"The Sun"
It was a front wheel, wasn't it?
Is "vicious" a local phrase meaning "clumsy" or "drunk"?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Nick L Plate
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:48:46 -0800 (PST), Nick L Plate
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > . . .when you break your collar bone after falling because of your obsession with
> >speed made you use a bald treaded skinny wired on tyre at rock hard pressure.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Trevor,
>
> Dare I ask if you have some well-considered opinions on the value of
> tread patterns, tire width, and inflation?
>
> Or something interesting to tell us about tubulars versus wired on
> tires?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
I switched to tubs because of back pain. At that time it was also
considerably cheaper to build with old stock sprint rims and fit
training tubs, which served my purposes much better than a "racing"
wired tyre. 2 rims 2hubs 72 spokes 3 tubs for the same price as 3
racing wired tyres. more milage, more comfort,spare wheels, no
contest. More shops have disappeared, I dont know where I can now
buy a good training tub locally. I can get conti's, they're awful,
may as well use wired on as those.
I started with narrow wired on tyre, increased in weight and switched
to tubs. For road racing, a rider over 12st is best sticking with
tubs if its wet. Anyone who fails to temper their speed for slippy
corners should use tubs. They have a wider usable pressure range
permitting a longer contact patch, which means more grip in the
corners. I always try to get a heavy pattern tread because it gives
me a wider scope of routes, providing grip on wet clay, shale or
rocks.
TJ
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Trevor,
If I understand you, you favor tubulars with a heavy tread pattern?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Nick L Plate
> But it isn't the safe side.
Oh yes it is.
> Overload is more likely to result in
> spokes going slack.
Hooray.
> An increase in spoke tension only occurs during
> torque and lateral loads... which are generally much lower than radial
> ones. When spokes go slack the wheel becomes weak and is more likely
> to buckle.
Oh no it doesn't.
A unstable wheel is still unstable whatever the tension of the
spokes. A spoke which becomes loose when the wheel is overloaded by
braking and striking a bump releives the rim af the additional stress
which would be applied to the rim by the spoke had it remained taut.
TJ
Nick L Plate
For a mixed use wheelset, as in some off road use, mainly road use,
yes.
Still must have a flexible casing. Nice pattern I have is 10 to the
inch herringbone sides, file in centre. With smooth pedalling I find
this 23mm tub adequate for wet clay.
TJ
Michael Press
<1988db8a-a316-4ade...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Ron Ruff <rruff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nick L Plate wrote:
> > Precisely what load to build for is dependant on the riders style
> > as well as usage and mass.
>
> How about the typical "lightest wheel that will hold up"? In that case
> you light rims and minimal spokes for light riders, and heavier rims
> and more spokes for heavier riders. Spoke tension ends up being about
> the same for all.
>
> > I say start at the lower end of tension
> > because it permits a greater overload. The precise amount of overload
> > is unknown,
> > only that the rim buckles determining the point of failure due to
> > excessive overload. Far better to be at the safe end of the spectrum.
>
> But it isn't the safe side. Overload is more likely to result in
> spokes going slack. An increase in spoke tension only occurs during
> torque and lateral loads... which are generally much lower than radial
> ones. When spokes go slack the wheel becomes weak and is more likely
> to buckle.
In addition, slack spokes allow the nipple to unscrew; this is bad.
--
Michael Press
Ron Ruff
> I was drunk when I buckled the wheel, and I was quite vicious when
> sprinting anyway. There have been claims that there is a natural
> variation in rim extrusion due to die wear, that could mean an ounce
> difference in a rim weight. It is possible I got a clean extrusion,
> and I was one of few that would buckle a wheel when sprinting.
> TJ
I'm about to build up a 385g aluminum rim with 20 light spokes. The
tension will be ~100kg. If I avoid sprinting while drunk and vicious,
will I be ok?
Nick L Plate
>
> In addition, slack spokes allow the nipple to unscrew; this is bad.
So use some threadlock or linseed oil or glue or paint or nailvarnish
or hair laquer or tub glue or chew.nig gum or shellac.
Any of these will prevent nipples unscrewing.
TJ
Nick L Plate
20 light spokes to sprint on sounds suspiciously few. The weight of
the rim is not a problem. Its inherent lateral stability may be.
With only 20 spokes it may also be radially unstable. What is the
rim. Is it designed for 20 spoke support. What drillings is it
available in? What use will you put it to? What is your weight?
TJ
landotter
As long as you don't wear your girlfriend's stretch jeans while doing
trix in the Safeway parking lot.
Tim McNamara
"Alex Yeung" <imdee_yeah @ hotmail.com_NO_SPAM> wrote:
> Does the spoke tension has to be lowered, if the rider is a quite a
> big guy? A friend of mine weights 250+ lbs, should the spoke tension
> (especially the rear) of his cross-country bike be lowered and how
> much (say, from the standard 100kgf)?
No. Arguably your friend might want to consider wheels with more spokes
(36) at the standard tension or even a bit higher tension (say, 110-120
kgf if he's using a good rim). Lowering the spoke tension reduces the
load that the wheel can support.
Ron Ruff
> 20 light spokes to sprint on sounds suspiciously few. The weight of
> the rim is not a problem. Its inherent lateral stability may be.
> With only 20 spokes it may also be radially unstable. What is the
> rim. Is it designed for 20 spoke support. What drillings is it
> available in? What use will you put it to? What is your weight?
> TJ
It is a Kinlin XR200, 22mm deep and 18.5mm wide.
20h-36h. Mine will be 20h front and 28h rear.
I plan to ride it... everywhere. Rocky dirt roads sometimes.
170 lbs.
I've built a few of these already with 24h front... seem pretty solid.
Figured I'd try 20h and use myself as the guinea pig.
Tim McNamara
<95a84d54-0aac-49af...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Nick L Plate <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 100kgf is an awful lot.
100-110 kgf is pretty standard, actually. Read, for example, the
Wheelsmith wheel building manual.
> If the rim is a heavyweight, don't worry. If it's a road rim you'll
> need to be careful because not only do you risk rim fracture, but
> also overload of the wheel resulting in rim buckle.
Wheels may taco under excessive tension but is usually takes something
that raises the tension over the threshold- hard braking for example.
> It may be preferable to ensure that the spokes are 2mm or 14gauge
> front and rear if the bike is to be ridden at speed over rocks and
> boulders.
Swaged 14/15 g spokes would be a better choice.
Tim McNamara
<5490fe1b-5d7f-4ac0...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Nick L Plate <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 19:44, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Nick L Plate wrote:
> > > From Pippard and Francis's article The Stresses in a Radially
> > > Spoked Wire Wheel of 1931 " and every spoke was given an initial
> > > tension sufficient to ensure that it would remain taught under
> > > any load which was to be applied to the rim."
> >
> > Good advice. The problem is knowing what the max load will be...
> > and if you are trying to optimize strength/weight then you will end
> > up with the tension being quite high... usually at the limit of
> > what the rim will take.
>
> I don't believe the tension is required to be anywhere near 100kgf I
> don't believe many common rims can safely take this sort of spoke
> tension for long.
What do you consider an acceptable minimum spoke tension?
My wheels are routinely built to 100-110 kgf per my tensiometer (front
wheel spokes and rear wheel drive-side spokes; the NDS spokes are of
course much less tensioned, except on my 3 speed which has no dish and
my 135 mm OLN/7 speed bike which has only 3mm dish and thus spoke
tensions are very close).
With my MA-2 rims I have had no failures from spoke tension. I have one
7 speed 700C wheel built to 120 kgf which my wife has used for years
without problems.
Rims have taken a serious dive in terms of quality and design if they
cannot be built up with the spokes at 100 kgf without failing as a
result. There are good reasons for spoke nipple sockets and a polished
finish.
Tim McNamara
<71cbb753-4f83-400a...@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Nick L Plate <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
And all are unnecessary in a properly built wheel.
Nick L Plate
Taken from fairwheelbikes.com
______________________________________________
The XR-200 is KinLin comany's lightest road rim, and one of the
lightest aluminum rims available in the cycling world. These rims
feature a boxed aero cross section for added strength - not the most
aerodynamic rim on the market, but ideal for use in a climbing or
weight-conscious wheelset. Extruded from a superlight Niobium-Aluminum
alloy and joined with a high quality pinned joint. Finish work on
these rims include black anodization and machined sidewalls. For these
rims, we do recommend higher spoke counts (i.e. 24 front, 28 rear) for
riders over 55kg (120 lbs), and do not recommend them at all for
riders over 85kg (190 lbs).
-Diameter: 700c, ERD 594.0mm
-Width: 19mm
-Depth: 22mm
Weight: ~390g
____________________________________________________________-
I think you've got a good call for the front wheel if you use 14swg
steel spokes.
Use 14/15 on the left side rear if the rim is offset to the hub
flanges.
Build them x2 all round. If you do weave the spokes, kink them at
their crossing nearest the rim so that the spokes path does not change
when tightened up. Use a straight edge to check their path if you
find it easier.
TJ
Ron Ruff
> I think you've got a good call for the front wheel if you use 14swg
> steel spokes.
> Use 14/15 on the left side rear if the rim is offset to the hub
> flanges.
> Build them x2 all round. If you do weave the spokes, kink them at
> their crossing nearest the rim so that the spokes path does not change
> when tightened up. Use a straight edge to check their path if you
> find it easier.
> TJ
I'm using CX-Rays all around... radial front, 3x, 2x (or maybe radial)
rear. Alchemy hubs.
Chalo
>
> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > In addition, slack spokes allow the nipple to unscrew; this is bad.
>
> So use some threadlock or linseed oil or glue or paint or nailvarnish
> or hair laquer or tub glue or chew.nig gum or shellac.
> Any of these will prevent nipples unscrewing.
Would you consider this an adequate approach for an auto mechanic to
take with your car's wheel lug nuts, or cylinder head studs?
Just curious.
Chalo
Nick L Plate
Not relevant. You have identified fasteners which are clamping on to
something solid. The tension spoke is restraining an arch, it is not
fastening something tightly together, it is part of the support
structure which is adjusted in length by a nipple, for convenience, to
accomodate the varience due to manufacture. The nipple is adequately
restrained from turning by just about anything which is sticky applied
to the thread.
TJ
Gubajeen
I agree! Why would anyone want loose spokes? The strength of the
wheel and the energy transfer from the rider are dependent upon a
strong wheel. If your rim tacos before 100 kpf, it's not a rim I
would want to be riding on even for a trip to the end of my driveway!
You don't have to tension a rim until it deforms totally before you
know its maximum kpf. There's a "sweet spot" reached at high tension
where a rim trues very easily, and exceeding that level of tension
makes truing more difficult. In my experience, with a decent rim, and
a high enough spoke count, this happens a bit before a rim begins to
deform. It takes tensioning in very small increments to reach this
point, and this patience is rewarded by recognition of the "sweet
spot" of this particular rim. The better the quality of the rim, the
larger the sweet spot. I build with a 2x non-drive/3x drive, grease
or oil the threads on both sides of the wheel. This configuration
allows you to run a higher tension than normal on the non-drive side
of the wheel. I build the drive side at about 120 kpf, but rely more
on recognition of the sweet spot of the rim than the tensiometer
reading. In my experience, a wheel built this way both accelerates
and climbs in an excellent fashion.
Nick L Plate
> What do you consider an acceptable minimum spoke tension?
>
> My wheels are routinely built to 100-110 kgf per my tensiometer (front
> wheel spokes and rear wheel drive-side spokes; the NDS spokes are of
> course much less tensioned, except on my 3 speed which has no dish and
> my 135 mm OLN/7 speed bike which has only 3mm dish and thus spoke
> tensions are very close).
>
> With my MA-2 rims I have had no failures from spoke tension. I have one
> 7 speed 700C wheel built to 120 kgf which my wife has used for years
> without problems.
>
> Rims have taken a serious dive in terms of quality and design if they
> cannot be built up with the spokes at 100 kgf without failing as a
> result. There are good reasons for spoke nipple sockets and a polished
> finish.
The determination of minimal spoke tension that I use is that they
remain taut for the applied load to the rim. This does not require a
tension gauge. I can tell you that my 36 spoke Saturne sprint rims
are tensioned to a C# (A=440HZ) (14swg galvanized steel 300mm).
If tensions are kept low, wheels can be safely made without ferrules
or thick headed nipples. Thirty years ago, I had not seen the thick
hesd nipples as supplied by DT. The nipples I saw were I believe
described as pan head. These effectively limited the tension that
could be applied to a spoke and therefore the shear forces on the rim
so avoiding the problem of pull through. Tension could be made high
enough if you were to ignore the spoke twist, so that the nipple head
failed, the rim did not suffer. Occasional nipple head failures
happened usually when taking road wheels off road. The extra loading
due to impact providing sufficient force to shear the nipple head
which was already near its limit. It seems to me the intentional
inclusion of this weak link would generally benefit the cycle
industry. It does mean that you must use some threadlock or similar.
TJ
Nick L Plate
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> No. Arguably your friend might want to consider wheels with more spokes
> (36) at the standard tension or even a bit higher tension (say, 110-120
> kgf if he's using a good rim). Lowering the spoke tension reduces the
> load that the wheel can support.
With the wheels in question, ( which are? ) how do you add spokes?
Do you mean tying additional spokes in to brace the original ones,
perhaps to supplement the rear trailing spokes?
What sort of tying medium, flux and solder would you use to effect
the addition of thes spokes?
I can see it is possible to drill a hub and rim to accept more spokes
in the almost normal manner. Where precisely do you drill?
How many extra can you place in a 36 spoked wheel.
Is there some identifiable improvement?
Why a bit higher tension?
Are you testing your theories with other peoples equipment and
wellbeing?
The constant increasing in tension will lead to wheel failure. Do you
then back it off a bit?
TJ
Nick L Plate
> In article
> <95a84d54-0aac-49af-a43e-fd2ba00ba...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> Nick L Plate <tj-j...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > 100kgf is an awful lot.
>
> 100-110 kgf is pretty standard, actually. Read, for example, the
> Wheelsmith wheel building manual.
>
> > If the rim is a heavyweight, don't worry. If it's a road rim you'll
> > need to be careful because not only do you risk rim fracture, but
> > also overload of the wheel resulting in rim buckle.
>
> Wheels may taco under excessive tension but is usually takes something
> that raises the tension over the threshold- hard braking for example.
>
> > It may be preferable to ensure that the spokes are 2mm or 14gauge
> > front and rear if the bike is to be ridden at speed over rocks and
> > boulders.
>
> Swaged 14/15 g spokes would be a better choice.
Based on what? If the wheels are 36X14swg and a 250lb rider taking
to the rough stuff, why you think he should trash those wheels and get
new ones with less spoke material? Your statements are unwarranted.
Your arguments on wheel building, I have read, are without substance.
TJ
russell...@yahoo.com
How do you go about mixing 3 cross on the dirve side with 2 cross on
the non drive side in the same wheel? Seems to me if you take up
every other spoke hole with the drive side at 3 cross, then when you
fill in the other spoke holes fron the non drive side, they will end
up wither 3 cross or radial. No other options. And for your last
sentence, wouldn't radial allow you to run even higher tension on the
non drive side than 2 cross, if it were possible to build a 3 cross
drive and 2 cross non drive wheel.
I build the drive side at about 120 kpf, but rely more
> on recognition of the sweet spot of the rim than the tensiometer
> reading. In my experience, a wheel built this way both accelerates
> and climbs in an excellent fashion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nick L Plate
>
> I agree! Why would anyone want loose spokes? The strength of the
> wheel and the energy transfer from the rider are dependent upon a
> strong wheel. If your rim tacos before 100 kpf, it's not a rim I
> would want to be riding on even for a trip to the end of my driveway!
> You don't have to tension a rim until it deforms totally before you
> know its maximum kpf. There's a "sweet spot" reached at high tension
> where a rim trues very easily, and exceeding that level of tension
> makes truing more difficult. In my experience, with a decent rim, and
> a high enough spoke count, this happens a bit before a rim begins to
> deform. It takes tensioning in very small increments to reach this
> point, and this patience is rewarded by recognition of the "sweet
> spot" of this particular rim. The better the quality of the rim, the
> larger the sweet spot. I build with a 2x non-drive/3x drive, grease
> or oil the threads on both sides of the wheel. This configuration
> allows you to run a higher tension than normal on the non-drive side
> of the wheel. I build the drive side at about 120 kpf, but rely more
> on recognition of the sweet spot of the rim than the tensiometer
> reading. In my experience, a wheel built this way both accelerates
> and climbs in an excellent fashion.
I have also used this determination of tension and have found it
acceptable using average rims and 32 and more spoke with gauges from
14 to 17 The point is, if you ride hard enough, there will come a
time when the rim is displaced sufficiently that the nipple head
leaves contact with the rim and the nipple unwinds. The spokes are
only loose for a moment. The repetition of the overload causing the
loose spoke(same wheel position and shock) will induce the nipple to
unwind unless some precaution is taken to prevent it. The fact that
the spokes do go loose during overload prevents what was the load of
that spoke upon the rim from contributing to its demise. Encouraging
spokes to never go loose also encourages buckling.
TJ
Chalo
Bolt theory covers spokes as well. Just because you can see the
center span of a spoke doesn't make it mechanically different than a
head stud that threads from the crankcase to a nut on top, passing
through the cylinder block and head in between. These things do
change shape and size in reaction to operating loads, just like a
bicycle wheel.
Any mechanical engineer can tell you that the purpose of a bolted
joint is to contain enough preload to keep the assembly from going
slack in use. You (and j. beam) seem to be pretty much alone in your
opposition to this basic mechanical principle.
At about 350 lbs., I have more wheel torque on tap than you ever
imagined. I use 48 spoke wheels tensioned to 100kgf all round as an
absolute minimum; I use 140kgf if I believe the rim can withstand it.
And I have rims as light as sub-500g, which is very light in
proportion to the spoke counts and tensions I use. If I don't buckle
wheels when standing on the pedals (and I don't), you don't either.
I have to guess that any wheel buckling you've experienced while
sprinting must have been due to major side loads from flailing your
bike around. Only in your dreams would driveline torque cause such a
failure. Remember that leading and trailing spokes trade tension; the
net hoop compression on the rim doesn't change significantly.
Chalo
Ron Ruff
> How do you go about mixing 3 cross on the dirve side with 2 cross on
> the non drive side in the same wheel?
You can lace either side of the wheel any way you want. The holes
alternate, so one side does not effect the other.
Nick L Plate
Trouble is those spokes are equivalent to round wire 1.6mm spokes or
16swg. For your weight and intended use, that's 2gauges below my
suggestion based on my experience. Go for 1.8mm or 15swg but I think
you'll be pushing the boundaries even with these. Wear a helmet and
elbow pads for anything less than this. I also wonder what tyres you
will be able to use off road on such a narrow rim. Perhaps you may be
better at Safeways with skintight jeans. There are some which appear
as if they are sprayed on. I use to wear C.U.P. for posing.
TJ
Gubajeen
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're correct about non-drive side tension. I should've clarified.
2x allows for more tension than 3x. Radially spoked non-drive side
tension would be even higher, but due to the fact that they aren't
angled, and don't cross any other spokes, can become loose more
easily. You would need to use a thread locker to keep them from
loosening. I have rear wheels this way in the past, and they worked
fine. I went to 2x on the non-drive side, because the tension/
crossing kept them from loosening, even if I lubricated the threads.
I liked the "feel" of this configuration more than the radial/3x. The
look of the radial/3x was cooler, and easier to build(less thinking
initially), but in the end, not having to use threadlocker sealed the
deal. In regards to the mixed spoking question, (2x/3x), 2x still
uses a spoke on alternate rim holes, but uses a shorter spoke, at less
of an angle, and of course, which crosses only twice. GM
russell...@yahoo.com
mike.a...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Non-drive side 2X has less of an angle for the leading spoke to loose
tension when you press down on the pedals.
Non-drive side 1X has even less of an angle for the leading spoke to
loose tension when you press down on the pedals.
Non-drive side 0X has NO angle and no leading spoke to loose tension.
All non-drive side spokes are then trailing spokes and tighten when
you press down on the pedals.
Chalo
>
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> >
> > I'm using CX-Rays all around... radial front, 3x, 2x (or maybe radial)
> > rear. Alchemy hubs.
>
> Trouble is those spokes are equivalent to round wire 1.6mm spokes or
> 16swg. For your weight and intended use, that's 2gauges below my
> suggestion based on my experience. Go for 1.8mm or 15swg but I think
> you'll be pushing the boundaries even with these. Wear a helmet and
> elbow pads for anything less than this.
As I've already said, I weigh about 350 lbs. I use 1.8/1.6mm butted
spokes on one of my most frequently used bikes, and 2.0/1.5mm on a
couple of others. So far I've had no breakages or wheel maintenance
problems with any of those wheels. On the whole, they have been more
reliable than my thicker-spoked wheels which range up to 2.3/2.0mm in
gauge.
As long as the spoke can withstand the static tension, it doesn't much
matter how thick it is except for ease of wheelbuilding. For
increased wheel stiffness, a stiffer rim makes a lot more difference
than any change in spoke gauge.
Since you favor especially low spoke tension, you'd actually be best
off with 1.8/1.5mm spokes, which have more elastic range at low
tension and thus are less likely to slacken under load.
Chalo
Gubajeen
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are correct about radial non-drive spoking, as far as I have
read. But the all the trailing spokes don't tighten at the same
time. They tighten, then loosen, repeatedly, and so on. 2x at a
decent tension provides spoke against spoke friction at two different
points, thus hopefully keeping the spokes from loosening as they might
from a radial non-drive side, or even 1x. gm
Ron Ruff
> Trouble is those spokes are equivalent to round wire 1.6mm spokes or
> 16swg.
Actually 1.5mm.
> I also wonder what tyres you
> will be able to use off road on such a narrow rim.
Whatever I normally use... 23mm Conti GP4000 at present.
Nick L Plate
I don't think I've seen your details on wheel building. I'm not
doubting that you may have a greater reliability with reference to
previous wheels. It is not the gauge of spoke to which I'm objecting
to in Ron's proposal, but the total spoke cross-sectional area. I
have calculated the equivalent to a 36x 16swg (1.6mm) and determined
that 14swg (2.0mm) would give the same support in a 20 spoke front
wheel. The 28 spoke rear permitted the thinner gauge in half the
spokes taking into account a typical weight distribution. The weight
for which he is building is the same as I was when using 36x16swg
front and rear with the Weinmann A124 which were quite supple without
spoke support. I used these wheel on and off road, and completed a
high milage on the front. I had no problems with the front, a little
instability in the rear at times. It was over 40 000 miles when I had
three spokes fail in quick succession when braking on a 1in3 I equate
(roughly) that the Kinlin radial stiffness may be slightly higher than
the weinmann but will be compromised because of the 20 spoke count. I
think it reasonably to presume a similar lifespan(without braking)
could be acheived with the 2mm spokes on the 20 spoke front kinlin.
TJ
Tim McNamara
<e7f238ae-c1d0-4327...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Nick L Plate <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 Feb, 16:33, Tim back it off a bit after it fails McNamara
> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > No. Arguably your friend might want to consider wheels with more spokes
> > (36) at the standard tension or even a bit higher tension (say, 110-120
> > kgf if he's using a good rim). Lowering the spoke tension reduces the
> > load that the wheel can support.
>
> With the wheels in question, ( which are? ) how do you add spokes?
>
> Do you mean tying additional spokes in to brace the original ones,
> perhaps to supplement the rear trailing spokes?
> What sort of tying medium, flux and solder would you use to effect
> the addition of thes spokes?
> I can see it is possible to drill a hub and rim to accept more spokes
> in the almost normal manner. Where precisely do you drill?
> How many extra can you place in a 36 spoked wheel.
> Is there some identifiable improvement?
Apply your brain, TJ. That one was simple and you should have gotten it.
> Why a bit higher tension?
> Are you testing your theories with other peoples equipment and
> wellbeing?
Do you understand how wheels support a load? if you did, you wouldn't
be asking such daft questions. I've already answered your question
about the tension I use in building my wheels. It's worked well for
tens of thousands of miles.
> The constant increasing in tension will lead to wheel failure. Do you
> then back it off a bit?
What "constant increasing in tension?" Tension the wheels, true them,
go ride. Pretty simple.
Tim McNamara
<cf8ff7d1-adf6-4eef...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Nick L Plate <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Oh dear, I can tell that you're not current on how wheels support a
load. OK, let's keep it simple. Thicker spokes are useful at the
elbows and the threads. The thinner section in the middle allows for
greater elasticity and buffering of load changes on the elbows and
threads.
carl...@comcast.net
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
Dear Tim,
Maybe you lose that advantage if you lower the initial tension?
:-)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Tim McNamara
<9450d413-6ab5-4dc4...@r24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Nick L Plate <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Almost. "Riding hard" as in pedaling hard doesn't have anything to do
with it. Spokes can go slack under a static load.
> The fact that the spokes do go loose during overload prevents what
> was the load of that spoke upon the rim from contributing to its
> demise. Encouraging spokes to never go loose also encourages
> buckling.
And here's where you lose the plot again. Do you realize that you've
got it 180 degrees wrong?
Tim McNamara
<45d46ea8-03db-4b08...@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Nick L Plate <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 Feb, 17:59, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nick L Plate wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > > > In addition, slack spokes allow the nipple to unscrew; this is bad.
> >
> > > So use some threadlock or linseed oil or glue or paint or nailvarnish
> > > or hair laquer or tub glue or chew.nig gum or shellac.
> > > Any of these will prevent nipples unscrewing.
> >
> > Would you consider this an adequate approach for an auto mechanic to
> > take with your car's wheel lug nuts, or cylinder head studs?
>
> Not relevant. You have identified fasteners which are clamping on to
> something solid. The tension spoke is restraining an arch, it is not
> fastening something tightly together, it is part of the support
> structure which is adjusted in length by a nipple, for convenience, to
> accomodate the varience due to manufacture. The nipple is adequately
> restrained from turning by just about anything which is sticky applied
> to the thread.
The nipple is retrained from turning by spoke tension holding it against
the rim. The nipples in my wheels don't unscrew, even though the
threads are oiled and no sticky stuff is used, because the spoke tension
is high enough that the spokes don't go slack. Works great, try it some
time.
Out of curiosity, how to you think the spokes support the load on the
wheel?
Michael Press
<43aa23bc-1726-4bad...@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Gubajeen <gmur...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
I bring up the tension exactly as you describe, and find that
the assembly eventually balks at adding further tension. Then
it is time to stress relieve the spokes, balance the tension,
and polish the truing.
--
Michael Press
jim beam
> In article
> <e7f238ae-c1d0-4327...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Nick L Plate <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Feb, 16:33, Tim back it off a bit after it fails McNamara
>> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No. �Arguably your friend might want to consider wheels with more spokes
>>> (36) at the standard tension or even a bit higher tension (say, 110-120
>>> kgf if he's using a good rim). �Lowering the spoke tension reduces the
>>> load that the wheel can support.
>> With the wheels in question, ( which are? ) how do you add spokes?
>>
>> Do you mean tying additional spokes in to brace the original ones,
>> perhaps to supplement the rear trailing spokes?
>> What sort of tying medium, flux and solder would you use to effect
>> the addition of thes spokes?
>> I can see it is possible to drill a hub and rim to accept more spokes
>> in the almost normal manner. Where precisely do you drill?
>> How many extra can you place in a 36 spoked wheel.
>> Is there some identifiable improvement?
>
> Apply your brain, TJ. That one was simple and you should have gotten it.
>
>> Why a bit higher tension?
>> Are you testing your theories with other peoples equipment and
>> wellbeing?
>
> Do you understand how wheels support a load?
do /you/ understand it timmy? when jobst observes spoke tension
decrease, he's not observing "support", he's observing rim distortion.
but you can't think for yourself or understand simple mathematical
principles, so you're just parroting garbage like a true retard.
> if you did, you wouldn't
> be asking such daft questions.
quoth the retard that doesn't know what he doesn't know!
> I've already answered your question
> about the tension I use in building my wheels. It's worked well for
> tens of thousands of miles.
>
>> The constant increasing in tension will lead to wheel failure. Do you
>> then back it off a bit?
>
> What "constant increasing in tension?" Tension the wheels, true them,
> go ride. Pretty simple.
like you timmy. pretty simple.
Nick L Plate
The elastic spoked wheel was used by the Romans in their chariots. We
have come on since then.
WRT spoke gauge, how thin do you go? If thinner is better, by your
reasoning 12 spokes of 24swg gauge should do the job, preferably with
a 12 sw3g butt. I'd be more enter tained if you rode these wheels.
Ever thinner spokes will not work because there'll be insufficient
material to support the rim. By contrast the heaviest spokes you can
fit will support the load and be more efficient in carrying and power
transfer. There is a trade off between weight and stability. Rims
with a lower inherent stability will need greater support, more spoke
material per rim, than a stiffer rim. Even with the stiffest rim used
for the lightest use will still require a minimum spoke support. And
that minimum spoke support must give an acceptable amount of
distortion for the constant load to give a high efficiency wheel for
human powered transport. The most flexible rims will need the
greatest amount of spoke material for the same support and
efficiency. The elasticity of a wheel was sorted in 1840 or
thereabouts by RW Thomson, he called the elastic bearings, I call them
tyres. This allowed the development of the tension wheel to its full
potential. For greater efficiency it is best to let the tyre do the
majority of the elastic part of the wheel. You may like to check
using a dial gauge whether a given rim with more spokage deforms
less. Make sure that spoke installation is the same, easily achieved
if you do not weave the spokes.
If you can't get the level of suspension you require, use a bigger
tyre. There are a wide range of tyre sizes available. I suggest you
try a bigger size before weakening wheels.
The origins of the tension wheel come from Cayley and Donkin, Their
spokes where made of leather. When steel wire was made available,
this was used in preference, it's stiffer and supports the rim
better. To make the spokes ever thinner is to go backwards 200
years.
Because of the similarity of elasticity between aluminium alloy and
steel when asessed by mass, the ideal trade off to maximise the usage
of materials is likely to be close to equal mass of spokes and rim,
when using steel and aluminium alloy respectively without excess
material. It would also be desirable to acheive a situation where
equal strain is taken by rim and spokes to acheive longevity of the
wheel, almost acheivable with excellent rim design. In practice the
rim is generally overspecified to account for irregularities in rim
support caused by fewer spokes. If we take each spoke to weigh 6g,
use 36 of them, that would be a total of 226g or 8 oz which is
greater than the lightest alu rims such as the Nisi special I believe
was 7 oz 6g steel spokes are 16 or 15 swg (forget which) in
300mm length. Extra, sidewall(of the rim) material, is required when
using rim brakes, extra is required to restrain a wired-on tyre, extra
for lateral stability and tyre support, and extra is required for
lowering spoke counts due to the requirement to provide nipple support
because the load is shared between fewer nipple seats.
The use of a washer or eyelet increases the nipple support so
reducing the shear forces created around the nipple seat. The use of
ferrules which link a double wall rim at the nipple hole provide so
much support that when a spoke is snagged, the spoke will snap as
opposed to the nipple being pulled through the rim. I think that in
most cases the use of ferrules is overkill as protection from nipple
pull through is easily obtained by using a nipple with a thinner head
thickness which will shear at a lower load than that would cause the
rim to shear. Smaller rim drilling can also encourage a more optimal
design of rim.
I appreciate your need for simplicty, Timmy. The correct answer can
only be obtained when all the relevent data has been collected and the
technical merits are understood. The scientific explanation you
imagine you understand is useless when it cannot be applied to the
technology.
TJ
Nick L Plate
Have you had experience of this rear tyre off road. I ask because I
expect that with your weight, I found the minimum usable wired-on,
being 25mm on the back and 23mm on the front. A 25mm tyre would be
better suited to a wider rim where there will be a greater lateral
stiffness therefore better bike control and less tendency to buckle.
Have you got an actual value for x-sectional area for these spokes? I
would like to determine by calculation rather than experience whether
it is likely your usage could be safely acheived with this setup. Are
they hammered or rolled?
TJ
Nick L Plate
>
> > > In addition, slack spokes allow the nipple to unscrew; this is bad.
>
> > So use some threadlock or linseed oil or glue or paint or nailvarnish
> > or hair laquer or tub glue or chew.nig gum or shellac. Any of these
> > will prevent nipples unscrewing.
>
And I say its unecessary spending 30minutes+ tensioning and truing a
wheel when I can do it 10 minutes after spending one minute applying
linseed oil. Which along with straight spokes make my wheels properly
built.
So what is a C# on a 300mm 14gauge spoke?
TJ
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Trevor,
What spoke tension do you calculate for your tied-and-soldered,
kinked-at-the-crossings, not "anywhere near 100 kgf" wheels?
Cheers
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Trevor,
Let us know when you borrow a tension gauge and find out.
So far, we only have your claim that it's not not "anywhere near 100
kgf."
(Incidentally, unless it's a radial wheel, the effective length isn't
300 mm--you tie and solder it at the second (or maybe third?)
crossing.)
The phrase "straight spokes" may confuse people. Since you're the only
poster on RBT who kinks his spokes where they cross, most people
probably think of your spokes as bent or kinked, not straight.
I think that you mean that your spokes run straight to the kink or
bend, but you've got to be clearer when you're revolutionizing (sorry,
couldn't resist it) the way wheels revolve.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>The elastic spoked wheel was used by the Romans in their chariots.
Dear Trevor,
Actually, chariot wheels were popular in earlier Greece:
http://i42.tinypic.com/egre4o.jpg
--"Structures," J.E. Gordon, p. 145-147
The Greek and Roman chariot spokes were scarcely elastic in the sense
of a pre-tensioned wheel.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Nick L Plate
Not yet soldered, but no need since there is plenty of support on
those wheels, they were built as a reliable wheelset specified to cost
and ease of repair. I have already given the spoke tension as a
musical tone at around C# (next to middle C) 300mm 14swg steel
spoke. You let me know when you've converted it to a tensile stress.
TJ
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Trevor,
For crying out loud, pedal past a local bike shop, borrow a tension
gauge, and tell us! How else do you expect to convert the rest of the
world to your wheel-building scheme?
Soldered or not, the spoke is crossing another spoke, so the 300 mm
length is as useless as asking us to rely on your ear for tone.
But maybe you've done some mistaken calculations from 300 mm, relying
on your ear, and that's why you think your spokes are not "anywhere
near 100 kgf"?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ben C
> In article
><45d46ea8-03db-4b08...@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Nick L Plate <tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Not relevant. You have identified fasteners which are clamping on to
>> something solid. The tension spoke is restraining an arch, it is not
>> fastening something tightly together, it is part of the support
>> structure which is adjusted in length by a nipple, for convenience, to
>> accomodate the varience due to manufacture. The nipple is adequately
>> restrained from turning by just about anything which is sticky applied
>> to the thread.
>
> The nipple is retrained from turning by spoke tension holding it against
> the rim. The nipples in my wheels don't unscrew, even though the
> threads are oiled and no sticky stuff is used, because the spoke tension
> is high enough that the spokes don't go slack. Works great, try it some
> time.
But how many gears do you have?
I'm not saying it's impossible to make a good 9/10 speed Campag wheel
without linseed, but I swear by the stuff.
P. Chisholm
> On 2009-02-21, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > Nick L Plate <tj-j...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Not relevant. You have identified fasteners which are clamping on to
> >> something solid. The tension spoke is restraining an arch, it is not
> >> fastening something tightly together, it is part of the support
> >> structure which is adjusted in length by a nipple, for convenience, to
> >> accomodate the varience due to manufacture. The nipple is adequately
> >> restrained from turning by just about anything which is sticky applied
> >> to the thread.
>
> > The nipple is retrained from turning by spoke tension holding it against
> > the rim. The nipples in my wheels don't unscrew, even though the
> > threads are oiled and no sticky stuff is used, because the spoke tension
> > is high enough that the spokes don't go slack. Works great, try it some
> > time.
>
> But how many gears do you have?
>
> I'm not saying it's impossible to make a good 9/10 speed Campag wheel
> without linseed, but I swear by the stuff.
I use it too but only because I have for 23 years..way before the so
called 'hard to build' Campag freehub wheels. Proper tension on the RH
side, proper rim, spokes, number and spoke gauge and these are fine
with nothing more than oil.
A Muzi
>> [...]
>>>> Not relevant. You have identified fasteners which are clamping on to
>>>> something solid. The tension spoke is restraining an arch, it is not
>>>> fastening something tightly together, it is part of the support
>>>> structure which is adjusted in length by a nipple, for convenience, to
>>>> accomodate the varience due to manufacture. The nipple is adequately
>>>> restrained from turning by just about anything which is sticky applied
>>>> to the thread.
>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>> The nipple is retrained from turning by spoke tension holding it against
>>> the rim. The nipples in my wheels don't unscrew, even though the
>>> threads are oiled and no sticky stuff is used, because the spoke tension
>>> is high enough that the spokes don't go slack. Works great, try it some
>>> time.
> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> But how many gears do you have?
>> I'm not saying it's impossible to make a good 9/10 speed Campag wheel
>> without linseed, but I swear by the stuff.
P. Chisholm wrote:
> I use it too but only because I have for 23 years..way before the so
> called 'hard to build' Campag freehub wheels. Proper tension on the RH
> side, proper rim, spokes, number and spoke gauge and these are fine
> with nothing more than oil.
We also are accustomed to linseed oil and find no reason to change.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Nick L Plate
Just checked a spare spoke and it's exactly 12" from the inside of the
elbow to t'other end. So less the head of the nipple it's 11 31/32 "
Both spokes sound at the same freqency so it matters not that they
cross as one just excites t'other. I have done no calculations for
these wheels. The rims are heavier, the spokes are heavier, the tyres
give deeper support and the hub is heavier. I built so as the nipples
do not rattle under normal stress. A test ride over some road humps
in excess of 20mph indicated, I could feel the flexure, it was
desirable to increase tension. Added 1/4 turn all around and tested on
the same bumps but a bit faster. Excessive flexure had been
eliminated. That is the way they've stayed. The front wheel tension
was brought up to match the rear. There is no magic, or requirement
for instrumentation. If you want numbers, you can work them out.
They are unecessary because of variation of rider and usage. I don't
even know what weight I was when I built them, only I was lighter.
They still hold up well today.
TJ
carl...@comcast.net
[snip]
Dear Trevor,
So one spoke crossing another doesn't affect pitch when plucked?
Fascinating!
Let us know what pitch you get if you pluck the spoke below the
crossing.
Out of curiosity, what do you think the frets are for on guitars?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Nick L Plate
>
> So one spoke crossing another doesn't affect pitch when plucked?
>
> Fascinating!
>
> Let us know what pitch you get if you pluck the spoke below the
> crossing.
>
> Out of curiosity, what do you think the frets are for on guitars?
>
between their ends when both are the same mass and length tensioned
the same. They vibrate the same pitch together as when apart. Why are
you so ignorant on so many things?
TJ