32 spokes or 36? What is stronger?
Velo Psycho
straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
Seems logical.
Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
weight.
Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
MSA
mjralia...@yahoo.com says...
> Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
>
I can think of quite a few! Watch this space :-)
--
Mark (MSA)
______________________________________________
Remember, half the people you know are below average
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles
More spokes = greater strength. But at some point that's irrelevant; spokes
are far stronger than they used to be, and you could build a 24 spoke wheels
with far less chance of spoke failure than used to be the case on a 36 spoke
wheel back in the day.
I have no idea where the "straight line forces" argument comes from, as the
number of spokes has little, if anything, to do with the lacing pattern.
But the simplest answer I can give is that, with modern equipment, a 32
spoke wheel ought to be strong enough for just about any purpose other than
loaded touring or an extremely-heavy rider (and even then I think tire width
has more to do with wheel longevity than the number of spokes).
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
"Velo Psycho" <mjralia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108147770.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jay Beattie
"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles"
<Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:KE7Pd.3214$lz5...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> > I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes
radiate
> > straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel
stronger.
> >
> > Seems logical.
> >
> > Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger
because more
> > metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as
much of the
> > weight.
> >
> > Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
>
> More spokes = greater strength. But at some point that's
irrelevant; spokes
> are far stronger than they used to be, and you could build a 24
spoke wheels
> with far less chance of spoke failure than used to be the case
on a 36 spoke
> wheel back in the day.
O.K., Mike, how far back was "the day"? It seems to me that the
14/15g DT spokes I bought in '70s were about the same as the DT
spokes I buy today (except for price and excluding the wide-bend
series, whatever its official name was). The Trois Etoiles I
bought before that seemed to be pretty good, too. I had some
Union zinc plated spokes that broke a lot, but they probably
broke because I cooked them up tying and soldering with a torch
(hey, we can all do stupid things when we are young). It seems
to me that some of the real modern spokes are way worse than
anything back in the day -- although the modern, bad-idea spokes
come in pre-built wheels and not in boxes that anyone could
afford to buy and build into a normal wheel. -- Jay Beattie.
Peter
> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>
> Seems logical.
Really? Could you explain what is meant by this?
You can do radial lacing with either number of spokes (but I wouldn't
recommend it), and you can do tangential lacing with either number
of spokes. I don't see where the "radiate straighter" idea comes from.
>
> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
> metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
> weight.
For bikes that really need stronger than average wheels, such as tandems
and loaded touring bikes, I've never seen anyone advocate reducing the
spoke count to add strength. 32 spokes are generally strong enough for
most bicycles, but if other factors are kept equal then 36 would still
be stronger.
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles
> 14/15g DT spokes I bought in '70s were about the same as the DT
> spokes I buy today (except for price and excluding the wide-bend
> series, whatever its official name was). The Trois Etoiles I
> bought before that seemed to be pretty good, too. I had some
> Union zinc plated spokes that broke a lot, but they probably
> broke because I cooked them up tying and soldering with a torch
> (hey, we can all do stupid things when we are young). It seems
> to me that some of the real modern spokes are way worse than
> anything back in the day -- although the modern, bad-idea spokes
> come in pre-built wheels and not in boxes that anyone could
> afford to buy and build into a normal wheel. -- Jay Beattie.
Jay: Your experiences and mine don't correlate. We're talking the same time
period (early-to-mid-70s) and even the same spokes (Trios Etoiles/ 3-star).
We would see Robergel Trios Etoiles failing frequently, far more than their
zinc-coated ugly-duckling cousin (Sport?). Those were great spokes, but my
were they ugly looking... people would spend a lot of time polishing off the
zinc coating, but they'd look pretty bad pretty quickly. Early DT spokes may
have been a bit better, but they weren't, in my opinion, the same quality as
they are today.
In my opinion, spoke quality improved dramtically sometime during the late
80s. Either that or people finally started learning how to build wheels,
probably a bit of each.
Perhaps Jobst knows of any changes in metallurgy or process that might have
come about over the years? Or not?
HardwareLust
"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote
in message news:KE7Pd.3214$lz5...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> spoke wheel ought to be strong enough for just about any purpose other
than
> loaded touring or an extremely-heavy rider (and even then I think tire
width
> has more to do with wheel longevity than the number of spokes).
Mike,
What's your definition of an "extremely heavy" rider?
H.
Matt O'Toole
>> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because
>> more metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as
>> much of the weight.
> More spokes = greater strength. But at some point that's irrelevant;
> spokes are far stronger than they used to be, and you could build a
> 24 spoke wheels with far less chance of spoke failure than used to be
> the case on a 36 spoke wheel back in the day.
The strength of the spokes isn't the problem. It's the rim. More spokes
support the rim better. This is good for two reasons. One, obviously more
spokes make a stronger wheel, more resistant to the rim being bent. Two, if a
spoke breaks in a 36 spoke wheel, chances are the rim will still run true. A 32
spoke wheel often goes out of true enough that it won't spin freely in the
frame.
> But the simplest answer I can give is that, with modern equipment, a
> 32 spoke wheel ought to be strong enough for just about any purpose
> other than loaded touring or an extremely-heavy rider (and even then
> I think tire width has more to do with wheel longevity than the
> number of spokes).
This is true, but 36 spokes are even better, being more fail-safe. This is a
great place to "spend" a whole extra ounce. Unfortunately 36 hole rims and hubs
are getting hard to find. In fact any conventional wheels are getting hard to
find!
My 32 spoke MTB wheels have always required occasional truing, while my 36 spoke
ones went for years without being touched by a spoke wrench -- in spite of
having the lightest rim on the market.
Matt O.
Sheldon Brown
> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
Balderdash!
> Seems logical.
If this were true, it would be addressed by using a different cross pattern.
> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
> metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
> weight.
Yep.
Sheldon "More Is More" Brown
+---------------------------------------------------+
| Absurdity, n.: A statement or belief manifestly |
| inconsistent with one's own opinion. |
| --Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
Donald Gillies
>For bikes that really need stronger than average wheels, such as tandems
>and loaded touring bikes, I've never seen anyone advocate reducing the
>spoke count to add strength. 32 spokes are generally strong enough for
>most bicycles, but if other factors are kept equal then 36 would still
>be stronger.
This is a good point. Why do you think that tandem wheels and hubs
have 40 and 48 spoke counts ?? I even bought a tandem tubular once
that was drilled for 40 spokes, and british bikes used to be 40 spokes
rear, 32 spokes front, and we all know that the rear is much more
prone to spoke breakage and rim destruction than the front !!
Your thought that wheels with 32 spokes are stronger than 36 doesn't
even pass the "smell" test !!
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
Zog The Undeniable
Assuming you use an appropriate spoking pattern and the same materials,
36 spokes are stronger. There are some duff ideas like 36 x4, which can
break the spokes at the nipple end because the angle with the rim is
nowhere near perpendicular.
J
> My 32 spoke MTB wheels have always required occasional truing, while my 36 spoke
> ones went for years without being touched by a spoke wrench -- in spite of
> having the lightest rim on the market.
My 24 spoke front and 28 spoke rear mountain bike wheels haven't gone
out of true in 8 years of abuse. The rims are dented to heck, and nearly
worn through, but they're still true. Well, the front wheel once got
slightly out of true after I snapped a spoke catching someone's pedal
in a crash. A broken spoke on this 24 spoke wheel and it was only
slighly out of true -- it barely rubbed my vbrake pads.
J
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
> Seems logical.
You could have avoided sticking your neck out entirely by not adding
that quip, considering you don't feel sure of divulging your name.
> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
> metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
> weight.
> Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
This style of "research" is becoming more common along with the
gratuitous specious arguments to show that you already know the answer
but only want to test the understanding of others. It's a ploy. Just
ask the question if you don't know. Let respondents supply the
answers without the extra baggage.
With fewer the spokes and an increasing load (America is getting
heavier), spokes must have a larger cross section, and these
concentrate greater load on a small area of the rim. This demands
stronger rims. You may have noticed, rims are getting deeper in cross
section and heavier. Besides that, a single spoke failure on a low
spoke count wheel causes enough loss of alignment that the wheel
cannot be ridden with a broken spoke... especially with newer frames
that have no clearance to allow for a wobbly wheel or for riding on
dirt roads.
Carbon, titanium, stronger spokes, etc. Things are only getting
better, we are told. I am not convinced.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jobst,
Do try to stifle the paranoia and insecurity. The original
poster may not have actually meant to insult you personally.
We know that you're infuriated when posters fail to divulge
their name, rank, and serial number.
But many of them are unaware that you consider this
newsgroup as a formal interrogation room in which you feel
obliged to browbeat your prisoner to show everyone who's the
boss.
You could have spent the same time answering what was
probably just a question.
Carl Fogel
Bob Wheeler
hiding behind a handle.
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
--
Bob Wheeler --- http://www.bobwheeler.com/
ECHIP, Inc. ---
Randomness comes in bunches.
Werehatrack
have said:
>anonymous writes:
>
>> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
>> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>
>> Seems logical.
>
>You could have avoided sticking your neck out entirely by not adding
>that quip, considering you don't feel sure of divulging your name.
Y'know, that last part wasn't any less gratuitously insulting the
first time I saw it.
>With fewer the spokes and an increasing load (America is getting
>heavier), spokes must have a larger cross section, and these
>concentrate greater load on a small area of the rim. This demands
>stronger rims. You may have noticed, rims are getting deeper in cross
>section and heavier. Besides that, a single spoke failure on a low
>spoke count wheel causes enough loss of alignment that the wheel
>cannot be ridden with a broken spoke... especially with newer frames
>that have no clearance to allow for a wobbly wheel or for riding on
>dirt roads.
>
>Carbon, titanium, stronger spokes, etc. Things are only getting
>better, we are told. I am not convinced.
Now, *that* part of the response I can agree with unreservedly.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Werehatrack
said:
>You could have spent the same time answering what was
>probably just a question.
Eventually, he did.
Werehatrack
<mjralia...@yahoo.com> may have said:
>I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
>straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>
>Seems logical.
No, it doesn't. There are reasons why the vast majority of wheels are
not laced radially.
>Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
>metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
>weight.
>
>Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
If one is educated, it is not necessarily just an opinion.
The last two paragraphs of Jobst Brandt's answer constitute an
educated response.
Of course, this whole topic has been discussed to death long since,
more than a few times.
Werehatrack
<capt...@sheldonbrown.com> may have said:
>A gullible person wrote:
>
>> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
>> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>
>Balderdash!
>
>> Seems logical.
>
>If this were true, it would be addressed by using a different cross pattern.
>
>> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
>> metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
>> weight.
>
>Yep.
But 72 or 144 spoke wheels on a one-rider bike are silly. Sometimes,
more is *just* more.
Joe Riel
The advantage of 32 is that its prime factors are all even,
that is, 32=2^5, so it isn't susceptible to odd-harmonics,
like 36 = 2^2*3^2 is.
Joe [prefers 31 spoked wheels]
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Bob,
Take another look at your post.
You're probably far more pleasant, sensible, and polite than
Jobst or I.
But you're criticizing someone for the perfectly ordinary
use of a nom-de-web . . . while top-posting yourself.
I doubt that you'd be pleased if Jobst crushed the bee in
his bonnet about people not providing their unlisted
telephone numbers and savaged you for the indescribable
crime of typing your thoughts in a position sometimes
thought to be as bad as using the wrong fork at a formal
dinner.
You're also calling poster a beggar just because he asked a
perfectly polite question. If you're not careful, you could
end up like Jobst, calling everyone else liars, fools, rude,
ignorant, time-wasters, cowards, and so forth. (I hope that
it was just a careless comment, not the result of some
wretched series of teachers who made you feel as if asking a
question made you a pitiful worm who ought to lick their
boots.)
Compare the replies from Jobst and Sheldon.
Despite medication, Sheldon often gnashes his bloody fangs
with the brutal comment that "a shy person wrote," but then
he usually calms down and gives some practical, well-typed,
cheerful, witty, sensible reply.
Even the appalling victory of the Boston Red Sox has not
given Sheldon the sort of swollen head that would lead him
to call people asking questions on rec.bicycles.tech
beggars.
If you do ponder anonymity, you might browse a dozen or two
posts from Werehatrack, a stealthy piece of furniture who
routinely conceals his excellent posts behind one of our
stranger aliases.
It's hard to imagine Werehatrack snarling at anyone about
their failure to fill out the proper forms to ask a
question, just as it's hard to imagine Sheldon lecturing
strangers about how humble they should be when approaching
him or which questions are correct and which must not be
raised in a newsgroup.
(You'll notice that Jobst doesn't try to bully many posters
like Werehatrack or Zog the Undeniable or Carapace Completed
Umber. There's a hip word for this, but that's as much of a
pun as I feel like typing. And as far as I know, no one on
rec.bicycles.tech has ever laid eyes on me, possibly because
I infest a remote area, but possibly because I'm a troop of
Brownie Scouts who have broken into our parents' liquor
cabinet and are giggling drunkenly at grown men calling each
other anonymous beggars over bicycle wheels.)
Troop 23
Er, Carl Fogel
Jay Beattie
"Werehatrack" <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
news:d0eq01hllh63pi8i2...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Feb 2005 10:49:30 -0800, "Velo Psycho"
> <mjralia...@yahoo.com> may have said:
>
> >I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes
radiate
> >straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel
stronger.
> >
> >Seems logical.
>
> No, it doesn't. There are reasons why the vast majority of
wheels are
> not laced radially.
>
> >Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger
because more
> >metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as
much of the
> >weight.
> >
> >Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
>
> If one is educated, it is not necessarily just an opinion.
>
> The last two paragraphs of Jobst Brandt's answer constitute an
> educated response.
>
> Of course, this whole topic has been discussed to death long
since,
> more than a few times.
Let's get back to discussing shaving those little rubber ridges
off inner-tubes before putting on a patch. I miss that. SHELDON
IS A PARTY DOLL! -- Jay Beattie.
carl...@comcast.net
<rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:02:46 -0700, carl...@comcast.net may have
>said:
>
>>You could have spent the same time answering what was
>>probably just a question.
>
>Eventually, he did.
Dear Werehatrack,
You're right--Jobst did answer the question.
I just balked at Jobst's opening insults and paranoia.
I could plead that I now enjoy the luxury of not having to
finish reading essays that start out badly.
But that's not much of an excuse, I have to settle for
looking at least as foolish.
Thanks for poking me when I needed it--and for being so nice
about it.
Carl Fogel
Chalo
>
> Sheldon Brown <capt...@sheldonbrown.com> may have said:
> >
> >A gullible person wrote:
> >>
> >> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger
> >> because more metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is
> >> taking as much of the weight.
> >
> >Yep.
>
> But 72 or 144 spoke wheels on a one-rider bike are silly. Sometimes,
> more is *just* more.
That's an assertion predicated on several assumptions (safe ones,
admittedly) about typical rims and spokes. For example, a good sturdy
rim laced with 72 17ga. spokes is no sillier, structurally speaking,
than the same rim laced with 40 14ga. spokes. It just costs more and
takes a little more care to assemble.
It's not as easy to reckon a reasonable application for a 144 spoke
wheel though-- since spokes only come so thin, and rims only so heavy.
Such a thing might make sense for a high-wheeler, but it might not be
of enough benefit to justify the extra cost of so many spokes.
Chalo Colina
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles
> guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
> I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
> that 32 was stronger.
I can't see any decent way to rationalize that, all things being equal (same
rim & hub, different drillings of course, and same wheelbuilder) that a 36
spoke wheel could be less strong than a 32 spoke. It could very well be that
32 spokes is more than strong enough for the task at hand (which, in fact,
is likely the case), but the reason for not going to 36 spoke wheels has
nothing to do with strength and everything to do with the difficulty of
finding replacement rims when needed.
> His explanation seemed logical - but if I knew anything about math or
> physics, I'd be in another line of work. (note, my line of work does
> not allow me to "publish" anything under my name - not even little
> pissing matches with Jobst Brandt on the internet).
When you inadvertantly end up on on the wrong side (or any side) of a flame
session, the best tactic is to say that you're sorry you said something to
cause such a reaction, and move on. Unless, of course, you were
intentionally trying to cause such a reaction (which really shouldn't be the
case here, as it rarely helps to bring out further relevant info).
> But, I'd rather have someone just troll me by calling me an asshole
> than have some jackass who is obviously compensating for shortcomings
> somewhere else in his life who hides his name calling in a blast of
> "educated" condescension. Whoop dee doo, you went to Stanford. Go get
> your xxxxxx shine box.
I realize that profanity is a normal part of everyday life for many, but I
have yet to see an instance where, when directed at an individual, it has a
positive effect on the further posts in a given thread. I do agree that
Jobst could use a bit more tact at times (I doubt he'd have an issue without
someone saying that he doesn't suffer fools gladly), and the manner in which
he jumps on people for their anonymity might be viewed as obnoxious.
However, it has to be put into the larger context- that information from an
anonymous source is generally not to be taken as seriously as information
from someone willing to put their name behind it.
And yes, in my perfect world, I'd require that all posts have real names
attached to them, at least in a "friendly" environment like
rec.bicycles.tech & rec.bicycles.misc, where "real" information is what
people seek & share. As opposed to, for example, rec.bicycles.racing, where
real names are probably in the minority, and people try to out-entertain
each other by publishing outlandish lies and half-truths and opinions that
they'd never want associated with themselves personally. Under cover of
darkness as it were.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
"Velo Psycho" <mjralia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108167570.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote: (a bunch of whiny shit)>
>
>
> I'd like to thank the other 99% of the people who replied. I'll
> certainly ask more questions that many of you will find stupid,
> pedestrian, or low-brow. If I knew the answer, don't you think I'd
> have much better things to do than antagonize the great Jobst Brandt?
>
> I made a call to a bike shop today seeking some 36 spoked wheels. The
> guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
> I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
> that 32 was stronger.
>
> His explanation seemed logical - but if I knew anything about math or
> physics, I'd be in another line of work. (note, my line of work does
> not allow me to "publish" anything under my name - not even little
> pissing matches with Jobst Brandt on the internet).
>
> So... I turned here... a place where it seems that those with lots of
> knowledge are willing to share with those who have less knowledge.
>
> I will conclude by saying that Mr. Br<andt has not tarnished my
> impression of this "place." I'll be back to ask more questions
> eventually, and I might even offer some answers.
>
> But, I'd rather have someone just troll me by calling me an asshole
> than have some jackass who is obviously compensating for shortcomings
> somewhere else in his life who hides his name calling in a blast of
> "educated" condescension. Whoop dee doo, you went to Stanford. Go get
> your fuckin' shine box.
>
Velo Psycho
I'd like to thank everyone except Brandt for your opinions. I'll
certainly ask more questions that many of you will find stupid,
pedestrian, or low-brow. If I knew the answer, don't you think I'd
have much better things to do than antagonize the great Jobst Brandt?
I made a call to a bike shop today seeking some 36 spoked wheels. The
guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
that 32 was stronger.
His explanation seemed logical - but if I knew anything about math or
physics, I'd be in another line of work. (note, my line of work does
not allow me to "publish" anything under my name - not even little
pissing matches with Jobst Brandt on the internet).
So... I turned here... a place where it seems that those with lots of
knowledge are willing to share with those who have less knowledge. Is
that "begging?" Some people get paid for their advice... and others
choose to share it for free. I respect both. But the dickhead that
first whines about begging and netiquette and then uses that platform
from which to shout his superior knowledge... well, he's just a
dickhead.
With 1/20th of the words, and none of the nastiness, many other people
answered the question. And if I farted at the table, well, I wasn't
raised in the internet, and it's all I can do to remember which fork to
use, or the various forms of verbs in three languages... I dont even
know what "top posting" means.
I will conclude by saying that Mr. Brandt has not tarnished my
impression of this "place," and that is because he seems to be in the
disfavored minority. I'll be back to ask more questions eventually,
and I might even offer some answers - when I know the answers - and I
won't be a prick about it and whine that it is "begging." I'll share
because... well just because that's *what one does.*
I don't mind being made fun of. Sheldon Brown's post called me
"gullible," and I will plead guilty to that. And, I'll say that there
was zero offense taken to that. The guy spent about 20 words teaching
me more about bike wheels than I knew before, and if he chooses to toss
one in to chuckle at me, I can chuckle back. (Jobst, you might want to
ask Brown for some lessons in class as well as some lessons in
knowledge about bikes).
And I know I shouldnt care what Mr. Brandt thinks, but I spent way too
many years in various institutions of higher education -- and I think
my capacity for dealing with assholes like him is just about tapped
out. So Brandt, if you see me "begging" again, just shut your mouth.
There are plenty of people who have what you have -- that being
knowledge -- and there are plenty of people with knowledge who have
what you do not -- that being class.
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles
>
> What's your definition of an "extremely heavy" rider?
Depends upon the equipment used, and how. If we're talking about a light
road bike, I'd say that anyone over 200lbs should probably be looking at 25c
tires, and at 250lbs, 28c. But there are great variations in how people ride
their bikes, such that a 175lb rider might trash wheels and pinch-flat tires
far more often than a 250lb guy.
But in general, I'd say at 250lbs I'd rather see someone on a sturdier,
non-stock wheel... regardless of whether it's a fancy boutique wheel or
conventional 32-spoke model. I'd likely choose a heavier rim, like a
Velocity deep-V, and either 32 or 36 spokes. With a strong-enough rim, I've
seen little evidence that spoke count is the determining factor in wheel
durability. I've also seen very little evidence, despite it seeming to make
common sense, that lower spoke count wheels knock out of true more than
higher spoke count wheels. I've seen quite a few 32 & 36-spoke wheels go way
out of true from a single spoke. Why? Doesn't make much sense to me. On the
other hand, when I broke a spoke in my 16-spoke Rolf wheel a couple years
back, it was still quite ridable.
I guess somebody needs to do a bit of destructive testing sometime... take a
few perfectly-good wheels, snip a spoke, and see what happens. What a sad
thing to do to a perfectly-good wheel, but it would be in the name of
science after all...
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
"HardwareLust" <n0...@n0where.c0m> wrote in message
news:Kb8Pd.20173$wc.13108@trnddc07...
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> 32 spoke wheel ought to be strong enough for just about any purpose
>> other than loaded touring or an extremely-heavy rider (and even then
>> I think tire width has more to do with wheel longevity than the
>> number of spokes).
>
> This is true, but 36 spokes are even better, being more fail-safe.
Still not convinced that 36 spokes are more "fail safe." If fewer spokes are
more than adequate to carry the load, what is it we expect to have happen
such that an additional increase of even 20% in the number of spokes would
make a difference? Spokes aren't generally run that close to their breaking
point. In a poorly-built wheel, or a bad batch of spokes, sure, it might
make the difference between a wheel that holds up and one that doesn't.
Hmm. OK, here's an interesting idea on the fewer-spokes=strong-wheel thing.
The greater the number of spokes used, the lower the tension has to be on
each spoke, to avoid exceeding the strength of the rim and causing it to
collapse (fold, taco, whatever). So, for a given rim, you may be better off
with fewer spokes at higher tension, so that there's less likelihood of any
spinning loose as the tension varies throughout its loading cycle. This is
probably an extreme example that doesn't happen in real life.
> My 32 spoke MTB wheels have always required occasional truing, while my 36
> spoke
> ones went for years without being touched by a spoke wrench -- in spite of
> having the lightest rim on the market.
But many people have similar experiences with high-end 24 & 28-spoke
wheelsets, while many others have terrible expriences with cheapie 36-spoke
wheels on cheapie mountain bikes. Too many other variables to consider.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
"Matt O'Toole" <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:374i0jF...@individual.net...
carl...@comcast.net
<mjralia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I made a call to a bike shop today seeking some 36 spoked wheels. The
>guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
>I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
>that 32 was stronger.
[snip]
>I dont even
>know what "top posting" means.
[snip]
Dear V.P.,
While it's hard to imagine 32 spokes being stronger than 36,
there are strange situations in which less turns out to be
more, so the bike shop might have simply confused one with
the other.
Or the bike shop could have been wrong.
Or the bike shop could simply have wanted to sell you the
popular 32-spoke wheels that they have, which are fine for
most people. The 36-spoke wheels have become much rarer.
(They could also be evil people bent on yanking Jobst's
chain, but a surprising number of bike shop employees
haven't even heard of him.)
Here's one example of less being "stronger"--as Jobst has
often pointed out, butted spokes with 14 gauge ends and
thinner mid-sections produce wheels that last longer than
straight 14-gauge spokes.
Thinner is paradoxically better here because the spokes work
by first being pre-tensioned and then losing tension and
contracting as they roll under the hub. A thicker spoke will
lose all its tension in a shorter distance, becoming loose
when the rim flattens out just a little, while a thinner
spoke will have stretched more to start with and will not
have lost all its tension.
Thicker spokes go slack and rattle and fail sooner than
thinner spokes in a well-built wheel. Weird, but true.
But so far no one has found 32 spoke wheels stronger than 36
spoke. There is a common comment that radial spoking is
probably a bad idea compared to the traditional spoke
pattern, but much of that is due to the hub--a spoke coming
straight off the hub has very little hub metal to holding it
in, while a spoke coming off at the angle for cross-3 has
lots of metal. A 32-spoke cross-laced wheel would have a
stronger hub than a 36-spoke radial-laced wheel.
As for top-posting, it's just the wicked habit of putting a
reply at the top, above whatever someone said earlier,
instead of at the bottom. (I rarely indulge in it, unless I
think that it will irritate someone who annoys me.)
In contrast, long-winded, god-fearing posters politely stick
their ravings at the end (like this), where at least they
can be quickly and easily ignored.
Briefer and better posters often intersperse their pithy
remarks, so that it's easy to see what they're answering,
but perhaps harder to follow if someone follows up in the
same style.
The angrier they get about style, the sillier they look.
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Reaction Bicycles" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>> O.K., Mike, how far back was "the day"? It seems to me that the
>> 14/15g DT spokes I bought in '70s were about the same as the DT
>> spokes I buy today (except for price and excluding the wide-bend
>> series, whatever its official name was). The Trois Etoiles I
>> bought before that seemed to be pretty good, too. I had some
>> Union zinc plated spokes that broke a lot, but they probably
>> broke because I cooked them up tying and soldering with a torch
>> (hey, we can all do stupid things when we are young). It seems
>> to me that some of the real modern spokes are way worse than
>> anything back in the day -- although the modern, bad-idea spokes
>> come in pre-built wheels and not in boxes that anyone could
>> afford to buy and build into a normal wheel. -- Jay Beattie.
>
>Jay: Your experiences and mine don't correlate. We're talking the same time
>period (early-to-mid-70s) and even the same spokes (Trios Etoiles/ 3-star).
>We would see Robergel Trios Etoiles failing frequently, far more than their
>zinc-coated ugly-duckling cousin (Sport?). Those were great spokes, but my
>were they ugly looking... people would spend a lot of time polishing off the
>zinc coating, but they'd look pretty bad pretty quickly. Early DT spokes may
>have been a bit better, but they weren't, in my opinion, the same quality as
>they are today.
>
>In my opinion, spoke quality improved dramtically sometime during the late
>80s. Either that or people finally started learning how to build wheels,
>probably a bit of each.
>
>Perhaps Jobst knows of any changes in metallurgy or process that might have
>come about over the years? Or not?
>
>--Mike Jacoubowsky
>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReaction.com
>IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
Dear Mike,
Ten years after the first edition of his book, Jobst
mentioned that spokes had improved so much that it would
have been difficult for him to write the same book:
"It appears that the better spokes now available would have
made the discovery of many of the concepts of this book more
difficult for lack of failure data. I am grateful in
retrospect for the poor durability of earlier spokes. They
operated so near their limits that durability was
significantly altered by the techniques that I have
outlined."
--Jobst Brandt, "The Bicycle Wheel," 3rd Edition, 1993,
p.124
Jim Beam has suggested that considerable improvements have
been made in both the metallurgical side of things (better
quality metal due to tricks like de-gassing) and in the
subtle details of the finished products (the shape of the
spoke threads, the angle and length of the elbows, and so
forth).
A 1% yearly improvement in the strength or durability of a
spoke would have been invisible to us, year-by-year, but it
would have produced spoke about 22% better than what was
available in 1983.
Carl Fogel
pete...@yahoo.com
Bob Wheeler contributed to the discussion about number of spokes by
adding:
> I'm with Jobst. It is rude, in my opinion, to beg expert advice while
> hiding behind a handle.
Thanks Bob.
App, who just now added his own useless garbage to the thread, and then
thought, irony is so ironic.
Sheldon Brown
> I made a call to a bike shop today seeking some 36 spoked wheels. The
> guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
> I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
> that 32 was stronger.
"Professional" is a word with more than one meaning...
Sheldon "Now You Know Who You're Dealing With" Brown
+----------------------------------+
| Good health is nothing but the |
| slowest way to die. -Les Barker |
+----------------------------------+
Werehatrack
<jbea...@lindsayhart.com> may have said:
>Let's get back to discussing shaving those little rubber ridges
>off inner-tubes before putting on a patch. I miss that. SHELDON
>IS A PARTY DOLL! -- Jay Beattie.
Or maybe another helmet war...no, on second thought, not. Inner tube
ridges, yeah, that's the ticket. Or maybe NiCd vs Li batteries for
tirefly array power.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Still not convinced that 36 spokes are more "fail safe." If fewer
> spokes are more than adequate to carry the load, what is it we
> expect to have happen such that an additional increase of even 20%
> in the number of spokes would make a difference? Spokes aren't
> generally run that close to their breaking point. In a poorly-built
> wheel, or a bad batch of spokes, sure, it might make the difference
> between a wheel that holds up and one that doesn't.
Looking at it in a different way, you might take another cut at it.
With fewer spokes, other aspects being equal, spoke tension must be
higher so the number of spokes and the effect of one failure is more
than a percentage difference, more like a squared effect there being
fewer AND tighter spokes by that amount. For this reason, wheels go
farther out of alignment than the ratio of for instance 36:32 spokes.
I have worked with enough spoke failures that occurred for one reason
or another to have developed a feel for this. Besides, I can recall
many times breaking a spoke on a 100+ mile ride and riding the most of
it without touching the 36 spoke wheel in question. As I said, there
are two things at work here, the wheel and the bicycle. New bicycles
have no room for a wobbly wheel but to make up for that they use 16/18
spoke wheels.
> Hmmm. OK, here's an interesting idea on the fewer-spokes=strong-wheel
> thing. The greater the number of spokes used, the lower the tension
> has to be on each spoke, to avoid exceeding the strength of the rim
> and causing it to collapse (fold, taco, whatever). So, for a given
> rim, you may be better off with fewer spokes at higher tension, so
> that there's less likelihood of any spinning loose as the tension
> varies throughout its loading cycle. This is probably an extreme
> example that doesn't happen in real life.
Yes, that is true and it lessens the cyclic load on each spoke as well
and not having a great disturbing influence on alignment if one fails.
>> My 32 spoke MTB wheels have always required occasional truing,
>> while my 36 spoke ones went for years without being touched by a
>> spoke wrench -- in spite of having the lightest rim on the market.
> But many people have similar experiences with high-end 24 & 28-spoke
> wheelsets, while many others have terrible experiences with cheapie
> 36-spoke wheels on cheapie mountain bikes. Too many other variables
> to consider.
Well, you cant get those rims anymore so it's history.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Jay Beattie
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:acnq01lbdfig2rg5o...@4ax.com...
You see, that's what I get for buying the first edition. I still
see no difference between the DT spokes of, let's say, 1981 and
2004, and I have wheels with both vintages that I ride a lot (and
some way older wheels that hang on nails, so they do not count).
But I will go with the consensus and thank my lucky stars that
something has improved. -- Jay Beattie.
David L. Johnson
> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>
> Seems logical.
Does it, now? Did anyone point out that, with 3-cross lacing, 36-hole
wheels have "straighter" spokes than 32?
>
> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
> metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
> weight.
>
> Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
I don't know how much edumacation it takes to figure out that more spokes
would be --what-- stronger? If 32 spokes would be stronger, then 24 would
be better yet.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is
_`\(,_ | not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
(_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy
David L. Johnson
> I made a call to a bike shop today seeking some 36 spoked wheels. The
> guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
> I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
> that 32 was stronger.
>
> His explanation seemed logical - but if I knew anything about math or
> physics, I'd be in another line of work.
Well, the "professional" at the bike shop is working at a bike shop
because he knows a lot of physics? His answer was, to put it politely,
bullshit. He told you that because he only has 32-spoke wheels to sell
you.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |
Ryan Cousineau
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> anonymous writes:
>
> > I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
> > straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>
> > Seems logical.
>
> You could have avoided sticking your neck out entirely by not adding
> that quip, considering you don't feel sure of divulging your name.
>
> > Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
> > metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
> > weight.
>
> > Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
>
> This style of "research" is becoming more common along with the
> gratuitous specious arguments to show that you already know the answer
> but only want to test the understanding of others. It's a ploy. Just
> ask the question if you don't know. Let respondents supply the
> answers without the extra baggage.
>
> With fewer the spokes and an increasing load (America is getting
> heavier), spokes must have a larger cross section, and these
> concentrate greater load on a small area of the rim. This demands
> stronger rims. You may have noticed, rims are getting deeper in cross
> section and heavier. Besides that, a single spoke failure on a low
> spoke count wheel causes enough loss of alignment that the wheel
> cannot be ridden with a broken spoke... especially with newer frames
> that have no clearance to allow for a wobbly wheel or for riding on
> dirt roads.
Well, I think that the low spoke counts leading to deeper rims cuts both
ways. The prime incentive for deeper rims and fewer spokes is
aerodynamics. It so happens that choosing one makes the other possible,
and both make for a very aero wheel.
Now, it so happens I just read your book, and I entirely sympathize with
your feelings on the utility (or lack thereof) of aero wheels for the
great majority of riders. Alas, I am in that small minority of riders
who actually race. I'm not good, I'm definitely not turning pro, but I
do have some personal goals, and I've read the analyses of aero wheels
versus conventional wheels. In performance competitions, aerodynamic
wheels make a measurable difference, and certainly enough to influence a
great many races.
> Carbon, titanium, stronger spokes, etc. Things are only getting
> better, we are told. I am not convinced.
I think you have a point: here's a boringly excellent set of wheels (the
WE92s, not the R500s) for US$100:
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/wheels.html#roadwheels
On the other hand, really spiffy aero wheels start around 10 times that
price, though cheaper versions are available for less:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7133222403
Warning: 16/20 spoke wheelset, new, sold for $126. Not for the faint of
heart.
But the key here is that the latter wheels (or Mavic Ksyriums, or Zipp
303s) aren't especially justifiable outside of competition. If you
aren't racing, and racing with some modicum of seriousness, there's no
point. I should know: I've placed rather well in local Cat 5 races using
a 22-pound steel bike with non-aero wheels.
But it should also be pointed out that aero wheels do serve their
purpose very well: they're mostly more aero than non-aero wheels (the
data on analyticcycling.com say that in general, deep-rim wheels are
uniformly more aerodynamic than non-aero wheels, and within the group
most deep-rim wheels perform very similarly to each other), and in ways
that are not going to make a big difference on your daily commute, but
should make a difference in race finishes.
I just finished Jobst's _The Bicycle Wheel_ (the details of the personal
crisis from which I used it to distract myself will go unmentioned), and
he there expresses some particular skepticism about the benefits of aero
wheels in competition, since all they really do is up the bar of
admission. There's some sense in that.
On the other hand, the UCI made what could be termed a half-hearted
attempt to limit the weirdest wheels (by requiring low-spoke-count
wheels to undergo a "burst test" to ensure they wouldn't spray spokes
all over the peloton), but lots of wheels obviously pass that test. I
always admire (and this isn't meant as a left-handed compliment--well,
not entirely) the rather continental way in which the UCI has straddled
the aerodynamic issue, saying yes to aero wheels, no to forward-mounted
saddles, yes to aero-bars (but only for TTing), no to little nubbiny
handholds in front of the stem, and first no, then later yes to saddles
with slightly elongated tailsections. The result is some sort of
compromise where a UCI bike is both expensively unusual and not
especially aerodynamic, at least by the standards of M. Mochet.
For those of you wondering what I'm trying to justify, here it is:
http://www.kultbike.com/shop/wheels.html
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.
Tom Sherman
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:49:30 -0800, Velo Psycho wrote:
>
>
>>I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
>>straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>>
>>Seems logical.
>
>
> Does it, now? Did anyone point out that, with 3-cross lacing, 36-hole
> wheels have "straighter" spokes than 32?
>
>>Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
>>metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
>>weight.
>>
>>Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
>
>
> I don't know how much edumacation it takes to figure out that more spokes
> would be --what-- stronger? If 32 spokes would be stronger, then 24 would
> be better yet.
So when the number of spokes decreases to zero, the wheel becomes
infinitely strong. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Earth
Tom Sherman
> <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: (a bunch of whining)>
>
> I'd like to thank everyone except Brandt for your opinions. I'll
> certainly ask more questions that many of you will find stupid,
> pedestrian, or low-brow....
Shouldn't pedestrian questions be addressed to rec.pedestrians.tech?
This is a cycling newsgroup after all.
RonSonic
>
><jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote: (a bunch of whiny shit)>
>
>
>I'd like to thank the other 99% of the people who replied. I'll
>certainly ask more questions that many of you will find stupid,
>pedestrian, or low-brow. If I knew the answer, don't you think I'd
>have much better things to do than antagonize the great Jobst Brandt?
>
>I made a call to a bike shop today seeking some 36 spoked wheels. The
>guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
>I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
>that 32 was stronger.
>
>His explanation seemed logical - but if I knew anything about math or
>physics, I'd be in another line of work. (note, my line of work does
>not allow me to "publish" anything under my name - not even little
>pissing matches with Jobst Brandt on the internet).
>
>So... I turned here... a place where it seems that those with lots of
>knowledge are willing to share with those who have less knowledge.
>
>I will conclude by saying that Mr. Br<andt has not tarnished my
>impression of this "place." I'll be back to ask more questions
>eventually, and I might even offer some answers.
>
>But, I'd rather have someone just troll me by calling me an asshole
>than have some jackass who is obviously compensating for shortcomings
>somewhere else in his life who hides his name calling in a blast of
>"educated" condescension. Whoop dee doo, you went to Stanford. Go get
>your fuckin' shine box.
Dude, relax.
There are enough trolls out there and wheelbuilding is a ripe enough target for
'em. Jobst wrote a book on the subject so you'll have to understand if he never
sits with his back to the door.
Sometimes an innocent question is dumb enough and phrased in a troll-happy
format and is understandably confused. I'm quite sure Jobst would apologize if
he gave a shit. But a brief usenet misunderstanding's no big deal and you'd be
well to brush it off.
Bottom line, that ain't the bike store to be shopping at. Now you may not really
need 36 spokes and that would be a legitimate answer. But to say that they
aren't stronger than 32 spokers tells more about their inventory than the
science of wheel building.
Ron
Ryan Cousineau
"Chalo" <chump...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sometimes it's reasonable just to look beautiful:
http://www.bicycledesigner.com/parts/160101.jpg
144-spoke wheels. Purdy, innit?
I am especially enamoured of this version of the 144-spoke wheel:
http://www.bicycledesigner.com/parts/546106.jpg
Dangerously unpurposeful, but I would note that they make a rear version
of this same radial-laced, fan-patterned wheel, but I assume the sheer
abundance of spokes means that these wheels hold together reasonably
well for their intended purpose, without excessive wind-up problems.
On the other hand, I'm willing to make the uneducated guess (MAS!) that
these wheels have no hope of keeping their spokes tensioned without a
thread-locking compound, simply because the average tension would have
to be quite low, if I'm figuring correctly.
Intended usage:
http://lowriderbike.com/bike_tech/01sprlrb_tech27_zoom.jpg
Hee hee!
Mark Janeba
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:49:30 -0800, Velo Psycho wrote:
>
>
>>I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
>>straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>>
>>Seems logical.
>
>
> Does it, now? Did anyone point out that, with 3-cross lacing, 36-hole
> wheels have "straighter" spokes than 32?
>
>>Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
>>metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
>>weight.
>>
>>Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
>
>
> I don't know how much edumacation it takes to figure out that more spokes
> would be --what-- stronger? If 32 spokes would be stronger, then 24 would
> be better yet.
C'mon, Dave - you can't blame these guys - they don't teach the method
of infinite descent in the public schools anymore.
Mark "reductio" Janeba
jim beam
> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>
> Seems logical.
no. for same gauge, count has a much bigger effect than marginal
elasticity due to length differences.
>
> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
> metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
> weight.
for same gauge, the higher count is stronger and stiffer.
>
> Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
>
eh?
bottom line: 32 is perfectly adequate unless you're really big. i'm
over 200 & have ridden 32's for years without problem, even on mtb's.
dianne_1234
wrote:
>For those of you wondering what I'm trying to justify, here it is:
>
>http://www.kultbike.com/shop/wheels.html
Why are all the spokes on the inside of the right flange of the rear
hub? Doesn't that increase dish?
jim beam
well spotted!
gcmsc...@gmail.com
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> Do try to stifle the paranoia and insecurity. The original
> poster may not have actually meant to insult you personally.
>
> We know that you're infuriated when posters fail to divulge
> their name, rank, and serial number.
Maybe this is Jobst's form of recreation, in a bicycle-technical sort
of way?
> But many of them are unaware that you consider this
> newsgroup as a formal interrogation room in which you feel
> obliged to browbeat your prisoner to show everyone who's the
> boss.
It was always seemed odd to me that folks who have some small amount
more knowledge than others would choose to arrogantly lord that over
those same others. And in usenet, where participation is purely
voluntary. Heck, if you don't like the question or the questioner,
simply don't respond! Really, how difficult is that?
> You could have spent the same time answering what was
> probably just a question.
Now, what fun would that be for an overly self-important curmudgeon?
This is a rec.* group, after all. Surely, if it allows your tangential
inanity, then it must allow brusque curmudgeonliness.
It might even allow for meta-discussions with no real bike-tech
content.
:blush:
E.P.
Sven Longren
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mjaq019f3pvkdfpd3...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:18:32 GMT,
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> >anonymous writes:
> >
> >> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
> >> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
> >
> >> Seems logical.
> >
> >You could have avoided sticking your neck out entirely by not adding
> >that quip, considering you don't feel sure of divulging your name.
> >
> >> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
> >> metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
> >> weight.
> >
> >> Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
> >
> >This style of "research" is becoming more common along with the
> >gratuitous specious arguments to show that you already know the answer
> >but only want to test the understanding of others. It's a ploy. Just
> >ask the question if you don't know. Let respondents supply the
> >answers without the extra baggage.
> >
> >With fewer the spokes and an increasing load (America is getting
> >heavier), spokes must have a larger cross section, and these
> >concentrate greater load on a small area of the rim. This demands
> >stronger rims. You may have noticed, rims are getting deeper in cross
> >section and heavier. Besides that, a single spoke failure on a low
> >spoke count wheel causes enough loss of alignment that the wheel
> >cannot be ridden with a broken spoke... especially with newer frames
> >that have no clearance to allow for a wobbly wheel or for riding on
> >dirt roads.
> >
> >Carbon, titanium, stronger spokes, etc. Things are only getting
> >better, we are told. I am not convinced.
> >
> >Jobst Brandt
> >jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>
> Dear Jobst,
>
> Do try to stifle the paranoia and insecurity. The original
> poster may not have actually meant to insult you personally.
>
> We know that you're infuriated when posters fail to divulge
> their name, rank, and serial number.
>
> But many of them are unaware that you consider this
> newsgroup as a formal interrogation room in which you feel
> obliged to browbeat your prisoner to show everyone who's the
> boss.
>
> You could have spent the same time answering what was
> probably just a question.
>
> Carl Fogel
Sven Longren
"Velo Psycho" <mjralia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108167570.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> I'd like to thank the other 99% of the people who replied. I'll
> certainly ask more questions that many of you will find stupid,
> pedestrian, or low-brow. If I knew the answer, don't you think I'd
> have much better things to do than antagonize the great Jobst Brandt?
>
> I made a call to a bike shop today seeking some 36 spoked wheels. The
> guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
> I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
> that 32 was stronger.
>
> His explanation seemed logical - but if I knew anything about math or
> physics, I'd be in another line of work. (note, my line of work does
> not allow me to "publish" anything under my name - not even little
> pissing matches with Jobst Brandt on the internet).
>
> So... I turned here... a place where it seems that those with lots of
> knowledge are willing to share with those who have less knowledge.
>
> I will conclude by saying that Mr. Br<andt has not tarnished my
> impression of this "place." I'll be back to ask more questions
> eventually, and I might even offer some answers.
>
> But, I'd rather have someone just troll me by calling me an asshole
> than have some jackass who is obviously compensating for shortcomings
> somewhere else in his life who hides his name calling in a blast of
> "educated" condescension. Whoop dee doo, you went to Stanford. Go get
> your fuckin' shine box.
YEAHHHHH!!!
Sven Longren
> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>
> Seems logical.
>
> metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
> weight.
>
> Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
"Stronger" should be in quotes. . . I've heard it explained that 32 spoke
wheels have a balanced tension exerted on the rim because the 32 spokes pair
in pairs uniformly and therefore create a more stable wheel structure.
36 spoke wheels do not have equally paired tension being exerted so may be
less stable as a wheel.
Per spoke, it seems clear that more spokes should make each spoke less
likely to fatigue (by a factor of 12.5%) but as a wheel, 32 spokes may offer
a more stable (and therefore, durable?) wheel. . .
Ryan Cousineau
jim beam <nos...@example.net> wrote:
Hm. I'm guessing that's for drivetrain clearance, or possibly
aerodynamics.
Werehatrack
>
><jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote: (a bunch of whiny shit)>
>
>
>I'd like to thank the other 99% of the people who replied. I'll
>certainly ask more questions that many of you will find stupid,
>pedestrian, or low-brow.
The only truly stupid question is the one not asked whose assumed
answer is incorrect. OTOH, there are a lot of questions that have
been asked before, and sometimes the less patient potential
respondents will forget that the poster may not realize that the topic
has been beaten to death. Jobst does not suffer such gladly. (This
is hereby submitted as a candidate for Understatement Of The Day.)
>If I knew the answer, don't you think I'd
>have much better things to do than antagonize the great Jobst Brandt?
It's far too easy to do, anyway; he seems to be a self-starter in that
area. If one is looking for a real challenge, it is necessary to aim
higher, like trying to best Sheldon Brown in a contest of screwball
bike misfeature invention.
>I made a call to a bike shop today seeking some 36 spoked wheels. The
>guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
>I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
>that 32 was stronger.
He may have, for certain comparisons of certain 32 vs 36-spoke rims,
been correct. There are some rims drilled for 32 spokes which are
stronger than some other rims which aren't supplied in a drilling for
less than 36, among other things. That's not an apples-to-apples
comparison, though, and any completed wheel which is genuinely
stronger in its 32-hole incarnation than with four more holes and
spokes (but otherwise the same components) is using some mighty
questionable optimizations.
If the rim, spokes and hub are otherwise the same, and if the hub
flanges are not so small or so dainty that 36 holes weaken the
structure to a significant degree, then the 36-spoke version of the
wheel will be stronger than the 32-spoke, assuming both are correctly
built. This is why tandem-bike builders generally don't use 32-spoke
wheels, and may even step up to higher spoke counts than 36.
Similarly, because of the angle of the tension on the hub flange from
a non-radial lacing, the flange will be less likely to fail with a
cross pattern than with a radial pattern.
The fact that some of the most expensive wheels on the market use
radial lacing with very few spokes demonstrates not the alleged
superiority of radial spokes, but the expense of the construction
features required to make a radial lacing pattern work...and even
then, they are prone to problems which are absent with the older, more
conventional design, and they tend to be heavier in the bargain. Does
this make them better? No, just more expensive, trendy, flashy, chic,
and several other adjectives that add nothing to their value to a
rider who isn't impressed by buzzword-driven marketing. So why are
they made? It's easier to make a wheel with optimized aerodynamics if
you reduce the spoke count and make it radial...and there are people
who will pay big money for the results even though such wheels often
weigh more than their less aerodynamic alternatives. (And if they're
engineered to be light as well, they get into third-world-national-GNP
price territory, which is, of course, even more profitable if it sells
well...)
>His explanation seemed logical
So do the pitches of most infomercials; that doesn't make them true or
correct.
>- but if I knew anything about math or
>physics, I'd be in another line of work. (note, my line of work does
>not allow me to "publish" anything under my name - not even little
>pissing matches with Jobst Brandt on the internet).
Jobst has a Prussian lack of courtesy that is legendary; it is
tolerated here with some forebearance only because he does, in fact,
know what he's talking about when it comes to wheels and many other
engineering issues.
>So... I turned here... a place where it seems that those with lots of
>knowledge are willing to share with those who have less knowledge.
Yup. Sometimes they "share" things that might have been best kept to
themselves.
>I will conclude by saying that Mr. Br<andt has not tarnished my
>impression of this "place." I'll be back to ask more questions
>eventually, and I might even offer some answers.
Good.
>But, I'd rather have someone just troll me by calling me an asshole
>than have some jackass who is obviously compensating for shortcomings
>somewhere else in his life who hides his name calling in a blast of
>"educated" condescension. Whoop dee doo, you went to Stanford. Go get
>your fuckin' shine box.
I don't disagree with your analysis of the exchange.
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
>> I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
>> that 32 was stronger.
>
> "Professional" is a word with more than one meaning...
>
> Sheldon "Now You Know Who You're Dealing With" Brown
Sheldon: I'd rather leave open the possibility for a misunderstanding in
what was said though. To automatically dismiss the particular shop out of
hand as being a poor example of a "professional" could be accurate... or
not. The original poster may have misconstrued something that was said; it
could have been that the shop person had told him that, for the application,
32 spokes was more than strong enough.
Those who post on Usenet are probably no more immune to misunderstandings
than the public at large, and there are often times when there's some
strange communications incompatibility between a customer and a shop person
that it boggles the mind. The old "How could that person think that's what I
meant?" sort of thing.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
"Sheldon Brown" <capt...@sheldonbrown.com> wrote in message
news:420D624A...@sheldonbrown.com...
gcmsc...@gmail.com
> certainly ask more questions that many of you will find stupid,
> have much better things to do than antagonize the great Jobst Brandt?
Just ignore the man behind the curtain...
> His explanation seemed logical - but if I knew anything about math or
> physics, I'd be in another line of work. (note, my line of work does
> not allow me to "publish" anything under my name - not even little
> pissing matches with Jobst Brandt on the internet).
Oh, but it's a personal affront to the Great and Wonderful Oz, errr,
Jobst that you would dare consider your livelihood over asking a few
questions in usenet.
> So... I turned here... a place where it seems that those with lots of
> knowledge are willing to share with those who have less knowledge.
Is
> that "begging?"
Yes, but you were not appropriately on your knees, nor your tone
pleading enough. Now, repeat after me, "yes, Your Highness..."
> Some people get paid for their advice... and others
> choose to share it for free. I respect both. But the dickhead that
> first whines about begging and netiquette and then uses that platform
> from which to shout his superior knowledge... well, he's just a
> dickhead.
Richard Cranium, err, Jobst Brandt doesn't care about any of that.
He's a Golden God. Well, in r.b.t. at least.
> With 1/20th of the words, and none of the nastiness, many other
people
> answered the question. And if I farted at the table, well, I wasn't
> raised in the internet, and it's all I can do to remember which fork
to
> use, or the various forms of verbs in three languages... I dont even
> know what "top posting" means.
Posting your useless drivel, uh, carefully thought out reply *above*
that which was written before. The logical order is from top to
bottom.
A: Top Posting.
Q: What's the most annoying thing in usenet?
> I will conclude by saying that Mr. Brandt has not tarnished my
> impression of this "place," and that is because he seems to be in the
> disfavored minority. I'll be back to ask more questions eventually,
> and I might even offer some answers - when I know the answers - and I
> won't be a prick about it and whine that it is "begging." I'll share
> because... well just because that's *what one does.*
Some things do call for a little research up front - a little reading
in the archives might help one avoid the "greasing a carbon seatpost"
question.
Or get one up to speed on various aspects of wheelbuilding, greasing
tapirs (or even BB spindles) or (ahem) disk brakes on mountain bikes.
I often wonder if Jobst is this abrasive in person, or if he is even
marginally polite about anything.
> And I know I shouldnt care what Mr. Brandt thinks, but I spent way
too
> many years in various institutions of higher education -- and I think
> my capacity for dealing with assholes like him is just about tapped
> out. So Brandt, if you see me "begging" again, just shut your mouth.
> There are plenty of people who have what you have -- that being
> knowledge -- and there are plenty of people with knowledge who have
> what you do not -- that being class.
Having spent some of my time in ivory towers, I would have to agree
100%. I wonder if the maladroits are made by that environment, or
drawn to it by nature?
I'm sure Jobst's parents would be proud of his conduct in usenet. But
it's easy to be abrasive when you're sitting behind a keyboard. No
repercussions that way.
E.P.
Werehatrack
<one8th...@earthlink.net> may have said:
>
>"Velo Psycho" <mjralia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1108147770.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> I've heard some say that 32 is stronger because the spokes radiate
>> straighter, thus the "stright line forces" make the wheel stronger.
>>
>> Seems logical.
>>
>> Then the other argument is that 36 spokes must be stronger because more
>> metal = more strength, and no individual spoke is taking as much of the
>> weight.
>>
>> Anyone out there have an educated opinion?
>
>
>
>
>"Stronger" should be in quotes. . . I've heard it explained that 32 spoke
>wheels have a balanced tension exerted on the rim because the 32 spokes pair
>in pairs uniformly and therefore create a more stable wheel structure.
>
>36 spoke wheels do not have equally paired tension being exerted so may be
>less stable as a wheel.
It's a bogus assertion; the pattern of the symmetry is irrelevant.
The 32 and 36-spoke wheels both rely on the same overall design
principles. The sole difference is that the 32 can be made strong
enough more cheaply than the 36 can be made properly at all. There
might be a confusing and irrelevant assertion that the 32 is "stronger
for the dollar", but that's like most other marketing speak; an
assertion made by looking at something from an angle which has to be
chosen with great care to not reveal the pile of manure that the
viewer is standing in.
>Per spoke, it seems clear that more spokes should make each spoke less
>likely to fatigue (by a factor of 12.5%) but as a wheel, 32 spokes may offer
>a more stable (and therefore, durable?) wheel. . .
No, the correct assertion is that it is perfectly possible to make a
32 spoke wheel that is strong enough for most riders and
purposes...but a 36-spoke version of the same wheel (unless the
engineering has been specfically rigged to make it come out otherwise)
will still be stronger. Apples to apples, 32 vs 36, 36 is going to
bear a higher load without failure if both are properly built.
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles
> marginally polite about anything.
Jobst is a very pleasant person in the flesh, eager to help someone
understand the physics of the question at hand. He is more than "marginally"
polite, although he doesn't have the temperament for dealing with people in
a sales environment. We've all got personality quirks/defects of one sort or
another.
I've learned a lot from Jobst over the years, and have great memories of
many fun rides with him, back in the day. However, I've often disagreed with
him on wheel matters (particularly relating to issues of low-spoke-count
wheels), and I'm sure he's sometimes scratching his head, trying to figure
out why I don't know any better.
>> And I know I shouldnt care what Mr. Brandt thinks,
But you should, especially when you disagree. Jobst brings a wealth of
knowledge, both learned from education and the school of hard knocks, that
few can duplicate. You don't have to like the guy to learn from him. His
style can be a bit on the harsh side and, as I said before, he doesn't
suffer fools (his opinion of who's a fool anyway) gladly. But he does offer
up not only useful data points, but also calls into question basic
assumptions people routinely make, assumptions that are often incorrect.
Please consider responding to what one perceives as "hostile" posts in a
gentle manner. It can be very disarming, and often opens up the door for
communications that bring forth an understanding of the problem that
otherwise might have gone wanting.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
<gcmsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108238675.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
jim beam
> In article <1108219819.abc446429a82385c08f090100f344dbc@teranews>,
> jim beam <nos...@example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>dianne_1234 wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:43:35 -0800, Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>For those of you wondering what I'm trying to justify, here it is:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.kultbike.com/shop/wheels.html
>>>
>>>
>>>Why are all the spokes on the inside of the right flange of the rear
>>>hub? Doesn't that increase dish?
>>
>>well spotted!
>
>
> Hm. I'm guessing that's for drivetrain clearance, or possibly
> aerodynamics.
>
Velo Psycho
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles wrote:
> >> And I know I shouldnt care what Mr. Brandt thinks,
>
> But you should, especially when you disagree. Jobst brings a wealth
of
> knowledge, both learned from education and the school of hard knocks,
that
> few can duplicate. You don't have to like the guy to learn from him.
His
> style can be a bit on the harsh side and, as I said before, he
doesn't
> suffer fools (his opinion of who's a fool anyway) gladly. But he does
offer
> up not only useful data points, but also calls into question basic
> assumptions people routinely make, assumptions that are often
incorrect.
>
Eh, whatever... I've read this board a lot, and Brandt's posts always
just seemed plain dull and a lot of yakking to hear himself yak. Now I
just think he's a douche, and I don't feel like I'm in the minority.
I've learned a hell of a lot more from Sheldon Brown's or Mark Hickey's
brief posts than I've learned from Brandt's self-important bitching.
So, maybe I'm no better than him... he doesn't suffer "fools" gladly,
while I'll take a good-hearted fool over a genius douchebag any day...
carl...@comcast.net
Reaction Bicycles" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Please consider responding to what one perceives as "hostile" posts in a
>gentle manner. It can be very disarming, and often opens up the door for
>communications that bring forth an understanding of the problem that
>otherwise might have gone wanting.
>
>--Mike Jacoubowsky
>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReaction.com
>IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
Dear Mike,
Good advice.
What puzzles me is why you aren't giving it to the fellow
who mis-perceived the original polite post as hostile and
dashed off an all-too-familiar nasty reply.
Carl Fogel
RonSonic
wrote:
He also has a superb sense of humor that is almost completely ignored.
Ron
RonSonic
Probably figures that if it'd make a difference it would've happened by now.
Ron
Mike Jacoubowsky
>>gentle manner. It can be very disarming, and often opens up the door for
>>communications that bring forth an understanding of the problem that
>>otherwise might have gone wanting.
>>
>>--Mike Jacoubowsky
>>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>www.ChainReaction.com
>>IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> Good advice.
>
> What puzzles me is why you aren't giving it to the fellow
> who mis-perceived the original polite post as hostile and
> dashed off an all-too-familiar nasty reply.
>
> Carl Fogel
Carl: Not sure which "original polite post" you refer to. If you're talking
about Velo Psycho, I did respond directly in a prior post-
> When you inadvertently end up on the wrong side (or any side) of a flame
> session, the best tactic is to say that you're sorry you said something to
> cause such a reaction, and move on. Unless, of course, you were
> intentionally trying to cause such a reaction (which really shouldn't be
> the
> case here, as it rarely helps to bring out further relevant info).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
jim beam
sorry, but i beg to differ. contrary to jobst "knowing what he's
talking about";
1. stainless steel spokes are not, and cannot be made, fatigue proof.
2. rim cracking is typically /not/ a function of anodizing.
3. head sets /do/ brinell.
4. bike bearings are /not/ elasto-hydrodynamically separated.
5. bikes are /not/ gyroscopically stabilized.
6. increasing spoke tension does /not/ increase a wheel's strength.
7. this list is already too long.
jobst's "success" is a simple but fascinating study. bully the
opposition while playing savior to the populace. goad the rowdy to do
the real dirty work. if you're a student of history, you'll know this
recipe is timeless through the millenia. there's a decade of well
qualified opposition to jobst's, er, "unsupported" theories, but
comments like yours always seem to conveniently ignore that. why?
it's like watching nero's circuses. nero was loved by the populace
because of them, but before his eventual suicide, he'd murdered his
mother, his wife, burnt the city, bankrupted the state & allowed
jealousy, perversion & avarice to consume his tortured mind.
A Muzi
> Mike Jacoubowsky writes:
>>But many people have similar experiences with high-end 24 & 28-spoke
>>wheelsets, while many others have terrible experiences with cheapie
>>36-spoke wheels on cheapie mountain bikes. Too many other variables
>>to consider.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Well, you cant get those rims anymore so it's history.
Uh, actually that's one of my pet peeves. We're inundated
with ridiculously low spoke count wheels on new bicycles in
this century.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Mike,
Sorry--my elliptical writing is a bad habit.
What puzzles me [Carl] is why you [Mike] aren't giving it
[good advice to respond gently to what one perceives as
hostile] to the fellow [Jobst] who mis-perceived the
original polite post [the question from Velo Psycho that
started this thread] as hostile and dashed off an
all-too-familiar nasty [Jobstian] reply.
Why should we tell someone not to be nasty in return when
Jobst started it?
Silence is bad enough, but it's ridiculous when so many of
us make such lame excuses for Jobst's nasty habits.
What would you think of a doting mother who kept telling
people not to mind little Jobbie spitting on their shoes or
in their faces because he got an A in school once?
There are plenty of engineers and bicycle mechanics and
experienced riders in this newsgroup who don't routinely
hide behind a smokescreen of unprovoked insults.
I gather from other comments in this thread and elsewhere
that Jobst can behave decently in person, so I have to
wonder if we're the ones who encouraged him. I don't think
that he behaves that way in rec.bicycles.rides.
I made excuses for him at first, but I finally grew ashamed
of it.
Carl Fogel
Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> who mis-perceived the original polite post as hostile and
>>> dashed off an all-too-familiar nasty reply.
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>>Carl: Not sure which "original polite post" you refer to. If you're
>>talking
>>about Velo Psycho, I did respond directly in a prior post-
>>
>>> When you inadvertently end up on the wrong side (or any side) of a flame
>>> session, the best tactic is to say that you're sorry you said something
>>> to
>>> cause such a reaction, and move on. Unless, of course, you were
>>> intentionally trying to cause such a reaction (which really shouldn't be
>>> the
>>> case here, as it rarely helps to bring out further relevant info).
>>
>>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> Sorry--my elliptical writing is a bad habit.
>
> What puzzles me [Carl] is why you [Mike] aren't giving it
> [good advice to respond gently to what one perceives as
> hostile] to the fellow [Jobst] who mis-perceived the
> original polite post [the question from Velo Psycho that
> started this thread] as hostile and dashed off an
> all-too-familiar nasty [Jobstian] reply.
Carl: No need to apologize for your "elliptical writing" style. It's rare
that I can't follow it; had a rather rough day today so I'm probably a bit
more obtuse than normal.
It's more than a bit awkward, and at times borderline rude, to comment on
the behavior of others in a public forum. Nor are you likely to change the
manner in which someone communicates with the world when they've had so much
time & practice at it.
I made my first stab at usenet in the mid-90s, and get nastily burned and
disillusioned. It took several years of "growing up" to realize that one
doesn't need to react hastily to everything they disagree with, and that
being "right" isn't as important as being truthful and relevant. When I
returned to Usenet, I was much, er, mellower? I stopped taking things
personally, and found it possible to engage in conversation with some of the
more-notorious flame mongerers without having to first apply SPF 10k
sunblock.
Back to the point at hand- I'm as likely to change Jobst's acerbic (acidic?)
style as that of "Kurgan Gringioni" or "B Lafferty" over on
rec.bicycles.racing. Yet I can enter into a thread with any of them with
little risk of insults and 4-letter epithets being flung my way.
So what was the point again? Right, taking Jobst to task publicly for a
condescending approach to a question. I've done so a couple of times, but
nothing's likely to change. Ultimately, rec.bicycles.tech &
rec.bicycles.misc should come with a user's manual/faq that might help to
introduce the players, along with instructions on how to killfile someone if
you wish. Fortunately, Jobst (and others) are pretty consistent, so even
without a user's manual, it doesn't take long for newbies to figure things
out.
And besides, it's not *my* website that posted his various FAQ-pieces! :>)
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eltt01hc1uippim3u...@4ax.com...
Mark Hickey
>Dear Mike,
>
>Sorry--my elliptical writing is a bad habit.
Hmmmm. Literary Biopace?
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
gcmsc...@gmail.com
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles wrote:
even
> > marginally polite about anything.
>
> Jobst is a very pleasant person in the flesh, eager to help someone
> understand the physics of the question at hand.
Ah, OK. What little respect for him I had before is now mostly gone.
Folks full of usenet courage can hide nicely behind the electronic
wall, and not fear the repercussions of being rude face-to-face.
> He is more than "marginally"
> polite, although he doesn't have the temperament for dealing with
people in
> a sales environment. We've all got personality quirks/defects of one
sort or
> another.
Indeed. And polite people attempt to do their level best to *not*
inflict their personality disorders on others. Just because one can
"get away with it" does not imply that it's acceptable.
> I've learned a lot from Jobst over the years, and have great memories
of
> many fun rides with him, back in the day. However, I've often
disagreed with
> him on wheel matters (particularly relating to issues of
low-spoke-count
> wheels), and I'm sure he's sometimes scratching his head, trying to
figure
> out why I don't know any better.
None of that excuses his rude behavior.
> >> And I know I shouldnt care what Mr. Brandt thinks,
>
> But you should, especially when you disagree. Jobst brings a wealth
of
> knowledge, both learned from education and the school of hard knocks,
that
> few can duplicate.
That also does not excuse rude behavior. Bicycling is mostly a casual
hobby for the vast majority of riders. The fact that some make their
life and livelihood that within that realm in no way suggests that
bicycling is any more important.
> You don't have to like the guy to learn from him. His
> style can be a bit on the harsh side and, as I said before, he
doesn't
> suffer fools (his opinion of who's a fool anyway) gladly.
That's where you're mistaken. In person, he does just fine, because he
wishes to be polite. In usenet, those strictures are gone. If he was
just as abrasive in person, then I'd have a little sympathy. The
difference suggests a weakness in character.
> But he does offer
> up not only useful data points, but also calls into question basic
> assumptions people routinely make, assumptions that are often
incorrect.
That does not have to be carried out in an anti-social manner. One can
offer observation, science and "truth" without condescension and
belittling. While it is rude to point out someone else's rude behavior
(I'll have to swallow rebuke), making excuses for someone's rude
behavior does nothing to help the poor fellow be more in step with his
audience.
> Please consider responding to what one perceives as "hostile" posts
in a
> gentle manner. It can be very disarming, and often opens up the door
for
> communications that bring forth an understanding of the problem that
> otherwise might have gone wanting.
That is excellent advice. Too bad you have not seen fit to aim it at
it's more-appropriate target - Jobst Brandt.
E.P.
Werehatrack
may have said:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Werehatrack <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Jobst has a Prussian lack of courtesy that is legendary; it is
>>tolerated here with some forebearance only because he does, in fact,
>>know what he's talking about when it comes to wheels and many other
>>engineering issues.
>
>He also has a superb sense of humor that is almost completely ignored.
If there were more opportunities to appreciate it in comparison to the
other more memorable behaviors, it would be remarked upon more often.
Doug Huffman
fundament. He who hesitates to offend cannot speak the truth. Offense,
like beauty, lies in the beholder. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades
as common sense.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
Doug Huffman wrote:
> At least we know who is 'Jobst Brandt'.
True. Quite unlike the possible pseudonym "Doug Huffman."
> 'gcmschemist' can osculate my
> fundament.
More usenet courage. I'm unimpressed.
> He who hesitates to offend cannot speak the truth.
Wrong. One can speak truth without offending. *Especially* in the
realm of the technical, where facts matter most.
> Offense,
> like beauty, lies in the beholder.
Wrong, again.
> The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades
> as common sense.
Non sequitur.
Usenet courage is a cheap commodity. Hiding behind one's keyboard to
snipe is the easiest thing in the world, whether or not you use your
real name, a pseudonym, or an obvious screen handle. Likewise,
credibility is not automatically attached to using one's real name. In
reality, the truth lies in what is written and what can be proved, not
in the person who writes the words.
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
jim beam wrote:
>
> sorry, but i beg to differ. contrary to jobst "knowing what he's
> talking about";
>
> 1. stainless steel spokes are not, and cannot be made, fatigue proof.
> 2. rim cracking is typically /not/ a function of anodizing.
> 3. head sets /do/ brinell.
> 4. bike bearings are /not/ elasto-hydrodynamically separated.
> 5. bikes are /not/ gyroscopically stabilized.
> 6. increasing spoke tension does /not/ increase a wheel's strength.
Unfortunately, without some citations to back up these claims, they are
merely claims. Anyone can assert anything. Proving it is another
thing entirely.
Take #6. I suspect that the statement is missing a qualifier of some
kind. Increasing spoke tension by how much? To what limit?
Obviously, if you pull the eyelets out of the rim, the wheel won't be
very strong. But there is some value for tension that is best under a
specific set of conditions and bits of hardware. And a value of
*zero* for the tension is also going to make a crummy wheel. So the
real "best" value is somewhere in between.
> jobst's "success" is a simple but fascinating study. bully the
> opposition while playing savior to the populace. goad the rowdy to
do
> the real dirty work. if you're a student of history, you'll know
this
> recipe is timeless through the millenia. there's a decade of well
> qualified opposition to jobst's, er, "unsupported" theories, but
> comments like yours always seem to conveniently ignore that. why?
I've only been lurking for a couple of years, and have seen only a few
cases where folks took the time to actually attempt to prove anything
with outside cites. Mostly, it's been unsupported assertions like the
above. I'm not saying they are incorrect, just that they are not
supported.
At least Jobst has been kind enough to write a book on the subject of
bicycle wheels. While I will criticize him for being rude needlessly,
it's hard to criticize someone who has published an unrefuted treatise,
at least in matters of technical knowledge.
E.P.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Mark,
B+, missing pun(ctuation)
Hmmmm . . . Literary Biopace?
^^^^^
Carl Fogel
Mike Jacoubowsky
> snipe is the easiest thing in the world, whether or not you use your
> real name, a pseudonym, or an obvious screen handle. Likewise,
> credibility is not automatically attached to using one's real name. In
> reality, the truth lies in what is written and what can be proved, not
> in the person who writes the words.
>
> E.P.
While it's true that credibility should not automatically be attached
because someone uses a real name, it is an indication that the person is
willing to put something behind his/her assertions... specifically, his/her
own reputation. That still counts for something, and helps to separate them
from those who post not just under a pseudonym, but sometimes multiple
pseudonyms.
> In reality, the truth lies in what is written and what can be proved, not
> in the person who writes the words.
Back in the day, that was more true than it is now. The problem with the
Internet is that the cost of admission is so low that barriers to fraud &
misrepresentation no longer exist. It's just too darned easy to type
whatever one wants and hit the "send" key and have it instantly available to
millions of people, at virtually zero cost. That invites participation by
people who would have otherwise been filtered out simply because it was too
much trouble to bother.
Finding "truth" on the Internet is not such an easy task, and regardless of
how wild one's belief might be, you can search and find evidence to support
it. It's on the Internet so it must be true! Less-true words were never
spoken.
Sheldon Brown
> Dear Mark,
>
> B+, missing pun(ctuation)
>
> Hmmmm . . . Literary Biopace?
> ^^^^^
See: http://sheldonbrown.com/carapace-2.html#trainingwheels
Sheldon "Whatever Happened To Jane Selin?" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------+
| ...there is humour in all things and the |
| truest philosophy is that which teaches |
| us to find it and make the most of it. |
| --W.S.Gilbert |
+-----------------------------------------------+
jim beam
> jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>sorry, but i beg to differ. contrary to jobst "knowing what he's
>>talking about";
>>
>>1. stainless steel spokes are not, and cannot be made, fatigue proof.
>>2. rim cracking is typically /not/ a function of anodizing.
>>3. head sets /do/ brinell.
>>4. bike bearings are /not/ elasto-hydrodynamically separated.
>>5. bikes are /not/ gyroscopically stabilized.
>>6. increasing spoke tension does /not/ increase a wheel's strength.
>
>
> Unfortunately, without some citations to back up these claims, they are
> merely claims. Anyone can assert anything. Proving it is another
> thing entirely.
>
> Take #6. I suspect that the statement is missing a qualifier of some
> kind. Increasing spoke tension by how much? To what limit?
> Obviously, if you pull the eyelets out of the rim, the wheel won't be
> very strong. But there is some value for tension that is best under a
> specific set of conditions and bits of hardware. And a value of
> *zero* for the tension is also going to make a crummy wheel. So the
> real "best" value is somewhere in between.
provided the spokes are under tension, there's no difference in
"strength" [as measured by lateral deflection] as a function of spoke
tension. that research was published by damon rinard & remains on his
web site. it's also been discussed here at length. google is your
friend. all jobst's finite element analysis of wheel loading shows is
how the wheel bears the load, much as a bridge bears its load, /not/ how
"wheel strength increases with increasing spoke tension".
>
>
>>jobst's "success" is a simple but fascinating study. bully the
>>opposition while playing savior to the populace. goad the rowdy to
>
> do
>
>>the real dirty work. if you're a student of history, you'll know
>
> this
>
>>recipe is timeless through the millenia. there's a decade of well
>>qualified opposition to jobst's, er, "unsupported" theories, but
>>comments like yours always seem to conveniently ignore that. why?
>
>
> I've only been lurking for a couple of years, and have seen only a few
> cases where folks took the time to actually attempt to prove anything
> with outside cites. Mostly, it's been unsupported assertions like the
> above. I'm not saying they are incorrect, just that they are not
> supported.
>
> At least Jobst has been kind enough to write a book on the subject of
> bicycle wheels. While I will criticize him for being rude needlessly,
> it's hard to criticize someone who has published an unrefuted treatise,
> at least in matters of technical knowledge.
>
> E.P.
>
sorry, that book has been very much refuted, and not just by me - it
contains many serious errors of fact. my citations have bored people
rigid on the subjects here many times. again, google is your friend.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Sheldon,
I suspect that she switched from holding the period key down
to leaning her elbows on the space bar and ended up sending
messages like this
Ken Pisichko
besides paranoia or anonym(e)??
Ken
Winnipeg, Canada
Bob Wheeler wrote:
> I'm with Jobst. It is rude, in my opinion, to beg expert advice while
> hiding behind a handle.
Ken Pisichko
> <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote: (a bunch of whiny shit)>
>
> I made a call to a bike shop today seeking some 36 spoked wheels. The
> guy that answered asked me why I wanted 36 and not 32. I replied that
> I wanted strong commuting wheels, to which this "professional" replied
> that 32 was stronger.
>
As I torment myself with the design ideas of building a touring bike for
paved but more importantly gravel/sand roads that will be reliable in the
OZ "outback" i also ask LOTS of questions. Here, EVERY bike shop tells me
that more spokes and smaller rims make a stronger wheel! So I have 48 spoke
hubs. Now I still agonize over 26" ( favoured so far) or 700C (because they
after all are used by SO many touristes ;-)
> His explanation seemed logical - but if I knew anything about math or
> physics, I'd be in another line of work. (note, my line of work does
> not allow me to "publish" anything under my name - not even little
> pissing matches with Jobst Brandt on the internet).
>
Jobst gave me good information in the past. As an engineer I would trust
his opinion on thing mechanical than someone with just hands-on experience.
Differential equations, mathematical modeling, and experience will NEVER
take a back seat to experience alone! Besides, how many of the nay-sayers
have been published in the area of expertise this thread deals with?
> I will conclude by saying that Mr. Br<andt has not tarnished my
> impression of this "place." I'll be back to ask more questions
> eventually, and I might even offer some answers.
>
Good!! There is a LOT of useful information - and some useless stuff too!
trouble is to sift through it...
> But, I'd rather have someone just troll me by calling me an asshole
> than have some jackass who is obviously compensating for shortcomings
> somewhere else in his life who hides his name calling in a blast of
> "educated" condescension. Whoop dee doo, you went to Stanford. Go get
> your fuckin' shine box.
And you have published what outside of this news group? C'mon man. Savour
the education and grey-matter stimulation. Get a grip! No one is perfect -
certainly not me, nor you. :-)
Read some of the tours that Jobst has been on. You will value his advice
more if you put his words into perspective of some of his alpine tours.
Strong wheels needed there....... unless you have a mechanic working on 32
(and less) spoked wheels on a daily full-time basis. Can you afford that
kind of expert labour? Wonder how much Lance spent to keep his wheels
'true' on a daily basis? Wonder how many back up bikes and wheels etc he
had? None of us can afford "that" kind of support.
Ken
Winnipeg, Canada
Ken Pisichko
> So, maybe I'm no better than him... he doesn't suffer "fools" gladly,
> while I'll take a good-hearted fool over a genius douchebag any day...
But that about the technical aspect of the "advice"?? Crap over reality,
you say??
You might be interested in some gold property I have staked in the
greenstone belt of northern Manitoba!! Contact me off-line IF you are
interested...
Ken
Winnipeg, Canada
gcmsc...@gmail.com
jim beam wrote:
> >
> > Take #6. I suspect that the statement is missing a qualifier of
some
> > kind. Increasing spoke tension by how much? To what limit?
> > Obviously, if you pull the eyelets out of the rim, the wheel won't
be
> > very strong. But there is some value for tension that is best
under a
> > specific set of conditions and bits of hardware. And a value of
> > *zero* for the tension is also going to make a crummy wheel. So
the
> > real "best" value is somewhere in between.
>
> provided the spokes are under tension, there's no difference in
> "strength" [as measured by lateral deflection] as a function of spoke
> tension.
That's quite a narrow definition. And lateral deflection resistance is
not the only strength quality of a wheel.
> > At least Jobst has been kind enough to write a book on the subject
of
> > bicycle wheels. While I will criticize him for being rude
needlessly,
> > it's hard to criticize someone who has published an unrefuted
treatise,
> > at least in matters of technical knowledge.
> >
> sorry, that book has been very much refuted, and not just by me - it
> contains many serious errors of fact.
I have read some of what you have written, and no, I'm not going to
google you for every time you've pissed on Jobst's book. I'm sure you
have some nitpicks here and there, but they don't seem to amount to
much of anything.
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Usenet courage is a cheap commodity. Hiding behind one's keyboard
to
> > snipe is the easiest thing in the world, whether or not you use
your
> > real name, a pseudonym, or an obvious screen handle. Likewise,
> > credibility is not automatically attached to using one's real name.
In
> > reality, the truth lies in what is written and what can be proved,
not
> > in the person who writes the words.
> >
> > E.P.
>
> While it's true that credibility should not automatically be attached
> because someone uses a real name, it is an indication that the person
is
> willing to put something behind his/her assertions... specifically,
his/her
> own reputation.
This is a veiled ad hominem. Even if I told you what "E.P." stood for,
it would have absolutely no meaning to anyone. And it would not make
what I write any more or less true. Either something is true, or it
isn't. Who says it has no bearing on that - they are two completely
unrelated things.
> That still counts for something, and helps to separate them
> from those who post not just under a pseudonym, but sometimes
multiple
> pseudonyms.
I do not agree. Logic and evidence cannot be altered by the name of
the person presenting it.
> > In reality, the truth lies in what is written and what can be
proved, not
> > in the person who writes the words.
>
> Back in the day, that was more true than it is now.
That is a logical impossibility.
> Finding "truth" on the Internet is not such an easy task, and
regardless of
> how wild one's belief might be, you can search and find evidence to
support
> it. It's on the Internet so it must be true! Less-true words were
never
> spoken.
That, again, is something completely different than attaching
significance to something because a certain person says it. It may be
"the Web of Lies", but that doesn't mean that truthful things cannot be
found there. If you are a fan of inductive reasoning, the Web will be
your first and only love.
Anyway, I do not attach significance to any specific nom de web - there
are only a very few people in r.b.t. whose names are truthfully known
*not* to be pseudonyms, and most of those folks are in the bicycle
business. The veracity of any particular poster's chosen name just
isn't all that verifiable. As to be worthless.
Think about it.
E.P.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> more if you put his words into perspective of some of his alpine tours.
> Strong wheels needed there....... unless you have a mechanic working on 32
> (and less) spoked wheels on a daily full-time basis. Can you afford that
> kind of expert labour? Wonder how much Lance spent to keep his wheels
> 'true' on a daily basis? Wonder how many back up bikes and wheels etc he
> had? None of us can afford "that" kind of support.
>
> Ken
Ken: Your assumptions that using 32 spoke (and less) wheels equals lots of
time maintaining them is simply incorrect. I haven't routinely ridden
"conventional" wheels in many years, and I'm in the category of rider that
is often hard on wheels- I'm not light (about 180 lbs), I ride nothing but
hills, 23c tires and am guilty of "credit card" touring on a racing bike. A
good deal of my customers are in the same category, and wheel issues (if you
consider needing them trued or having spokes replaced) are extremely rare,
and certainly no more common than back in the day of "conventional" wheels.
Then again, the wheels I use (as well as most of my customers) aren't built
on the edge of what's possible, typically with 20 spoke front and 24 spoke
rear (with pretty strong rims).
Rim & spoke engineering had pretty much stagnated; certainly little work was
being done on making conventional wheels better. Of course, one might argue
that you don't need to perfect something that already works? Whatever, many
conventional stock wheels supplied on bikes suffered due to low-quality
builds. People just didn't pay enough attention to them, outside of the
custom wheelbuilders who took some pride in their craft and *may* have, *if*
they understood them, used procedures & techniques that would ensure high
quality.
But a funny thing happened when bike companies started to see wheels as an
area to differentiate product. All of a sudden some (not all) put
significant engineering resources into building test equipment and learning
how wheels actually worked. The idea was to actually make a better wheel
through research, design & testing (to destruction). I've seen it in action;
it's quite impressive (and sad, since the goal of finding out just how much
something can take requires that, no matter how good it is, you're going to
destroy it).
> Wonder how much Lance spent to keep his wheels
> 'true' on a daily basis?
The money was spent ahead of time, coming up with wheels that would be up to
the task at hand. Last I heard Julian (the team mechanic) was very happy
with the wheels. He certainly had no complaints when he was doing his
cyclocross bit a couple years ago at the TDF.
> Jobst gave me good information in the past. As an engineer I would trust
> his opinion on thing mechanical than someone with just hands-on
> experience.
> Differential equations, mathematical modeling, and experience will NEVER
> take a back seat to experience alone!
But you did allow the bike shop guys a bit of credibility-
> As I torment myself with the design ideas of building a touring bike for
> paved but more importantly gravel/sand roads that will be reliable in the
> OZ "outback" i also ask LOTS of questions. Here, EVERY bike shop tells me
> that more spokes and smaller rims make a stronger wheel! So I have 48
> spoke
> hubs. Now I still agonize over 26" ( favoured so far) or 700C (because
> they
> after all are used by SO many touristes ;-)
The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) which wheel is stronger, but whether a
particular wheel is strong enough for the task at hand. And for what you're
talking about, a more conventional wheel with a wider rim makes sense
(Aussie roads are as legendary for their roughness as Jobst's passes for
their steepness). But 48 spokes? That's probably overkill for anything but a
tandem (and even then, many are finding they no longer need that many
spokes). I would suggest that you've got more to gain (in terms of strength)
from a 26" wheel than from 48 spokes. That lateral rigidity of a 26" wheel
is quite a bit greater, and if it's absolute maximum durability you're
looking for, that's the way I'd go.
But do keep in mind that the lessons learned regarding how to build the
ultimate reduced-spoke-count wheel have, in some cases, resulted in better
touring wheels as well. For example, the fancy pre-load device that Trek
uses on their low-spoke-count wheels (out of necessity) is also used on the
wheels on their 520 touring bike. This would not have been the case just a
few years ago, and I doubt many other manufacturers are doing anything like
it on "conventional" wheels.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Ken Pisichko" <ke...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:42102F93...@mts.net...
Jan Lindstrom
> sorry, that book has been very much refuted, and not just by me - it
> contains many serious errors of fact. my citations have bored people
> rigid on the subjects here many times. again, google is your friend.
>
No, not at all. I've been waiting on the edge my seat for so long it's
worn through, but you never get to any point. If pressed, you spew
science-babble so thick no one seems to have penetrated it to check the
veracity of your claims. And no, I don't mean to say I don't respect
science, au contraire, but not the jargon made to sound like science you
make us read.
Last time someone showed you a study on stress relieving by the
automotive industry, your response was an evasion. My point: I have no
idea if the automotive industry study was comparable to bicycle wheel
stress relieving, but you utterly failed to show that or anything else.
That's why I on the sidelines tend to agree with Jobst when he says just
saying it doesn't make it so.
Jan
Mike Jacoubowsky
hasn't been hashed over many times before. Except the last paragraph-
"My guess is that we might enjoy each other's company on a bike ride, and
freely exchange names. Yet here on the 'net..."
Benjamin Lewis
I'm confused. Where did Jobst claim that wheel strength increases with
increasing spoke tension? For that matter, where did he claim bicycles are
gyroscopically stabilized?
--
Benjamin Lewis
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Ken,
Would you be interested in some non-sparking titanium?
Or chain rings guaranteed never to wear enough to let chains
strip off?
Perhaps some side winds that cause no drag?
A worn chain that can't be inverted?
Some contradictory stress-strain graphs in a book?
We all make mistakes. But some of us deal with them better
than others. A sadly well-deserved reputation for nastiness
is nothing to defend.
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Ken,
Possibly you meant "not identifying myself"?
First, many of the "identifications" floating around places
like rec.bicycles.tech are about as good as what liquor
stores see in university towns.
Another problem is that some self-appointed nitwits (not
Jobst, as far as I know) begin weird paranoid rants about
how dozens of posters must be frauds because they disagree
with the nitwits and use cycling forums.
(Unsurprisingly, most of the posters turn out to be quite
real and many of them decline to have anything further to do
with newsgroups that spit in the faces of newcomers.)
Many women prefer to avoid the sort of unpleasantness that
all too often accompanies publishing their names and
addresses, just as they dislike listed phone numbers.
(I know women who roll their eyes when they read men in this
newsgroup whining about the hardships of unwanted automated
spam. Fellows who post on rec.bicycles.tech like you and me
rarely suffer dozens of specific, personal emails from
people who ought to be locked up--and sometimes are locked
up, but still desperate enough to find ways to pester the
opposite sex. Few men get obscene phone calls. Few women
manage to avoid them.)
Lots of people want to avoid email from strangers. I've been
astonished by how many people write to me privately (always
interesting, often welcome) about the newsgroup. A number of
them are people who are anonymous on the newsgroup.
Some folks are simply sick of getting nasty stuff outside
the newsgroup. Lord knows that things can be unpleasant
enough in public, but some of the stuff that I get in
private strains belief.
A few people have confided in me that they chose anonymity
after hideous experiences in which people began emailing
their families and employers to continue quarrels. They want
to talk about bicycles, not put up with stalkers.
And, of course, a fair number of people use computers from
work and worry that they might get in trouble for it.
Some of the anonymity here is indeed a sign of mild
paranoia. But it's nothing compared to the strange reaction
of the people who are so nasty when they see it.
Here's where such nonsense ends up. We have posters who
snarl and spew at anyone who doesn't care to give out their
personal information in casual internet conversations. These
posters then wonder why their nastiness fails win them
friends.
Carl Fogel
Bruce Graham
> As I torment myself with the design ideas of building a touring bike for
> paved but more importantly gravel/sand roads that will be reliable in the
> OZ "outback" i also ask LOTS of questions. Here, EVERY bike shop tells me
> that more spokes and smaller rims make a stronger wheel! So I have 48 spoke
> hubs. Now I still agonize over 26" ( favoured so far) or 700C (because they
> after all are used by SO many touristes ;-)
>
But there are only a few paved roads in the outback. Offhand I can only
think of three, the Nth/ Sth highway from Adelaide to Darwin through
Alice Springs and the Nth/Sth route further East along the edge of the
real outback Cobar/ Bourke/ Longreach etc. There are also a few paved
offshoots from the first near Alice Springs to the rock and King's Canyon
and along the McDonnell ranges a bit. There is finally the paved "coast"
"highway 1" around the country which gets a long way inland in spots.
Once you get into sand (just about everywhere in the outback at least in
patches) you want fat 26 inch tyres running low pressure. 36 spokes is
plenty unless you are very heavy - I still have 32 on my MTB and the rims
do eventually fatigue around the spokes but the braking surfaces are
pretty worn by then and the hub cones are pitted too.
Now if you are just touring in rural Oz it gets harder to choose.
jim beam
>>Read some of the tours that Jobst has been on. You will value his advice
>>more if you put his words into perspective of some of his alpine tours.
>>Strong wheels needed there....... unless you have a mechanic working on 32
>>(and less) spoked wheels on a daily full-time basis. Can you afford that
>>kind of expert labour? Wonder how much Lance spent to keep his wheels
>>'true' on a daily basis? Wonder how many back up bikes and wheels etc he
>>had? None of us can afford "that" kind of support.
>>
>>Ken
>
>
> Ken: Your assumptions that using 32 spoke (and less) wheels equals lots of
> time maintaining them is simply incorrect. I haven't routinely ridden
> "conventional" wheels in many years, and I'm in the category of rider that
> is often hard on wheels- I'm not light (about 180 lbs), I ride nothing but
> hills, 23c tires and am guilty of "credit card" touring on a racing bike. A
> good deal of my customers are in the same category, and wheel issues (if you
> consider needing them trued or having spokes replaced) are extremely rare,
> and certainly no more common than back in the day of "conventional" wheels.
> Then again, the wheels I use (as well as most of my customers) aren't built
> on the edge of what's possible, typically with 20 spoke front and 24 spoke
> rear (with pretty strong rims).
>
> Rim & spoke engineering had pretty much stagnated; certainly little work was
> being done on making conventional wheels better.
there's one significant advance, the straight pull spoke. that removes
the fundamental non-axial stress problem of loading at the spoke elbow &
therefore removes the biggest fatigue loading mode a spoke experiences.
David Damerell
>With 1/20th of the words, and none of the nastiness, many other people
>answered the question. And if I farted at the table, well, I wasn't
>raised in the internet, and it's all I can do to remember which fork to
>use, or the various forms of verbs in three languages... I dont even
>know what "top posting" means.
Because, you know, God forbid anyone take an hour to find out how to
format a message that will be read by thousands of people before opening
their brain and letting it spew onto the keyboard.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Monday, February.
David Damerell
>Ah, OK. What little respect for him I had before is now mostly gone.
>Folks full of usenet courage can hide nicely behind the electronic
>wall, and not fear the repercussions of being rude face-to-face.
You might have less respect for people who regard threatened force as the
ultimate argument when all that has come before is words.
jim beam
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> sorry, that book has been very much refuted, and not just by me - it
>> contains many serious errors of fact. my citations have bored people
>> rigid on the subjects here many times. again, google is your friend.
>>
>
> No, not at all. I've been waiting on the edge my seat for so long it's
> worn through, but you never get to any point. If pressed, you spew
> science-babble so thick no one seems to have penetrated it to check the
> veracity of your claims. And no, I don't mean to say I don't respect
> science, au contraire, but not the jargon made to sound like science you
> make us read.
that's the old witch hunt argument - if she drowns, she's innocent, but
tough luck. you're saying you want me to avoid the details because you
neither want nor care to bother with the technology, [on an allegedly
tech newsgroup] but you want me to prove i'm not a witch by drowning?
sorry, won't do. don't believe anything i say? go to a library. i've
cited references for suitable texts.
>
> Last time someone showed you a study on stress relieving by the
> automotive industry, your response was an evasion.
evasion??? that pdf is a publicity piece that, well, you go & re-read
what i said.
> My point: I have no
> idea if the automotive industry study was comparable to bicycle wheel
> stress relieving
wait: you have no idea but you have an opinion? you sound like a witch
burner to me.
David Damerell
>So when the number of spokes decreases to zero, the wheel becomes
>infinitely strong. ;)
Presumably you could just weld a huge hub flange to a super-deep aero rim.
That _would_ be jolly strong...
David Damerell
>physics, I'd be in another line of work. (note, my line of work does
>not allow me to "publish" anything under my name - not even little
>pissing matches with Jobst Brandt on the internet).
What happens if someone with the same name starts posting?
It doesn't help that we have one or two notorious lunatics - "jim
beam"/"tux lover" springs to mind - who employ not merely fictitious names
but shuffle from sock puppet to sock puppet after each one froths a bit
too obviously. I was hoping we'd get a fresh sock after the claim that
there is a secret process spoke manufacturers have which they carefully
hide from factory tours, no doubt in a secret basement somewhere...
David Damerell
>while I'll take a good-hearted fool over a genius douchebag any day...
That's not really a sensible strategy if you actually want the right
answer.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> I wrote a long, detailed response, but it didn't contain anything
that
> hasn't been hashed over many times before. Except the last paragraph-
>
> "My guess is that we might enjoy each other's company on a bike ride,
and
> freely exchange names. Yet here on the 'net..."
Do you ride mountain bike? If so, then yes indeed. Angry and
inattentive motorists chased me from the roads, so now I ride on dirt.
But I am sympathetic to all those on two wheels, using the power of
their legs.
But here on the 'net, it's different. In person, I suspect I can trust
you to be a decent enough human being. Not that it's different here in
that respect. Oddly, my gmail account has my full name attached, such
that everyone who were to receive an e-mail reply from me would find
exactly what "E.P." stands for. I know of at least four people in
r.b.t. (who are regular posters) that knows what the initials signify.
And I am sure that the knowledge does not mean a thing to them. But
here, we are not the only two people having a conversation, so it is
quite different in that respect.
I give you this exchange as a model of how two people can disagree on a
particular issue, yet still have a respectful conversation. Now, if
someone could answer the question as to why Jobst is held to a much
lower standard of common decency, I would be grateful.
E.P.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
David Damerell wrote:
> begin quoting <gcmsc...@gmail.com>:
> >Ah, OK. What little respect for him I had before is now mostly
gone.
> >Folks full of usenet courage can hide nicely behind the electronic
> >wall, and not fear the repercussions of being rude face-to-face.
>
> You might have less respect for people who regard threatened force as
the
> ultimate argument when all that has come before is words.
If indeed the only repercussion for being rude was threat of force. It
is *one* but not *the only* repercussion.
That's why the word was in plural form.
E.P.