Maintenance Manuals

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:36:55 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
>> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>>
>> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>>
>> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>>
>> >> >> >> you're bull****ting peter. grow up.
>>
>> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> >> >> > who's bull****ting.
>>
>> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>
>> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>>
>> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>
>> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>
>> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.
>>
>> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>>
>> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?
>>
>> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>> >> >> bull****ting? terribly sorry!
>>
>> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>>
>> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>>
>> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>>
>> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>> >> >> squirm you want to add?
>>
>> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>>
>> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!
>>
>> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.
>>
>> >> >> you are a shameless bull****ting prick.
>>
>> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> >> >> bull**** cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really
>> >> >> >> convincing too!
>>
>> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>>
>> >> >> bull****'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!
>>
>> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick.
>> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>>
>> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>> >> >held at the same angle.
>>
>> >> Dear Spike
>>
>> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>>
>> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>>
>> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:
>>
>> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>>
>> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>>
>> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>>
>> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>>
>> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> Carl Fogel
>>
>> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>>
>> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
>> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
>> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
>> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
>> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
>> >taken.)
>>
>> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
>> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
>> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
>> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
>> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
>> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
>> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
>> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
>> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
>> >and thinner.
>>
>> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
>> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
>> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
>> >mistake.
>>
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>>
>> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
>> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
>> screw not being visible.
>>
>> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
>> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
>> yours.
>>
>> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>>
>> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
>> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
>> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>>
>> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Carl,
>
>It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam might
>be up to his regular fraud again. I asked that he deny it. What
>supported this observation and request was his past history of obvious
>and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
>observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
>our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers. Thank you for expounding
>further on their possible differences.
>
>I meant to suggest that "jimmying" of the spring tension was only one
>possible method by which such a deception could be produced --
>certainly this is what could have been done. I should have been
>clearer and more expansive. This was a error on my part; I am not
>embarrassed by it.

Dear Spike,

You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your
hatred of Jim Beam.

You've lost most of your credibility.

Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[jim beam]

spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Oct 6, 10:04 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>>>>>>>>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>>>>>>>>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>>>>>>>>>> 175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>>>>>>>>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>>>>>>>>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>>>>>>>>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>>>>>>>>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>>>>>>>>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>>>>>>>> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>>>>>>>> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>>>>>>>> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>>>>>>>> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>>>>>>>> you're bull****ting peter. grow up.
>>>>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>>>>>>> who's bull****ting.
>>>>>> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>>>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>>>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>>>>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>>>>>> fundamentally incorrect.
>>>>>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>>>>>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>>>>>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>>>>>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>>>>>>> of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>>>>>>> radial and lateral loads?
>>>>>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>>>>>> bull****ting? terribly sorry!
>>>>>>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>>>>>>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>>>>>>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>>>>>>>> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>>>>>>>> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>>>>>>>> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>>>>>>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>>>>>> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>>>>>> squirm you want to add?
>>>>>>>>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>>>>>>>> wow! that's rich!
>>>>>>> Maybe, but obviously true.
>>>>>> you are a shameless bull****ting prick.
>>>>>>>>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>>>>>>> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>>>>>>>> bull**** cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really
>>>>>>>> convincing too!
>>>>>>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>>>>>>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>>>>>> bull****'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!
>>>>> Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick.
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>>>>> Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>>>>> spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>>>>> about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>>>>> don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>>>>> held at the same angle.
>>>> Dear Spike
>>>> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>>>> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>>>> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>>>> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:
>>>> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>>>> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>>>> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>>>> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>>>> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>>>> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>>>> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>>>> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Carl Fogel
>>> Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>>> Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
>>> properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
>>> production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
>>> and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
>>> end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
>>> taken.)
>>> Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
>>> is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
>>> spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
>>> readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
>>> spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
>>> want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
>>> picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
>>> other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
>>> spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
>>> and thinner.
>>> So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
>>> I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
>>> given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
>>> mistake.
>>> --
>>> Spike
>> admit it spike, you just don't like me. say the words.
>>
>> [and no, i did not fudge the calibration - i drew the while pic in
>> photoshop instead. took ma about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at
>> that stuff. i don't even own a tensiometer. saved me $60!]
>
> Beam: "i drew the while (sic) pic in photoshop instead. took ma
> (sic?) about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at that stuff."
>
> Sounds like you are sarcastically admitting to the impossible in order
> to divert attention from the actual.
>

eh??? i'm sarcastically pointing out the stupidity of your claim! duh.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:15:31 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> >> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> >>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely
>> >>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel
>> >>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all
>> >>> proper conceptualization.
>>
>> >jim beam wrote:
>> >> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue
>> >> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? how
>> >> about 16 spokes?
>>
>> >Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel
>> >auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel.
>>
>> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters
>> agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like
>> wooden wagon wheels:
>>
>> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a
>> wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground
>> by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a
>> way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension
>> greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in
>> function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still
>> carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load,
>> its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward
>> force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned."
>>
>> "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The
>> important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in
>> compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the
>> load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a
>> wire. ...
>
>Carl, note the "if." A real wagon wheel isn't
>tensioned. This is why Jobst had to engage in the
>thought experiment of dreaming up a tensioned
>wagon wheel to explain how wire spokes support the
>load.
>
>Everybody (I think) agrees that a wagon wheel
>supports the load by standing on the bottom spoke;
>the bottom spoke is in compression. It doesn't
>take an FEA to convince people. However, if
>you made a bicycle wheel with conventional
>components and untensioned spokes, it wouldn't
>last very long. Jobst had to make the leap to a
>tensioned-spoke wagon wheel analogy to explain
>how a bicycle wheel can work even though the
>thin wire spokes are not strong in compression.
>
>Ben

Dear Ben,

Note the opening sentence:

"All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way."

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:32:29 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:36:55 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
>>> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>>> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>>> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>>> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>>> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>>> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>>> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>>> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>>> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>>> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>>> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>>>
>>> >> >> >> you're bull****ting peter. grow up.
>>>
>>> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>>> >> >> > who's bull****ting.
>>>
>>> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>>> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>>
>>> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>>
>>> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>>> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>>> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>>>
>>> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>>> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>>> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>>> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?
>>>
>>> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>>> >> >> bull****ting? terribly sorry!
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>>> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>>> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>>> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>>> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>>>
>>> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>>>
>>> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>>> >> >> squirm you want to add?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!
>>>
>>> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.
>>>
>>> >> >> you are a shameless bull****ting prick.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>>> >> >> >> bull**** cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really
>>> >> >> >> convincing too!
>>>
>>> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>>> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>>>
>>> >> >> bull****'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!
>>>
>>> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick.
>>> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>>>
>>> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>>> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>>> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>>> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>>> >> >held at the same angle.
>>>
>>> >> Dear Spike
>>>
>>> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>>> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>>>
>>> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>>>
>>> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:
>>>
>>> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>>>
>>> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>>> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>>>
>>> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>>> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>>>
>>> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>>> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>>> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>>>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>>
>>> >> Carl Fogel
>>>
>>> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>>>
>>> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
>>> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
>>> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
>>> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
>>> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
>>> >taken.)
>>>
>>> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
>>> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
>>> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
>>> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
>>> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
>>> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
>>> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
>>> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
>>> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
>>> >and thinner.
>>>
>>> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
>>> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
>>> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
>>> >mistake.
>>>
>>> Dear Spike,
>>>
>>> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>>>
>>> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
>>> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
>>> screw not being visible.
>>>
>>> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
>>> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
>>> yours.
>>>
>>> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>>>
>>> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
>>> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
>>> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>>>
>>> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>>Carl,
>>
>>It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam might
>>be up to his regular fraud again. I asked that he deny it. What
>>supported this observation and request was his past history of obvious
>>and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
>>observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
>>our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers. Thank you for expounding
>>further on their possible differences.
>>
>>I meant to suggest that "jimmying" of the spring tension was only one
>>possible method by which such a deception could be produced --
>>certainly this is what could have been done. I should have been
>>clearer and more expansive. This was a error on my part; I am not
>>embarrassed by it.
>
>Dear Spike,
>
>You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your
>hatred of Jim Beam.
>
>You've lost most of your credibility.
>
>Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

And please learn how to send a single post to the newsgroup.

The multiple copies on the newsgroup are bad enough, but now you're
emailing me copies of the duplicates.

[spikenettles@earthlink.net]

On Oct 7, 12:32 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

>
> Dear Spike,
>
> You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your
> hatred of Jim Beam.
>
> You've lost most of your credibility.
>
> Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Carl,

I believe my skepticism is well founded. It is based on my past
assessment of beam's credibility. I would be embarrassed if I were not
skeptical.

--

Spike

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:15:31 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>>>>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely
>>>>>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel
>>>>>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all
>>>>>> proper conceptualization.
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue
>>>>> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28 spokes? how
>>>>> about 16 spokes?
>>>> Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel
>>>> auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel.
>>> Dear Andrew,
>>>
>>> Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters
>>> agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like
>>> wooden wagon wheels:
>>>
>>> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a
>>> wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground
>>> by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a
>>> way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension
>>> greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in
>>> function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still
>>> carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load,
>>> its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward
>>> force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned."
>>>
>>> "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The
>>> important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in
>>> compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the
>>> load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a
>>> wire. ...
>> Carl, note the "if." A real wagon wheel isn't
>> tensioned. This is why Jobst had to engage in the
>> thought experiment of dreaming up a tensioned
>> wagon wheel to explain how wire spokes support the
>> load.
>>
>> Everybody (I think) agrees that a wagon wheel
>> supports the load by standing on the bottom spoke;
>> the bottom spoke is in compression. It doesn't
>> take an FEA to convince people. However, if
>> you made a bicycle wheel with conventional
>> components and untensioned spokes, it wouldn't
>> last very long. Jobst had to make the leap to a
>> tensioned-spoke wagon wheel analogy to explain
>> how a bicycle wheel can work even though the
>> thin wire spokes are not strong in compression.
>>
>> Ben
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Note the opening sentence:
>
> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way."

When you (general you) ignore the semantics, all spoked wheels do carry
loads in the same way. Whether it is a loss of pre-tension or an
increase in compression, the force vector is the same.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>> >> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>> >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>> >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>> >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>> >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>> >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>> >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>> >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>> >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>> >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>> >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> you're bull****ting peter. grow up.
>>
>> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> >> >> >> > who's bull****ting.
>>
>> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>> >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>> >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>
>> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>
>> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>> >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>> >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>>
>> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>> >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>> >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>> >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?
>>
>> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>> >> >> >> bull****ting? terribly sorry!
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>> >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>> >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>> >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>> >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>>
>> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>>
>> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>> >> >> >> squirm you want to add?
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!
>>
>> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.
>>
>> >> >> >> you are a shameless bull****ting prick.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> >> >> >> bull**** cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really
>> >> >> >> >> convincing too!
>>
>> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>> >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>>
>> >> >> >> bull****'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!
>>
>> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick.
>> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>>
>> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>> >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>> >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>> >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>> >> >> >held at the same angle.
>>
>> >> >> Dear Spike
>>
>> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>> >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>>
>> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>>
>> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible:
>>
>> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>>
>> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>> >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>>
>> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>> >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>>
>> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>> >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>> >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> >> Carl Fogel
>>
>> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>>
>> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
>> >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
>> >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
>> >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
>> >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
>> >> >taken.)
>>
>> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
>> >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
>> >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
>> >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
>> >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
>> >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
>> >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
>> >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
>> >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
>> >> >and thinner.
>>
>> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
>> >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
>> >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
>> >> >mistake.
>>
>> >> Dear Spike,
>>
>> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>>
>> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
>> >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
>> >> screw not being visible.
>>
>> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
>> >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
>> >> yours.
>>
>> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>>
>> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
>> >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
>> >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>>
>> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>>
>> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> Carl Fogel
>>
>> >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>>
>> >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up
>> >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his
>> >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led
>> >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the
>> >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1
>> >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that
>> >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This
>> >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it.
>>
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> You've lost most of your credibility.
>>
>> Stop digging.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Carl,
>
>Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
>observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
>our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been
>clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...."
>
>Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost
>most of my credibility.

Dear Spike,

I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior.

What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't
believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking
photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more
expansive"?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:
> ...
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> You've lost most of your credibility.
>>
>> Stop digging.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
> Carl,
>
> Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
> observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
> our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been
> clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...."
>
> Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost
> most of my credibility.

Not that "Dear Carl" would ever make false accusations of dishonesty.
[end sarcasm]. Heck, this is the one that that Bill Sornson and I agree
upon.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[spikenettles@earthlink.net]

On Oct 7, 12:38 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
> >> >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
> >> >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
> >> >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
> >> >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
> >> >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>
> >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
> >> >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
> >> >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
> >> >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
> >> >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
> >> >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> you're bull****ting peter. grow up.
>
> >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> >> >> >> >> > who's bull****ting.
>
> >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
> >> >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
> >> >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>
> >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>
> >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
> >> >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
> >> >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>
> >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
> >> >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
> >> >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
> >> >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?
>
> >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
> >> >> >> >> bull****ting? terribly sorry!
>
> >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
> >> >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
> >> >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
> >> >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
> >> >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>
> >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>
> >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
> >> >> >> >> squirm you want to add?
>
> >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!
>
> >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.
>
> >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bull****ting prick.
>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> >> >> >> >> bull**** cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really
> >> >> >> >> >> convincing too!
>
> >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
> >> >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>
> >> >> >> >> bull****'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!
>
> >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick.
> >> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>
> >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
> >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
> >> >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
> >> >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
> >> >> >> >held at the same angle.
>
> >> >> >> Dear Spike
>
> >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
> >> >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>
> >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>
> >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible:
>
> >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>
> >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
> >> >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>
> >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
> >> >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>
> >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
> >> >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
> >> >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>
> >> >> >> Cheers,
>
> >> >> >> Carl Fogel
>
> >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>
> >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
> >> >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
> >> >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
> >> >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
> >> >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
> >> >> >taken.)
>
> >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
> >> >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
> >> >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
> >> >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
> >> >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
> >> >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
> >> >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
> >> >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
> >> >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
> >> >> >and thinner.
>
> >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
> >> >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
> >> >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
> >> >> >mistake.
>
> >> >> Dear Spike,
>
> >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>
> >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
> >> >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
> >> >> screw not being visible.
>
> >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
> >> >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
> >> >> yours.
>
> >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>
> >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
> >> >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
> >> >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>
> >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>
> >> >> Cheers,
>
> >> >> Carl Fogel
>
> >> >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>
> >> >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up
> >> >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his
> >> >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led
> >> >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the
> >> >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1
> >> >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that
> >> >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This
> >> >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it.
>
> >> Dear Spike,
>
> >> You've lost most of your credibility.
>
> >> Stop digging.
>
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> Carl Fogel
>
> >Carl,
>
> >Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
> >observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
> >our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been
> >clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...."
>
> >Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost
> >most of my credibility.
>
> Dear Spike,
>
> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior.
>
> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't
> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking
> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more
> expansive"?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Carl,

Based on beam's past antics I would be embarrassed to give him
credibility. Apparently, you are not.

I didn't "announce" that he was faking pictures, but, yes, I certainly
intended to raise that possibility by asking him to deny that "You
tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool
TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." (Indeed, he may
have done just this.)

I now believe that even if I had been clearer and more expansive, you
still would he in disagreement.

--

Spike

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Oct 6, 10:38 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

> Dear Spike,
>
> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior.
>
> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't
> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking
> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more
> expansive"?

Dear Carl,

I don't care one way or another about jim beam's
photograph and see no reason to doubt its veracity, but:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/5c5727669856726d/85ff7a01beb8e1e7#85ff7a01beb8e1e7

You're in a fine position to lecture people about
the rudeness of disbelieving photographic evidence
on RBT.

Ben

[spikenettles@earthlink.net]

On Oct 7, 12:44 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

>
> And please learn how to send a single post to the newsgroup.
>
> The multiple copies on the newsgroup are bad enough, but now you're
> emailing me copies of the duplicates.

I really am sorry for that, Carl. My browser seems to be a bit balky
-- and some posters a bit testy -- but it is all my fault. I'm new to
posting to news groups obviously.

Your multiple duplicate replies to the group do look funny; my
original post doesn't even appear once. You should maybe be pleased.
You can now do an exegesis on all seven editions (joke).

--

Spike

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:57:16 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Oct 7, 12:38 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >On Oct 6, 10:58 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> >> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>> >> >> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>> >> >> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>> >> >> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>> >> >> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>> >> >> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>> >> >> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>> >> >> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>> >> >> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>> >> >> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>> >> >> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> you're bull****ting peter. grow up.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> >> >> >> >> > who's bull****ting.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> deny this, prick.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>> >> >> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>> >> >> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>> >> >> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>> >> >> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>> >> >> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>> >> >> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>> >> >> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>> >> >> >> >> bull****ting? terribly sorry!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>> >> >> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>> >> >> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>> >> >> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>> >> >> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>> >> >> >> >> squirm you want to add?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> you are a shameless bull****ting prick.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> >> >> >> >> bull**** cart, so he resorted to being a prick! nice one. really
>> >> >> >> >> >> convincing too!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>> >> >> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> bull****'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a prick!
>>
>> >> >> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, prick.
>> >> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>>
>> >> >> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>> >> >> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>> >> >> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>> >> >> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>> >> >> >> >held at the same angle.
>>
>> >> >> >> Dear Spike
>>
>> >> >> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>> >> >> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>>
>> >> >> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>>
>> >> >> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible:
>>
>> >> >> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>>
>> >> >> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>> >> >> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>>
>> >> >> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>> >> >> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>>
>> >> >> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>> >> >> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>> >> >> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>>
>> >> >> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> >> >> Carl Fogel
>>
>> >> >> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>>
>> >> >> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
>> >> >> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
>> >> >> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
>> >> >> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
>> >> >> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
>> >> >> >taken.)
>>
>> >> >> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
>> >> >> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
>> >> >> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
>> >> >> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
>> >> >> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
>> >> >> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
>> >> >> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
>> >> >> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
>> >> >> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
>> >> >> >and thinner.
>>
>> >> >> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
>> >> >> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
>> >> >> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
>> >> >> >mistake.
>>
>> >> >> Dear Spike,
>>
>> >> >> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>>
>> >> >> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
>> >> >> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
>> >> >> screw not being visible.
>>
>> >> >> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
>> >> >> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
>> >> >> yours.
>>
>> >> >> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>>
>> >> >> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
>> >> >> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
>> >> >> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>>
>> >> >> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> >> Carl Fogel
>>
>> >> >>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>>
>> >> >It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up
>> >> >to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his
>> >> >past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led
>> >> >you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the
>> >> >possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1
>> >> >Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that
>> >> >he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This
>> >> >was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it.
>>
>> >> Dear Spike,
>>
>> >> You've lost most of your credibility.
>>
>> >> Stop digging.
>>
>> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> Carl Fogel
>>
>> >Carl,
>>
>> >Let me again say that "I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
>> >observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
>> >our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers...I should have been
>> >clearer and more expansive. This was an error on my part...."
>>
>> >Let me add that I am sorry that you think I'm digging and have lost
>> >most of my credibility.
>>
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> I'm sorry that you're not embarrassed by your behavior.
>>
>> What credibility do you expect when you first announce that you won't
>> believe anything that Jim Beam says, then announce that he's faking
>> photos, and later explain that you should have been "clearer and more
>> expansive"?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Carl,
>
>Based on beam's past antics I would be embarrassed to give him
>credibility. Apparently, you are not.
>
>I didn't "announce" that he was faking pictures, but, yes, I certainly
>intended to raise that possibility by asking him to deny that "You
>tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool
>TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values." (Indeed, he may
>have done just this.)
>
>I now believe that even if I had been clearer and more expansive, you
>still would he in disagreement.

Spike,

Bull****.

You wrote this, accusing Jim Beam of fraud, with as much evidence as
claims that NASA faked moon landing pictures. You couldn't have been
clearer:

"You tightened down the tension spring adjustment screw of your Park
Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give about double actual values."

You have no evidence, no credibility, and not enough character to be
ashamed.

Stop emailing me with duplicates and excuses.

Carl Fogel

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:21:59 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Oct 7, 12:32 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your
>> hatred of Jim Beam.
>>
>> You've lost most of your credibility.
>>
>> Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Carl,
>
>I believe my skepticism is well founded. It is based on my past
>assessment of beam's credibility. I would be embarrassed if I were not
>skeptical.

Quit emailing me bull**** excuses for emailing me duplicates.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote:
> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?
>
>
>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I
>> have not built any wheels that size.
>>
>
> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility.
>
> You're dismissed.

Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky!

BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A
PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE
STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE.

Sorry about all the caps, but Zarky is being a bit dense.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed:
> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > <snipped for brevity>
>
> >>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?
>
> >> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I
> >> have not built any wheels that size.
>
> > So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility.
>
> > You're dismissed.
>
> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky!
>
> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A
> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE
> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE.

You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what
percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by
REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard.

Piss off.
>

[jim beam]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:15:31 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
>> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 8:51 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>>>>>> Separating the two effects leads you to analyze a completely
>>>>>>> different system. It would be like analysing a wagon wheel
>>>>>>> and applying the results to a bicycle wheel. It's not at all
>>>>>>> proper conceptualization.
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> but they're all wheels! they obey the same rules! what next - argue
>>>>>> that a wheel with 32 spokes in not the same as one with 28
>>>>>> spokes? how
>>>>>> about 16 spokes?
>>>>> Wagon wheels with compressed spokes and felloes or even pressed steel
>>>>> auto wheels are fundamentally different from a tensioned wheel.
>>>> Dear Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> Oh, dear! There may be fundamental differences, but many RBT posters
>>>> agree with the following claim that bicycle wheels function like
>>>> wooden wagon wheels:
>>>>
>>>> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way. For example, a
>>>> wooden-spoked wagon wheel transmits loads from its axle to the ground
>>>> by standing on the spoke at the bottom of the wheel. If there were a
>>>> way to stretch the spokes of a wagon wheel so that they had a tension
>>>> greater than the load to be carried, the wheel would not change in
>>>> function or appearance. The spoke directly beneath the hub would still
>>>> carry the load, but instead of being under compression from the load,
>>>> its tension would be reduced by the load. The net increase in downward
>>>> force would be exactly the same as before the spokes were tensioned."
>>>>
>>>> "Note that the tensioned wagon wheel looks and works as before. The
>>>> important internal difference is that none of its spokes is in
>>>> compression even when loaded. Consider what would happen if the
>>>> load-carrying spoke at the bottom of this wheel were replaced with a
>>>> wire. ...
>>> Carl, note the "if." A real wagon wheel isn't
>>> tensioned. This is why Jobst had to engage in the
>>> thought experiment of dreaming up a tensioned
>>> wagon wheel to explain how wire spokes support the
>>> load.
>>>
>>> Everybody (I think) agrees that a wagon wheel
>>> supports the load by standing on the bottom spoke;
>>> the bottom spoke is in compression. It doesn't
>>> take an FEA to convince people. However, if
>>> you made a bicycle wheel with conventional
>>> components and untensioned spokes, it wouldn't
>>> last very long. Jobst had to make the leap to a
>>> tensioned-spoke wagon wheel analogy to explain
>>> how a bicycle wheel can work even though the
>>> thin wire spokes are not strong in compression.
>>>
>>> Ben
>>
>> Dear Ben,
>>
>> Note the opening sentence:
>>
>> "All spoked wheels carry loads in much the same way."
>
> When you (general you) ignore the semantics, all spoked wheels do carry
> loads in the same way. Whether it is a loss of pre-tension or an
> increase in compression, the force vector is the same.
>
absolutely.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated:
> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed:
>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?
>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I
>>>> have not built any wheels that size.
>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility.
>>> You're dismissed.
>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky!
>>
>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A
>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE
>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE.
>
> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what
> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by
> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard.

A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all
likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR
materials science.

What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on
the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load occurs
at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can support.

> Piss off.

Considering the source, I will take that as a compliment.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[A Muzi]

>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?

>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:
>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I
>>>> have not built any wheels that size.

>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility.
>>> You're dismissed.

> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>> -snip-
>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A
>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE
>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what
> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by
> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard.
> Piss off.

Tom may have whacko socio/political views but in his area he's cogent.
And right.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[jim beam]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated:
>> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed:
>>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?
>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size, so I
>>>>> have not built any wheels that size.
>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility.
>>>> You're dismissed.
>>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky!
>>>
>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A
>>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE
>>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE.
>>
>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what
>> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by
>> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard.
>
> A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all
> likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR
> materials science.
>
> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on
> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load occurs
> at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can support.

sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one.

1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none.
it doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and
pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because
it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/

2. rim cracking is because of the anisotropy of the extruded aluminum.
increasing the thickness sufficiently to overcome the fact that there is
a /significant/ difference in strength by orientation means a
significant step up in weight with no other structural benefit.

given that #2 can be completely mitigated by understanding #1 and
tensioning accordingly, allegations of "poor design" are propagated
simply to defend entrenched positions of misunderstanding, not as
attempts to resolve the issue.




>
>> Piss off.
>
> Considering the source, I will take that as a compliment.
>

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated:
>>> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed:
>>>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?
>>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size,
>>>>>> so I
>>>>>> have not built any wheels that size.
>>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility.
>>>>> You're dismissed.
>>>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky!
>>>>
>>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A
>>>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE
>>>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE.
>>>
>>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what
>>> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by
>>> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard.
>>
>> A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all
>> likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR
>> materials science.
>>
>> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on
>> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load
>> occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can
>> support.
>
> sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one.
>
> 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. it
> doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and
> pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because
> it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/

And how far did you ride on this wheel, "jim"? Or do you only use your
bicycle to support static loads? Or are your roads so smooth, that your
wheels never see significant dynamic loads?

> 2. rim cracking is because of the anisotropy of the extruded aluminum.
> increasing the thickness sufficiently to overcome the fact that there is
> a /significant/ difference in strength by orientation means a
> significant step up in weight with no other structural benefit.

So you claim. Others with verifiable engineering experience disagree.

> given that #2 can be completely mitigated by understanding #1 and
> tensioning accordingly, allegations of "poor design" are propagated
> simply to defend entrenched positions of misunderstanding, not as
> attempts to resolve the issue.

This is avoiding the question. If the spoke beds can handle the spokes
being tensioned to 1000N, but the rim can bear considerably more tension
before buckling, then the cross-section of the rim in other areas has
more material than is needed. (Optimization of design is an engineering
principal, which may be foreign to the materials scientist).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated:
>>> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed:
>>>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?
>>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size,
>>>>>> so I
>>>>>> have not built any wheels that size.
>>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility.
>>>>> You're dismissed.
>>>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky!
>>>>
>>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A
>>>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE
>>>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE.
>>>
>>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what
>>> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by
>>> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard.
>>
>> A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all
>> likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR
>> materials science.
>>
>> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on
>> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load
>> occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can
>> support.
>
> sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one.
>
> 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. it
> doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and
> pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because
> it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/

And how far did you ride on this wheel, "jim"? Or do you only use your
bicycle to support static loads? Or are your roads so smooth, that your
wheels never see significant dynamic loads?

> 2. rim cracking is because of the anisotropy of the extruded aluminum.
> increasing the thickness sufficiently to overcome the fact that there is
> a /significant/ difference in strength by orientation means a
> significant step up in weight with no other structural benefit.

So you claim. Others with verifiable engineering experience disagree.

> given that #2 can be completely mitigated by understanding #1 and
> tensioning accordingly, allegations of "poor design" are propagated
> simply to defend entrenched positions of misunderstanding, not as
> attempts to resolve the issue.

This is avoiding the question. If the spoke beds can handle the spokes
being tensioned to 1000N, but the rim can bear more load without
buckling, then the design is not optimized. (Optimization of design is
an engineering principal, which may be foreign to the materials scientist).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"jim 'Kentucky Bourbon' beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "Ozark 'Snarky Zarky' Bicycle" bleated:
>>> On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Tom " CLUELESS BLOWHARD" Sherman wailed:
>>>> Ozark "100% Attitude" Bicycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 6, 10:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>>>> How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?
>>>>>> I have never owned a bicycle that uses the ISO 622-mm wheel size,
>>>>>> so I
>>>>>> have not built any wheels that size.
>>>>> So the answer is "zero", about the same as your credibility.
>>>>> You're dismissed.
>>>> Ooooooooohh, a dismissal from Snarky Zarky!
>>>>
>>>> BUILDING WHEELS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO ANALYZE WHETHER A
>>>> PART (i.e. the RIM) IS DESIGNED IN AN OPTIMAL MANNER TO RESIST THE
>>>> STRESSES IT WILL SEE IN USE.
>>>
>>> You have ZERO real world experience. You have no idea whatsoever what
>>> percentage of which rims may or may not have problems in ACTUAL USE by
>>> REAL PEOPLE using them. You are a clueless blowhard.
>>
>> A complete non-answer. Not surprising, since "Zarky Bicycle" in all
>> likelihood (based on his posts) has no understanding of engineering OR
>> materials science.
>>
>> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on
>> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load
>> occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can
>> support.
>
> sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one.
>
> 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. it
> doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and
> pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because
> it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/417157612/

And how far did you ride on this wheel, "jim"? Or do you only use your
bicycle to support static loads? Or are your roads so smooth, that your
wheels never see significant dynamic loads?

> 2. rim cracking is because of the anisotropy of the extruded aluminum.
> increasing the thickness sufficiently to overcome the fact that there is
> a /significant/ difference in strength by orientation means a
> significant step up in weight with no other structural benefit.

So you claim. Others with verifiable engineering experience disagree.

> given that #2 can be completely mitigated by understanding #1 and
> tensioning accordingly, allegations of "poor design" are propagated
> simply to defend entrenched positions of misunderstanding, not as
> attempts to resolve the issue.

This is avoiding the question. If the spoke beds can handle the spokes
being tensioned to 1000N, but the rim can bear considerably more tension
before buckling, then the cross-section of the rim in other areas has
more material than is needed. (Optimization of design is an engineering
principal, which may be foreign to the materials scientist).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

>> What rims have or do not have problems in real life has no bearing on
>> the matter at hand: a rim is poorly designed if the buckling load
>> occurs at a much higher spoke tension than what the spoke bed can
>> support.
>
> sorry dude, you've swallowed a huge great red herring with that one.
>
> 1. there is /no/ reason to keep cranking up the spoke tension. none. it
> doesn't make the wheel stiffer. it doesn't make it stronger. and
> pushing out the spoke slackening point doesn't matter either because
> it's rim deformation that matters, not whether the spokes go slack.

Rim deformation is related to spoke slackness.

If you consider the tables that accompany the FEA in Jobst's book,
you'll see that the nominal 50kg load causes a ~0.15mm deflection in the
bottommost spoke and about half that in the two adjacent spokes. From
his spoke elasticity calculations (confirmed by measurements) he shows
that a spoke will have a 0.75mm length change with 100kg tension.
Combining those reveals that the combined spoke length change in a
loaded wheel in the affected zone is around 0.3mm, where spoke stiffness
alone would have predicted 0.375mm. This indicates that wheel stiffness
for radial loads is roughly 80% from spokes and 20% from rim.

Again, with the nominal 50kg and 0.15mm deflection in the FEA table, we
would predict that wheel/load could withstand 5G or so before that spoke
would become slack (0.75mm change in length). When the spoke goes slack,
the wheel stiffness changes markedly. If we relied on rim stiffness
alone, the 5G load would result in a rim deflection of more like 3mm
than 0.75mm.

The more spoke tension, the greater load required to shift the stiffness
of the wheel from high (spoke and rim) to low (rim alone), low stiffness
means large displacements, which means bent metal eventually. This is
how rims dent in potholes.

Another, perhaps more intuitive, way to look at it is that a pothole
strike delivers a pulse of energy, much like whacking with a baseball
bat. Whatever the tire and spokes don't absorb, the rim must. The spokes
will absorb until they go slack, more tension = more energy absorbed.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> ...
>> When you (general you) ignore the semantics, all spoked wheels do
>> carry loads in the same way. Whether it is a loss of pre-tension or an
>> increase in compression, the force vector is the same.
>>
> absolutely.

Sometime a vector diagram is worth a thousand words.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 7, 11:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and
> >> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the
> >> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true
> >> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the
> >> makers recommendations.
>
> > FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should
> > have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage.
>
> > And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily
> > out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that
> > doesn't destroy the rim.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> do you use a pressure gauge when inflating the tires on your car?

Why, yes, I do.

Do I use a pressure gage when inflating my bike tires? Sometimes yes,
sometimes no.

Do I use a torque wrench when tightening cylinder head bolts?
Absolutely.

Do I use a torque wrench when replacing brake pads on my bike brakes?
Never.

Should every mechanical operation involving a bike require investing
in a new, single purpose, $60 tool? Absolutely not.

Should wheel building _require_ the use of a $60 single purpose tool
to prevent unrepairable rim damage? Absolutely not.

- Frank Krygowski

[jim beam]

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>>> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and
>>>> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the
>>>> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true
>>>> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the
>>>> makers recommendations.
>>> FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should
>>> have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage.
>>> And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily
>>> out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that
>>> doesn't destroy the rim.
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> do you use a pressure gauge when inflating the tires on your car?
>
> Why, yes, I do.
>
> Do I use a pressure gage when inflating my bike tires? Sometimes yes,
>