QBP wheels

[Zruk]

Hi,
does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in an
old school wheel.
thanks

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:01:54 -0800 (PST), Zruk <stankurz@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
>relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in an
>old school wheel.
>thanks

Dear Stan,

Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt anything.

You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
Jobst's method.

Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the vee
of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood, put a
hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating around the
clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic method, which uses
your body weight and seems to produce higher tension:
http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf

Any of these methods may produce small cracking or popping noises as
wound-up spokes untwist or seat, and you may have to re-true the wheel
a little afterward.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:01:54 -0800 (PST), Zruk <stankurz@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
>relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in an
>old school wheel.
>thanks

Dear Stan,

Since your post has revived old debates, here's a link to a post with
graphs of measured spoke tension rise for the Mavic press-on-the-rim
and the Jobst squeeze-spoke-pairs methods:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/3058f923dbf37c3b

A typical RBT poster will find that he can raise the spoke tension
about 50% higher by leaning on the rim than by hand squeezing, since
it's easy for practically anyone to press down with 100 pounds of
force on the rim, but hard for most posters to produce more than a
60-pound squeeze with the weak hand 9 times in a row around a 36-spoke
rim. (The actual maximum spoke tension rise is always less than the
applied force.)

In any case, no poster ever says drat, I must not have Jobst-squeezed,
Mavic-pressed, or Sheldon-twisted my spokes hard enough.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Zruk]

Wow; who turned up the heat?
Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so viscious?
Because the stakes are so small.
Can't we all just get along?
I like the idea of stress releiving the wheel my self but I am a
little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensionometer or
much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I amafter all
seeking round and strong.

[landotter]

On Jan 16, 2:20 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:01:54 -0800 (PST), Zruk <stank...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
> >relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in an
> >old school wheel.
> >thanks
>
> Dear Stan,
>
> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt anything.
>
> You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
> five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
> Jobst's method.
>
> Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the vee
> of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>
> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood, put a
> hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating around the
> clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic method, which uses
> your body weight and seems to produce higher tension:
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf

The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything else.
With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up the tension
between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable wheels. Squeezing
or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull the spokes hard enough.

[daveornee]

carlfogel@comcast.net Wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:01:54 -0800 (PST), Zruk <stankurz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
> >relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in an
> >old school wheel.
> >thanks
>
> Dear Stan,
>
> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt anything.
>
> You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
> five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
> Jobst's method.
>
> Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the vee
> of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>
> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood, put a
> hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating around the
> clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic method, which uses
> your body weight and seems to produce higher tension:
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf
>
> Any of these methods may produce small cracking or popping noises as
> wound-up spokes untwist or seat, and you may have to re-true the wheel
> a little afterward.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
I use the inclusive "or"' of these methods. I agree that it doesn't
hurt to "do it again". If fact, when I need to re-true, I do it again
until the wheel is "stabilized" and true.
Using the "Mavic method" I "tacoed" only one wheel (out of over 2,000
built or worked on): old single wall low profile rear.
I have also cracked 5 rims (out of over 2,000) at the eyelets (or spoke
holes) and "recycled" the rims during these procedures. 2 were FIR, 2
were Mavic, and 1 non-eyeletted Velocity Aerohead.
These 6 "failures", while frustrating and time consuming at the time,
likely saved future issues with the wheels involved.
QBP wheel house is known for good quality and good value.


--
daveornee

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Granddaughter writes:

>>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
>>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
>>> an old school wheel.

>> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
>> anything.

>> You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
>> five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
>> Jobst's method.

>> Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the
>> vee of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

>> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
>> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
>> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
>> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
>> tension:

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf

> The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything else.
> With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up the
> tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
> wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull the
> spokes hard enough.

I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer on
the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method you
outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke tension
except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel deforms it
and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By manually working
pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is only a slight radial
deformation with no lateral effect.

You can collapse a wheels laterally without significantly increasing
spoke tension. A pretzeled wheel can often be straightened and
reused. I once met some tourists who had such a wheel and were hoping
to get a ride when I fixed the wheel to near new condition and sent
them on their way. Straightening the wheel required first loosening
all spokes a turn or so before bending the wheel back to plane.

Jobst Brandt

[landotter]

On Jan 16, 2:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Granddaughter writes:
> >>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
> >>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
> >>> an old school wheel.
> >> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
> >> anything.
> >> You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
> >> five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
> >> Jobst's method.
> >> Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the
> >> vee of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>
> >> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
> >> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
> >> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
> >> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
> >> tension:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf
>
> > The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything else.
> > With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up the
> > tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
> > wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull the
> > spokes hard enough.
>
> I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer on
> the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method you
> outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke tension
> except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel deforms it
> and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By manually working
> pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is only a slight radial
> deformation with no lateral effect.

Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the squeeze,
which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the flange. The
"permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You just work the
wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're simply lying and being
dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Granddaughter snipes from cover:

>>>>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
>>>>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value
>>>>> in an old school wheel.

>>>> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
>>>> anything. You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself
>>>> in less than five minutes, including the time to find some heavy
>>>> gloves. That's Jobst's method. Or you can try Sheldon's
>>>> method--stick a smooth crank arm into the vee of the crossing
>>>> spokes and twist 'em:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

>>>> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
>>>> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
>>>> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
>>>> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
>>>> tension:

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf

>>> The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything
>>> else. With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up
>>> the tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
>>> wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull
>>> the spokes hard enough.

>> I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer
>> on the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method
>> you outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke
>> tension except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel
>> deforms it and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By
>> manually working pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is
>> only a slight radial deformation with no lateral effect.

> Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the squeeze,
> which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the flange. The
> "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You just work the
> wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're simply lying and
> being dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!

How did you determine this? I use a tensiometer, what instrument did
you use? You may be confusing sounds from spokes untwisting as stress
relief, but that is not stress relief. Spokes untwist when they are
momentarily unloaded. This is not an indication of over-tensioning.

Your method unloads spokes admirably, which is another reason not to
use it.

Meanwhile, can you present technical material in a civil tone? Who
are you, by the way? It seems the rudest folks are all anonymous.

Jobst Brandt

[Daniel Joseph Min]

On Jan 16, 2:28 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>
>
> > Granddaughter writes:
> > >>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
> > >>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
> > >>> an old school wheel.
> > >> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
> > >> anything.
> > >> You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
> > >> five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
> > >> Jobst's method.
> > >> Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the
> > >> vee of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:
>
> > http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>
> > >> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
> > >> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
> > >> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
> > >> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
> > >> tension:
>
> > http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf
>
> > > The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything else.
> > > With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up the
> > > tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
> > > wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull the
> > > spokes hard enough.
>
> > I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer on
> > the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method you
> > outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke tension
> > except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel deforms it
> > and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By manually working
> > pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is only a slight radial
> > deformation with no lateral effect.
>
> Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the squeeze,
> which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the flange. The
> "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You just work the
> wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're simply lying and being
> dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!

Hmm, let's see what's going on here. Jobst - wrote THE BOOK on
bicycle wheels. Landotter - an anonymous ****tard. Huh, This one's
a toughy - might need to call Miss Cleo.

[Tom Sherman]

landotter ? wrote:
> ...
> Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the squeeze,
> which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the flange. The
> "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You just work the
> wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're simply lying and being
> dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!
>
Excellent "jim beam" imitation!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Michael Johnson]

landotter wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Granddaughter writes:
>>>>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
>>>>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
>>>>> an old school wheel.
>>>> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
>>>> anything.
>>>> You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
>>>> five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
>>>> Jobst's method.
>>>> Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the
>>>> vee of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:
>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>>
>>>> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
>>>> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
>>>> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
>>>> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
>>>> tension:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf
>>
>>> The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything else.
>>> With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up the
>>> tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
>>> wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull the
>>> spokes hard enough.
>> I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer on
>> the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method you
>> outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke tension
>> except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel deforms it
>> and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By manually working
>> pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is only a slight radial
>> deformation with no lateral effect.
>
> Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the squeeze,
> which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the flange. The
> "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You just work the
> wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're simply lying and being
> dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!

It's not the increase in tension that makes the "axle on wood" method
superior. It's the decrease in tension on the under side of the wheel.
What you're essentially doing is simulating the unloading of spokes that
naturally occurs when you ride on a wheel.

On the road, as each spoke comes to the point normal to the plane of the
ground, the rim is ever so slightly deformed to unload the tension on
the spoke. Without that tension, the static friction force in the
threads that is holding the spoke against unwinding (and you have to
have spokes with wind-up in them for this to matter) is reduced, and the
spoke twists in the nipple to relieve the wind-up. This is why you hear
the "pinging" sounds if you ride on an unrelieved wheel.

There's a good discussion of this in Barnett's Manual, Volume 2, page
17-24. There's also a discussion of spoke squeezing on page 16-42 that
basically says the reason for squeezing is not to relieve spoke wind-up,
but to prevent spokes from breaking due to fatigue by introducing a
slight bend in the spokes where they cross. For this purpose, I expect
that Sheldon's method is superior.

A consequence of this latter contention is that it would do no good at
all to squeeze spokes on a radial lacing or on a wheel like the recent
Shimano rear wheels, that don't actually have the crossing spokes
touching each other.

Jobst's remark about putting a permanent deformation in the rim is total
crap. Doesn't happen, unless you push hard enough to taco the wheel.

Mike Johnson

[Ozark Bicycle]

Brandt engages in the usual BS:

On Jan 16, 6:19*pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Granddaughter snipes from cover:

<snip>


> Meanwhile, can you present technical material in a civil tone?

Has anyone else's "irony" meter exploded???



> *Who are you, by the way?

WTF difference does it make, Brandt???

> *It seems the rudest folks are all anonymous.

Gee, you're the rudest SOB here, but you're not "anonymous".


>
> Jobst Brandt, prick

[Tom Sherman]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> ...It seems the rudest folks are all anonymous.
>
Hey, what about non-anonymous me?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[andresmuro@aol.com]

On Jan 16, 7:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> Brandt engages in the usual BS:
>
> On Jan 16, 6:19 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> > Granddaughter snipes from cover:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Meanwhile, can you present technical material in a civil tone?
>
> Has anyone else's "irony" meter exploded???
>
> > Who are you, by the way?
>
> WTF difference does it make, Brandt???
>
> > It seems the rudest folks are all anonymous.
>
> Gee, you're the rudest SOB here, but you're not "anonymous".
>
>
>
> > Jobst Brandt, prick

Don't know who is the rudest but the more rudeness, the more fun for
the lurkers. Can we get a shot of Tennessee whiskey to go with this?

Andres

[jim beam]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Brandt engages in the usual BS:
>
> On Jan 16, 6:19�pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Granddaughter snipes from cover:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> Meanwhile, can you present technical material in a civil tone?
>
> Has anyone else's "irony" meter exploded???

the exploding meter was the one marked "hypocrisy". the irony meter is
pegged on "delicious".



>
>
>
>> �Who are you, by the way?
>
> WTF difference does it make, Brandt???
>
>> �It seems the rudest folks are all anonymous.
>
> Gee, you're the rudest SOB here, but you're not "anonymous".

it's an interesting how some people are repeatedly suckered by this
whole "anonymity" decoy. "credibility" is that derived from evidencing
ability to get the facts straight and cut through the bull****, not
having to rely on one's alma mater or being breathtakingly hypocritical.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 16, 9:30*pm, "andresm...@aol.com" <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 7:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > Brandt engages in the usual BS:
>
> > On Jan 16, 6:19 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> > > Granddaughter snipes from cover:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Meanwhile, can you present technical material in a civil tone?
>
> > Has anyone else's "irony" meter exploded???
>
> > > *Who are you, by the way?
>
> > WTF difference does it make, Brandt???
>
> > > *It seems the rudest folks are all anonymous.
>
> > Gee, you're the rudest SOB here, but you're not "anonymous".
>
> > > Jobst Brandt, prick
>
> Don't know who is the rudest but the more rudeness, the more fun for
> the lurkers. Can we get a shot of Tennessee whiskey to go with this?
>

Would you settle for some popcorn?

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 16, 9:43*pm, Daniel Joseph Min <Daniel.Joseph....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:28 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 2:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> > > Granddaughter writes:
> > > >>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
> > > >>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
> > > >>> an old school wheel.
> > > >> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
> > > >> anything.
> > > >> You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
> > > >> five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
> > > >> Jobst's method.
> > > >> Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the
> > > >> vee of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:
>
> > > *http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>
> > > >> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
> > > >> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
> > > >> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
> > > >> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
> > > >> tension:
>
> > > *http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf
>
> > > > The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything else.
> > > > With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up the
> > > > tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
> > > > wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull the
> > > > spokes hard enough.
>
> > > I think you are mistaken in that method. *If you put a tensiometer on
> > > the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method you
> > > outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke tension
> > > except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel deforms it
> > > and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. *By manually working
> > > pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is only a slight radial
> > > deformation with no lateral effect.
>
> > Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the squeeze,
> > which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the flange. The
> > "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You just work the
> > wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're simply lying and being
> > dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!
>
> Hmm, let's see what's going on here. *Jobst - wrote THE BOOK on
> bicycle wheels. *Landotter - *an anonymous ****tard. *Huh, This one's
> a toughy - might need to call Miss Cleo.

Hmm....

Prior posts to Usenet = 0. Who is the real "anonymous ****tard"? Take
yer time....****tard.

[jim beam]

Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:28 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 2:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Granddaughter writes:
>>>>>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
>>>>>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
>>>>>> an old school wheel.
>>>>> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
>>>>> anything.
>>>>> You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
>>>>> five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
>>>>> Jobst's method.
>>>>> Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the
>>>>> vee of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:
>>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>>>>> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
>>>>> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
>>>>> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
>>>>> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
>>>>> tension:
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf
>>>> The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything else.
>>>> With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up the
>>>> tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
>>>> wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull the
>>>> spokes hard enough.
>>> I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer on
>>> the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method you
>>> outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke tension
>>> except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel deforms it
>>> and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By manually working
>>> pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is only a slight radial
>>> deformation with no lateral effect.
>> Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the squeeze,
>> which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the flange. The
>> "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You just work the
>> wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're simply lying and being
>> dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!
>
> Hmm, let's see what's going on here. Jobst - wrote THE BOOK on
> bicycle wheels.

no, it's /a/ book on bicycle wheels. and it contains a number of
fundamental errors that are a disgrace to his alma mater - you know, the
one whose laurels he unworthily rests on when trying to bamboozle the
proles.


> Landotter - an anonymous ****tard. Huh, This one's
> a toughy - might need to call Miss Cleo.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 16, 9:49*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> landotter ? wrote:

Excellent Jobst Brandt imitation! Does he let you kiss his ass, or
just his feet?
> > ...
> > Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the squeeze,
> > which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the flange. The
> > "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You just work the
> > wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're simply lying and being
> > dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!
>
> *>
> Excellent "jim beam" imitation!
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Tom Sherman writes:

>> ...It seems the rudest folks are all anonymous.

> Hey, what about non-anonymous me?

You probably fit the description to the anonymous posters who believe
that scatology, sexual innuendo and any other crude name calling is
OK, while disagreeing with their beliefs is the height of rudeness. I
would like to see where I called someone rude names in what I wrote.
I'm sure that some of these guys are Googling hard to find one. I
suspect it's their way of trolling for a response in kind.

Jobst Brandt

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle aka Richard who? wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:49 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> landotter ? wrote:
>
> Excellent Jobst Brandt imitation! Does he let you kiss his ass, or
> just his feet?
>
Jobst happens to be correct about anonymous posters.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 16, 9:59*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle aka Richard who? wrote:> On Jan 16, 9:49 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> landotter ? wrote:
>
> > Excellent Jobst Brandt imitation! Does he let you kiss his ass, or
> > just his feet?
>
> *>
> Jobst happens to be correct about anonymous posters.


And jim beam "happens to be correct" about Jobst Brandt.

[landotter]

On Jan 16, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle aka Richard who? wrote:> On Jan 16, 9:49 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> landotter ? wrote:
>
> > Excellent Jobst Brandt imitation! Does he let you kiss his ass, or
> > just his feet?
>
> >
> Jobst happens to be correct about anonymous posters.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth

"landotter" is sharpied quite clearly here in the neck of my Ralph
Reed Underoos.

Glory!

<slug of Heaven Hill>

Hallelujah!

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 17, 7:22*am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ozark Bicycle aka Richard who? wrote:> On Jan 16, 9:49 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> landotter ? wrote:
>
> > > Excellent Jobst Brandt imitation! Does he let you kiss his ass, or
> > > just his feet?
>
> > Jobst happens to be correct about anonymous posters.
>

> "landotter" is sharpied quite clearly here in the neck of my Ralph
> Reed Underoos.

Don't you know better than to disagree with The Great Man whilst clad
in underwear? ;-)


>
> Glory!
>
> <slug of Heaven Hill>
>
> Hallelujah!

Pass the Heaven Hill and lean on a rim!

[landotter]

On Jan 17, 7:52 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 7:22 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Ozark Bicycle aka Richard who? wrote:> On Jan 16, 9:49 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> landotter ? wrote:
>
> > > > Excellent Jobst Brandt imitation! Does he let you kiss his ass, or
> > > > just his feet?
>
> > > Jobst happens to be correct about anonymous posters.
>
> > "landotter" is sharpied quite clearly here in the neck of my Ralph
> > Reed Underoos.
>
> Don't you know better than to disagree with The Great Man whilst clad
> in underwear? ;-)
>
>
>
> > Glory!
>
> > <slug of Heaven Hill>
>
> > Hallelujah!
>
> Pass the Heaven Hill and lean on a rim!

Hey now, that there sounds like some of them hybrid country *and*
western lyrics!

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Michael Johnson writes:

>>>>>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
>>>>>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
>>>>>> an old school wheel.

>>>>> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
>>>>> anything. You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself
>>>>> in less than five minutes, including the time to find some heavy
>>>>> gloves. That's Jobst's method. Or you can try Sheldon's
>>>>> method--stick a smooth crank arm into the vee of the crossing
>>>>> spokes and twist 'em:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

>>>>> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
>>>>> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
>>>>> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
>>>>> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
>>>>> tension:

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf

>>>> The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything
>>>> else. With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up
>>>> the tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
>>>> wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull
>>>> the spokes hard enough.

>>> I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer
>>> on the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method
>>> you outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke
>>> tension except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel
>>> deforms it and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By
>>> manually working pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is
>>> only a slight radial deformation with no lateral effect.

>> Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the
>> squeeze, which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the
>> flange. The "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You
>> just work the wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're
>> simply lying and being dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!

> It's not the increase in tension that makes the "axle on wood"
> method superior. It's the decrease in tension on the under side of
> the wheel. What you're essentially doing is simulating the
> unloading of spokes that naturally occurs when you ride on a wheel.

> On the road, as each spoke comes to the point normal to the plane of
> the ground, the rim is ever so slightly deformed to unload the
> tension on the spoke. Without that tension, the static friction
> force in the threads that is holding the spoke against unwinding
> (and you have to have spokes with wind-up in them for this to
> matter) is reduced, and the spoke twists in the nipple to relieve
> the wind-up. This is why you hear the "pinging" sounds if you ride
> on an unrelieved wheel.

> There's a good discussion of this in Barnett's Manual, Volume 2,
> page 17-24. There's also a discussion of spoke squeezing on page
> 16-42 that basically says the reason for squeezing is not to relieve
> spoke wind-up, but to prevent spokes from breaking due to fatigue by
> introducing a slight bend in the spokes where they cross. For this
> purpose, I expect that Sheldon's method is superior.

> A consequence of this latter contention is that it would do no good
> at all to squeeze spokes on a radial lacing or on a wheel like the
> recent Shimano rear wheels, that don't actually have the crossing
> spokes touching each other.

If you choose to cite Barnett, how about citing "the Bicycle Wheel"
where the reason for stretching spokes is explained. It is not for
shaping spoke crossings (a place where spokes practically never fail)
but rather to relieve residual stress in spoke elbows and threads, the
cause of spoke failures in use.

> Jobst's remark about putting a permanent deformation in the rim is
> total crap. Doesn't happen, unless you push hard enough to taco the
> wheel.

I think you'll see that a wheel bent as described will no longer be
true in a classic taco shape although not greatly so. What is more
telling is that a tensiometer will show that this method has no
advantage over manual spoke stretching, a method that does not bend
the wheel.

Jobst Brandt

[landotter]

On Jan 17, 11:59 am, Michael Johnson <micha...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2:53 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> Granddaughter writes:
> >>>>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
> >>>>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
> >>>>> an old school wheel.
> >>>> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
> >>>> anything.
> >>>> You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself in less than
> >>>> five minutes, including the time to find some heavy gloves. That's
> >>>> Jobst's method.
> >>>> Or you can try Sheldon's method--stick a smooth crank arm into the
> >>>> vee of the crossing spokes and twist 'em:
> >> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>
> >>>> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
> >>>> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
> >>>> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
> >>>> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
> >>>> tension:
> >> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf
>
> >>> The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything else.
> >>> With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up the
> >>> tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
> >>> wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull the
> >>> spokes hard enough.
> >> I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer on
> >> the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method you
> >> outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke tension
> >> except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel deforms it
> >> and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By manually working
> >> pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is only a slight radial
> >> deformation with no lateral effect.
>
> > Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the squeeze,
> > which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the flange. The
> > "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You just work the
> > wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're simply lying and being
> > dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!
>
> It's not the increase in tension that makes the "axle on wood" method
> superior. It's the decrease in tension on the under side of the wheel.
> What you're essentially doing is simulating the unloading of spokes that
> naturally occurs when you ride on a wheel.
>
> On the road, as each spoke comes to the point normal to the plane of the
> ground, the rim is ever so slightly deformed to unload the tension on
> the spoke. Without that tension, the static friction force in the
> threads that is holding the spoke against unwinding (and you have to
> have spokes with wind-up in them for this to matter) is reduced, and the
> spoke twists in the nipple to relieve the wind-up. This is why you hear
> the "pinging" sounds if you ride on an unrelieved wheel.
>
> There's a good discussion of this in Barnett's Manual, Volume 2, page
> 17-24. There's also a discussion of spoke squeezing on page 16-42 that
> basically says the reason for squeezing is not to relieve spoke wind-up,
> but to prevent spokes from breaking due to fatigue by introducing a
> slight bend in the spokes where they cross. For this purpose, I expect
> that Sheldon's method is superior.

I don't buy it. Last I checked spokes broke at the flange. Maybe I
don't have a kung-fu grip, because I've never been able to get spokes
seated in the flange with a hand squeeze. Yes, I've done the bend-
around thing before I dismissed it as pointless. Doing it takes time
away from important things, like aligning tire and rim labels!

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-17, Michael Johnson <michaelj@maine.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
> There's a good discussion of this in Barnett's Manual, Volume 2, page
> 17-24. There's also a discussion of spoke squeezing on page 16-42 that
> basically says the reason for squeezing is not to relieve spoke wind-up,
> but to prevent spokes from breaking due to fatigue by introducing a
> slight bend in the spokes where they cross.

That's one spoke-squeezing (and why-we-have-crosses) theory I've not
heard of before. Why does a slight bend at the cross prevent breaking
due to fatigue?

[Michael Johnson]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Michael Johnson writes:
>
>>>>>>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
>>>>>>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
>>>>>>> an old school wheel.
>
>>>>>> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
>>>>>> anything. You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself
>>>>>> in less than five minutes, including the time to find some heavy
>>>>>> gloves. That's Jobst's method. Or you can try Sheldon's
>>>>>> method--stick a smooth crank arm into the vee of the crossing
>>>>>> spokes and twist 'em:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>
>>>>>> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
>>>>>> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
>>>>>> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
>>>>>> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
>>>>>> tension:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf
>
>>>>> The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything
>>>>> else. With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up
>>>>> the tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
>>>>> wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull
>>>>> the spokes hard enough.
>
>>>> I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer
>>>> on the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method
>>>> you outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke
>>>> tension except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel
>>>> deforms it and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By
>>>> manually working pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is
>>>> only a slight radial deformation with no lateral effect.
>
>>> Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the
>>> squeeze, which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the
>>> flange. The "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You
>>> just work the wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're
>>> simply lying and being dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!
>
>> It's not the increase in tension that makes the "axle on wood"
>> method superior. It's the decrease in tension on the under side of
>> the wheel. What you're essentially doing is simulating the
>> unloading of spokes that naturally occurs when you ride on a wheel.
>
>> On the road, as each spoke comes to the point normal to the plane of
>> the ground, the rim is ever so slightly deformed to unload the
>> tension on the spoke. Without that tension, the static friction
>> force in the threads that is holding the spoke against unwinding
>> (and you have to have spokes with wind-up in them for this to
>> matter) is reduced, and the spoke twists in the nipple to relieve
>> the wind-up. This is why you hear the "pinging" sounds if you ride
>> on an unrelieved wheel.
>
>> There's a good discussion of this in Barnett's Manual, Volume 2,
>> page 17-24. There's also a discussion of spoke squeezing on page
>> 16-42 that basically says the reason for squeezing is not to relieve
>> spoke wind-up, but to prevent spokes from breaking due to fatigue by
>> introducing a slight bend in the spokes where they cross. For this
>> purpose, I expect that Sheldon's method is superior.
>
>> A consequence of this latter contention is that it would do no good
>> at all to squeeze spokes on a radial lacing or on a wheel like the
>> recent Shimano rear wheels, that don't actually have the crossing
>> spokes touching each other.
>
> If you choose to cite Barnett, how about citing "the Bicycle Wheel"
> where the reason for stretching spokes is explained. It is not for
> shaping spoke crossings (a place where spokes practically never fail)
> but rather to relieve residual stress in spoke elbows and threads, the
> cause of spoke failures in use.

Why would I bother to cite a work as an authority when I am disputing
the author's point of view?

>> Jobst's remark about putting a permanent deformation in the rim is
>> total crap. Doesn't happen, unless you push hard enough to taco the
>> wheel.
>
> I think you'll see that a wheel bent as described will no longer be
> true in a classic taco shape although not greatly so. What is more
> telling is that a tensiometer will show that this method has no
> advantage over manual spoke stretching, a method that does not bend
> the wheel.

Umm, no. I've built multiple sets of wheels this way, and never once had
a wheel end up with a bend in it. And I do use a tensiometer when I
build wheels.

> Jobst Brandt, ego-literian

Mike Johnson, skeptic

[jim beam]

Michael Johnson wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Michael Johnson writes:
>>
>>>>>>>> does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
>>>>>>>> relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in
>>>>>>>> an old school wheel.
>>
>>>>>>> Whether it works or not, doing it again yourself won't hurt
>>>>>>> anything. You can squeeze all the spoke pairs together yourself
>>>>>>> in less than five minutes, including the time to find some heavy
>>>>>>> gloves. That's Jobst's method. Or you can try Sheldon's
>>>>>>> method--stick a smooth crank arm into the vee of the crossing
>>>>>>> spokes and twist 'em:
>>
>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
>>
>>>>>>> Or you can take the wheels off, set the axle on a block of wood,
>>>>>>> put a hand on either side of the rim, and lean on it, repeating
>>>>>>> around the clock and then on the other side. That's the Mavic
>>>>>>> method, which uses your body weight and seems to produce higher
>>>>>>> tension:
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/SpokeTension.pdf
>>
>>>>>> The axle and block of wood method is far superior to anything
>>>>>> else. With factory wheels I always do this, retrue and build up
>>>>>> the tension between 1/2 and 3/4 turn and end up with very stable
>>>>>> wheels. Squeezing or using granny's pasta fork just doesn't pull
>>>>>> the spokes hard enough.
>>
>>>>> I think you are mistaken in that method. If you put a tensiometer
>>>>> on the wheel and try both manual spoke stretching and the method
>>>>> you outline, you'll find they produce similar increases in spoke
>>>>> tension except that pressing down across the diameter of the wheel
>>>>> deforms it and puts permanent deformation into the wheel. By
>>>>> manually working pairs of spokes that overlap each other, there is
>>>>> only a slight radial deformation with no lateral effect.
>>
>>>> Bull****. The axle-on-wood method works far better than the
>>>> squeeze, which rarely gets the spoke head seated fully in the
>>>> flange. The "permanent deformation" claim is also bull****. You
>>>> just work the wheel till you see the spoke heads seat. You're
>>>> simply lying and being dogmatic for your ego. How Jobstian!
>>
>>> It's not the increase in tension that makes the "axle on wood"
>>> method superior. It's the decrease in tension on the under side of
>>> the wheel. What you're essentially doing is simulating the
>>> unloading of spokes that naturally occurs when you ride on a wheel.
>>
>>> On the road, as each spoke comes to the point normal to the plane of
>>> the ground, the rim is ever so slightly deformed to unload the
>>> tension on the spoke. Without that tension, the static friction
>>> force in the threads that is holding the spoke against unwinding
>>> (and you have to have spokes with wind-up in them for this to
>>> matter) is reduced, and the spoke twists in the nipple to relieve
>>> the wind-up. This is why you hear the "pinging" sounds if you ride
>>> on an unrelieved wheel.
>>
>>> There's a good discussion of this in Barnett's Manual, Volume 2,
>>> page 17-24. There's also a discussion of spoke squeezing on page
>>> 16-42 that basically says the reason for squeezing is not to relieve
>>> spoke wind-up, but to prevent spokes from breaking due to fatigue by
>>> introducing a slight bend in the spokes where they cross. For this
>>> purpose, I expect that Sheldon's method is superior.
>>
>>> A consequence of this latter contention is that it would do no good
>>> at all to squeeze spokes on a radial lacing or on a wheel like the
>>> recent Shimano rear wheels, that don't actually have the crossing
>>> spokes touching each other.
>>
>> If you choose to cite Barnett, how about citing "the Bicycle Wheel"
>> where the reason for stretching spokes is explained. It is not for
>> shaping spoke crossings (a place where spokes practically never fail)
>> but rather to relieve residual stress in spoke elbows and threads, the
>> cause of spoke failures in use.
>
> Why would I bother to cite a work as an authority when I am disputing
> the author's point of view?

to stroke that author's ego and bizarre sense of entitlement?


>
>>> Jobst's remark about putting a permanent deformation in the rim is
>>> total crap. Doesn't happen, unless you push hard enough to taco the
>>> wheel.
>>
>> I think you'll see that a wheel bent as described will no longer be
>> true in a classic taco shape although not greatly so. What is more
>> telling is that a tensiometer will show that this method has no
>> advantage over manual spoke stretching, a method that does not bend
>> the wheel.
>
> Umm, no. I've built multiple sets of wheels this way, and never once had
> a wheel end up with a bend in it.

that's because it doesn't collapse wheels if the spoke tension is not
excessive - as jobst's incorrect spoke tension technique will have you do.


> And I do use a tensiometer when I
> build wheels.

that's why you don't have a problem!


>
>> Jobst Brandt, ego-literian
>
> Mike Johnson, skeptic

don't be a skeptic. this stuff is not hard. jobst's book is fine for
telling you how to lace and true a wheel. and calculate spoke length.
but don't use it for anything else - certainly not for correct spoke
tensioning. and /definitely/ not basic engineering/materials theory.

[landotter]

On Jan 17, 1:06 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:01:54 -0800 (PST), Zruk <stank...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >does anyone know for a fact whether the QBP wheels are stress
> >relieved? I asked Sheldon but he is not sure. Looking for value in an
> >old school wheel.
> >thanks
>
> Dear Stan,
>
> Since your post has revived old debates, here's a link to a post with
> graphs of measured spoke tension rise for the Mavic press-on-the-rim
> and the Jobst squeeze-spoke-pairs methods:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/3058f923dbf37c3b
>
> A typical RBT poster will find that he can raise the spoke tension
> about 50% higher by leaning on the rim than by hand squeezing, since
> it's easy for practically anyone to press down with 100 pounds of
> force on the rim, but hard for most posters to produce more than a
> 60-pound squeeze with the weak hand 9 times in a row around a 36-spoke
> rim. (The actual maximum spoke tension rise is always less than the
> applied force.)
>
> In any case, no poster ever says drat, I must not have Jobst-squeezed,
> Mavic-pressed, or Sheldon-twisted my spokes hard enough.
>

Fie! Must you come here with facts when we're armed with pilsners and
conjecture! Fogel Labs, always pooping in the punchbowl!

[Michael Johnson]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-01-17, Michael Johnson <michaelj@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> There's a good discussion of this in Barnett's Manual, Volume 2, page
>> 17-24. There's also a discussion of spoke squeezing on page 16-42 that
>> basically says the reason for squeezing is not to relieve spoke wind-up,
>> but to prevent spokes from breaking due to fatigue by introducing a
>> slight bend in the spokes where they cross.
>
> That's one spoke-squeezing (and why-we-have-crosses) theory I've not
> heard of before. Why does a slight bend at the cross prevent breaking
> due to fatigue?

According to Barnett, when the spokes don't have a slight bend, they are
subjected to cycles of being bent against each other and released as
they go through load/unload cycles. This constant flexing eventually
results in material fatigue. This is the contention in the manual, at
any rate.

I cannot personally vouch for the truth of the assertion, I haven't seen
the experimental data. It sounds plausible, however. Certainly more so
than the idea that momentarily /increasing/ the tension on a spoke is
going to relieve spoke wind-up. I ain't buyin' it, all self-promotion on
the part of book authors posing as authorities not withstanding. Since I
have a couple of years of 4.0 averages in engineering physics and other
mechanical engineering courses under my belt (before I discovered that I
like programming computers), I'm not entirely ignorant in this area.

Mike Johnson

[landotter]

On Jan 17, 3:49 pm, Zruk <stank...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow; who turned up the heat?
> Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so viscious?
> Because the stakes are so small.
> Can't we all just get along?

Helmets, wheel building, and saddles are the guns, gods, and gays of
the r.b.t set. Yarr! Why do you think I put on my Ralph Reed Underoos?

>I like the idea of stress releiving the wheel my self but I am a
>little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensionometer or
>much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I amafter all
>seeking round and strong."

I'm completely unqualified to say this, but it seems virtually all
factory built wheels can take a half turn more tension. That's a broad
statement, to be sure so take with a grain of salt. If you're a
lighter rider you can probably just ride the wheels as is. If you do
try and learn the art of wheel tuning--do start small. I like to work
with 1/4 turns as units when dialing in or truing a wheel.

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Stan Kurz writes:

> Wow; who turned up the heat?
> Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so vicious?
> Because the stakes are so small.
> Can't we all just get along?

> I like the idea of stress relieving the wheel my self but I am a
> little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensiometer or
> much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I am, after
> all, seeking round and strong.

Get a good spoke wrench, you already have the rest of the equipment on
your bicycle. If in doubt, you can get the details for even starting
from scratch in "the Bicycle Wheel" and it's readily available at many
sources. For spoke length calculations, shown in the book, others
have put that into useful spreadsheets at:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/spocalc.htm

Jobst Brandt

[Michael Press]

In article
<736accd9-b71b-452f-8815-af9b28636861@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Zruk <stankurz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow; who turned up the heat?
> Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so viscious?
> Because the stakes are so small.
> Can't we all just get along?
> I like the idea of stress releiving the wheel my self but I am a
> little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensionometer or
> much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I amafter all
> seeking round and strong.

You can build round, strong, enduring wheels.
Patience and confidence will see you through.
Regardless of whatever wrangles you see here,
The_Bicycle_Wheel is a store house and a
checklist for wheel building. Have it on hand
and you will not forget incontrovertible
minutiae such as oiling spoke threads, and
nipple seats; or how to lace a wheel.

--
Michael Press

[Jay Beattie]

On Jan 17, 1:59*pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 3:49 pm, Zruk <stank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow; who turned up the heat?
> > Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so viscious?
> > Because the stakes are so small.
> > Can't we all just get along?
>
> Helmets, wheel building, and saddles are the guns, gods, and gays of
> the r.b.t set. Yarr! Why do you think I put on my Ralph Reed Underoos?
>
> >I like the idea of stress releiving the wheel my self but I am a
> >little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensionometer or
> >much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I amafter all
> >seeking round and strong."
>
> I'm completely unqualified to say this, but it seems virtually all
> factory built wheels can take a half turn more tension. That's a broad
> statement, to be sure so take with a grain of salt. If you're a
> lighter rider you can probably just ride the wheels as is. If you do
> try and learn the art of wheel tuning--do start small. I like to work
> with 1/4 turns as units when dialing in or truing a wheel.

Keep in mind that "factory built wheels" includes a lot of botique,
low spoke count stuff. I have been building wheels for 30 years but
suckered into buying a sale set of FSA wheels. They would not stay
tight (like all the spokes went slack 20 miles from home on my first
ride), so I upped the spoke tension by maybe a quarter to half turn --
and the spokes started to break -- front and rear. So I returned the
wheels and was given a new pair that supposedly had better tension and
more nipple gook to prevent unwinding. Those wheels loosened up after
ten miles, so I put a gallon of LocTite on the nipples; threw the
wheels on another bike and sold the lot to a much lighter rider who
apparently has gotten good service out of them. In rare instances,
upping the tension can cause problems.

By the way, back in the '70s (before the Book, even), I tacoed a rim
while side loading it in the building process. It was on the fine
edge of over-tension already. Anyway, I got it back in to reasonable
true, but at the expense of even spoke tension. So it is possible to
screw up a wheel with side loading during building -- but I still do
it, although more carefully. The real problem back in the day was
forgetting to use the Phil supplied cup when side loading and pushing
out axles on Phil hubs. Another big oops. Life lesson: final tension
before beer number four (actually, it was not beer back then, but you
know what I mean). -- Jay Beattie.

[jim beam]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Stan Kurz writes:
>
>> Wow; who turned up the heat?
>> Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so vicious?
>> Because the stakes are so small.
>> Can't we all just get along?
>
>> I like the idea of stress relieving the wheel my self but I am a
>> little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensiometer or
>> much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I am, after
>> all, seeking round and strong.
>
> Get a good spoke wrench, you already have the rest of the equipment on
> your bicycle.

do bicycles these days come equipped with tensiometers? how odd - i've
never seen one that is. is this a jobstian palo alto fashion thing?


> If in doubt, you can get the details for even starting
> from scratch in "the Bicycle Wheel" and it's readily available at many
> sources.

the revised edition? the one where you correct your multitude of
fundamental mistakes?



> For spoke length calculations, shown in the book, others
> have put that into useful spreadsheets at:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/spocalc.htm

it's worth noting that damon gives that away for free /AND/ [most
importantly] accepts corrections/additional input. unlike jobst brandt.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jan 17, 4:36*pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 1:59*pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 17, 3:49 pm, Zruk <stank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wow; who turned up the heat?
> > > Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so viscious?
> > > Because the stakes are so small.
> > > Can't we all just get along?
>
> > Helmets, wheel building, and saddles are the guns, gods, and gays of
> > the r.b.t set. Yarr! Why do you think I put on my Ralph Reed Underoos?
>
> > >I like the idea of stress releiving the wheel my self but I am a
> > >little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensionometer or
> > >much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I amafter all
> > >seeking round and strong."
>
> > I'm completely unqualified to say this, but it seems virtually all
> > factory built wheels can take a half turn more tension. That's a broad
> > statement, to be sure so take with a grain of salt. If you're a
> > lighter rider you can probably just ride the wheels as is. If you do
> > try and learn the art of wheel tuning--do start small. I like to work
> > with 1/4 turns as units when dialing in or truing a wheel.
>
> Keep in mind that "factory built wheels" includes a lot of botique,
> low spoke count stuff. *I have been building wheels for 30 years but
> suckered into buying a sale set of FSA wheels. *They would not stay
> tight (like all the spokes went slack 20 miles from home on my first
> ride), so I upped the spoke tension by maybe a quarter to half turn --
> and the spokes started to break -- front and rear. *So I returned the
> wheels and was given a new pair that supposedly had better tension and
> more nipple gook to prevent unwinding. *Those wheels loosened up after
> ten miles, so I *put a gallon of LocTite on the nipples; threw the
> wheels on another bike and sold the lot to a much lighter rider who
> apparently has gotten good service out of them. *In rare instances,
> upping the tension can cause problems.
>
> By the way, back in the '70s (before the Book, even), *I tacoed a rim
> while side loading it in the building process. *It was on the fine
> edge of over-tension already. *Anyway, I got it back in to reasonable
> true, but at the expense of even spoke tension. *So it is possible to
> screw up a wheel with side loading during building -- but I still do
> it, although more carefully. *The real problem back in the day was
> forgetting to use the Phil supplied cup when side loading and pushing
> out axles on Phil hubs. *Another big oops. *Life lesson: final tension
> before beer number four (actually, it was not beer back then, but you
> know what I mean). -- Jay Beattie.- Hide quoted text -

P.S. I was a little vague: the spokes started to break while I was
riding the wheel later and not during the tightening process -- which
meant that I was screwed because the nipples had to be tightened with
a socket or key from the "inside" (rim bed), and my key chain spoke
wrench was useless to get the wheel reasonably true to get home. It
was clunk, clunk, clunk through the brake pads all the way home. --
Jay Beattie.

[landotter]

On Jan 17, 6:36 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 1:59 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 17, 3:49 pm, Zruk <stank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wow; who turned up the heat?
> > > Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so viscious?
> > > Because the stakes are so small.
> > > Can't we all just get along?
>
> > Helmets, wheel building, and saddles are the guns, gods, and gays of
> > the r.b.t set. Yarr! Why do you think I put on my Ralph Reed Underoos?
>
> > >I like the idea of stress releiving the wheel my self but I am a
> > >little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensionometer or
> > >much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I amafter all
> > >seeking round and strong."
>
> > I'm completely unqualified to say this, but it seems virtually all
> > factory built wheels can take a half turn more tension. That's a broad
> > statement, to be sure so take with a grain of salt. If you're a
> > lighter rider you can probably just ride the wheels as is. If you do
> > try and learn the art of wheel tuning--do start small. I like to work
> > with 1/4 turns as units when dialing in or truing a wheel.
>
> Keep in mind that "factory built wheels" includes a lot of botique,
> low spoke count stuff.

Oh sure, my general advice is for traditional factory wheels. I don't
think I'd have the moxie to touch them fancy six spoke jobbers with
spoke tension requiring the use of a torque wrench. The veteran down
at the LBS probably wouldn't be skeered. I asked him if he used a
tensionometer, and in true Nashville fashion he said, "Naw, I'm a
geetar player, don't need one." To his credit, he used to build wheels
for a race team with a near immaculate record.

>Life lesson: final tension
> before beer number four (actually, it was not beer back then, but you
> know what I mean). -- Jay Beattie.

I can do tension after beer four, it's just that I often have to
relace a couple times after doing the equivalent of buttoning a shirt
one hole off. ;-)

The drug of choice for really meticulous wheels is likely speed--my
neighbor used to get whacked and do calculus for fun, but I hear it's
a bit habit forming.

[Tom Sherman]

landotter wrote:
> ...
> Oh sure, my general advice is for traditional factory wheels. I don't
> think I'd have the moxie to touch them fancy six spoke jobbers with
> spoke tension requiring the use of a torque wrench. The veteran down
> at the LBS probably wouldn't be skeered. I asked him if he used a
> tensionometer, and in true Nashville fashion he said, "Naw, I'm a
> geetar player, don't need one." To his credit, he used to build wheels
> for a race team with a near immaculate record....

So the wheels were responsible for the team winning almost every race?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Michael Press]

In article
<09e002ee-2003-48a5-847f-bf37212619f2@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
landotter <landotter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 17, 6:36 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 1:59 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 17, 3:49 pm, Zruk <stank...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Wow; who turned up the heat?
> > > > Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so viscious?
> > > > Because the stakes are so small.
> > > > Can't we all just get along?
> >
> > > Helmets, wheel building, and saddles are the guns, gods, and gays of
> > > the r.b.t set. Yarr! Why do you think I put on my Ralph Reed Underoos?
> >
> > > >I like the idea of stress releiving the wheel my self but I am a
> > > >little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensionometer or
> > > >much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I amafter all
> > > >seeking round and strong."
> >
> > > I'm completely unqualified to say this, but it seems virtually all
> > > factory built wheels can take a half turn more tension. That's a broad
> > > statement, to be sure so take with a grain of salt. If you're a
> > > lighter rider you can probably just ride the wheels as is. If you do
> > > try and learn the art of wheel tuning--do start small. I like to work
> > > with 1/4 turns as units when dialing in or truing a wheel.
> >
> > Keep in mind that "factory built wheels" includes a lot of botique,
> > low spoke count stuff.
>
> Oh sure, my general advice is for traditional factory wheels. I don't
> think I'd have the moxie to touch them fancy six spoke jobbers with
> spoke tension requiring the use of a torque wrench. The veteran down
> at the LBS probably wouldn't be skeered. I asked him if he used a
> tensionometer, and in true Nashville fashion he said, "Naw, I'm a
> geetar player, don't need one." To his credit, he used to build wheels
> for a race team with a near immaculate record.
>
> >Life lesson: final tension
> > before beer number four (actually, it was not beer back then, but you
> > know what I mean). -- Jay Beattie.
>
> I can do tension after beer four, it's just that I often have to
> relace a couple times after doing the equivalent of buttoning a shirt
> one hole off. ;-)
>
> The drug of choice for really meticulous wheels is likely speed--my
> neighbor used to get whacked and do calculus for fun, but I hear it's
> a bit habit forming.

Probably mainlining the hard stuff now:
commutative rings and category theory.

--
Michael Press

[jim beam]

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2008-01-17, Michael Johnson <michaelj@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> There's a good discussion of this in Barnett's Manual, Volume 2, page
>>> 17-24. There's also a discussion of spoke squeezing on page 16-42
>>> that basically says the reason for squeezing is not to relieve spoke
>>> wind-up, but to prevent spokes from breaking due to fatigue by
>>> introducing a slight bend in the spokes where they cross.
>>
>> That's one spoke-squeezing (and why-we-have-crosses) theory I've not
>> heard of before. Why does a slight bend at the cross prevent breaking
>> due to fatigue?
>
> According to Barnett, when the spokes don't have a slight bend, they are
> subjected to cycles of being bent against each other and released as
> they go through load/unload cycles. This constant flexing eventually
> results in material fatigue. This is the contention in the manual, at
> any rate.

dude, if the spokes don't break there, don't worry about it. the
crossing bends may have a theoretical weakness, but if it doesn't
manifest in practice, it's irrelevant. like jobst's pedal eye modification.


>
> I cannot personally vouch for the truth of the assertion, I haven't seen
> the experimental data. It sounds plausible, however. Certainly more so
> than the idea that momentarily /increasing/ the tension on a spoke is
> going to relieve spoke wind-up. I ain't buyin' it, all self-promotion on
> the part of book authors posing as authorities not withstanding. Since I
> have a couple of years of 4.0 averages in engineering physics and other
> mechanical engineering courses under my belt (before I discovered that I
> like programming computers), I'm not entirely ignorant in this area.
>
> Mike Johnson

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Michael Johnson writes:

>> [...] > There's a good discussion of this in Barnett's Manual,
>> Volume 2, page 17-24. There's also a discussion of spoke squeezing
>> on page 16-42 that basically says the reason for squeezing is not
>> to relieve spoke wind-up, but to prevent spokes from breaking due
>> to fatigue by introducing a slight bend in the spokes where they
>> cross.

>> That's one spoke-squeezing (and why-we-have-crosses) theory I've
>> not heard of before. Why does a slight bend at the cross prevent
>> breaking due to fatigue?

> According to Barnett, when the spokes don't have a slight bend, they
> are subjected to cycles of being bent against each other and
> released as they go through load/unload cycles. This constant
> flexing eventually results in material fatigue. This is the
> contention in the manual, at any rate.

I think you'll find that spokes removed from a wheel show no kink
where they cross an interleaved opposing spoke, before or after stress
relieving. The two advantages of interleaving, something most wheel
builders do, is that spokes do not go entirely slack when riding over
rough road and a broken spoke doesn't not dangle freely and foul the
wheel regardless of which end fails.

> I cannot personally vouch for the truth of the assertion, I haven't
> seen the experimental data. It sounds plausible, however.
> Certainly more so than the idea that momentarily /increasing/ the
> tension on a spoke is going to relieve spoke wind-up.

Its the adjacent spoke that becomes unloaded from this maneuver that
untwists, the same as when a wheel is pressed against the floor on its
axle. It is the slackening spoke that untwists.

> I ain't buyin' it, all self-promotion on the part of book authors
> posing as authorities not withstanding. Since I have a couple of
> years of 4.0 averages in engineering physics and other mechanical
> engineering courses under my belt (before I discovered that I like
> programming computers), I'm not entirely ignorant in this area.

Not to worry. It's what you do best and what brings in money that
should be pursued. I'm in favor of that.

> Mike Johnson


Jobst Brandt

[Michael Johnson]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Michael Johnson writes:
>>> That's one spoke-squeezing (and why-we-have-crosses) theory I've
>>> not heard of before. Why does a slight bend at the cross prevent
>>> breaking due to fatigue?
>
>> According to Barnett, when the spokes don't have a slight bend, they
>> are subjected to cycles of being bent against each other and
>> released as they go through load/unload cycles. This constant
>> flexing eventually results in material fatigue. This is the
>> contention in the manual, at any rate.
>
> I think you'll find that spokes removed from a wheel show no kink
> where they cross an interleaved opposing spoke, before or after stress
> relieving. The two advantages of interleaving, something most wheel
> builders do, is that spokes do not go entirely slack when riding over
> rough road and a broken spoke doesn't not dangle freely and foul the
> wheel regardless of which end fails.

I didn't say that the spokes developed a kink where they cross. What I
said was that they are constantly flexed, i.e. bowed then unbowed, as
they are loaded and unloaded. This bowing takes place along the entire
length of the spoke and results in fatigue at the elbow, where the spoke
typically breaks. Again, according to Barnett.

If you introduce a bend in the spoke, which Sheldon's method (and the
method in Barnett, which differs only in the implement used) actually
does, then the spoke is already in a bowed shape and doesn't flex as
much as it is loaded and unloaded, thereby reducing mechanical fatigue.

Your point about interleaving, while true enough, is a red herring.

>> I cannot personally vouch for the truth of the assertion, I haven't
>> seen the experimental data. It sounds plausible, however.
>> Certainly more so than the idea that momentarily /increasing/ the
>> tension on a spoke is going to relieve spoke wind-up.
>
> Its the adjacent spoke that becomes unloaded from this maneuver that
> untwists, the same as when a wheel is pressed against the floor on its
> axle. It is the slackening spoke that untwists.

So you're claiming that the rim flexes enough radially when you squeeze
some spokes to cause other spokes to go slack and unwind? I would expect
this effect to be minimal at best, especially compared to pressing on
the rim.

Mike Johnson

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Michael Johnson writes:

>>>> That's one spoke-squeezing (and why-we-have-crosses) theory I've
>>>> not heard of before. Why does a slight bend at the cross prevent
>>>> breaking due to fatigue?

>>> According to Barnett, when the spokes don't have a slight bend,
>>> they are subjected to cycles of being bent against each other and
>>> released as they go through load/unload cycles. This constant
>>> flexing eventually results in material fatigue. This is the
>>> contention in the manual, at any rate.

>> I think you'll find that spokes removed from a wheel show no kink
>> where they cross an interleaved opposing spoke, before or after
>> stress relieving. The two advantages of interleaving, something
>> most wheel builders do, is that spokes do not go entirely slack
>> when riding over rough road and a broken spoke doesn't not dangle
>> freely and foul the wheel regardless of which end fails.

> I didn't say that the spokes developed a kink where they cross. What
> I said was that they are constantly flexed, i.e. bowed then unbowed,
> as they are loaded and unloaded. This bowing takes place along the
> entire length of the spoke and results in fatigue at the elbow,
> where the spoke typically breaks. Again, according to Barnett.

If the spoke does not change shape, how does this method alter how the
spoke flexes in use, assuming it does so? In contrast, I think you'll
find that the spokes run in an unchanging straight line to the ends
and that the slight deflection at interleaved spoke crossing moves so
slightly that it causes no perceptible sound as these points fret
against each other. In time this causes a notch in each spoke, one
that is noticeable when they are displaced past one another manually
and click back into the notch when released.

> If you introduce a bend in the spoke, which Sheldon's method (and the
> method in Barnett, which differs only in the implement used) actually
> does, then the spoke is already in a bowed shape and doesn't flex as
> much as it is loaded and unloaded, thereby reducing mechanical fatigue.

I think you'll find that there is no permanent bend introduced by
these methods, the spokes being essentially as straight as they were
fresh out of the box. What changes is the elbow bend for outbound
spokes, mainly on the left side. Improving the spoke line is best
done directly and manually before the wheel has full tension, and it
doesn't have anything to do with spoke crossings.

> Your point about interleaving, while true enough, is a red herring.

Wat in particular do you mean in that respect?

>>> I cannot personally vouch for the truth of the assertion, I
>>> haven't seen the experimental data. It sounds plausible, however.
>>> Certainly more so than the idea that momentarily /increasing/ the
>>> tension on a spoke is going to relieve spoke wind-up.

>> Its the adjacent spoke that becomes unloaded from this maneuver
>> that untwists, the same as when a wheel is pressed against the
>> floor on its axle. It is the slackening spoke that untwists.

> So you're claiming that the rim flexes enough radially when you
> squeeze some spokes to cause other spokes to go slack and unwind? I
> would expect this effect to be minimal at best, especially compared
> to pressing on the rim.

When grasping pairs of spokes firmly, the rim moves radially inward
and partially relaxes adjacent spoke tension. As the spokes are
pulled together, they do not change length so something must move (by
the cosine of the angle). The only length change spokes is in
microns, locally at high concentrations. These changes are immaterial
to wheel alignment while radial rim flexing remains in the elastic
zone unless the wheel is too tight.

Jobst Brandt

[jim beam]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Michael Johnson writes:
>
>>>>> That's one spoke-squeezing (and why-we-have-crosses) theory I've
>>>>> not heard of before. Why does a slight bend at the cross prevent
>>>>> breaking due to fatigue?
>
>>>> According to Barnett, when the spokes don't have a slight bend,
>>>> they are subjected to cycles of being bent against each other and
>>>> released as they go through load/unload cycles. This constant
>>>> flexing eventually results in material fatigue. This is the
>>>> contention in the manual, at any rate.
>
>>> I think you'll find that spokes removed from a wheel show no kink
>>> where they cross an interleaved opposing spoke, before or after
>>> stress relieving. The two advantages of interleaving, something
>>> most wheel builders do, is that spokes do not go entirely slack
>>> when riding over rough road and a broken spoke doesn't not dangle
>>> freely and foul the wheel regardless of which end fails.
>
>> I didn't say that the spokes developed a kink where they cross. What
>> I said was that they are constantly flexed, i.e. bowed then unbowed,
>> as they are loaded and unloaded. This bowing takes place along the
>> entire length of the spoke and results in fatigue at the elbow,
>> where the spoke typically breaks. Again, according to Barnett.
>
> If the spoke does not change shape, how does this method alter how the
> spoke flexes in use, assuming it does so?

ever heard of elasticity?


> In contrast, I think you'll
> find that the spokes run in an unchanging straight line to the ends
> and that the slight deflection at interleaved spoke crossing moves so
> slightly that it causes no perceptible sound as these points fret
> against each other. In time this causes a notch in each spoke, one
> that is noticeable when they are displaced past one another manually
> and click back into the notch when released.

sound??? deliberate attempt to obfuscate. and this paragraph
contradicts your contention about "not changing shape".

>
>> If you introduce a bend in the spoke, which Sheldon's method (and the
>> method in Barnett, which differs only in the implement used) actually
>> does, then the spoke is already in a bowed shape and doesn't flex as
>> much as it is loaded and unloaded, thereby reducing mechanical fatigue.
>
> I think you'll find that there is no permanent bend introduced by
> these methods, the spokes being essentially as straight as they were
> fresh out of the box. What changes is the elbow bend for outbound
> spokes, mainly on the left side. Improving the spoke line is best
> done directly and manually before the wheel has full tension, and it
> doesn't have anything to do with spoke crossings.

there's no evidence that you /can/ "improve" the spoke line while at
full tension since you cannot overshoot. elasticity and yield require
that you overshoot.

>
>> Your point about interleaving, while true enough, is a red herring.
>
> Wat in particular do you mean in that respect?

oh, the irony of fisherman jobst!


>
>>>> I cannot personally vouch for the truth of the assertion, I
>>>> haven't seen the experimental data. It sounds plausible, however.
>>>> Certainly more so than the idea that momentarily /increasing/ the
>>>> tension on a spoke is going to relieve spoke wind-up.
>
>>> Its the adjacent spoke that becomes unloaded from this maneuver
>>> that untwists, the same as when a wheel is pressed against the
>>> floor on its axle. It is the slackening spoke that untwists.
>
>> So you're claiming that the rim flexes enough radially when you
>> squeeze some spokes to cause other spokes to go slack and unwind? I
>> would expect this effect to be minimal at best, especially compared
>> to pressing on the rim.
>
> When grasping pairs of spokes firmly, the rim moves radially inward
> and partially relaxes adjacent spoke tension. As the spokes are
> pulled together, they do not change length

oh yes they do. it's called elasticity.


> so something must move (by
> the cosine of the angle).

yeah. see above.


> The only length change spokes is in
> microns, locally at high concentrations.

1. that contradicts the above.
2. yield, what you're alluding to, is a presumption.
3. even if yield occurs, it's in regions of high residual stress close
to the neutral plane, not the regions from which fatigue is observed to
initiate, the regions farthest from neutral.


> These changes are immaterial
> to wheel alignment while radial rim flexing remains in the elastic
> zone unless the wheel is too tight.


but their foggy and imprecise presumption is essential to your ability
to "cure" and thus sell wheel books.

if that income stream is drying up, maybe you should sell a book on your
contributions to automotive design? but be careful with your facts on
that one jobst - there's a broader and better educated audience. might
cause problems in the presumption and concoction departments.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jan 19, 5:03*pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <736accd9-b71b-452f-8815-af9b28636...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> *Zruk <stank...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wow; who turned up the heat?
> > Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so viscious?
> > Because the stakes are so small.
> > Can't we all just get along?
> > I like the idea of stress releiving the wheel my self but I am a
> > little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensionometer or
> > much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I amafter all
> > seeking round and strong.
>
> You can build round, strong, enduring wheels.
> Patience and confidence will see you through.
> Regardless of whatever wrangles you see here,
> The_Bicycle_Wheel is a store house and a
> checklist for wheel building. Have it on hand
> and you will not forget incontrovertible
> minutiae such as oiling spoke threads, and
> nipple seats; or how to lace a wheel.

Good lacing section, and all of the other tips were great when I
bought the book back in '81 -- and it is still the bible on
conventional 32/36 spoke wheels on 400+g rims. I haven't seen the
latest edition, but I think that people building low spoke count
wheels on light rims will, ultimately, have to use some type of
threadlock to avoid rim-cracking tensions.-- Jay Beattie.

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <736accd9-b71b-452f-8815-af9b28636861@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Zruk <stankurz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wow; who turned up the heat?
>> Reminds me of the old saw: why are academic politics so viscious?
>> Because the stakes are so small.
>> Can't we all just get along?
>> I like the idea of stress releiving the wheel my self but I am a
>> little gun shy about truing since I have neither a tensionometer or
>> much experience and am afraid of botching up the wheel. I amafter all
>> seeking round and strong.
>
> You can build round, strong, enduring wheels.
> Patience and confidence will see you through.
> Regardless of whatever wrangles you see here,
> The_Bicycle_Wheel is a store house and a
> checklist for wheel building.

eh? so you don't care about spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear"
wrecking your rim? [forgetting the more fundamental engineering errors
of course.]


> Have it on hand
> and you will not forget incontrovertible
> minutiae such as oiling spoke threads, and
> nipple seats; or how to lace a wheel.
>