Old 06-18-22, 11:17 PM
  #25  
Andrew R Stewart 
Senior Member
 
Andrew R Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 18,071

Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4199 Post(s)
Liked 3,851 Times in 2,301 Posts
Originally Posted by csport
Not directly, but I have heard that the spoke tension should be around 1/3 its yield stress (e. g., this article by Jobst Brandt), and Sapim cites their spoke strength. For example, for a D-Light it is 1370 N/mm2; the yield stress is 2930N, and 1/3 of it is roughly 100 kgf. It is 118 kgf for the Force and 130 kgf for the Strong.
I don't think Brandt said this ("should be"). "Because spokes are usually tensioned no higher than 1/3 their yield stress" (cut and paste from the link) is the reference I see. And the word "usually" is the difference I point out. Some might read this is semantics but there's a large space between should and usually. My first copy (I leant that one to a coworker to never see it again) of his book was a long time ago. Replaced by a later edition. I do agree with the end goals he tries to explain. I do take some issue with the path he choose to take to teach it. This book did set a foundation of discussion that has lasted decades, a very worthy accomplishment.

I have no issue with using 1/3 of max strength as a max wheel build tension. If the rim and nipple/rim interface can handle it. Since most spokes break from fatigue and not exceeding tensile strength, and many rim/nipple interfaces are problematic (spoke bed cracking, nipple/rim friction/corrosion) reducing the spoke tension achievable, I consider raw spoke strength to be a minor aspect. Andy
__________________
AndrewRStewart
Andrew R Stewart is offline  
Likes For Andrew R Stewart: