Spoke Tension. Same Side.
#26
It's MY mountain
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mt.Diablo
Posts: 10,028
Bikes: Klein, Merckx, Trek
Liked 3,236 Times
in
1,742 Posts
#27
Given I am used to you I have acquired a certain level of immunity to such suggestions from yourself.
Consider --- the flange has spokes spiraling out in two directions, clockwise and counter-clockwise. The total torque of all the spokes equals zero, so, the sums of all the right pointing spokes has to equal the sum of all the left pointing spokes. Whatever else is happening cannot change this, so your original demonstration of tension difference must be flawed.
Presumably 4) will explain something or you will just meaninglessly repeat yourself.
#28
Really Old Senior Member
#29
Wow chorlton, why such salty remarks?
Honestly, if you dont' want comments or if you don't want to engage in a conversation about this, then I suggest you tag a moderator to close your thread.
Honestly, if you dont' want comments or if you don't want to engage in a conversation about this, then I suggest you tag a moderator to close your thread.
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 39,648
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Liked 3,487 Times
in
1,913 Posts
But let's cut the nonsense and stick to the point of YOUR thread and what you posted.
My objection was to this particular sentence---
Perhaps another and more realistic reason why you are not going to achieve it is that same side spokes exit the flange on opposite sides and therefore at different axial angles because of the width of the flange.
You posited a non fact, and a flawed explanation as to why that might be.
I simply corrected the error by pointing out that the average tension of the heads in and heads out spokes has to be equal, with a proof elating to the torsion they impose on the flange. I think my explanation was clear and that everyone who read it saw the logic. (if anyone besides the OP want's me to clarify or simplify the logic, please and I'll walk it through)
You keep insisting it's wrong, and getting into personalities, but you fail to offer any explanation of where and how my torsional argument fails.
So, feel free to stick to your guns, but for your own sake, give serious thought to my argument (as false as it seems), and consider that if it's possible to build even tensioned wheels, as so many people have been doing for a century, then your conclusion is wrong, and then work back to find the flaw in your process.
(or don't)
But one thing this arrogant New Yorker knows is that responding to logic with name calling only works if you're a billionaire.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
Last edited by FBinNY; 01-28-18 at 07:36 PM.
#32
#33
Really Old Senior Member
#34
But let's cut the nonsense and stick to the point of YOUR thread and what you posted.
My objection was to this particular sentence---
Perhaps another and more realistic reason why you are not going to achieve it is that same side spokes exit the flange on opposite sides and therefore at different axial angles because of the width of the flange.
You posited a non fact, and a flawed explanation as to why that might be.
My objection was to this particular sentence---
Perhaps another and more realistic reason why you are not going to achieve it is that same side spokes exit the flange on opposite sides and therefore at different axial angles because of the width of the flange.
You posited a non fact, and a flawed explanation as to why that might be.
I simply corrected the error by pointing out that the average tension of the heads in and heads out spokes has to be equal, with a proof elating to the torsion they impose on the flange. I think my explanation was clear and that everyone who read it saw the logic. (if anyone besides the OP want's me to clarify or simplify the logic, please and I'll walk it through)
So, feel free to stick to your guns, but for your own sake, give serious thought to my argument (as false as it seems), and consider that if it's possible to build even tensioned wheels, as so many people have been doing for a century, then your conclusion is wrong, and then work back to find the flaw in your process.
Guess What?
#35
Promise not to peek later?
#36
I'm not sure about that. I think you might want to go over the forum guidelines. Respect is key.
Please lose the saltiness. Sweetness goes a long way.
Please lose the saltiness. Sweetness goes a long way.
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 39,648
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Liked 3,487 Times
in
1,913 Posts
The former is what you're theory predicts, so if it's not there, then the theory is flawed, and you need to review your assumptions. (I grant that the math is probably not the issue).
You might also actually measure a bunch of wheels yourself, and if their good wheels without significant random variance, you won't find the hi/lo pattern there either.
As I posted and which you totally reject is that we've been building evenly tensioned wheels for over a century, so since there's no magic, we can say with authority that any theory that predicts that this isn't possible is somehow flawed.
So, hate me all you want, call me me a sophist or any other names, but I'm simply the messenger. Reality asserts itself and you can't buck reality.
BTW - you do raise an interesting point, but since it flies in the face of reality, one might be curious about where you went wrong. I have some ideas, but given that you think I'm an idiot I have no interest in trying to change your mind.
So, straight out, you're off base, not because I say so, but because millions of wheels say so.
----------------------
BTW - Sui Blue Wind is a mod, so feel free to rant at me and call me names, but you might make an effort to respect her advice.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
#39
He's not telling the truth. Im not a mod. LOL
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,995
Bikes: old ones
Liked 10,458 Times
in
7,255 Posts
.
...reinventing the wheel, one spoke at a time.
...reinventing the wheel, one spoke at a time.
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,333
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Liked 4,336 Times
in
2,790 Posts
"Perhaps another and more realistic reason why you are not going to achieve it is that same side spokes exit the flange on opposite sides and therefore at different axial angles because of the width of the flange."
"However you are quite correct that I have not as yet included the effects of interlacing."
Not including spoke cross is solving for a case no one uses for good reason. I won't bother to say more because it isn't worth my time to make colorful models to arrive at what has been known for a century.
Ben
"However you are quite correct that I have not as yet included the effects of interlacing."
Not including spoke cross is solving for a case no one uses for good reason. I won't bother to say more because it isn't worth my time to make colorful models to arrive at what has been known for a century.
Ben
#42
Chorlton,
Which spoke has more angle where it enters the rim: The head in or head out spoke on the drive side of a 3 cross wheel?
Which spoke has more angle where it enters the rim: The head in or head out spoke on the drive side of a 3 cross wheel?
#43
Senior Member
I think your interpretation of ”equal tension same side” might be a tad overzealous compared to original intent and general interpretation.
Building with strict control of number of turns, I can get a wheel that’s passably round and true, but with a pattern of every 2nd spoke of the same side having higher or lower tension.
The difference tends to be fairly small, but consistent over the wheel, and present in every build.
To the extent that I have thought about it, I’ve always assumed it due to the differences in spoke path.
So as soon as I judge the wheel firm enough, I add the appropriate turns round the wheel and finish the build.
The key thing IMO is that the systematic differences a decent builder might create while building by ”muscle memory” tend to be far smaller than those found on a poor machine built or inexpertedly trued wheel.
I’m not saying it can’t happen, but a wheel suffering from fatigue failures due to the systematic differences not being compensated for would have been a rather marginal build to start with.
Building with strict control of number of turns, I can get a wheel that’s passably round and true, but with a pattern of every 2nd spoke of the same side having higher or lower tension.
The difference tends to be fairly small, but consistent over the wheel, and present in every build.
To the extent that I have thought about it, I’ve always assumed it due to the differences in spoke path.
So as soon as I judge the wheel firm enough, I add the appropriate turns round the wheel and finish the build.
The key thing IMO is that the systematic differences a decent builder might create while building by ”muscle memory” tend to be far smaller than those found on a poor machine built or inexpertedly trued wheel.
I’m not saying it can’t happen, but a wheel suffering from fatigue failures due to the systematic differences not being compensated for would have been a rather marginal build to start with.
#44
Mostly harmless ™
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,435
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
Liked 223 Times
in
135 Posts
I keep coming back to my program for doing this stuff... because I can. Most recently I have added the ability, perhaps wasted, to deal with butted/non-butted spokes and work out the relative tensions, ratio of sines, as well as take into account elongation of the spokes when under tension.
In respect of elongation then, assuming I have got the sums right, it really does not seem to matter much. Perhaps 1/10th of a millimetre. Slightly disappointed and still concerned I might have the sums wrong there. One thing that does appear to drop out of things is relative tension for same side spokes.
Reading about the place it would seem that the goal is for equal tension in same side spokes but apparently due to tolerances and stuff you cannot achieve it within 'mumble' percent.
Perhaps another and more realistic reason why you are not going to achieve it is that same side spokes exit the flange on opposite sides and therefore at different axial angles because of the width of the flange.
Picture: This is a nominal 700C front wheel with the added bells and whistles. I have overdone the precision. Anyway it has some butted spokes. The Radial and Axial angles are for the Nipples and some trigonometry rule says I can transpose them to the hub.
Target tension was/is 130KGf with a Youngs Modulus of 180GPa/m^2. Program checks for spoke with smallest angle and then works out the rest based on that. Inner spokes on either side have the smallest angle and end up at 130KGf.
Outer spokes on the same side, apart from diving into the flange, have the larger angle and... end up at 112.66KGf. If and when I take out the dive into the flange that will get lower.
Of itself that seems/is significant and suggests that aiming for equal tension on same side spokes, assuming I read other people's words correctly, is perhaps a fallacy that should not necessarily be dismissed for reasons of accuracy of measurment but is in fact 'a real thing'.
...
In respect of elongation then, assuming I have got the sums right, it really does not seem to matter much. Perhaps 1/10th of a millimetre. Slightly disappointed and still concerned I might have the sums wrong there. One thing that does appear to drop out of things is relative tension for same side spokes.
Reading about the place it would seem that the goal is for equal tension in same side spokes but apparently due to tolerances and stuff you cannot achieve it within 'mumble' percent.
Perhaps another and more realistic reason why you are not going to achieve it is that same side spokes exit the flange on opposite sides and therefore at different axial angles because of the width of the flange.
Picture: This is a nominal 700C front wheel with the added bells and whistles. I have overdone the precision. Anyway it has some butted spokes. The Radial and Axial angles are for the Nipples and some trigonometry rule says I can transpose them to the hub.
Target tension was/is 130KGf with a Youngs Modulus of 180GPa/m^2. Program checks for spoke with smallest angle and then works out the rest based on that. Inner spokes on either side have the smallest angle and end up at 130KGf.
Outer spokes on the same side, apart from diving into the flange, have the larger angle and... end up at 112.66KGf. If and when I take out the dive into the flange that will get lower.
Of itself that seems/is significant and suggests that aiming for equal tension on same side spokes, assuming I read other people's words correctly, is perhaps a fallacy that should not necessarily be dismissed for reasons of accuracy of measurment but is in fact 'a real thing'.
...
1) Elongation
1/10 of a millimetre is not little, it's a lot. Even a relatively thin, weak rim doesn't deflect too much at ground contact point. Using modern, double walled rigid rims, it's even less so. Probably not over 0.05 mm. So 0.1 mm spoke elongation allows for it not to become slack when unloaded.
2) Flange exit side (and angle)
Yes, there is a (measurable) difference in angle. Hence, a spoke pulling with 100 kgf from the outer edge will move rim more (all other spoke tension being equal), than one coming from the inner side of the flange having the same tension.
However, that spoke is "paired" with another one from the other side of the hub, also coming from the same side of the flange.
digression: Also, angle differences are very small (though your program seems to calculate, probably correctly, that it ammounts to quite some kgf difference, if I understood it all correctly).
That should keep the rim straight (all things being equal and "perfect"), with very little difference in spoke tension on the same hub side.
3) Spoke crossing ("dynamic"? analysis) - some have mentioned this
Once a wheel gets loaded, say a driving torque through the hub. Every second (trailing?) spoke at each side gets extra load, while every other gets unloaded. The unloaded part is more important - it's bad when spokes become slack. Crossing them allows for the spokes that get more tension to pull the "slackened" ones a bit, at the crossing, and reduce the ammount of unload those spokes get - to some degree.
This could also be considered for a static, unloaded analysis, but I doubt there's (that much) effect and difference.
Another thing I'm curious about is - on a trued wheel, when tightening one spoke by say 20 % more (and loosening it by the same amount) - what happens to other spokes tension. Especially the 3 spokes to the left and right next to it, and to a few spokes on the opposite side of the rim. Can you test that in the program?
How do results compare to simulating 0.05 mm rim deflection at ground contact point, without previously changing spoke tensions?
Thumbs up for the experiment.
Last edited by Bike Gremlin; 01-29-18 at 06:16 AM.
#45
Mechanic/Tourist
I would be glad to see your example of Google being full of links (not people, as you seem to consider yourself a master of technical language) showing people reporting a consistent alternating pattern of same-side tension differences. Only then will I consider your exercise anything other than a solution to an imagined problem.
Last edited by cny-bikeman; 01-29-18 at 07:16 AM.
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Liked 645 Times
in
366 Posts
Just bragging here so, aside from it being an interesting data point, it probably doesn't mean anything.
I once rebuilt the rear wheel for my Santana tandem. Santana tandems have a 160 mm rear dropout spacing so there no dish is required. Using my normal practice, after gradually bringing the spokes up to tension I equalized them using my cheap Wheelsmith tensiometer. To my surprise, after putting the wheel in my truing stand, it required no touch up truing at all.
I once rebuilt the rear wheel for my Santana tandem. Santana tandems have a 160 mm rear dropout spacing so there no dish is required. Using my normal practice, after gradually bringing the spokes up to tension I equalized them using my cheap Wheelsmith tensiometer. To my surprise, after putting the wheel in my truing stand, it required no touch up truing at all.
__________________
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
#47
Really Old Senior Member
......I would be glad to see your example of Google being full of links (not people, as you seem to consider yourself a master of technical language) showing people reporting a consistent alternating pattern of same-side tension differences. Only then will I consider your exercise anything other than a solution to an imagined problem.
1/2 the spokes were proper tension and 1/2 were "about" 1/2 proper tension.
They were alternating, but I don't remember the exact sequence.
I believe it was simply inadequate machine truing/tensioning.
Maybe a $50 wheel gets an extra pass through the truing/tensioning cycle and shows less difference, but still alternating? It seems quite plausible to me.
#48
old fart
The flange has no "width", the hub does. The flange has _thickness_ instead.
Let me know if this is a proper explanation of your mistake (as opposed to merely pointing it out). If needed, I could certainly use simpler terms or draw you a picture, so you'd understand.
#49
Another thing I'm curious about is - on a trued wheel, when tightening one spoke by say 20 % more (and loosening it by the same amount) - what happens to other spokes tension. Especially the 3 spokes to the left and right next to it, and to a few spokes on the opposite side of the rim. Can you test that in the program?
How do results compare to simulating 0.05 mm rim deflection at ground contact point, without previously changing spoke tensions?
Thumbs up for the experiment.
How do results compare to simulating 0.05 mm rim deflection at ground contact point, without previously changing spoke tensions?
Thumbs up for the experiment.
I bought a $30 front for a flip bike. 1/2 the spokes were proper tension and 1/2 were "about" 1/2 proper tension. They were alternating, but I don't remember the exact sequence. I believe it was simply inadequate machine truing/tensioning.
Maybe a $50 wheel gets an extra pass through the truing/tensioning cycle and shows less difference, but still alternating? It seems quite plausible to me.
Maybe a $50 wheel gets an extra pass through the truing/tensioning cycle and shows less difference, but still alternating? It seems quite plausible to me.
Once again, irrespective of the levels of hate, I am going to state, based on an intuitive guess, that the optimum result, assuming perfection, will be when the spokes have their relative tensions set to match the ratio of their angles in the target, trued, solution.
I guess I need to set up a model and work out how to analyse it but for the moment I will go out on the usual limb and suggest that the result will be an Inverse Bell Curve with minimum sensitivity at the point where the match described above is achieved. I'll go further and suggest that if it is a minimum sensitivity solution then that will have an impact on the overall fatigue experienced by the wheel/spokes over time.
#50
Senior Member
I don't think anyone here has mentioned The Bicycle Wheel, published some years ago by the late Jobst Brandt. The mathematics-based arguments presented in the book by Brandt, who honed the relevant skills while working as an engineer for Porsche, are far over my head, but chorlton and others participating in the thread might get a kick out of looking at the work, if they're not already familiar with it.