Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- From: thirty-six <thirty-six@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:58:51 -0800 (PST)
On 5 Mar, 09:20, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
The quadrilateral formed by two horizontal(ish) spokes in a radial
spoked wheel are relatively free to allow up and down movement of the
hub (should the top and bottom spokes be removed). Crossing them
(done correctly) vastly reduces this freedom of movement due to an
effect known as triangulation. You can see this in the pylons
distributing electricity through the National Grid all over the
country. But you know different.
What ISTM he said was not that he knew different but that given the
obvious empirical data that very close to all well built bike wheels are
(a) fine and (b) do not use your methods, whatever the truth of the
above is a moot point.
Most production wheels are not capable of performing well for the
heavier rider. The bend from side to side and give a hard ride.
viz:
Which is why to a good first approximation the entire
world builds perfectly satisfactory wheels while entirely ignoring it.
My 8Freight carries /big/ loads. It has done for about 7 years now.
The (apparently dangerously weak) wheels have never needed /any/
attention, except for a change of tyres. They were supplied by a Mr. M..
Burrows who is well known not to be afraid of radical solutions or
whatever anyone else thinks of them. He has an amazing track record of
thinking outside the box and getting it right, and yet even he doesn't
seem to feel any need to prepare wheels any differently for a bike
requiring serious strength. I trust him more than you, he's got a very
good track record.
You wouldn't see the difference unless you knew how to look.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- From: Peter Clinch
- Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- References:
- Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- From: David Hansen
- Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- From: Peter Clinch
- Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- Prev by Date: Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- Next by Date: Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- Previous by thread: Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- Next by thread: Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|