Originally Posted by
nickw
It is what it is....if you feel the need to argue the point about Comp vs Tens, AGAIN and how a spoke can't be in compression, after the article clearly hints at the semantics behind it...you just don't get it. Your examples, like other have stated, are worthless in the context of the 'discussion'.
Apologies for derailing the thread, I should have known better...
Phil Wood Hubs rock...no question there!
You say my examples are worthless in the context of the discussion but I haven't seen any "discussion" from you or others giving counter explanations. I don't "get it" because you haven't provided any discussion to help me get it. Simply saying "go read the links" endlessly when it is quite clear that I have read the links and disagree with them, isn't discussion. It's parroting.
Take that extra step. Explain where the compression comes from and what the mechanism for compressing the spoke is. I've given you a simple example of the single spoke. It should be easy to explain how a spoke will hold up the hub if compression is really present.
There should be no need to "hint" at semantics. You shouldn't have to read between the lines to get the point. Even "Ian" seems to understand where he (and others) have gone wrong. This quote bears repeating
That is, a reference to a 'compressive' spoke could be read as a 'less tensile' spoke.
The problem, as I've elucidated several times, is in referring to a spoke as being a "compressive" spoke instead of a "less tensile" one.