Originally Posted by
asgelle
No.
I don't know if you never read the book, or just didn't understand it, but your characterization is incorrect. Brandt explained that starting with an evenly tensioned, true wheel without any load, when loaded, the deformation occurs across the bottom of the wheel reducing the tension on the lower spokes in the deformation zone leaving the remainder of the spokes virtually unaffected. Given that, it would not be incorrect to say that the lower spokes carry the load. In any event, right or wrong (though he certainly is right), he detailed his reasoning clearly and completely so it could be understood and challenged. If you want to relive the 90's you can search for the endless threads where this was debated. Having lived through it the first time, I see no need to go through it again.
I have not read the book. Only seen some snippets/debates online.
Don’t mean to turn this into a debate but:
“Other than its tension the bicycle wheel is the same as any other wheel such as a wooden wagon wheel. The spoke under the hub is shortened in compression by a load on the axle, while the upper spokes remain unaffected by the load.”
Maybe I’m just dumb but I don’t see a lack of tension as the same thing as compression. We don’t have to discuss this any further, but I think this could be fairly easily resolved if someone heavily loaded a wheel and then cut the spoke at the bottom, and nothing happened. If that spoke were truly a load bearing structure, then something would happen. Regardless, you’re right that this has been debated endlessly and there’s no resolving it.