Old 06-19-22, 07:56 AM
  #26  
Aladin
Senior Member
 
Aladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Siberia West .. aka Central Wisconsin... USA
Posts: 308

Bikes: 2000 Litespeed Appalachian, 1998 Litespeed BlueRidge.. 1977? Schwinn LeTour 12.2 'Rain Daze'

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Andrew R Stewart
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


Andrew the actual strength of the rim hole possibly is a primary mitigating factor in wheel failure... spoke under very high tension subjected to extreme stress. Impacts etc... the nip gets pulled thru. Almost always when I see them 'thru' that wheel it's maxed over 140 kgf.


I went to triplet rears early on for my own 16/8's.. averaging 110/95. Always Lasers... built some 12/6's usng the triple butted Sapim Force... which are excellent spokes.
Aladin is offline  
Likes For Aladin: