Yes, the paper can be accessed and read. I have skimmed it and have some background in the math, but am not planning the in-depth read needed to see all the implications of the math. What I do get is that the stability of the rim can be improved with a deeper rim section and more spokes. It may be possible with such modeling capability to see design optima and how “potholes in the parh might be avoided.” But these are not new insights, so while they tend to justify 40 sp versus 36, there are still a lot of challenging questions from a broader engineering point of view:

• How are stresses in rims and spokes affected? Fatigue is still the killer of metal mechanical elements under cyclical stress.
• Are any traditional designs revealed to be suboptimal?
• How do these modeling results compere with FEA? Are there cross-validation issues?
• Can optimal criteria be set for wheel engineering with the safest failure modes?
• When specific wheel designs which take advantage of this research are developed to optimize in a true product design process, will the target metrics be significantly improved?

When you are going to design for strict performance improvement, use models such as this to eke out a few more grams or reduce the spoke count by a few. But when you must engineer a new spoked wheel strategy to save the customer base and the manufacturing function millions, and to improve consumer value commensurately, one must use CAE, to model durability, find possible optima, and conduct extended testing to determine what choices are actually better and to determine revised durability limits.

The cost savings in using only one spoke specification sheet on a give assembly line might still be significant, even after the math models indicate where the rim thicknesses could be better. I see this papar as having more potential value for a senior wheel design or systems engineer, than a home ot small shop wheel builder.