A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mid & rear engine placement safety implications



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 5th 13, 10:02 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default Mid & rear engine placement safety implications

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:13:40 AM UTC+3, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 08:48 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>
> > On 9/3/2013 10:20 PM, jim beam wrote:

>
> >> On 09/03/2013 08:10 PM, T0m $herman wrote:

>
> >>> On 9/3/2013 8:23 PM, jim beam wrote:

>
> >>>

>
> >>>> see above retard. now, stop avoiding the question - go find a single

>
> >>>> rear engine car with less than 16" of crush space out front.

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>>

>
> >>> VW Type II?

>
> >>>

>
> >>> <http://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Volkswagen-Type-2-Kombi-Van.jpg>

>
> >>>

>
> >>>

>
> >>>

>
> >>>

>
> >>

>
> >> yeah, not the best. #12 in that diagram is a freakin' unfunny JOKE.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> > As a child in Quebec City, I spent time in the back of a VW Type IV -

>
> > snowmobile suit, mittens and boots were mandatory for any trip over 15

>
> > minutes long, even with the optional auxiliary heater.

>
> >

>
>
>
> can't imagine. i had to wear every single piece of clothing i owned,
>
> including socks over my shoes, and that was just in oregon/seattle.
>

beats me how you survive in the giant air conditioner by the bay

so you were implying never buy /read jobst book or that was not was
you implying?

I have other people do the wheel assembly and tensioning for me so I wonder
about the need vs want vs just for laughs

besides, I think I'll go mtb where wheel quality is of lesser importance
than on a road bike
Ads
  #22  
Old September 5th 13, 03:19 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default Mid & rear engine placement safety implications

On 09/05/2013 02:02 AM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:13:40 AM UTC+3, jim beam wrote:
>> On 09/03/2013 08:48 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/3/2013 10:20 PM, jim beam wrote:

>>
>>>> On 09/03/2013 08:10 PM, T0m $herman wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 9/3/2013 8:23 PM, jim beam wrote:

>>
>>>>>

>>
>>>>>> see above retard. now, stop avoiding the question - go find a single

>>
>>>>>> rear engine car with less than 16" of crush space out front.

>>
>>>>>>

>>
>>>>>>

>>
>>>>> VW Type II?

>>
>>>>>

>>
>>>>> <http://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Volkswagen-Type-2-Kombi-Van.jpg>

>>
>>>>>

>>
>>>>>

>>
>>>>>

>>
>>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>> yeah, not the best. #12 in that diagram is a freakin' unfunny JOKE.

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>> As a child in Quebec City, I spent time in the back of a VW Type IV -

>>
>>> snowmobile suit, mittens and boots were mandatory for any trip over 15

>>
>>> minutes long, even with the optional auxiliary heater.

>>
>>>

>>
>>
>>
>> can't imagine. i had to wear every single piece of clothing i owned,
>>
>> including socks over my shoes, and that was just in oregon/seattle.
>>

> beats me how you survive in the giant air conditioner by the bay
>
> so you were implying never buy /read jobst book or that was not was
> you implying?
>
> I have other people do the wheel assembly and tensioning for me so I wonder
> about the need vs want vs just for laughs
>
> besides, I think I'll go mtb where wheel quality is of lesser importance
> than on a road bike
>


unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic bullet on wheel
building books. jobst's book will allow you to calculate spoke length
from first principles [although, not allow for the elongation that
happens as they tension], lace, true and tension, but it'll also have
you over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives you a very
iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no initial clue on how to
position a hub so the label aligns with the valve hole, as per
conventional practice.

gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position problem, and
have you stress relieve better, but you'll be reliant on others for
spoke length. his lacing method is also unnecessarily complicated.

sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub positioning,
but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst bullied into him. and his
stress relief method blows chunks.

if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding guide is pretty good.
absolutely the best stress relief method. but it tells you nothing
about spoke length calculation, presumably because if you're rebuilding
a mavic wheel, you're already using spokes of predetermined length.

so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and if you're
thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics and don't already have a
strong understanding of mechanical principles and materials, it'll badly
**** you up because a lot of what he says is just plain wrong.

as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this before. there
are definitely benefits to learning in that most people don't have
access to a good builder. statistically, that includes you. once you
can build yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most
shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains true and stable
almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in "other people built"
wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with unconventional rear spoking
pattern*, have remained completely true despite some fearful abuse.
same for my townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked streets.


* convention is that you go trailing-leading-leading-trailing when
looking at the four hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes
with increasing tension from drive torque to distort the wheel's dish
less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following this principle, you
need to lace leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction
opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to lace, but it's
specified in the shimano hub manual.


--
fact check required
  #23  
Old September 5th 13, 04:27 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 488
Default Mid & rear engine placement safety implications

On 9/5/2013 9:19 AM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 02:02 AM, wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:13:40 AM UTC+3, jim beam
>> wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2013 08:48 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/3/2013 10:20 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 09/03/2013 08:10 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On 9/3/2013 8:23 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> see above retard. now, stop avoiding the question -
>>>>>>> go find a single
>>>
>>>>>>> rear engine car with less than 16" of crush space out
>>>>>>> front.
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> VW Type II?
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> <http://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Volkswagen-Type-2-Kombi-Van.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> yeah, not the best. #12 in that diagram is a freakin'
>>>>> unfunny JOKE.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> As a child in Quebec City, I spent time in the back of a
>>>> VW Type IV -
>>>
>>>> snowmobile suit, mittens and boots were mandatory for
>>>> any trip over 15
>>>
>>>> minutes long, even with the optional auxiliary heater.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> can't imagine. i had to wear every single piece of
>>> clothing i owned,
>>>
>>> including socks over my shoes, and that was just in
>>> oregon/seattle.
>>>

>> beats me how you survive in the giant air conditioner by
>> the bay
>>
>> so you were implying never buy /read jobst book or that
>> was not was
>> you implying?
>>
>> I have other people do the wheel assembly and tensioning
>> for me so I wonder
>> about the need vs want vs just for laughs
>>
>> besides, I think I'll go mtb where wheel quality is of
>> lesser importance
>> than on a road bike
>>

>
> unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic bullet on
> wheel building books. jobst's book will allow you to
> calculate spoke length from first principles [although, not
> allow for the elongation that happens as they tension],
> lace, true and tension, but it'll also have you
> over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives you a
> very iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no
> initial clue on how to position a hub so the label aligns
> with the valve hole, as per conventional practice.
>
> gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position
> problem, and have you stress relieve better, but you'll be
> reliant on others for spoke length. his lacing method is
> also unnecessarily complicated.
>
> sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub
> positioning, but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst
> bullied into him. and his stress relief method blows chunks.
>
> if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding guide is
> pretty good. absolutely the best stress relief method. but
> it tells you nothing about spoke length calculation,
> presumably because if you're rebuilding a mavic wheel,
> you're already using spokes of predetermined length.
>
> so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and
> if you're thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics
> and don't already have a strong understanding of mechanical
> principles and materials, it'll badly **** you up because a
> lot of what he says is just plain wrong.
>
> as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this
> before. there are definitely benefits to learning in that
> most people don't have access to a good builder.
> statistically, that includes you. once you can build
> yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most
> shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains true
> and stable almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in
> "other people built" wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with
> unconventional rear spoking pattern*, have remained
> completely true despite some fearful abuse. same for my
> townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked
> streets.
>
>
> * convention is that you go
> trailing-leading-leading-trailing when looking at the four
> hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes with
> increasing tension from drive torque to distort the wheel's
> dish less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following
> this principle, you need to lace
> leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction
> opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to
> lace, but it's specified in the shimano hub manual.
>
>


Good overview.
That rear spoking pattern for disc/drum rears is also the
preferered 'old guy' way for fronts, which need no
particular bias.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #24  
Old September 6th 13, 02:25 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default Mid & rear engine placement safety implications

On 09/05/2013 08:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/5/2013 9:19 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 09/05/2013 02:02 AM, wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:13:40 AM UTC+3, jim beam
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 09/03/2013 08:48 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/3/2013 10:20 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/03/2013 08:10 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2013 8:23 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> see above retard. now, stop avoiding the question -
>>>>>>>> go find a single
>>>>
>>>>>>>> rear engine car with less than 16" of crush space out
>>>>>>>> front.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> VW Type II?
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Volkswagen-Type-2-Kombi-Van.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> yeah, not the best. #12 in that diagram is a freakin'
>>>>>> unfunny JOKE.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As a child in Quebec City, I spent time in the back of a
>>>>> VW Type IV -
>>>>
>>>>> snowmobile suit, mittens and boots were mandatory for
>>>>> any trip over 15
>>>>
>>>>> minutes long, even with the optional auxiliary heater.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> can't imagine. i had to wear every single piece of
>>>> clothing i owned,
>>>>
>>>> including socks over my shoes, and that was just in
>>>> oregon/seattle.
>>>>
>>> beats me how you survive in the giant air conditioner by
>>> the bay
>>>
>>> so you were implying never buy /read jobst book or that
>>> was not was
>>> you implying?
>>>
>>> I have other people do the wheel assembly and tensioning
>>> for me so I wonder
>>> about the need vs want vs just for laughs
>>>
>>> besides, I think I'll go mtb where wheel quality is of
>>> lesser importance
>>> than on a road bike
>>>

>>
>> unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic bullet on
>> wheel building books. jobst's book will allow you to
>> calculate spoke length from first principles [although, not
>> allow for the elongation that happens as they tension],
>> lace, true and tension, but it'll also have you
>> over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives you a
>> very iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no
>> initial clue on how to position a hub so the label aligns
>> with the valve hole, as per conventional practice.
>>
>> gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position
>> problem, and have you stress relieve better, but you'll be
>> reliant on others for spoke length. his lacing method is
>> also unnecessarily complicated.
>>
>> sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub
>> positioning, but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst
>> bullied into him. and his stress relief method blows chunks.
>>
>> if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding guide is
>> pretty good. absolutely the best stress relief method. but
>> it tells you nothing about spoke length calculation,
>> presumably because if you're rebuilding a mavic wheel,
>> you're already using spokes of predetermined length.
>>
>> so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and
>> if you're thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics
>> and don't already have a strong understanding of mechanical
>> principles and materials, it'll badly **** you up because a
>> lot of what he says is just plain wrong.
>>
>> as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this
>> before. there are definitely benefits to learning in that
>> most people don't have access to a good builder.
>> statistically, that includes you. once you can build
>> yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most
>> shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains true
>> and stable almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in
>> "other people built" wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with
>> unconventional rear spoking pattern*, have remained
>> completely true despite some fearful abuse. same for my
>> townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked
>> streets.
>>
>>
>> * convention is that you go
>> trailing-leading-leading-trailing when looking at the four
>> hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes with
>> increasing tension from drive torque to distort the wheel's
>> dish less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following
>> this principle, you need to lace
>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction
>> opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to
>> lace, but it's specified in the shimano hub manual.
>>
>>

>
> Good overview.
> That rear spoking pattern for disc/drum rears is also the preferered
> 'old guy' way for fronts, which need no particular bias.


interesting.

in that vein, old guys used to tie and solder. jobst went out of his
way to pour scorn on that practice, but doesn't do it in what is an
actually scientific way, just a pseudo-scientific way - i.e. the
scientific way is "objective, methods, results, conclusions". he just
leaps from method to conclusions, omitting actual results. yet he
blithely accepts spoke interleaving as "stabilizing the spoke structure"
with no analysis whatsoever.

[i know, broken record, but i really can't understand why other people
don't see this stuff when reading - you don't need to be an engineer to
have logical inconsistency slap you in the face.]


--
fact check required
  #25  
Old September 6th 13, 10:19 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default engine onnatop placement implications

>>>
>>> unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic bullet on
>>> wheel building books. jobst's book will allow you to
>>> calculate spoke length from first principles [although, not
>>> allow for the elongation that happens as they tension],
>>> lace, true and tension, but it'll also have you
>>> over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives you a
>>> very iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no
>>> initial clue on how to position a hub so the label aligns
>>> with the valve hole, as per conventional practice.
>>>
>>> gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position
>>> problem, and have you stress relieve better, but you'll be
>>> reliant on others for spoke length. his lacing method is
>>> also unnecessarily complicated.
>>>
>>> sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub
>>> positioning, but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst
>>> bullied into him. and his stress relief method blows chunks.
>>>
>>> if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding guide is
>>> pretty good. absolutely the best stress relief method. but
>>> it tells you nothing about spoke length calculation,
>>> presumably because if you're rebuilding a mavic wheel,
>>> you're already using spokes of predetermined length.
>>>
>>> so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and
>>> if you're thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics
>>> and don't already have a strong understanding of mechanical
>>> principles and materials, it'll badly **** you up because a
>>> lot of what he says is just plain wrong.
>>>
>>> as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this
>>> before. there are definitely benefits to learning in that
>>> most people don't have access to a good builder.
>>> statistically, that includes you. once you can build
>>> yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most
>>> shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains true
>>> and stable almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in
>>> "other people built" wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with
>>> unconventional rear spoking pattern*, have remained
>>> completely true despite some fearful abuse. same for my
>>> townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked
>>> streets.
>>>
>>>
>>> * convention is that you go
>>> trailing-leading-leading-trailing when looking at the four
>>> hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes with
>>> increasing tension from drive torque to distort the wheel's
>>> dish less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following
>>> this principle, you need to lace
>>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction
>>> opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to
>>> lace, but it's specified in the shimano hub manual.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Good overview.
>> That rear spoking pattern for disc/drum rears is also the preferered
>> 'old guy' way for fronts, which need no particular bias.

>



thanks for the comprehensive wrapup,
took the time to setup thunderbird w eternal september again so I can
crosspost at will ;-)

My CXP-33 is laced over-4 whatever that means and the ceramic open pro
is over-3
not sure how that meshes with leading-trailing-leading-trailing
and trailing-leading-leading-trailing

For next year cross competition I wonder if I'd reuse my roadbike
to get a 26"er or 29"er. Though the latter is a bit too portly
for competitions, I think


> interesting.
>
> in that vein, old guys used to tie and solder. jobst went out of his way
> to pour scorn on that practice, but doesn't do it in what is an actually
> scientific way, just a pseudo-scientific way - i.e. the scientific way
> is "objective, methods, results, conclusions". he just leaps from method
> to conclusions, omitting actual results. yet he blithely accepts spoke
> interleaving as "stabilizing the spoke structure" with no analysis
> whatsoever.
>
> [i know, broken record, but i really can't understand why other people
> don't see this stuff when reading - you don't need to be an engineer to
> have logical inconsistency slap you in the face.]


it's the "blond gene". you don't have to understand it, just accept "as is"
  #26  
Old September 6th 13, 03:17 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default engine onnatop placement implications

On 09/06/2013 02:19 AM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic bullet on
>>>> wheel building books. jobst's book will allow you to
>>>> calculate spoke length from first principles [although, not
>>>> allow for the elongation that happens as they tension],
>>>> lace, true and tension, but it'll also have you
>>>> over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives you a
>>>> very iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no
>>>> initial clue on how to position a hub so the label aligns
>>>> with the valve hole, as per conventional practice.
>>>>
>>>> gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position
>>>> problem, and have you stress relieve better, but you'll be
>>>> reliant on others for spoke length. his lacing method is
>>>> also unnecessarily complicated.
>>>>
>>>> sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub
>>>> positioning, but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst
>>>> bullied into him. and his stress relief method blows chunks.
>>>>
>>>> if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding guide is
>>>> pretty good. absolutely the best stress relief method. but
>>>> it tells you nothing about spoke length calculation,
>>>> presumably because if you're rebuilding a mavic wheel,
>>>> you're already using spokes of predetermined length.
>>>>
>>>> so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and
>>>> if you're thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics
>>>> and don't already have a strong understanding of mechanical
>>>> principles and materials, it'll badly **** you up because a
>>>> lot of what he says is just plain wrong.
>>>>
>>>> as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this
>>>> before. there are definitely benefits to learning in that
>>>> most people don't have access to a good builder.
>>>> statistically, that includes you. once you can build
>>>> yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most
>>>> shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains true
>>>> and stable almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in
>>>> "other people built" wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with
>>>> unconventional rear spoking pattern*, have remained
>>>> completely true despite some fearful abuse. same for my
>>>> townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked
>>>> streets.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * convention is that you go
>>>> trailing-leading-leading-trailing when looking at the four
>>>> hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes with
>>>> increasing tension from drive torque to distort the wheel's
>>>> dish less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following
>>>> this principle, you need to lace
>>>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction
>>>> opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to
>>>> lace, but it's specified in the shimano hub manual.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good overview.
>>> That rear spoking pattern for disc/drum rears is also the preferered
>>> 'old guy' way for fronts, which need no particular bias.

>>

>
>
> thanks for the comprehensive wrapup,
> took the time to setup thunderbird w eternal september again so I can
> crosspost at will ;-)
>
> My CXP-33 is laced over-4 whatever that means and the ceramic open pro
> is over-3


"three cross" is conventional with an open pro. "4x" on a cxp33 is not
something i'd do because it's not got as much socket angle available as
the open pro - which is precisely what "4x" requires. i'd therefore
expect spokes to be more likely to break at the threads.

presumably the builder was looking to make the cxp33 a slightly "softer"
ride - the cxp33 is very deep and thus rigid so it can ride "harsh"
compared to others. ["4x" spokes are longer and thus theoretically
slightly more elastic.] i'd have gone with a lower spoke count and "2x"
personally.


[another criticism of "the book" - jobst has succeeded in making most
people think of "spoke crossing count" as one of the parameters for
spoke length calculation. this is somewhat misleading since you can
compute a result for 2.7179 "crossings", even though no such thing is
possible. the fact is, the "crossing" number is in fact the number of
hub hole offsets from the "key" position, and this doesn't have to be an
integer.]


> not sure how that meshes with leading-trailing-leading-trailing
> and trailing-leading-leading-trailing


doesn't for "crossing" count.


>
> For next year cross competition I wonder if I'd reuse my roadbike
> to get a 26"er or 29"er. Though the latter is a bit too portly
> for competitions, I think
>
>
>> interesting.
>>
>> in that vein, old guys used to tie and solder. jobst went out of his way
>> to pour scorn on that practice, but doesn't do it in what is an actually
>> scientific way, just a pseudo-scientific way - i.e. the scientific way
>> is "objective, methods, results, conclusions". he just leaps from method
>> to conclusions, omitting actual results. yet he blithely accepts spoke
>> interleaving as "stabilizing the spoke structure" with no analysis
>> whatsoever.
>>
>> [i know, broken record, but i really can't understand why other people
>> don't see this stuff when reading - you don't need to be an engineer to
>> have logical inconsistency slap you in the face.]

>
> it's the "blond gene". you don't have to understand it, just accept "as is"


cringe.


--
fact check required
  #27  
Old September 6th 13, 04:33 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 488
Default engine onnatop placement implications

On 9/6/2013 9:17 AM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/06/2013 02:19 AM, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic
>>>>> bullet on
>>>>> wheel building books. jobst's book will allow you to
>>>>> calculate spoke length from first principles [although,
>>>>> not
>>>>> allow for the elongation that happens as they tension],
>>>>> lace, true and tension, but it'll also have you
>>>>> over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives
>>>>> you a
>>>>> very iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no
>>>>> initial clue on how to position a hub so the label aligns
>>>>> with the valve hole, as per conventional practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position
>>>>> problem, and have you stress relieve better, but you'll be
>>>>> reliant on others for spoke length. his lacing method is
>>>>> also unnecessarily complicated.
>>>>>
>>>>> sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub
>>>>> positioning, but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst
>>>>> bullied into him. and his stress relief method blows
>>>>> chunks.
>>>>>
>>>>> if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding
>>>>> guide is
>>>>> pretty good. absolutely the best stress relief method. but
>>>>> it tells you nothing about spoke length calculation,
>>>>> presumably because if you're rebuilding a mavic wheel,
>>>>> you're already using spokes of predetermined length.
>>>>>
>>>>> so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and
>>>>> if you're thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics
>>>>> and don't already have a strong understanding of
>>>>> mechanical
>>>>> principles and materials, it'll badly **** you up
>>>>> because a
>>>>> lot of what he says is just plain wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this
>>>>> before. there are definitely benefits to learning in that
>>>>> most people don't have access to a good builder.
>>>>> statistically, that includes you. once you can build
>>>>> yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most
>>>>> shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains
>>>>> true
>>>>> and stable almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in
>>>>> "other people built" wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with
>>>>> unconventional rear spoking pattern*, have remained
>>>>> completely true despite some fearful abuse. same for my
>>>>> townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked
>>>>> streets.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * convention is that you go
>>>>> trailing-leading-leading-trailing when looking at the four
>>>>> hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes with
>>>>> increasing tension from drive torque to distort the
>>>>> wheel's
>>>>> dish less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following
>>>>> this principle, you need to lace
>>>>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction
>>>>> opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to
>>>>> lace, but it's specified in the shimano hub manual.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good overview.
>>>> That rear spoking pattern for disc/drum rears is also
>>>> the preferered
>>>> 'old guy' way for fronts, which need no particular bias.
>>>

>>
>>
>> thanks for the comprehensive wrapup,
>> took the time to setup thunderbird w eternal september
>> again so I can
>> crosspost at will ;-)
>>
>> My CXP-33 is laced over-4 whatever that means and the
>> ceramic open pro
>> is over-3

>
> "three cross" is conventional with an open pro. "4x" on a
> cxp33 is not something i'd do because it's not got as much
> socket angle available as the open pro - which is precisely
> what "4x" requires. i'd therefore expect spokes to be more
> likely to break at the threads.
>
> presumably the builder was looking to make the cxp33 a
> slightly "softer" ride - the cxp33 is very deep and thus
> rigid so it can ride "harsh" compared to others. ["4x"
> spokes are longer and thus theoretically slightly more
> elastic.] i'd have gone with a lower spoke count and "2x"
> personally.
>
>
> [another criticism of "the book" - jobst has succeeded in
> making most people think of "spoke crossing count" as one of
> the parameters for spoke length calculation. this is
> somewhat misleading since you can compute a result for
> 2.7179 "crossings", even though no such thing is possible.
> the fact is, the "crossing" number is in fact the number of
> hub hole offsets from the "key" position, and this doesn't
> have to be an integer.]
>
>
>> not sure how that meshes with
>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing
>> and trailing-leading-leading-trailing

>
> doesn't for "crossing" count.
>
>
>>
>> For next year cross competition I wonder if I'd reuse my
>> roadbike
>> to get a 26"er or 29"er. Though the latter is a bit too
>> portly
>> for competitions, I think
>>
>>
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> in that vein, old guys used to tie and solder. jobst went
>>> out of his way
>>> to pour scorn on that practice, but doesn't do it in what
>>> is an actually
>>> scientific way, just a pseudo-scientific way - i.e. the
>>> scientific way
>>> is "objective, methods, results, conclusions". he just
>>> leaps from method
>>> to conclusions, omitting actual results. yet he blithely
>>> accepts spoke
>>> interleaving as "stabilizing the spoke structure" with no
>>> analysis
>>> whatsoever.
>>>
>>> [i know, broken record, but i really can't understand why
>>> other people
>>> don't see this stuff when reading - you don't need to be
>>> an engineer to
>>> have logical inconsistency slap you in the face.]

>>
>> it's the "blond gene". you don't have to understand it,
>> just accept "as is"

>
> cringe.
>
>


Not enough information.

4x 48 spokes builds to an optimal spoke angle. 4x 40h is
good, better than 3x.
4x with 32h is a clusterf**k. 4x 36 is failure prone, far
from ideal, not recommended. And yet guys do it with 50-50
results, despite our admonition.


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #28  
Old September 7th 13, 12:10 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default engine onnatop placement implications

On 09/06/2013 08:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/6/2013 9:17 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 09/06/2013 02:19 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic
>>>>>> bullet on
>>>>>> wheel building books. jobst's book will allow you to
>>>>>> calculate spoke length from first principles [although,
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> allow for the elongation that happens as they tension],
>>>>>> lace, true and tension, but it'll also have you
>>>>>> over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives
>>>>>> you a
>>>>>> very iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no
>>>>>> initial clue on how to position a hub so the label aligns
>>>>>> with the valve hole, as per conventional practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position
>>>>>> problem, and have you stress relieve better, but you'll be
>>>>>> reliant on others for spoke length. his lacing method is
>>>>>> also unnecessarily complicated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub
>>>>>> positioning, but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst
>>>>>> bullied into him. and his stress relief method blows
>>>>>> chunks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding
>>>>>> guide is
>>>>>> pretty good. absolutely the best stress relief method. but
>>>>>> it tells you nothing about spoke length calculation,
>>>>>> presumably because if you're rebuilding a mavic wheel,
>>>>>> you're already using spokes of predetermined length.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and
>>>>>> if you're thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics
>>>>>> and don't already have a strong understanding of
>>>>>> mechanical
>>>>>> principles and materials, it'll badly **** you up
>>>>>> because a
>>>>>> lot of what he says is just plain wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this
>>>>>> before. there are definitely benefits to learning in that
>>>>>> most people don't have access to a good builder.
>>>>>> statistically, that includes you. once you can build
>>>>>> yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most
>>>>>> shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains
>>>>>> true
>>>>>> and stable almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in
>>>>>> "other people built" wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with
>>>>>> unconventional rear spoking pattern*, have remained
>>>>>> completely true despite some fearful abuse. same for my
>>>>>> townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked
>>>>>> streets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * convention is that you go
>>>>>> trailing-leading-leading-trailing when looking at the four
>>>>>> hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes with
>>>>>> increasing tension from drive torque to distort the
>>>>>> wheel's
>>>>>> dish less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following
>>>>>> this principle, you need to lace
>>>>>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction
>>>>>> opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to
>>>>>> lace, but it's specified in the shimano hub manual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good overview.
>>>>> That rear spoking pattern for disc/drum rears is also
>>>>> the preferered
>>>>> 'old guy' way for fronts, which need no particular bias.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> thanks for the comprehensive wrapup,
>>> took the time to setup thunderbird w eternal september
>>> again so I can
>>> crosspost at will ;-)
>>>
>>> My CXP-33 is laced over-4 whatever that means and the
>>> ceramic open pro
>>> is over-3

>>
>> "three cross" is conventional with an open pro. "4x" on a
>> cxp33 is not something i'd do because it's not got as much
>> socket angle available as the open pro - which is precisely
>> what "4x" requires. i'd therefore expect spokes to be more
>> likely to break at the threads.
>>
>> presumably the builder was looking to make the cxp33 a
>> slightly "softer" ride - the cxp33 is very deep and thus
>> rigid so it can ride "harsh" compared to others. ["4x"
>> spokes are longer and thus theoretically slightly more
>> elastic.] i'd have gone with a lower spoke count and "2x"
>> personally.
>>
>>
>> [another criticism of "the book" - jobst has succeeded in
>> making most people think of "spoke crossing count" as one of
>> the parameters for spoke length calculation. this is
>> somewhat misleading since you can compute a result for
>> 2.7179 "crossings", even though no such thing is possible.
>> the fact is, the "crossing" number is in fact the number of
>> hub hole offsets from the "key" position, and this doesn't
>> have to be an integer.]
>>
>>
>>> not sure how that meshes with
>>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing
>>> and trailing-leading-leading-trailing

>>
>> doesn't for "crossing" count.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> For next year cross competition I wonder if I'd reuse my
>>> roadbike
>>> to get a 26"er or 29"er. Though the latter is a bit too
>>> portly
>>> for competitions, I think
>>>
>>>
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>> in that vein, old guys used to tie and solder. jobst went
>>>> out of his way
>>>> to pour scorn on that practice, but doesn't do it in what
>>>> is an actually
>>>> scientific way, just a pseudo-scientific way - i.e. the
>>>> scientific way
>>>> is "objective, methods, results, conclusions". he just
>>>> leaps from method
>>>> to conclusions, omitting actual results. yet he blithely
>>>> accepts spoke
>>>> interleaving as "stabilizing the spoke structure" with no
>>>> analysis
>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> [i know, broken record, but i really can't understand why
>>>> other people
>>>> don't see this stuff when reading - you don't need to be
>>>> an engineer to
>>>> have logical inconsistency slap you in the face.]
>>>
>>> it's the "blond gene". you don't have to understand it,
>>> just accept "as is"

>>
>> cringe.
>>
>>

>
> Not enough information.
>
> 4x 48 spokes builds to an optimal spoke angle. 4x 40h is good, better
> than 3x.
> 4x with 32h is a clusterf**k. 4x 36 is failure prone, far from ideal,
> not recommended. And yet guys do it with 50-50 results, despite our
> admonition.


indeed. so as we know the rim is cxp33, 4x is inappropriate given that
it's either 28 or 32 hole.


--
fact check required
  #29  
Old September 9th 13, 10:29 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default engine onnatop placement implications

On Saturday, September 7, 2013 2:10:56 AM UTC+3, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/06/2013 08:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> > On 9/6/2013 9:17 AM, jim beam wrote:

>
> >> On 09/06/2013 02:19 AM, wrote:

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>> unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic

>
> >>>>>> bullet on

>
> >>>>>> wheel building books. jobst's book will allow you to

>
> >>>>>> calculate spoke length from first principles [although,

>
> >>>>>> not

>
> >>>>>> allow for the elongation that happens as they tension],

>
> >>>>>> lace, true and tension, but it'll also have you

>
> >>>>>> over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives

>
> >>>>>> you a

>
> >>>>>> very iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no

>
> >>>>>> initial clue on how to position a hub so the label aligns

>
> >>>>>> with the valve hole, as per conventional practice.

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>> gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position

>
> >>>>>> problem, and have you stress relieve better, but you'll be

>
> >>>>>> reliant on others for spoke length. his lacing method is

>
> >>>>>> also unnecessarily complicated.

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>> sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub

>
> >>>>>> positioning, but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst

>
> >>>>>> bullied into him. and his stress relief method blows

>
> >>>>>> chunks.

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>> if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding

>
> >>>>>> guide is

>
> >>>>>> pretty good. absolutely the best stress relief method. but

>
> >>>>>> it tells you nothing about spoke length calculation,

>
> >>>>>> presumably because if you're rebuilding a mavic wheel,

>
> >>>>>> you're already using spokes of predetermined length.

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>> so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and

>
> >>>>>> if you're thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics

>
> >>>>>> and don't already have a strong understanding of

>
> >>>>>> mechanical

>
> >>>>>> principles and materials, it'll badly **** you up

>
> >>>>>> because a

>
> >>>>>> lot of what he says is just plain wrong.

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>> as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this

>
> >>>>>> before. there are definitely benefits to learning in that

>
> >>>>>> most people don't have access to a good builder.

>
> >>>>>> statistically, that includes you. once you can build

>
> >>>>>> yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most

>
> >>>>>> shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains

>
> >>>>>> true

>
> >>>>>> and stable almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in

>
> >>>>>> "other people built" wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with

>
> >>>>>> unconventional rear spoking pattern*, have remained

>
> >>>>>> completely true despite some fearful abuse. same for my

>
> >>>>>> townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked

>
> >>>>>> streets.

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>> * convention is that you go

>
> >>>>>> trailing-leading-leading-trailing when looking at the four

>
> >>>>>> hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes with

>
> >>>>>> increasing tension from drive torque to distort the

>
> >>>>>> wheel's

>
> >>>>>> dish less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following

>
> >>>>>> this principle, you need to lace

>
> >>>>>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction

>
> >>>>>> opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to

>
> >>>>>> lace, but it's specified in the shimano hub manual.

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> Good overview.

>
> >>>>> That rear spoking pattern for disc/drum rears is also

>
> >>>>> the preferered

>
> >>>>> 'old guy' way for fronts, which need no particular bias.

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>

>
> >>>

>
> >>> thanks for the comprehensive wrapup,

>
> >>> took the time to setup thunderbird w eternal september

>
> >>> again so I can

>
> >>> crosspost at will ;-)

>
> >>>

>
> >>> My CXP-33 is laced over-4 whatever that means and the

>
> >>> ceramic open pro

>
> >>> is over-3

>
> >>

>
> >> "three cross" is conventional with an open pro. "4x" on a

>
> >> cxp33 is not something i'd do because it's not got as much

>
> >> socket angle available as the open pro - which is precisely

>
> >> what "4x" requires. i'd therefore expect spokes to be more

>
> >> likely to break at the threads.

>
> >>

>
> >> presumably the builder was looking to make the cxp33 a

>
> >> slightly "softer" ride - the cxp33 is very deep and thus

>
> >> rigid so it can ride "harsh" compared to others. ["4x"

>
> >> spokes are longer and thus theoretically slightly more

>
> >> elastic.] i'd have gone with a lower spoke count and "2x"

>
> >> personally.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> [another criticism of "the book" - jobst has succeeded in

>
> >> making most people think of "spoke crossing count" as one of

>
> >> the parameters for spoke length calculation. this is

>
> >> somewhat misleading since you can compute a result for

>
> >> 2.7179 "crossings", even though no such thing is possible.

>
> >> the fact is, the "crossing" number is in fact the number of

>
> >> hub hole offsets from the "key" position, and this doesn't

>
> >> have to be an integer.]

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>> not sure how that meshes with

>
> >>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing

>
> >>> and trailing-leading-leading-trailing

>
> >>

>
> >> doesn't for "crossing" count.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>>

>
> >>> For next year cross competition I wonder if I'd reuse my

>
> >>> roadbike

>
> >>> to get a 26"er or 29"er. Though the latter is a bit too

>
> >>> portly

>
> >>> for competitions, I think

>
> >>>

>
> >>>

>
> >>>> interesting.

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> in that vein, old guys used to tie and solder. jobst went

>
> >>>> out of his way

>
> >>>> to pour scorn on that practice, but doesn't do it in what

>
> >>>> is an actually

>
> >>>> scientific way, just a pseudo-scientific way - i.e. the

>
> >>>> scientific way

>
> >>>> is "objective, methods, results, conclusions". he just

>
> >>>> leaps from method

>
> >>>> to conclusions, omitting actual results. yet he blithely

>
> >>>> accepts spoke

>
> >>>> interleaving as "stabilizing the spoke structure" with no

>
> >>>> analysis

>
> >>>> whatsoever.

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> [i know, broken record, but i really can't understand why

>
> >>>> other people

>
> >>>> don't see this stuff when reading - you don't need to be

>
> >>>> an engineer to

>
> >>>> have logical inconsistency slap you in the face.]

>
> >>>

>
> >>> it's the "blond gene". you don't have to understand it,

>
> >>> just accept "as is"

>
> >>

>
> >> cringe.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> > Not enough information.

>
> >

>
> > 4x 48 spokes builds to an optimal spoke angle. 4x 40h is good, better

>
> > than 3x.

>
> > 4x with 32h is a clusterf**k. 4x 36 is failure prone, far from ideal,

>
> > not recommended. And yet guys do it with 50-50 results, despite our

>
> > admonition.

>


4x36 was developing figure8th before I changed the wheelbuilder
and last guy apparently did a faitly good job, that or I haven't
ridden long enough after the last rebuild


>
>
> indeed. so as we know the rim is cxp33, 4x is inappropriate given that
>
> it's either 28 or 32 hole.
>

it is a 36 hole cxp-33

I could recount the spokes but I belive I did ask for 36 and that's what I got.
In fact the open pro is similarly overbuilt being 36-holy
(but cross 2)

can't get cxp-33 in 40 or 48 hole versions. I think.

for 40 or 48 I guess I'd have to get some sort of a touring rim
not that it's a bad thing since I value reliability over weight/speed

what are my options for mtb rims in 26" and 28" in 40 or 48?
(if any)
  #30  
Old September 9th 13, 10:49 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default engine onnatop placement implications

On Friday, September 6, 2013 6:33:48 PM UTC+3, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/6/2013 9:17 AM, jim beam wrote:
>
> > On 09/06/2013 02:19 AM, wrote:

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> unfortunately, i don't think there's any one magic

>
> >>>>> bullet on

>
> >>>>> wheel building books. jobst's book will allow you to

>
> >>>>> calculate spoke length from first principles [although,

>
> >>>>> not

>
> >>>>> allow for the elongation that happens as they tension],

>
> >>>>> lace, true and tension, but it'll also have you

>
> >>>>> over-tension, bend spokes unnecessarily, and he gives

>
> >>>>> you a

>
> >>>>> very iffy "stress relief" method. you'll also have no

>
> >>>>> initial clue on how to position a hub so the label aligns

>
> >>>>> with the valve hole, as per conventional practice.

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> gerdt schraner's book will solve the hub label position

>
> >>>>> problem, and have you stress relieve better, but you'll be

>
> >>>>> reliant on others for spoke length. his lacing method is

>
> >>>>> also unnecessarily complicated.

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> sheldon brown's online guide is very good on lacing, hub

>
> >>>>> positioning, but repeats a lot of the garbage that jobst

>
> >>>>> bullied into him. and his stress relief method blows

>
> >>>>> chunks.

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> if you can find it online, the mavic wheelbuilding

>
> >>>>> guide is

>
> >>>>> pretty good. absolutely the best stress relief method. but

>
> >>>>> it tells you nothing about spoke length calculation,

>
> >>>>> presumably because if you're rebuilding a mavic wheel,

>
> >>>>> you're already using spokes of predetermined length.

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> so, "don't read that book in isolation" is my advice. and

>
> >>>>> if you're thinking you want to understand wheel mechanics

>
> >>>>> and don't already have a strong understanding of

>
> >>>>> mechanical

>
> >>>>> principles and materials, it'll badly **** you up

>
> >>>>> because a

>
> >>>>> lot of what he says is just plain wrong.

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> as to building wheels for yourself, we've discussed this

>
> >>>>> before. there are definitely benefits to learning in that

>
> >>>>> most people don't have access to a good builder.

>
> >>>>> statistically, that includes you. once you can build

>
> >>>>> yourself, and you take the time to do it right, which most

>
> >>>>> shops seldom invest, you can have a wheel that remains

>
> >>>>> true

>
> >>>>> and stable almost indefinitely. that's a rare beastie in

>
> >>>>> "other people built" wheels. my mtb wheels, complete with

>
> >>>>> unconventional rear spoking pattern*, have remained

>
> >>>>> completely true despite some fearful abuse. same for my

>
> >>>>> townie fixie on san fran's pot-holed, cable car tracked

>
> >>>>> streets.

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> * convention is that you go

>
> >>>>> trailing-leading-leading-trailing when looking at the four

>
> >>>>> hub sides, theory being that this allows the spokes with

>
> >>>>> increasing tension from drive torque to distort the

>
> >>>>> wheel's

>
> >>>>> dish less. with a disk braked rear, if you're following

>
> >>>>> this principle, you need to lace

>
> >>>>> leading-trailing-leading-trailing because braking reaction

>
> >>>>> opposes drive torque. it's a little more complicated to

>
> >>>>> lace, but it's specified in the shimano hub manual.

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> Good overview.

>
> >>>> That rear spoking pattern for disc/drum rears is also

>
> >>>> the preferered

>
> >>>> 'old guy' way for fronts, which need no particular bias.

>
> >>>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> thanks for the comprehensive wrapup,

>
> >> took the time to setup thunderbird w eternal september

>
> >> again so I can

>
> >> crosspost at will ;-)

>
> >>

>
> >> My CXP-33 is laced over-4 whatever that means and the

>
> >> ceramic open pro

>
> >> is over-3

>
> >

>
> > "three cross" is conventional with an open pro. "4x" on a

>
> > cxp33 is not something i'd do because it's not got as much

>
> > socket angle available as the open pro - which is precisely

>
> > what "4x" requires. i'd therefore expect spokes to be more

>
> > likely to break at the threads.

>
> >

>
> > presumably the builder was looking to make the cxp33 a

>
> > slightly "softer" ride - the cxp33 is very deep and thus

>
> > rigid so it can ride "harsh" compared to others. ["4x"

>
> > spokes are longer and thus theoretically slightly more

>
> > elastic.] i'd have gone with a lower spoke count and "2x"

>
> > personally.

>


Maybe I have cross 2 in front and cross 3 in the back.
Tell me how to count and I'll tell for sure :^)

I wanted higher rigidity for the rear to I asked for higher cross
count for the rear wheel. To tell the truth it's probably an overkill
for the amount of power I deliver to the wheel anyway, but ferrari
owners don't use even half of the capacity also. So what the heck.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why does govt care about airline safety but not highway safety?? Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year Driving 12 December 1st 10 03:52 AM
Big 3 Bust Implications Vic Smith Honda 13 December 13th 08 11:56 PM
engine stand placement peter Mazda 1 April 24th 07 01:41 AM
98 CR-V Rear door lock problem/safety hazard [email protected] Honda 3 July 11th 06 03:54 PM
Safety Device, Warning Triangles, Highway Safety, Accidents tmosomega 4x4 1 December 29th 05 11:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.