|
|
|
Re: for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:39:17 -0800 (PST)
On 15 Nov, 00:32, Marc <initial.surn...@btintrenet.co.uk> wrote:
> thirty-six wrote:
> > On 14 Nov, 23:55, Marc <initial.surn...@btintrenet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> thirty-six wrote:
>
> >> .
>
> >>>>>> So the wheel with looser spokes is less stable.
> >>>>> When taken to the extreme a loosley spoked wheel will beco ...
|
Re: Schwalbe Marathon Plus
Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:30:50 -0800 (PST)
On 14 Nov, 23:42, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:33:42 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
>
>
>
> <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 14 Nov, 23:02, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:52:44 ?, Tom Anderson
>
> ...
|
Re: for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:21:27 -0800 (PST)
On 14 Nov, 23:55, Marc <initial.surn...@btintrenet.co.uk> wrote:
> thirty-six wrote:
>
> .
>
> >>>> So the wheel with looser spokes is less stable.
> >>> When taken to the extreme a loosley spoked wheel will become unstable
> >>> with increasing load.
> >> No need for extremes - zero tension = zero lateral sta ...
|
Re: Schwalbe Marathon Plus
Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:42:23 +0000
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:33:42 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
<thirty-six@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14 Nov, 23:02, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:52:44 +0000, Tom Anderson
>>
>> <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>> >> Out ...
|
Re: for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:16:17 -0800 (PST)
On 14 Nov, 22:36, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> considered Sat, 14 Nov 2009
> >It's stabilized by the fore and aft spokes and the upper spokes. ?It's
> >an arch. ?Its a span that the rim can manage. [60deg of span of rim]
>
> Unless it gets some later ...
|
Re: for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:24:30 -0800 (PST)
On 14 Nov, 21:12, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 (PST), thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ?There is no reason for the lowest spokes to stay tight, they do not
> > ?and can not contribute to the support of the wheel for their force is
> > ?in the same direction as the ...
|
Re: for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:13:49 -0800 (PST)
On 14 Nov, 18:41, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> So you believe that it's not necessary for the lower 60¡ã if the rim to
> be stable.
It's stabilized by the fore and aft spokes and the upper spokes. It's
an arch. Its a span that the rim can manage.
> >Tight enough for WHAT? ?What ...
|
Did anyone see last night's 'Drivers in the Dock' on ITV?
Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:05:53 -0800 (PST)
The theme was 'Do cyclists in the UK need better protection from
motorists?' A very good question. As usual though the programme seemed
a little biased against cyclists, with the one taxi driver being
notably the worst. In one example a car rammed a cyclists from behind
and yet opinion seemed divided as to who was ...
|
Pavement motorist abuser blocks unusual wheelchair user.
Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:51:07 -0800 (PST)
All we usually hear about is pavement cyclists but what the pavement
motorists like this one? Of course, ordinary wheelchair users just
have to put up with it and be abused.
"An unsuspecting motorist had a shock when the wheelchair user he
abused turned out to be a chief constable.
Dyfed-Powys Police head Ian ...
|
Re: for Clive efficient running of wire spoked wheels abandoned urcm
Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:44:51 -0800 (PST)
On 13 Nov, 21:18, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> >and do tight spokes.
>
> Very little if they're tight enough.
'Tight enough' for what, rim destruction?
> >Buckled wheels are caused by insufficient lateral stability. ?
>
> Ok so far.
>
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ...
|
|
|
