Spoke Strentgh (My spokes are breaking like mad...)

liveforphysics said:
I don't know if you're insane, badly confused, or just f*cking with people, but there are no meaningful compressive loading in a spoke in a bicycle rim.

This is true, for the magnitudes of forces at issue. But an inflated inner tube can push back hard enough against a spoke nipple head to buckle the spoke. It does not take much force. Nor does it make any difference, versus the spoke just slipping free of the rim hole without compression.

Chalo
 
Drunkskunk said:
Its not just the spokes oppisite of the force that take the pressure. Its also the spokes to the sides.

All the spoke tensions change when the wheel is loaded. But the only ones that change very much are right above the contact patch. From http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/, the following diagram lists change in individual spoke tension from a load applied at the wheel. Positive numbers indicate an increase in tension, and negative numbers indicate a decrease. Note that the tension change in spokes over the contact patch is ten to twenty times that of the other spokes in the wheel.

3c_spoke_values.png


Some folks postulate that the loaded hub hangs from the upper spokes in the wheel, but that hypothetical model isn't borne out by the numbers.

You can demonstrate the phenomenon yourself by plucking or pinging spokes at different points on the wheel, unloaded and when someone else is sitting on the bike. You'll find the only major change in pitch is in the vicinity of the wheel's contact with the ground.

Chalo
 
KF,

I'm sorry dude, but I knew you were toast as soon as you felt the need to pull out the credentials. It reminded me of when the physics professor thought he'd correct me about the virtually nil effect on handling if our battery weight was could be placed at the rear wheel contact patch. As I recall a few were pulling out credentials on that one.

FWIW, compression is what tried to happen on my son's radial laced wheel, but the nipples just pressed right on through the holes on the rim and punctured the tube in multiple places. That's what leads me to believe that radial laced wheels are not as strong, because there's no give and they don't spread the load as well cross lacing does.

John
 
liveforphysics said:
I don't know if you're insane, badly confused, or just f*cking with people, but there are no meaningful compressive loading in a spoke in a bicycle rim.

Can you tell me by what mechanism the spoke is constrained by to compress? Are you suggesting my 2 passes of electrical tape and my bicycle inner tube at 20psi (pressure I run on the back of deathbike so I get decent traction) are what the nipple pushes against to enable it to experience any compression loading?

Diameter of the head of my spoke nipple is 0.292", surface area is 0.0669in^2 times pressure in the tube of 20psi = 1.33lbs of force the tire pressure in the tube exerts on the back of the nipple. Lets say it's a roadbike wheel at 100psi with a full size mt.bike nipple in it, it's 6.65lbs of force being applied by the tube to the nipple for a best case scenario. Is this force what you believe contrains the back end of the nipple to enable a spoke be meaningfully loaded in compression???


Can you describe the mechanism in which you believe the spoke is constrained in the wheel to have meaningful compression load imparted to it?
Easy. If you had worked in a field of physics, you’d already know the answer and you wouldn’t have to ask. :lol:

Compression and Tension are vector forces that act in opposition. The Energy Balance Equation for a static object says that

  • Compression + Tension = Zero.
Therefore, Compression = -Tension, or Tension = -Compression; all forces being neutral and static, Compression and Tension must balance.

A bicycle wheel under normal conditions will have spokes in tension, and the fasteners (including hooked ends) in compression. Can you describe with equation the Potential Energy of this model? :)

Let’s say I’m on my bike moving at great speed and I hit a Seattle pothole; forgetting about my body, the forces acting upon the front wheel goes like this:

Energy (Bike-moment before impact) = Energy (Bike-moment after impact)

Mechanically, Bike (before impact; condition: perfect) = Bike (after impact; condition: flawed). A classic non-elastic collision, yes?

With elastic impacts, such as billiard balls, the Cue ball shoots across the table, hits the bumper, and continues to move in the relative opposite angle of attack; we know some energy is absorb, but visually it appears that energy is conserved and the ball bounces with equal force onward.
In non-elastic collisions energy is absorbed and transferred into other vectors and forms. The wheel hits the pothole, and the rim compresses (there’s that word again). Let’s pick the worst case; the rim fails. Kinetic Energy is transferred at the point of contact between the part of the rim that connected with the ground (ideally the blunt point of trauma) and reflected backward (like the billiard ball) through the rest of the bike frame. At the rim and ground, the vector of force is (ideally) straight back to the axle via the spokes.

The rim: Ideally the rim wants to remain circular by virtue of the construction (cross-section rotated about an axis + metallurgical traits) and by the forces of tension which constrain the shape about the wheel axle (hub). However, in the worst case, the rim compresses and deforms. In the perfect model, compression will deform into the shape of an oval, although in reality, the momentum of the bike which is attached at the axle/hub, resists change, and moves the axle closer to the point of impact, and creating imbalanced off-center loading. Thus the spokes forward of the axle go into compression, and the spokes on the far side go into hypertension.

Now since the spokes are already in tension all the way around the wheel, the reflected kinetic energy traveling backwards has to compress against the momentum of the bike which is moving forward; this is the shock wave, the reaction, the reflected change in the immutable force that is going to break the wheel.

Let’s go back to the perfect wheel before impact: Spokes are in perfect tension, fasteners are in perfect compression, and although the forces are balanced, there is Potential Energy.

During the failure of the wheel, the rim is compressing inwards, the force of this compression, this shock wave, is moving backward through the system. The tension is removed and the spokes HAVE TO go into compression in reaction because the Potential Energy has been released, and like a spring, the spoke compresses by itself in its’ own Energy Balance Equation, and when it does, it will sing audibly in resonance as it tries to dissipate the momentary massive shock of energy. Combine this with the shock wave of impact, well… the wheel is at failure!

Where do we begin? The rim is deforming, the holes that hold the spokes are deforming, the fasteners are deforming, the spokes are reacting at several orders, and really – there’s not much to stop them from failing as well. They can become deformed, detached, or spring-loaded in which case they’re going to travel in the path of least resistance, including puncture.

But let’s spin the problem the other way around and see if we can make it work the way you are suggesting:

If the rim deforms (avoiding the word compression) then the tension in the spokes becomes less until… let’s say it becomes Zero; there’s no more tension on that side and they become sturdy rods that puncture the tube and tire, or they break or bend.

Well, first – the spokes are pulled tight like a spring to hold the rim in place. A spring that suddenly has the tension cut will react how? It’s a rod that have been elongated to create the tension, therefore when the tension is catastrophically removed, the rod shortens and wants to return to the natural unloaded shape, but instead overshoots and compresses. And it resonates when doing so, just like a FET gate has a ring to it, a harmonic.

But let’s say it didn’t compress at all, let’s say that it snapped back perfectly without bounce. That spoke has to compress to puncture the tire, it has to compress to resist the caving rim. It has to compress to resist the shock wave. And it has to compress before it bends and breaks.

That’s just the natural order of things.

Let me explain it another way:
I have a concrete beam placed across the freeway as part of a bridge span. When they fabricated the beam, they placed steel cables through it combined with rebar to provide structure and strength. Before they poured the concrete, the steel cables were placed under tremendous tension. Add the concrete, allow to cure, then release the cable tension: What happens to the beam? It bows ever so slightly upward in resistance to tension. The beam now has Potential Energy to resist collapse. We place the beam horizontally across the freeway at two fixed points, at the point-loads, the fulcrum (albeit static). We place a bunch of these in parallel then top with a reinforced concrete deck, and allow curing. A dump truck carrying a heavy load of rock and gravel crosses the span. The pre-stressed beams prevent collapse of the span whilst they are in maximum compression as the truck reaches the midpoint. A bicycle rim in normal operating conditions does not stray far from this model; we just don’t have any concrete.

Whoops! The Cascadia Plate breaks loose and we’re experiencing a 9.1 magnitude earthquake at the time the dump truck reaches the center of the span and the bridge fails. When that span hits the earth below, I guarantee it is in compression something fierce! The steel cable within the beams are acting like spokes on the wheel. If that span fails, and those beams fail, what do you think it going to happen to those cables? More importantly, do you want to be around?

Ever watch an aircraft land on a Navy Carrier? Ever seen the arresting cable snap, and what it does do people in the way? Tension = Potential Energy, and when suddenly released, compresses in reaction, and can be deadly.


What’s the next question?
~KF

PS – Deflection is still Compression in action. :)
 
Kingfish said:
What’s the next question?
~KF

PS – Deflection is still Compression in action. :)



Let's do a quick sanity test KF.

Are you saying that you believe compressive loading over the spokes length is a meaningful component of the strength (ability to avoid a wheel breaking failure) of a bicycle wheel?

(This is a yes or no question)

If you do believe it, please do define the two points defining the constraint of the spoke to be capable of meaningful compressive loading. (perhaps you think it's the inflated tube? A rubber strip over the nipples? alien force fields?)
 
I have an easy way out for both of you guys
semantics :idea:
Chalo was looking at the same webpage...

"negative values indicate a compression. This is a change from the unloaded state, so compression doesn't actually mean compression, it means reduction in tension"


I have another wrench to throw in, but we should clarify we are talking about normal conventional bicycle wheels:

9411.jpg

Light & Stiff Traction Compression. Extremely light Tracomp carbon fiber spokes works in traction and compression to provide a very high stiffness level in any circumstances.

Under normal loads, wheel deflection is limited by the very high traction resistance of carbon fibers
Under greater loads, where a normal wheel would flex more because of one of its spoke loosening, Tracomp spokes enter into compression and keep supporting the rim, preventing any further wheel deflection

^these would probably snap like a twig off road. flex can be good. a tensegrity is a pneumatic structure
 
I've been sending a lot of 12ga spokes to Seattle area for fixies lately. I keep asking why they need such thick spokes, and they tell me everything else breaks! Evidently they don't care so much that the wheel needs constant attention or locktight, they just want spokes that won't break from potholes.
 
liveforphysics said:
Kingfish said:
What’s the next question?
~KF

PS – Deflection is still Compression in action. :)



Let's do a quick sanity test KF.

Are you saying that you believe compressive loading over the spokes length is a meaningful component of the strength (ability to avoid a wheel breaking failure) of a bicycle wheel?

(This is a yes or no question)

If you do believe it, please do define the two points defining the constraint of the spoke to be capable of meaningful compressive loading. (perhaps you think it's the inflated tube? A rubber strip over the nipples? alien force fields?)

Luke, I believe that with a properly tuned wheel assembly, spokes should remain in tension at all times during normal loading and when taking small impacts that are recoverable; during elastic collisions – however small. :)

  • Forces that act upon rims that cause them to warp, deflect, change shape in measurable amounts are due primarily to compression or shear. Lateral forces are compressive. Shock of impact, shock waves are compressive.
  • A hub motor accelerating quickly or during regen though in my mind is actually adding tension. :wink:
  • A wheel that is in the process of failing due to impact is compressing. The tension of spoke can and often does reduce to zero due to this force, and if the destructive nature continues – compresses, and if the material reaches beyond the moment to flex, will instead yield up to complete failure. :(
I’m surprised no one has done any diligence to source evidence, so allow me to lead.

img_0221.crop.jpg

Deformation caused by compression.

76636530_d2fe9014cb.jpg

Ouch! Definitely compression failure.

mavic+r-sys.jpg

Shattered!

3273157983_1213f0e18d.jpg

Whoa!

inbikedamage6840.gif

Yikes!

twisted-fixie-small.jpg

Ye gawds!

4322261664_31c7211308.jpg

Cringe...

4866056410_36854b4d0d.jpg

Sniff...

broken-bicycle-thumb13404115.jpg

Bummer.

Sabins%20wheel%20April%202010.jpg

Dang!

broken+wheel.bmp

Nasty...

broken-bicycle-wheel.png

Wow!

broken-bike.jpg

Holy moly!

Broken-bicycle.jpg

Geez-Louise!

broken-bike-wheel.jpg

Whoops...

broken-bicycle-carl-purcell.jpg

O' the pain, the pain!

  • OK - so, which one of these wheels had the spokes go through the rim?
  • Which ones do you think were not affected by compression due to impact?
  • Aside from the CR rim, how many have broken or detached spokes (separated from the rim)?
  • How many spokes are bent?

The Defense rests. :)
~KF
 
So far you're failing the sanity test my friend.


I will repeat the question for you.

Let's do a quick sanity test KF.

Are you saying that you believe compressive loading over the spokes length is a meaningful component of the strength (ability to avoid a wheel breaking failure) of a bicycle wheel?

(This is a yes or no question)
 
Kingfish said:
A hub motor accelerating quickly or during regen though in my mind is actually adding tension.

Motor torque in the forward direction adds tension to the trailing spokes, while subtracting an equal amount of tension from the leading spokes. In a radially laced wheel, torque adds tension and causes all the spokes to wind up and trail the hub a little bit while force is being applied. The same things occur under regenerative or disc braking, but in the reverse direction.

Chalo
 
liveforphysics said:
So far you're failing the sanity test my friend.


I will repeat the question for you.

Let's do a quick sanity test KF.

Are you saying that you believe compressive loading over the spokes length is a meaningful component of the strength (ability to avoid a wheel breaking failure) of a bicycle wheel?

(This is a yes or no question)
What are you on about? The wheel gets its’ strength from tension. Compression in large amounts is a bad thing. That’s why we have rubber tires, tubes, and shock absorbers, and to a small degree, spokes – to absorb it. When they fail, we crash. Why would that be a good? Unless… the alternative was my body going head first over the top: Then I could appreciate the bike crumpling up to a useless heap.

Hmmm, now that I think about it, maybe that’s the whole point of the design: Resist, resist, resist, then finally fail under compression.

Interesting…
~KF
 
Hooray! Excellent first step!

I'm glad we can agree the wheel gets all its meaningful strength from tension.

Now, if we agree that all it's meaningful strength comes from tension, that means compression of a spoke has no meaningful function in the strength of a spoked bicycle wheel.

Various spokes of course torn out and/or all wadded up and twisted and warped and bent when a hub changes substantial relative position from the rim, or the rim buckles or twists etc etc. However, the spokes getting wadded up (call it compression, deflection, whatever you like) are purely a symptom of the root problem occurring, and are NOT related to the mechanism which provides any meaningful strength to the wheel system. (because as we agreed above, tension is what provides all of the meaningful strength).


So, we don't have to even mention the word compression when talking about wheel strength and how to avoid failure etc do we? It's a bit like talking about how your bumper smashes in on your car when you crash it, the bumper is not a substantial part of the problem at all, which is the car crashing.


So, we know this tension on the spokes is what carries all the load in the wheel. What can you do to make the wheel stronger then? You can distribute this tension over as wide of area, as many of those little eyelets in the rim as possible for a given amount of force the wheel is taking (pot-hole or curb impact etc).

I guess the next step is to agree the rim deflects under force and changes to a bit different shape under force. Can we agree on that?


If we can agree on that, then we know if the spokes are made of some magic material with no stretch, and the lengths of them are designed to be sharing the pre-tension load when the rim is in it's resting shape, what happens when the rim hit the bump and deflects? Our magic no-stretch spokes can't stretch longer, and they couldn't have been in a pre-stretched condition to enable them to shrink in distance, so what happens? Do you see all the stresses all get distributed to just a couple of points with imaginary no-stretch spokes?

What happens if the spokes were made of a material that did have perhaps 1-2mm of pre-stretch in it, and the ability to stretch another 1mm? When you hit that bump and the rim deflects and changes shape, some spokes can contract in length a bit as some tension is relieved from them, and other spokes grow a bit as tension is increased on them, and your system is still capable of distributing stress over many of the eyelets in the rim, distributing the force over a wider area, and not just creating a pair of massive spoke snapping stress-risers as we can see in our magic no-stretch spoke model.


This concept is difficult to explain, but is any of this sinking in my friend?
 
makes perfect sense luke,

in other words, string (if strong enough) would do the job well instead of spokes, cos they are only ever (usefully) under tension, and string clearly cannot apply a compressive force.

and having some stretch helps spread out the load and absorb impacts while all spokes still share the load evenly (ideally), rather than (if fully stiff) just a few that would try and take ALL the load alone and therefore fail. stretch is the spokes way of saving the most highly loaded spoke that is just about to break, by calling in its other spoke buddys to lend a hand, share the blow and live on.
 
So we have established that spokes need proper tension for a wheel to be ideal.


I think we should focus some efforts on making changes to the parts we use so that we can have ideal wheels in the future. Mostly around hub motors, as regular wheels have no issues. If we can have 1/4 the effort spent on discussing solutions to the problem as we have spent discussing the physics of a wheel we could really get somewhere. :mrgreen:


So who else has ideas on how to reduce spoke breakage with hub motors? SOMEBODY other than myself has to have an opinion on it, there are plenty of people with opinions around here :lol:
 
johnrobholmes said:
So who else has ideas on how to reduce spoke breakage with hub motors? SOMEBODY other than myself has to have an opinion on it, there are plenty of people with opinions around here :lol:

It seems as simple to me as Good quality spokes who's gauge is appropriatly matched to the rim, propperly tensioned and maintained.

But I could add complexity to that answer saying we need rims designed with angled holes much like motorcycle rims so we could lace a hub in a double or tripple cross pattern with out putting strain on the nipples.
And imagine a 12/15/12 spoke. Strong threads and elbow, without being too stiff.
 
Rims, yes. Anybody versed in some good taiwan rim manufacturers that have cheap tooling rates? I think that we should forget about spoke problems until the rim problem is addressed first. If we had just one proper rim for MTB tires that would allow for 2x lacing, we could focus our efforts elsewhere and have a wheel to be ridden without worry.
 
Rims and Tires Reference

Spokes:
Material sciences already provide methodology for understanding stress and strain. We have to consider the following properties…
  • Hardness; resist wear and penetration.
  • Malleability; ability to deform before rupture, effects manufacturing.
  • Toughness; ability to resist high-impact (shock) loads.
  • Ductility; ability to deform under tensile load before rupture, ability to elongate.
  • Brittleness; tendency to fail with very little deformation.
  • Elasticity; ability to return to the original shape after elongation and without memory, springiness.
  • Plasticity; ability to deform nonelastically without rupturing .
  • Stiffness; ability to resist deformation. Stiffness varies directly as its’ modulus of elasticity.
  • Alloy; the blend of two or more materials, one being metal, and exhibiting metallic qualities.

The other spoke aspects we also need to consider are:
  • Thermal Expansion (example: copper, aside from being ductile, would make for a poor spoke because of high thermal sensitivity, though not too bad for bi-metallic temperature gauges).
  • Thermal Stress; geometries that change shape to thermal conditions, and affected by uneven changes over the specimen length.
Ref: DT Swiss has a great little wizard for helping non-engineer types with picking and choosing.


Rims:
With rims, we also look at materials, welded, pinned, width, weight, cost, feedback...

If I wrote a wizard that could help a person figure what type of wheel they needed, the series of questions would go as follows:

  1. With regards to cycling, select one or more types from the list that best describe your activity:
    • Road, Touring, Trail, Downhill, Cross-Country, Recreation, Casual
  2. If more than one was selected, choose the primary activity.
  3. Based upon your selection, which frame best fits your overall activity? (See list)
  4. Do you presently have frame suspension in the Front, Rear, both, or none at all?
The magical wizard would then churn away and offer up a selection of tires, rims, and spokes. The list could be filtered by price, quality, manufacturer, physical features, and so forth.

Anyways, that's how my professional insane solution-driven mind works. :wink:
~KF
 
liveforphysics said:
Hooray! Excellent first step!

I'm glad we can agree the wheel gets all its meaningful strength from tension.

Now, if we agree that all it's meaningful strength comes from tension, that means compression of a spoke has no meaningful function in the strength of a spoked bicycle wheel.

Various spokes of course torn out and/or all wadded up and twisted and warped and bent when a hub changes substantial relative position from the rim, or the rim buckles or twists etc etc. However, the spokes getting wadded up (call it compression, deflection, whatever you like) are purely a symptom of the root problem occurring, and are NOT related to the mechanism which provides any meaningful strength to the wheel system. (because as we agreed above, tension is what provides all of the meaningful strength).


So, we don't have to even mention the word compression when talking about wheel strength and how to avoid failure etc do we? It's a bit like talking about how your bumper smashes in on your car when you crash it, the bumper is not a substantial part of the problem at all, which is the car crashing.


So, we know this tension on the spokes is what carries all the load in the wheel. What can you do to make the wheel stronger then? You can distribute this tension over as wide of area, as many of those little eyelets in the rim as possible for a given amount of force the wheel is taking (pot-hole or curb impact etc).

I guess the next step is to agree the rim deflects under force and changes to a bit different shape under force. Can we agree on that?


If we can agree on that, then we know if the spokes are made of some magic material with no stretch, and the lengths of them are designed to be sharing the pre-tension load when the rim is in it's resting shape, what happens when the rim hit the bump and deflects? Our magic no-stretch spokes can't stretch longer, and they couldn't have been in a pre-stretched condition to enable them to shrink in distance, so what happens? Do you see all the stresses all get distributed to just a couple of points with imaginary no-stretch spokes?

What happens if the spokes were made of a material that did have perhaps 1-2mm of pre-stretch in it, and the ability to stretch another 1mm? When you hit that bump and the rim deflects and changes shape, some spokes can contract in length a bit as some tension is relieved from them, and other spokes grow a bit as tension is increased on them, and your system is still capable of distributing stress over many of the eyelets in the rim, distributing the force over a wider area, and not just creating a pair of massive spoke snapping stress-risers as we can see in our magic no-stretch spoke model.


This concept is difficult to explain, but is any of this sinking in my friend?

So, could a 'theoretic' wheel be created with small (albeit strong) fiber in place of the spokes? (Since only tension forces are relevant to wheel strength?)
 
johnrobholmes said:
If we can have 1/4 the effort spent on discussing solutions to the problem as we have spent discussing the physics of a wheel we could really get somewhere. :mrgreen:


This is something that you either have to trust on blind faith without understanding (as I did with Chalo's advise which seemed crazy and backwards, but totally fixed my wheel breaking issues), OR, you can try to understand the physics involved (a very difficult concept to grasp for most folks, including myself).

Once you gain a base understanding of how a wheel works, you can see that the bigger-is-better idea for spokes is backwards. Your perfect spoke size for the strongest most durable rim is a spoke no larger than your rim/nipple combo and pre-tension to the onset of yield. (Impossible to achieve for thick spokes in bicycle rims).

johnrobholmes said:
So who else has ideas on how to reduce spoke breakage with hub motors? SOMEBODY other than myself has to have an opinion on it, there are plenty of people with opinions around here :lol:


Yes! Need spokes that you can pre-stretch to yielding, then back-off a whisker. Having them fat at the common failure points is also an excellent idea. Fortunately, such a spoke exists. :)


Here is an excerpt from Sheldon Brown on the subject of spokes:

"Spokes come in straight-gauge or swaged (butted) styles. Straight-gauge spokes have the same thickness all along their length from the threads to the heads.

Swaged spokes come in 5 varieties:

Single-butted spokes are thicker than normal at the hub end, then taper to a thinner section all the way to the threads. Single-butted spokes are not common, but are occasionally seen in heavy-duty applications where a thicker-than-normal spoke is intended to be used with a rim that has normal-sized holes.
Double-butted spokes are thicker at the ends than in the middle. The most popular diameters are 2.0/1.8/2.0 mm (also known as 14/15 gauge) and 1.8/1.6/1.8 (15/16 gauge).
Double-butted spokes do more than save weight. The thick ends make them as strong in the highly-stressed areas as straight-gauge spokes of the same thickness, but the thinner middle sections make the spokes effectively more elastic, allowing them to stretch (temporarily) more than thicker spokes.

As a result, when the wheel is subjected to sharp localized stresses, the most heavily-stressed spokes can elongate enough to shift some of the stress to adjoining spokes. This is particularly desirable when the limiting factor is how much stress the rim can withstand without cracking around the spoke holes.

Triple-butted spokes, such as the DT Alpine III, are the best choice when durability and reliability is the primary aim, as with tandems and bicycles for loaded touring. They share the advantages of single-butted and double-butted spokes. The DT Alpine III, for instance, is 2.34 mm (13 gauge) at the head, 1.8 mm (15 gauge) in the middle, and 2.0 mm (14 gauge) at the threaded end.
Single- and triple-butted spokes solve one of the great problems of wheel design: Since spokes use rolled, not cut threads, the outside diameter of the threads is larger than the base diameter of the spoke wire. Since the holes in the hub flanges must be large enough for the threads to fit through, the holes, in turn, are larger than the wire requires. This is undesirable, because a tight match between the spoke diameter at the elbow and the diameter of the flange hole is crucial to resisting fatigue-related breakage.

Since single- and triple-butted spokes are thicker at the head end than at the thread end, they may be used with hubs that have holes just large enough to pass the thick wire at the head end."



DT Alpine 3 looks like the best spoke choice for making a bulletproof wheel IMHO. I run a very similar version by Saipam that features a 14awg/15awg/14awg butting patern, the DT Alpine 3 is a 13awg/15awg/14awg pattern, which should be a whisker better for hubmotors that generally have an excessively large spoke hole drilled.
 
Rim's with tipped nipple holes would also be handy, as it lets you run more angle in your spoke, which allows more spoke length to fit, and more spoke length means more material distance to stretch in a spoke, as well as closer to tangent angles leaving the hub to decrease the rise in spoke tension relative to torque load from the hub, but those forces are quite low relative to the hitting a pot-hole forces, the big advantage comes from the additional spoke length providing more distance of spoke length to stretch over.
 
Kingfish said:
Rims and Tires Reference

Spokes:
Material sciences already provide methodology for understanding stress and strain. We have to consider the following properties…
  • Hardness; resist wear and penetration.
  • Malleability; ability to deform before rupture, effects manufacturing.
  • Toughness; ability to resist high-impact (shock) loads.
  • Ductility; ability to deform under tensile load before rupture, ability to elongate.
  • Brittleness; tendency to fail with very little deformation.
  • Elasticity; ability to return to the original shape after elongation and without memory, springiness.
  • Plasticity; ability to deform nonelastically without rupturing .
  • Stiffness; ability to resist deformation. Stiffness varies directly as its’ modulus of elasticity.
  • Alloy; the blend of two or more materials, one being metal, and exhibiting metallic qualities.

The other spoke aspects we also need to consider are:
  • Thermal Expansion (example: copper, aside from being ductile, would make for a poor spoke because of high thermal sensitivity, though not too bad for bi-metallic temperature gauges).
  • Thermal Stress; geometries that change shape to thermal conditions, and affected by uneven changes over the specimen length.
Ref: DT Swiss has a great little wizard for helping non-engineer types with picking and choosing.


Rims:
With rims, we also look at materials, welded, pinned, width, weight, cost, feedback...

If I wrote a wizard that could help a person figure what type of wheel they needed, the series of questions would go as follows:

  1. With regards to cycling, select one or more types from the list that best describe your activity:
    • Road, Touring, Trail, Downhill, Cross-Country, Recreation, Casual
  2. If more than one was selected, choose the primary activity.
  3. Based upon your selection, which frame best fits your overall activity? (See list)
  4. Do you presently have frame suspension in the Front, Rear, both, or none at all?
The magical wizard would then churn away and offer up a selection of tires, rims, and spokes. The list could be filtered by price, quality, manufacturer, physical features, and so forth.

Anyways, that's how my professional insane solution-driven mind works. :wink:
~KF

kingfish,
listing the properties of metal, and various bike parts and riding types without ANY actual information seems of little use here, and is clearly a smokescreen.
luke and others are trying to help everyone understand, and pin you with very clear questions to find the exact point of divergence in thinking and work on it to put the truth (whatever that may be) out on the table, clear for everyone to ponder. ill admit though, it is hard though for us to soak up info until we actually want to. :wink:
 
So who else has ideas on how to reduce spoke breakage with hub motors?

Have Johnrobholmes lace your hub.
 
Back
Top