Topwine

or just plainly, an ass ?

Context is everything. It depends how it is used. If you direct the wording to somebody in person, he might find it offensive, especially k@k, since some people's background is conservative. Others might have different cultures or backgrounds. It comes down to respect. Rather refrain from using it altogether, especially if you are unsure how somebody might react to it. What do you have to lose from using good language on a public forum?

Not knowing the full context myself, but judging from the quote, I tend to agree with you Matt. It was meant not as degrading, but rather jokingly, in my opinion.

Big H, alias Hendrik Pretorius, ek gaan jou base in die hande kry en vir hulle al hierdie gemors van jou aanstuur vir hulle om te oordeel of jy regtig daardie promosie verdien .

Hi Dangle You are wasting your time. Really, just ignore him. He has shown the world his ignorance and incompetence. It seems that he has even used 2 different log-ins in the past to post, so much does he loves it. Do the calculations of the amount of posts per day, times the years he has been at it. He has a problem, and I wonder how much work he gets done if he spends all the time posting and never mind the time reading probably every post on the hub. See here : https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/157-something-smells-in-here/page__view__findpost__p__2986

Dear Johan What concerns me, or rather amuses me, is the fact that you stubbornly refuses to accept the fact that the top spokes increases in tension and that the hub hangs from the top, and not stand on the bottom spokes. No matter what scientific evidence are provided, you just refuses to believe, and say you "observe" otherwise. I am at the point of declaring your views as utter nonsense, if you cannot provide "any" scientific thesis or evidence for your continuing ignorance of the science behind this all. There comes a point when you have to man up and concede that you have made the wrong conclusions and move on.

No, You don't even need a bearing to support a load like that, the rim can do it on its own. All the hub do, is transfer the load from the fork to the rim VIA the spokes. Capish ?

Just to confuse everybody again, , You get "standing" wheels as well, think ox wagon wheels. Those hubs actually stands on their wooden spokes, quite different from a modern bicycle wheel's hub which "hangs" from its spokes.

You can even make it more easier to understand. Imagine, there was only 1 spoke to the north connected to the hub and the rim. The opposing force would come from the earth first, transferred to the rim at the bottom, this will tend to lift the rim up, but it is balanced by the weight of the rider and the bicycle which hangs from the top of the rim via the hub connected by the 1 spoke. More simpler than this I cannot, and leave it to the "professor" , because now this "whiner" is going to bed

I think this is it. From both literature they assume the spokes as analogous to being a disc... "The test results are compared with an analysis that considers the spokes as a disk that can carry force in one direction only."

I think you confuse load being carried versus load being supported. The bottom few (4 or so ) spokes show a change in tension from positive to negative, which indicates they go from being in tension to being in (carrying) compression. But we know spokes can not support compression forces, they tend to buckle, as shown in the video of Hannes. I also disagree with you that the spokes at 90 and 270 would carry no load. They all tend to carry pretty equal tensile loads, except the bottom 4 or so, which carry compression loads. Go and see that video, it shows the distribution of forces and deformation of the wheel quite clearly. It's different forces in play here at the bottom. There is now bending moments because of the buckling and deformation.

second year of mechanics in what field of study? Of course, I inferred invalid assumption, you should know that. I don't agree; it makes all the difference, since you are evaluating a whole structure in its entirety , and not only parts of an structure. In this case however, you are correct that it has the same effect of showing magnitudes of results, but from an understanding point of view, of what is happening in real life, it is confusing and let people think it stand on the spokes, whereas it really hangs from the spokes in real life. It can be no other way.

In order to continue our debate, let us first define some points. What is your definition of (1)load being "carried" and (2) "almost none" ?

It "hangs" from the rim, connected via the spokes. To make it easier to understand, imagine a rim, a hub in the center and 2 spokes connected to the rim, one spoke to the North (N) and one to the south (S). What do you think will happen if you apply the force (weight of cyclist and bicycle) at the hub directly downwards (south) to the earth ? Just think of this for a second or 2.

Anyone can build a wheel, if he really wants to, by reading a bit, watching a few instructional videos and a bit of practice. Understanding the mechanics of a bicycle wheel is something different, especially the engineering side of it, where you need specialized knowledge of forces, their vectors, the methods of load transfer, tension vs compression, deformation, etc. For that , to make you an expert, you unfortunately need an engineering degree, which I don't think Johan has. But maybe Johan can clear that up for all of us, and I shall admit it if I were wrong. I, however, don't question that Johan can build very good wheels. I never, ever, doubted that!

Why do you need to swear ? you insulted the-break .

Johan is nie 'n onbetrokke party hier nie. Op verskeie ander "threads" het hy kommentaar gehad op hierdie spesifieke geval, en elke keer sy wielbou besigheid probeer adverteer deur te verkondig, of die indruk te probeer skep, dat hy 'n kundige is op die gebied van las oordrag, spannings en deformasie in fietswiele. Gaan lees gerus die betrokke "threads" En wat Big H betref, ek het niks persoonliks teen hom nie, maar dan moet hy nie persoonlik raak, en ander beledig nie.

Newton se wet sê, vir elke aksie is daar 'n reaksie. Dit is Big H wat 'n "flaming" oorlog wil ontlok. As hy kan sê iemand weet waarvan hy praat, dan kan iemand anders seker sê dat dit nie so is nie, of hoe?

I am afraid that it is YOU that is wrong. The FEA you mention make some ASSUMPTIONS, which does not apply in real world cycling. As they say, assumption is the mother of all FU's . For instance, they assume the hub is fixed in the x and y directions, which of course, it isn't. The-Break is correct, the wheal tend to oval, which is not shown in the FEA, because of the asumptions. This topic has been discussed at length before, and Hannes actually made a very good video result. https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/77810-advice-with-mtb-wheelrim/page__view__findpost__p__1103849

Gelukkig weet ek hoe om my eie wiele te bou... en ek verskil met jou, Johan weet nie waarvan hy praat nie. Is dit nou 'n persoonlike opmerking?, nee, dit is slegs 'n feit.

Sounds like a severe case of inflammation which causes the numbness as the swelling squeezes the nerves and prevents the blood flowing properly in that area. I would suggest you go see a good physiotherapist first. Hope you get better.

Now as to my observations ... The science and calculation show that roughly for 100 grams saved on the tyre/rim is worth 200 grams on the bike/rider. Now while that does not seem to be much, or worthwhile, anyone that has worked with flywheels, knows how much harder it is to accelerate a bigger and heavier wheel. Now does acceleration count for much? I really don't know since I don't race to win, but there has to be a reason why the pro's always try to get away with the lightest wheels possible for the terrain. I also know from experience that especially in MTB'ing losing your momentum is a bitch, especially when you are tiring, and you tend to lose it often. Getting up to speed again takes some effort, especially if going uphill ! Anyhow, I could test the difference practically for myself. I ride a specific 26 km "Time Trial" course for training often, and I am about 10 min slower on the heavier wheels on average. This was the idea though, to make me stronger on the training wheels and to spare my more expensive wheels for races. One advantage of the heavier wheels, is that I find I go much faster downhills, and keep the momentum a bit longer, once I get going ! One thing I have found after putting my new training set on, was that it was considerably slower at first, only for me to find out that a common problem with factory hubs is for the bearings to be too tightly set by the nut on the axle. Once I figure that out, the wheels turned a lot smoother ! One also has to be careful to not tighten the skewers too hard, that can put too much pressure on the hub bearings as well.

This is actually a very interesting thread since the topic is something I have debated with myself for a while now. First I'll state my 2 wheel sets . Anthem 1: Front Complete Mavic 819 UST disc 28 hole Maxxis Larsen TT LUST 2.1 50 ml Sealant DT Swiss 370 hub 160 mm Avid rotor 28 Spokes (?) Total weight - 1850 g Back Complete Mavic 819 UST disc 28 hole Maxxis Larsen TT LUST 2.1 50 ml Sealant DT Swiss 370 hub 160 mm Avid rotor 28 Spokes(?) Cassette Total weight - 2350 g Flat proof Training's: Front Complete Mavic 317 disc 32 hole Maxxis Larsen TT wire bead 1.9 proprietary tyre liner Tube 50 ml Sealant Shimano Deore hub 160 mm Shimano rotor 32 SS Spokes Total weight - 2250 g Back Complete Mavic 317 disc 32 hole Maxxis Larsen TT wire bead 1.9 proprietary tyre liner Tube 50 ml Sealant Shimano XT hub 160 mm Shimano rotor 32 SS Spokes Cassette Total weight - 2950 g

I have a question for those that have tried it all ... I have used UST (proper) Tubeless tyres (Maxxis Larsen TT ) with sealant that have worked well, but I am thinking of getting normal folding bead Kendal Karmas to run as tubeless with sealant. This will save about 220 grams per tyre compared to the UST's of about 700 grams each. Apart from sidewall cut issues, any other complications/problems I should be aware of ?

This makes it obvious you did not buy your own, and are using sponsored supplies. Your "experience" is not scientific at all ! You are obviously just advertising for a sponsored product. Last Sunday I did a 4 hour cycle on nothing else but water and peanuts. Had an AMAZING experience ! Felt so good the whole time. It must be the peanuts ! If peanuts is not working for someone, they HAVE to be doing something wrong !