tied and soldered spokes

[one-eyed_jim]

One theory I've come across (which I repeat here without any strong opinion as to its validity) is that tying spokes began in the days of high-wheelers, when a broken three-foot-long spoke lashing about between the rider's legs was a serious safety hazard. Having become standard practice for that very practical reason, it continued as a tradition in wheelbuilding long after the original reason and the high-wheeled bikes themselves had disappeared, and was justified (by wheelbuilders who could charge for the service, or fanatics who enjoyed lavishing attention on their bikes) as increasing the stiffness or strength of the wheel.

I have two pairs of track wheels, both built 4x on identical 36h Campag Record hubs with identical Super Champion rims, one pair tied and soldered, one pair plain, and I can't tell the difference in use. I've never broken a spoke on either wheel.

edit: apologies - I skimmed the thread too quickly and didn't spot that this point had already been made.

[peter236uk]

On eyed Jim you could be right it was odd I thought I knew a few things about bikes but when I brought the bike of the guy he said he has done it for extra strength. The down side I thought to myself was if I broke a spoke although touch wood this has never happend.
I have never seen another bike with this done to it untill I spotted the article.

[hubgearfreak]

Tying and soldering must make any given wheel stiffer. Whether it makes any practical or demonstrate-able difference is the question.

so there's a difference in stiffness that cannot be demonstrated - that's the same as no difference then, surely?
unless it's like religion, where god exists because he does but there's no evidence?

I have never had a buckle as yet and done a few thousand miles so really thats the proof in my book.

that's not really a wide enough base for a survey of any statistical significance.

Tied and soldered spokes were once a final touch from the finest mechanics upon the highest quality wheels, but have for the most part faded into obscurity.

this is the truth, a wheel builder wouldn't have bothered to do this unless they were;
one, experienced wheel builders
two, happy with the wheel they'd just built.

that a hand built wheel built by an experienced wheelbuilder lasts and lasts is no surprise to anyone really

is it just me, or do these two words bring to mind fred?

[drossall]

No, an immeasurably small difference is not the same as no difference. Add enough imperceptible changes together and you can get a very perceptible one.

For example, few individual weight savings on a bike make that much difference. It's the cumulative effect that matters.

[drossall]

Anyone seen any actual figures for vertical displacement under load?

I think a whole lot of frame designers will be rather disappointed by that.

Principia aluminium frames had the reputation of being so stiff that they were hard to take on an all-day ride. Steel has good compliance, and many tourists prefer it for that reason (among others). With carbon fibre, millions are spent on finding designs that provide some vertical compliance whilst maintaining lateral stiffness (so that the frame is reasonably comfortable but doesn't "give" under pedalling loads) - it's all about the lie of the fibres in the various layers.

[thirdcrank]

In the days when the bespoke 'lightweight' trade was the pinnacle of excellence in UK cycling, all sorts of fancy things were done which looked special but which IMO achieved nothing in terms of mechanical performance.

Consider the 'Curly' Hetchins frame, built with distinctive curved seat- and chainstays. http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/bi ... 55-rb.html You used to hear all sorts of waffle about the benefits of that design - my late brother had a beauty which was his pride and joy - but I think the only real purpose was to get around the total advertising ban by the RTTC which did not even allow makers' frame transfers to be visible.

I've even heard people coming up with far-fetched explanations as to why the intricately filed and beautifully finished lugs had a mechanical advantage over plain ones. http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/hetchins.html

I think tied and soldered spokes are in the same league.

It's like the hand-stitched lapels on a Savile Row suit - a very nice touch but one that adds nothing to the warmth or durability of the finished article.

[one-eyed_jim]

Anyone seen any actual figures for vertical displacement under load?

I think a whole lot of frame designers will be rather disappointed by that.

Principia aluminium frames had the reputation of being so stiff that they were hard to take on an all-day ride.

But, reputation aside, were they measurably stiffer vertically to a degree that wouldn't be completely masked by (for example) a 5psi variation in tyre pressure?

Steel has good compliance, and many tourists prefer it for that reason (among others).

Steel has that reputation, and people will use a reputation to justify a preference even when the numbers don't add up. Touring bikes have been traditionally made from steel because tourists are conservative, but they're made from stiffer (heavier) tubes than racing bikes in order to flex less with a load on board. Geometry and rider position provide comfort.

With carbon fibre, millions are spent on finding designs that provide some vertical compliance whilst maintaining lateral stiffness (so that the frame is reasonably comfortable but doesn't "give" under pedalling loads) - it's all about the lie of the fibres in the various layers.

I'm not sure that anyone's spending millions on carbon fibre research in bicycles. The potential returns just aren't there. Carbon fibre can - at least in theory - be used to maximise stiffness in certain directions (as can other materials, by butting and shaping) but a standard diamond bicycle frame, because it's flat in one plane and deep in another, will always be far stiffer vertically than laterally and in torsion. It's unavoidable. The fork can flex to a certain degree, and you can play tricks with "pivotless suspension" at the rear, but most "vertical compliance" in the ride of any bike comes from the tyres and saddle.

[stewartpratt]

I think a whole lot of frame designers will be rather disappointed by that.

I'm not dismissing it by any means - I'm just a little sceptical and curious. I've never seen any figures for what you might expect from a frame's displacement.

Though I do think a lot of people place far too much emphasis on it when they could just let a couple of psi out of the tyre and get more benefit :)

[drossall]

Touring bikes have been traditionally made from steel because tourists are conservative, but they're made from stiffer (heavier) tubes than racing bikes in order to flex less with a load on board.

Again, there is a difference between vertical and lateral flex. It's lateral that causes a problem with loads (just try a weak pannier rack!) It's vertical that affects comfort more.

There's an interesting article by Sheldon Brown. He doesn't support the idea of different materials inherently giving different rides, but the article is all about the design of frames and its effect on ride.

[one-eyed_jim]

Again, there is a difference between vertical and lateral flex. It's lateral that causes a problem with loads (just try a weak pannier rack!) It's vertical that affects comfort more.

But, as I wrote above, a frame is vertically deep and triangulated, and laterally narrow. That makes it practically impossible to achieve vertical flex to any degree that wouldn't be entirely masked by flex in the saddle, tyres, and fork. You can't take simple butted steel tubes, build a traditional diamond frame, and have it provide a significant degree of vertical flex without introducing an impossible degree of lateral or torsional flex. If a touring frame is flexing vertically, but the tubing of the stays and main triangle is thicker-walled and therefore stiffer than an equivalent road frame, I'm at a loss as to where you think that vertical flex is coming from.

To put it more simply, if a frame is laterally stiffer and torsionally stiffer, it's also fairly certain to be vertically stiffer, given the constraints of traditional frame geometry and tube shapes.

[hubgearfreak]

No, an immeasurably small difference is not the same as no difference. Add enough imperceptible changes together and you can get a very perceptible one.

For example, few individual weight savings on a bike make that much difference. It's the cumulative effect that matters.

not so, i may change my front wheel to one that's identical except for having 32 spokes instead of 36. so the weight of 4 spokes and four nipples, minus the weight of eight holes would be the weight difference between front wheels. let's say it's 10 grammes. it is demonstrably 10 grammes.
if the difference isn't demonstrable, then it's no difference

[stewartpratt]

if the difference isn't demonstrable, then it's no difference

There's an important difference between measurable (or demonstrable) and perceptible.

Stick a 5g blob of plasticene on your bike frame. You can measure the difference but you won't perceive it. Keep adding 5g blobs until you've added 10kg of plasticene. You'll perceive that :)

Aside from the fact that being measurable or demonstrable relies on your measuring apparatus. The fact that we've not measured a Higgs boson yet doesn't mean it can't exist...

[hubgearfreak]

There's an important difference between measurable (or demonstrable) and perceptible..

yes there is. so can a wheel be stiffer and yet not be demonstrably stiffer?
i doubt it.

[Mick F]

I still maintain that a wheel with tied and soldered spokes MUST be stiffer, even if you can't demonstrate it practically. I should be provable theoretically.

If you study and old wheel, you'll see that the spokes are slightly worn where they cross - this demonstrates that the spokes move and flex. It also shows that the wheel isn't rigid, but a flexible entity.

Seal that movement at the crosses, and you have a stiffer wheel.

It may not be perceptible, it may not be demonstrable, but it must be provable mathematically.

[stewartpratt]

No doubt it's theoretically stiffer. A frame covered in plasticine is theoretically stronger. But not perceptibly, and probably not demonstrably either. But the weight, cost and build times are all quite palpable.