Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes? - Page 2- Mtbr.com
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 201 to 375 of 375
  1. #201
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    I did read it. My takeaway (based on his statement - I am not an engineer) is that a reduction of tension DOES increase lateral flexibility, but the deflection is not significant when dealing with very light lateral loads (25 pounds) as seen on a road bike.

    He only used 25 pounds in order to show deflection occurs, but he was afraid to damage a wheel by using more weight than that.

    I wonder what kind of lateral load a 200lb rider exerts on an MTB wheel when cornering hard at a reasonable speed? I'd have to guess it's more than 25 pounds? My bike weights about 26 pounds. I would think that just standing it at a 45 degree angle would put about 6 pounds lateral load on each wheel (25lbs/2 wheels=12.5, 12.5/2 to account for the 45 angle= 6 lbs)

    Perhaps on a road wheel that sees little to no lateral stress spoke tension has little importance, but on an MTB wheel that sees high lateral loads, it would be far more important?
    <making sure I'm not in a road bike discussion as I type this>

    Attachment 1227652
    I have to ask, based on your example:

    Why would an MTB rider on a BERM exert a higher lateral load on a wheel than a road rider going 50mph down a road? Given that a road tire has far, far higher amounts of traction on pavement than an MTB tire does on loose dirt, I have a hard time imagining that, short of casing a jump, you'd ever impart as much lateral force into an MTB wheel as you would a road wheel.

    Also, below is Damon Rinard's statement from that article re: spoke tension. Until a wheel goes completely slack, there is no difference in lateral wheel stiffness, as he clearly says. Bolded text by me.

    "Some believe that a wheel built with tighter spokes is stiffer. It is not. Wheel stiffness does not vary significantly with spoke tension unless a spoke becomes totally slack.

    I measured the deflection of Wheel #2 while gradually loosening the spokes in quarter turn increments. The wheel did not display any significant change in stiffness until the spokes were so loose some became totally slack.

    If the spokes are so loose that some become slack, the wheel becomes much more flexible. The last two data points below, 9 and 10, taken when the spokes were so loose the wheel was almost sloppy, show that the wheel becomes significantly more flexible when spokes on the detensioning side of the wheel actually become slack. That is expected: a slack spoke cannot add stiffness to the wheel; it buckles easily in compression.

    A wheel whose spokes become slack while riding is a weak wheel, because slack spokes cannot support the rim. This can be avoided to a large extent by building wheels with tighter spokes. If spokes are tighter initially, then the sudden increase in flexibility shown in data points 9 and 10 is less likely to occur in use because a tighter wheel can bear a higher load before spokes become slack."

    The last part, italicized by me, relates to wheel strength (re: durability), and has nothing to do with lateral stiffness.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I have to ask, based on your example:

    Why would an MTB rider on a BERM exert a higher lateral load on a wheel than a road rider going 50mph down a road? Given that a road tire has far, far higher amounts of traction on pavement than an MTB tire does on loose dirt, I have a hard time imagining that, short of casing a jump, you'd ever impart as much lateral force into an MTB wheel as you would a road wheel.
    The key is LATERAL load. Going straight down a road produces RADIAL load, but almost no lateral load. The author himself says so. Cornering is where the lateral load comes into play.

    Also, below is Damon Rinard's statement from that article re: spoke tension. Until a wheel goes completely slack, there is no difference in lateral wheel stiffness, as he clearly says. Bolded text by me.
    So, once deflection occurs due to spoke tension being reduced, it doesn't increase as tension is reduced more by unthreading the spoke. This could make sense as any change would likely be VERY hard to measure (how much movement occurs with a quarter turn of a spoke nipple?), but his own chart shows different.
    "Some believe that a wheel built with tighter spokes is stiffer. It is not. Wheel stiffness does not vary significantly with spoke tension unless a spoke becomes totally slack.
    Yet, the chart he provides shows a change with every turn. The change may be insignificant under an insignificant load, but I don;t think the loads caused by MTBers would be insignificant (maybe they are? maybe hard cornering indices no lateral stress on an MTB wheel?)

    I measured the deflection of Wheel #2 while gradually loosening the spokes in quarter turn increments. The wheel did not display any significant change in stiffness until the spokes were so loose some became totally slack.

    If the spokes are so loose that some become slack, the wheel becomes much more flexible. The last two data points below, 9 and 10, taken when the spokes were so loose the wheel was almost sloppy, show that the wheel becomes significantly more flexible when spokes on the detensioning side of the wheel actually become slack. That is expected: a slack spoke cannot add stiffness to the wheel; it buckles easily in compression.

    A wheel whose spokes become slack while riding is a weak wheel, because slack spokes cannot support the rim. This can be avoided to a large extent by building wheels with tighter spokes. If spokes are tighter initially, then the sudden increase in flexibility shown in data points 9 and 10 is less likely to occur in use because a tighter wheel can bear a higher load before spokes become slack."
    This sounds odd to me. I always understood that the hub "hangs from the rim", as opposed to being "supported by the spokes". If spokes are all equally loose, but still attached, can't you still roll down the path (at least in a straight line)?

    I'm thinking we may be talking in two different paths here. Are you leaning toward the idea of SIGNIFICANT lateral deflection (as defined by the rather unscientific test in your link) as opposed to your statement that there is NO deflection when spokes are loosened?
    Would you hop on an MTB that had all spokes detensioned to the point just before they are slack, and bomb a trail with it?

  3. #203
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    The key is LATERAL load. Going straight down a road produces RADIAL load, but almost no lateral load. The author himself says so. Cornering is where the lateral load comes into play.


    So, once deflection occurs due to spoke tension being reduced, it doesn't increase as tension is reduced more by unthreading the spoke. This could make sense as any change would likely be VERY hard to measure (how much movement occurs with a quarter turn of a spoke nipple?), but his own chart shows different.
    Yet, the chart he provides shows a change with every turn. The change may be insignificant under an insignificant load, but I don;t think the loads caused by MTBers would be insignificant (maybe they are? maybe hard cornering indices no lateral stress on an MTB wheel?)


    This sounds odd to me. I always understood that the hub "hangs from the rim", as opposed to being "supported by the spokes". If spokes are all equally loose, but still attached, can't you still roll down the path (at least in a straight line)?

    I'm thinking we may be talking in two different paths here. Are you leaning toward the idea of SIGNIFICANT lateral deflection (as defined by the rather unscientific test in your link) as opposed to your statement that there is NO deflection when spokes are loosened?
    Would you hop on an MTB that had all spokes detensioned to the point just before they are slack, and bomb a trail with it?
    My point, which I did not explain well enough, is that cornering at 50mph+ and no loss of traction is going to exert more lateral load than cornering at 30mph on loose terrain, or 30mph on a berm.

    The chart shows the exact opposite of what you think it does. Note that the Y-axis is DEFLECTION IN INCHES. In this case, more is bad, and less is good. And, as the spokes are loosening, as you go from left to right on the X-axis, DEFLECTION is actually decreasing very slightly, until you get past the 8th quarter turn. Which means that the wheel was actually getting STIFFER, laterally. As the data table right next to that chart shows, deflection is actually decreasing, from the first quarter turn to the eighth quarter turn.

    No, I wouldn't hop on an MTB with detensioned spokes, because it would be a very weak wheel, and I'd break spokes, and maybe the rim at some point.
    Death from Below.

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    Bikes make coordinated turns. The only time your wheel gets a lateral load of any significance is when you crash, or if you hop up and down on the side of it like freestyle BMX, or if you corner like Marc Marquez. Can we get back to the Dyneema?

  5. #205
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    Bikes make coordinated turns. The only time your wheel gets a lateral load of any significance is when you crash, or if you hop up and down on the side of it like freestyle BMX, or if you corner like Marc Marquez. Can we get back to the Dyneema?

    Um, on a berm during a turn where the berm angle perfectly aligns with the resultant force, would be the only place this would be correct? That's the only way you could make a "coordinated" turn. Otherwise, you are implying a significant side-loading force when you turn, seems that this could be pretty easily drawn out in a force diagram.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    Bikes make coordinated turns. The only time your wheel gets a lateral load of any significance is when you crash, or if you hop up and down on the side of it like freestyle BMX, or if you corner like Marc Marquez. Can we get back to the Dyneema?
    Horsecrap, and I (on a Foxy 29) and the entire SB130/ 150 forums have the rub marks on the inside of our chain stays to prove it.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  7. #207
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    If you are having wheel stiffness issues, why not use thicker spokes?




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    I'm back in town and the 1.25 DM20 from Armare is here.
    Perhaps I should ask if they can do some 1.8, on a group buy?

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-0fiuvkq.jpg
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-8xjxurk.jpg
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-wg1r8v5.jpg

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    Sweet! So at 40h that will do about eight wheels, is my math right?

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Um, on a berm during a turn where the berm angle perfectly aligns with the resultant force, would be the only place this would be correct? That's the only way you could make a "coordinated" turn. Otherwise, you are implying a significant side-loading force when you turn, seems that this could be pretty easily drawn out in a force diagram.
    The tire gets a lateral load, but it's reacted on the rim. The lean of the bike takes care of the resulting force through the plane of the frame and wheels. The angle is the arctangent of gravity and yaw, that's what I mean by coordinated. Compare the situation to a spoked car wheel for a counter example where you feel the yaw and the wheel DOES get a lot of side force.

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    deleteme

  12. #212
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    I just bought 100m of 1.5mm SK99 from Armare. Sent them an email asking to change to 1.5mm DM20. I'll post updates as they arrive.
    Death from Below.

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    236
    Scanning through the thread again.
    Regarding the methods of connecting to the hub & rim and being able to adjust tension: What about incorporating a miniature turnbuckle instead of trying to mimic the threaded nipple and shaft of the spoke?
    One end of the turnbuckle secures to the rim, the rope is looped and "chinese finger-trapped" through the eyelets on the 'buckles, and through the holes in the hub (which would have to be radiused to not cut through the rope). No need to secure hardware to the rope, and you get a wider range of adjustment (I think).

    Name:  ldubq3430.jpg
Views: 1435
Size:  45.7 KB

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    Scanning through the thread again.
    Regarding the methods of connecting to the hub & rim and being able to adjust tension: What about incorporating a miniature turnbuckle instead of trying to mimic the threaded nipple and shaft of the spoke?
    One end of the turnbuckle secures to the rim, the rope is looped and "chinese finger-trapped" through the eyelets on the 'buckles, and through the holes in the hub (which would have to be radiused to not cut through the rope). No need to secure hardware to the rope, and you get a wider range of adjustment (I think).

    Name:  ldubq3430.jpg
Views: 1435
Size:  45.7 KB
    Very cool idea, I had the same thought but never posted up about it because for one these are a bit (a lot) heavier, they are also more expensive, and arguably more challenging to make durable at the weights we are trying to achieve. There's just no way a turnbuckle could be had for under 3/4 of a gram. Kinda defeats the purpose.

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    What function does that add vs a screw eye and standard spoke nipple?

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    Sweet! So at 40h that will do about eight wheels, is my math right?
    Pretty close. Too bad it seems to be hard to find lightweight hubs in 36 or 40h. Know any?

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    Scanning through the thread again.
    Regarding the methods of connecting to the hub & rim and being able to adjust tension: What about incorporating a miniature turnbuckle instead of trying to mimic the threaded nipple and shaft of the spoke?
    One end of the turnbuckle secures to the rim, the rope is looped and "chinese finger-trapped" through the eyelets on the 'buckles, and through the holes in the hub (which would have to be radiused to not cut through the rope). No need to secure hardware to the rope, and you get a wider range of adjustment (I think).

    Name:  ldubq3430.jpg
Views: 1435
Size:  45.7 KB
    It's a fine idea. Just too heavy.

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    What function does that add vs a screw eye and standard spoke nipple?

    I had read that looping the rope and "finger-trapping" it into itself (like sailors do) would be easier stronger than trying to secure the rope to a threaded rod.
    With 'buckles, there would only be the necessity to attach the rope to itself (i.e. stronger setup).

    I figured micro turnbuckles would be quite light, maybe just slightly heavier than the rod/nipple and screw eye setup, but a reasonable tradeoff for the strength and simplicity it would give.

  19. #219
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Okashira,

    Think 1.5mm DM would be sufficient for a 28 spoke wheel (carbon rim)? 143lb rider, 120mm bike.

    Sent my email to Armare at 11:48am MST yesterday. No response yet. Hoping they'll get back to me today re: the SK99 to DM20 change.

    Update:

    Just got an email from Irene at Armare. They only make/sell 1.25 and 2.0mm DM20. Went with the 2.0mm material. I have no concerns about running 28h hubs now. I'm interested to see what the rated breaking load is on the 2mm DM20.

    Any reason not to go with the Brummel/Bury?

    https://www.animatedknots.com/brummeldemo/index.php
    Last edited by Le Duke; 12-07-2018 at 08:54 AM.
    Death from Below.

  20. #220
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Also, did you pay VAT from Italy to the US? I was charged 20.99E VAT...
    Death from Below.

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Horsecrap, and I (on a Foxy 29) and the entire SB130/ 150 forums have the rub marks on the inside of our chain stays to prove it.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    And let's not forget the lateral load placed just due to pedaling (isn't that why spoke tensions are different on opposites sides of the hub?)...

  22. #222
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    And let's not forget the lateral load placed just due to pedaling (isn't that why spoke tensions are different on opposites sides of the hub?)...
    No, that's mostly related to hub geometry.
    Death from Below.

  23. #223
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    The DM20 in 2.0mm is rated at 558 daN. Or, 569 kgf. Whoa.
    Death from Below.

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    ...yes, to make room for the sprockets. Every few years the cluster gets wide enough they had to make the hubs wider or else the drive side spokes get too close to vertical (120->126->130 for 5, 6, 8 speed). That's one reason Boost and offset rims are good, to even up the angle, and it's one that's weirdly not first mentioned as they go on about chain stay length which seems like more of a stretch. It's also why Santana the tandem company went to a QR160 rear hub. They have some good figures about it on their website. https://santanatandem.com/wheel-tech

    Okashira, I don't know of any super light 40h hubs. Speaking of tandems, most such things I know of are for less fancy / more "normal" tandem bikes. I suppose an average hub could be drilled 40h as long as the flange is large enough, if you could ask them to do it.

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    No, that's mostly related to hub geometry.
    To dish the assembly?

  26. #226
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    To dish the assembly?
    As hubs get wider and the bracing angles (with spokes, between the hub flanges and rim) get closer to being equal, spoke tensions can be closer to equal as well.
    Death from Below.

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Okashira,

    Think 1.5mm DM would be sufficient for a 28 spoke wheel (carbon rim)? 143lb rider, 120mm bike.

    Sent my email to Armare at 11:48am MST yesterday. No response yet. Hoping they'll get back to me today re: the SK99 to DM20 change.

    Update:

    Just got an email from Irene at Armare. They only make/sell 1.25 and 2.0mm DM20. Went with the 2.0mm material. I have no concerns about running 28h hubs now. I'm interested to see what the rated breaking load is on the 2mm DM20.

    Any reason not to go with the Brummel/Bury?

    https://www.animatedknots.com/brummeldemo/index.php
    Brummel is okay. It just takes longer then a simple bury.
    I think Brummel is a good choice.
    Yes I was charged VAT, and I asked about removing VAT, and they would not remove it.

  28. #228
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    Brummel is okay. It just takes longer then a simple bury.
    I think Brummel is a good choice.
    Yes I was charged VAT, and I asked about removing VAT, and they would not remove it.
    Likewise.

    They also added 40 Euro + for the upgrade from 1.5 SK99 to 2.0 DM20.

    All in, pretty expensive. But, I’ll have enough for quite a few wheels.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Updates...

    1.) I got a call from local Ti company, they have some quotes for me on forged eye screws. I need to call them Monday.

    2.) Had some time over past couple days, here is where I am at.
    I decided to undo the ones I had made, and swap them around. The reason is the straight pull hubs are counterbored one one side. With spliced spokes, you will want the rope coming OUT of the counterbored side, because it will sit on a sharp edge if you go the normal way.
    So I am swapping them in pairs.
    My question is, is this okay? Will is mess up the crossing method?
    See the 3rd picture with the blue arrows to show what I mean. Those two have already been swapped.
    The one X'd in red is one I need to remove and swap to the opposite direction.
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-t8960hz.jpg
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-p841iw0.jpg
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-vykw7wb.jpg

    3.) Random notes.... Buy regular j-bend hubs for these spokes. Much simpler and cleaner.
    I might need some help getting them laced int he 3cross method correctly again, lol. Assuming I didn't mess everything up by swapping the spoke directions.

    4.) The Chinese machine shop sissypants got a quote from completely ignored me after I sent them drawings and 3d models. Not cool on their part.
    I got another manufacturing contact while I was in Shanghai I need to follow up on.

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    The Chinese machine shop sissypants got a quote from completely ignored me after I sent them drawings and 3d models. Not cool on their part.
    Not cool, I'll try get back in touch with them on Alibaba. When you do it on Alibaba they want to get a high response rate so it's in their interest to reply. Plus, they pay for every lead on Alibaba.

  31. #231
    MarkyMark
    Reputation: MarkMass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,352
    This thread is soooo awesome!

    I'm in for group orders on fiber, eye screws and what-not. I really want someone to build a wheelset for me, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    Updates...

    1.) I got a call from local Ti company, they have some quotes for me on forged eye screws. I need to call them Monday.
    ...
    3.) Random notes.... Buy regular j-bend hubs for these spokes. Much simpler and cleaner.
    I might need some help getting them laced int he 3cross method correctly again, lol. Assuming I didn't mess everything up by swapping the spoke directions.

    4.) The Chinese machine shop sissypants got a quote from completely ignored me after I sent them drawings and 3d models. Not cool on their part.
    I got another manufacturing contact while I was in Shanghai I need to follow up on.
    (Sheeeett.. I think you just did some engineering for them!
    Maybe send old prelim drawings and models to Chinese shops get a quote?)

  32. #232
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Another quick question re: Brummel.

    Obviously you aren't relying on the bury method for the loop, but still using a bury with the remaining material after the Brummel lock. How much material should you have in the short end that you bury in the main strand?

    I'm guessing the 72x is not necessary here, maybe not even half of that. Is there any recommendation on how much material to bury after the Brummel? 20x? 30x?
    Death from Below.

  33. #233
    Hitching a ride
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post

    The last part, italicized by me, relates to wheel strength (re: durability), and has nothing to do with lateral stiffness.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I wouldn't waste too much time on it. We have people posting confidently on this forum who literally cannot interpret a basic stress-strain graph that is taught to every first year engineering student. They've been thinking the wrong way for so long that they just cannot be helped.

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Another quick question re: Brummel.

    Obviously you aren't relying on the bury method for the loop, but still using a bury with the remaining material after the Brummel lock. How much material should you have in the short end that you bury in the main strand?

    I'm guessing the 72x is not necessary here, maybe not even half of that. Is there any recommendation on how much material to bury after the Brummel? 20x? 30x?
    With the brummel, the bury is still meant to take the load. The lock is just there to prevent slippage under no load or handling. (This is a very useful thing for a spoke, to keep the length from slipping!)
    You can maybe do 45x-50x. 20x, no way.

  35. #235
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    With the brummel, the bury is still meant to take the load. The lock is just there to prevent slippage under no load or handling. (This is a very useful thing for a spoke, to keep the length from slipping!)
    You can maybe do 45x-50x. 20x, no way.
    Cool. Just trying to get an idea of how much material I’d be looking at for a given length of spoke.

    How long were your titanium end pieces? I already have a Hozan thread roller (used it today on a CX-Ray from Germany that was 3mm too long).




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Cool. Just trying to get an idea of how much material I’d be looking at for a given length of spoke.

    How long were your titanium end pieces? I already have a Hozan thread roller (used it today on a CX-Ray from Germany that was 3mm too long).




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Long enough to make 3 spoke ends per piece.
    I cut them 73mm long.

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    One side done.
    Looking at the inside of the hub, it appears that the inner splice tends to wrap around this sharp corner point on the DT 350. I am not sure if I rounded them all very well here. We will see what happens.
    It's definitely better to start from scratch so you have room to dremel off all the appropriate the sharp edges. It was a pain doing it in place.
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-img_20181209_173906.jpg
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-img_20181209_173917.jpg
    Last edited by okashira; 01-28-2019 at 12:48 AM.

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    One side done.
    Looking at the inside of the hub, it appears that the inner splice tends to wrap around this sharp corner point on the DT 350. I am not sure if I rounded them all very well here. We will see what happens.
    It's definitely better to start from scratch so you have room to dremel off all the appropriate the sharp edges. It was a pain doing it in place.
    Attachment 1228290
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20181209_173906.jpg 
Views:	223 
Size:	222.2 KB 
ID:	1228291
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20181209_173917.jpg 
Views:	62 
Size:	120.1 KB 
ID:	1228292
    That looks great! Great attention to detail and patience.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote from local Ti company.
    They decided to quote the bent and spot welded version @ qty 500 and 1000

    About $4.61 each in qty 1000. Could be worse. Still cheaper then full on high end Ti spokes. Hah.
    If it were 10,000, it may come down to $3.00 at the minimum is my guess.

    I asked them to pursue a forging and to give me feed back on feasibility and to quote 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 units, as well as tooling costs.

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    The DM20 in 2.0mm is rated at 558 daN. Or, 569 kgf. Whoa.
    How many spokes will you run? 32, 36?
    I would have been tempted to go with 1.5.
    Maybe I should try to build my other X1700 with the 1.25 line and see how it holds up.
    The downside is the 1.5 will be pretty flexible (but nice damping/softer ride)

    With your 2.0 keep in mine you will need to have a slightly longer bury... maybe use 76mm long Ti ends.
    I have been running about 60-70mm of bury (too short) on my splices, I will report how they hold up once I finish and ride with this damn wheel.

    Note I have been designing the eye bolts for 1.8mm line, with 2.0mm hole. It might be difficult to use the 2.0mm hole with 2.0mm line.

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    ...yes, to make room for the sprockets. Every few years the cluster gets wide enough they had to make the hubs wider or else the drive side spokes get too close to vertical (120->126->130 for 5, 6, 8 speed). That's one reason Boost and offset rims are good, to even up the angle, and it's one that's weirdly not first mentioned as they go on about chain stay length which seems like more of a stretch. It's also why Santana the tandem company went to a QR160 rear hub. They have some good figures about it on their website. https://santanatandem.com/wheel-tech

    Okashira, I don't know of any super light 40h hubs. Speaking of tandems, most such things I know of are for less fancy / more "normal" tandem bikes. I suppose an average hub could be drilled 40h as long as the flange is large enough, if you could ask them to do it.
    You're right.. With 36h or 40h, you could drill smaller holes for 1.5 or 1.25mm line. No need for the typical 2.5mm hole. Could easily fit 36 or 40H on a typical hub.

  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,972
    You guys are killing it.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  43. #243
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    How many spokes will you run? 32, 36?
    I would have been tempted to go with 1.5.
    Maybe I should try to build my other X1700 with the 1.25 line and see how it holds up.
    The downside is the 1.5 will be pretty flexible (but nice damping/softer ride)

    With your 2.0 keep in mine you will need to have a slightly longer bury... maybe use 76mm long Ti ends.
    I have been running about 60-70mm of bury (too short) on my splices, I will report how they hold up once I finish and ride with this damn wheel.

    Note I have been designing the eye bolts for 1.8mm line, with 2.0mm hole. It might be difficult to use the 2.0mm hole with 2.0mm line.
    Well, I'm not sure just yet.

    I've got a spare DT Swiss 180 28h hub hanging around here, but no rim for it. I'm a little concerned that I'd be treading in unknown water, though, by going for 28h right out of the gate.

    But, as I said, I'm 143lbs, riding a 120/100mm bike, and prefer to skip over the top of rocks rather than plow. So, I'm guessing/hoping that the 2mm DM20 will provide the ride I'm looking for.
    Death from Below.

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    So how are you measuring tension? I suppose it's possible to do the math on the elasticity and get a reasonable guess what you'd see on a tensiometer

  45. #245
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    So, here's my plan.

    I'm going to install a single spoke on a wheel that I already have built and tensioned at 110kgf. I'll bring it up to tension, then check it and tighten it a couple of times over the course of a couple days as necessary to bring it back up to tension/true. Maybe a couple, just to be safe. Two on each side of a wheel, for example.

    Then, I'm going to pluck that spoke like you would a string on a bass or guitar, and compare that to the notes on a tone generator app on my phone. If I can match that to a tone/frequency, I'll know that B flat (just an example) is 90kgf, and E is 110kgf. Sounds crazy, I know, but it should work.
    Death from Below.

  46. #246
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    So, here's my plan.

    I'm going to install a single spoke on a wheel that I already have built and tensioned at 110kgf. I'll bring it up to tension, then check it and tighten it a couple of times over the course of a couple days as necessary to bring it back up to tension/true. Maybe a couple, just to be safe. Two on each side of a wheel, for example.

    Then, I'm going to pluck that spoke like you would a string on a bass or guitar, and compare that to the notes on a tone generator app on my phone. If I can match that to a tone/frequency, I'll know that B flat (just an example) is 90kgf, and E is 110kgf. Sounds crazy, I know, but it should work.
    I'm not sure the resolution of the tone frequency will be sufficient to tension to tolerances you want. It's an experiment though, I'll be very curious to see the data

    I have perfect pitch. Imagine tensioning a wheel to extreme precision without a tensiometer

  47. #247
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Quote Originally Posted by sissypants View Post
    I'm not sure the resolution of the tone frequency will be sufficient to tension to tolerances you want. It's an experiment though, I'll be very curious to see the data

    I have perfect pitch. Imagine tensioning a wheel to extreme precision without a tensiometer
    FWIW, I don't even own a tensiometer. Never have. I've borrowed one a couple of times to check my own work building wheels, but that's it. A finely tuned ear and fingers have been sufficient to get a wheel into riding condition, and the tensiometer just confirms things.
    Death from Below.

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    So, here's my plan.

    I'm going to install a single spoke on a wheel that I already have built and tensioned at 110kgf. I'll bring it up to tension, then check it and tighten it a couple of times over the course of a couple days as necessary to bring it back up to tension/true. Maybe a couple, just to be safe. Two on each side of a wheel, for example.

    Then, I'm going to pluck that spoke like you would a string on a bass or guitar, and compare that to the notes on a tone generator app on my phone. If I can match that to a tone/frequency, I'll know that B flat (just an example) is 90kgf, and E is 110kgf. Sounds crazy, I know, but it should work.
    If you think that the plucked frequency of the polymer spoke should be the same as the stainless spoke for same tension, you would be wrong. Better to do one spoke at a time and the trueness of the wheel would determine the correct tension.

  49. #249
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    If you think that the plucked frequency of the polymer spoke should be the same as the stainless spoke for same tension, you would be wrong. Better to do one spoke at a time and the trueness of the wheel would determine the correct tension.
    Did you even read my post?

    I didn’t say anything about plucking a steel spoke. At all.

    I’d bring the polymer spoke up to tension (meaning, the wheel back to true), then determine its frequency once it settled at the same number of kgf as the others on the same side. This is the “install a single spoke” portion of the post you quoted. I am very clearly talking about a single polymer spoke here, given the very specific nature of this thread.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  50. #250
    Hitching a ride
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,191
    It would be easier to get a $30 300kg scale and tighten the spoke to a measured value, then pluck and correlate freq with tension.

  51. #251
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    It would be easier to get a $30 300kg scale and tighten the spoke to a measured value, then pluck and correlate freq with tension.
    Ah. Nice idea. Thanks!






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  52. #252
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,488
    Nice job on the lacing and building! This is a great thread.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    The empirical approach is ok but there are four different spoke tensions on a modern MTB thanks to dishes on both ends. I'd rather make data. But I'm wondering if there will be room to measure with a Park tensiometer between the 3" long spoke end, and the crosses. I'll see if I can work out the distension tomorrow if I have a boring lunch. I looked up Spox tensiometer recommendations and they weren't out of line with normal spokes, these shouldn't be either.

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    I think they will read a lower tension on a meter.
    if you want to use natural frequency to determine tension, keep in mind the crossing point where it contacts another spoke, this will affect the length and the natural frequency of the spoke, which is a function of length.

  55. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    Yes, they have no baseline bending strength like a round steel spoke so there's only the tension. It'll be like Spox or like bladed spokes which are all on the upper end of the chart.

    I have some confusion. The TM-1 chart lists Spinergy SPO at 2.6mm, Spinergy's website lists SPOX at 3mm. Are these different products?

  56. #256
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,212
    each hand-made braided spoke will have slight differences... frequency tuning each one would not be as accurate as say, frequency tuning set of very identical metal spokes. each braided spoke under same exact tension might 'tune' differently...perhaps the differences are statistical noise and you can accurately tension with a chromatic tuner

    I would imagine slapping a snark on the rim and plucking away, and tuning all spokes to (some setting on the snark) will be pretty close.

    or maybe this would be a good way for field testing how the spoke tension is doing over time vs initial build

    they are cheap

    https://www.amazon.com/Snark-Instrum.../dp/B003VWKPHC
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  57. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    I am finished except the last couple, waiting on replacement nipples
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-5tuhtur.jpg
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-6dochb1.jpg

  58. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    Wow! That's cool.

    I've been playing around with the idea of a conversion factor for the Park TM-1 today and I'm just not satisfied. The tool has a few compromises in its design that make the properties of the spoke (diameter, stiffness) part of the result and it adds tension while you use it. That's why the card included just has an individual listing for each most popular type of spoke and no approach to other oddballs. Reasonable just to do the calibration with a load cell as suggested above.

  59. #259
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    I think a sub 400g front XC wheel is possible. Eyeing a prince front hub and, carbonfan XC rim to build one just for the accomplishment.
    Will needs some Ti eyebolts....

    I'm eager to test this x1700. I'm concerned about a few things .. I built it with a few niggles...

    Too short burys on some of the splices.

    Concerned about the short burys on the Ti ends (I'm amazed Berd gets away with it)

    Concerned about the threading on the Ti rods. I think the rods are cold worked and very brittle.
    They should probably be stress relived or even annealed before threading but I decided to try it anyway. I did have issue threading some of them and you could see some chipping / cracking coming from the tread rolling process.
    The issue is stress relieve or annealing would require heat treatment in an inert atmosphere which could be done economaclly.... in bulk.

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    I think a sub 400g front XC wheel is possible. Eyeing a prince front hub and, carbonfan XC rim to build one just for the accomplishment.
    Will needs some Ti eyebolts....
    If you're going for the record, I would suggest Extralite Hyperboost (front 78g), Tune Prince is heavier (89g for 6-bolt blinged-out Skyline CeramicSpeed). I have also heard a few positive long-term reviews of Hyperboost, not so much of the Tune Prince series.

    https://fairwheelbikes.com/extralite...isc-front-hub/

    Carbonfan makes great rims, you may want to see if they can do a T800/T1000 special order to further reduce the weight. I own these BTLOS rims and they weigh 279g and 282g:

    https://btlos.com/mountain-bike/cros...ter=1%2C6%2C34

    BTLOS is usually willing to do custom manufacturing as well at very affordable prices:

    Assuming you use 24 spokes and the spokes are 1.6g/ea. and the nipples are 0.32g ea. you're looking at:

    Rim: 280g
    Spokes: 38.5g (1.6g * 24)
    Nipples: 8g (0.32g * 24)
    Hub: 78g
    Total: 404.5g
    Last edited by sissypants; 12-12-2018 at 07:45 AM.

  61. #261
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,212
    calibrating spokes with a snark as I mentioned above ? yeah, with metal spokes...nope.

    wanted to say my idea of chromatic tuning with a Snark to check spoke tension is problematic in real use...and only good if you do not ride the wheel or actually use it.

    I tested three wheels last night. Two wheels were normal 3 cross spoke patterns, one was no overlapping spokes. In a bike stand, Snark tuner is very accurate and repeatable when a specific spoke was struck, but each spoke, even on a perfect wheel, will not 'tune' the same as the others next to it.

    so I rolled down the hallway and back... bodyweight only, and retested. All spokes were now different on the Snark from initial test.

    so, the chromatic scale and a Snark has too fine resolution to be practical....and just tiny deflection will change a spoke frequency, and that is at same temperature, and not even actual riding, just rolling with bodyweight.

    it might be practical if Snark showed on screen 1/2 octave range instead of one note range...but with it's small screen and small display range, problematic
    Last edited by 127.0.0.1; 12-12-2018 at 09:07 AM.
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    Note of a 14/15 steel butted spoke on a 700c wheel with some reasonable assumptions:

    98 kgf: F# / Gb, 330 Hz
    109 kgf: G4
    123 kgf: G# / Ab
    138 kgf: A4, 440 Hz

    This roughly corresponds to the +-20% range and 130 kgf limit in the Park TM-1 instructions, for example. So yeah, there's not a lot of scale to work with.

    To do this calculation for the fiber spokes, need values for mass per length of the rope (linear density) and length of free section (wavelength). It's going to be an octave-ish higher.

    Wave speed in cm/sec = sqrt( (tension in dynes) / (linear density in g / cm) ), Tension force conversion is 9.88E5 dyne/kgf
    Frequency = 2 x wave speed / spoke length in cm

    Done in CGS and not MKS just because that's how I found the equations

  63. #263
    damned rocks...
    Reputation: Aglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,378
    In my opinion, due to the DIY nature of the spokes, I don't think that spoke frequency is be the best approach, as suggested before a +150Kg scale for calibration and the use of a Jobst Brandt design tensiometer should produce better results.

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    ^^^Agreed, I just enjoy this stuff

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    No need for Snark
    Just this app
    "Spectrum analyzer" on play store.
    It identifies the peak and labels it. Works great. Hold the microphone right near the spoke.

    The spokes are not constant mass per length due to the splice and the end, but they should be pretty consistent spoke to spoke. You will probably go for something around 650-700Hz. Higher pitch then steel spokes.

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    I figured since the rope-over-spoke section would be quite a lot heavier than a spoke alone much less the rope, it would be safe just to omit it from the wavelength. The whole length would have multiple modes and make a nasty chord but the highest note would still be from the unsupported length of the rope alone.

    The app I found a couple years ago was "ProTuner" and it did what I wanted although I hadn't launched it in a long time and it's acting broken now. Edit... yep it's a goner.

    I also have the Gates belt drive tensioner app but it just doesn't work that well.

  67. #267
    damned rocks...
    Reputation: Aglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,378
    I use this one:
    https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...com.vuche.asap

    When truing my wheels I just place the cell phone on the truing stand and pluck the spokes while running the app. I did change some options to help me discerning the peaks.

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Outdated Info
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-ijxih0t.jpg  

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-lnihwfa.jpg  

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-zctjxs7.jpg  

    Last edited by okashira; 01-28-2019 at 12:13 AM.

  69. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Deleted
    Last edited by okashira; 01-28-2019 at 12:12 AM.

  70. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    If you're going to try the 2mm welding rod from eBay, I recommend having them stress relieved. Also, use dt Swiss nipples without prolock.
    I tried using cn spoke nipples, these nipples required me to roll the threads deeper, which leads to chipping / cracking of the threads. The material is drawn so it's really brittle and stress relive will fix it.

    It needs to be done in an inert atmosphere... 1100°F for 2 hours and furnace cool.

    You can probably get away without it, using DT nipples and rolling shallow, but the material will be brittle.
    I did finish my wheel and did some in bike testing... No broken spokes yet, and I did some hard bouncing on concrete. (I'm using NON stress relived titanium)
    Had to re-tention a bunch of times. You think they are tight enough, but they keep going.make sure you stress the snot out of the wheel and tension, probably to 600Hz or so minimum on 3-cross.
    My tension dropped link crazy upon mounting a tire at 40psi.

    Don't ride until you are positive everything is stressed and you use some loctite 290 to thread lock.

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by sissypants View Post
    If you're going for the record, I would suggest Extralite Hyperboost (front 78g), Tune Prince is heavier (89g for 6-bolt blinged-out Skyline CeramicSpeed). I have also heard a few positive long-term reviews of Hyperboost, not so much of the Tune Prince series.

    https://fairwheelbikes.com/extralite...isc-front-hub/

    Carbonfan makes great rims, you may want to see if they can do a T800/T1000 special order to further reduce the weight. I own these BTLOS rims and they weigh 279g and 282g:

    https://btlos.com/mountain-bike/cros...ter=1%2C6%2C34

    BTLOS is usually willing to do custom manufacturing as well at very affordable prices:

    Assuming you use 24 spokes and the spokes are 1.6g/ea. and the nipples are 0.32g ea. you're looking at:

    Rim: 280g
    Spokes: 38.5g (1.6g * 24)
    Nipples: 8g (0.32g * 24)
    Hub: 78g
    Total: 404.5g
    I have a Extralite Carbonfan build on the go and am looking at front 384g and rear 455g using Berds so I would love to know what your method could come up with! but based on 1.91g for spokes and nips I could drop overall weight to sub 800g!!!!

  72. #272
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Just got my 2mm DM20.

    Looks nice, but it isn’t 2mm. It’s 3mm. Which won’t fit through spoke holes in any hub I own without extensive modification, and perhaps more importantly, doesn’t grip a 2mm straight gauge spoke I used as a test.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    What is the diameter under tension?
    With 2.0mm you will need a longer bury.
    If they sent you 3mm, Armare should send you another order.

    Here is my Marlow 1.8mm DM20
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-ladbopx.jpg

  74. #274
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?

    Placing one end on the floor, stepping on it and pulling up with a good amount of force, it’s almost exactly 3mm. My caliper battery just died, so here is a shot of a 2.0/1.8 spoke laying on the roll.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    That looks like they sent you the wrong stuff.
    I have some 1.25mm and it does measure about 1.5mm under light tension.
    I also have some 4mm sk99 (rated over 3,000kg!) That I thought would be cool to keep around , it measures about 3.2-3.7 under light tension....

  76. #276
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Yeah. I’m going to write them an e-mail after Christmas and ask them to send me what I paid for.

    If they won’t, I’ll escalate with PayPal. 3mm is not 2mm. They wouldn’t send a racing yacht crew something other than what they ordered; I expect the same treatment.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  77. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Email them now. Tell them what you got you need 2mm.maybe get the 1.5mm instead if they will make it, this 1.25 measures almost 1.5... I should break test some

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    90
    Okashira, you mentioned before that with your present splice method it would be easier to use jbend hubs. So what I'm asking is, is it possible with straightpulls or just a lot fidlier, seeing as the majority of most new light hubs have gone that way.

  79. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    595
    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    I had one pull out while tensioning. The threads were bad, so when I was grabbing the spoke end, it put a torque on the glued joint.
    Does this suggest that the strength of this union relies more on the glue than the "finger trap"?

  80. #280
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?

    Got bogged down in Christmas things. Finally sent them (Armare) an e-mail today. We’ll see what they say.

    Edit: I’m deleting the pictures pending resolution.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  81. #281
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by poynt View Post
    Okashira, you mentioned before that with your present splice method it would be easier to use jbend hubs. So what I'm asking is, is it possible with straightpulls or just a lot fidlier, seeing as the majority of most new light hubs have gone that way.
    It's fine, you will just need to do alot of dremeling to round the edges, and run the spokes the opposite direction from the design direction. I am using a DT swiss 350 straight pull for the prototype wheel.

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Let us know what they say. Let's try to get them to do 1.5mm or 1.8mm.

    The 1.25 DM20 I have is pretty large, and it's really hard to splice. Having trouble getting a needle inside. Armare's 4mm Sk99 is easy to splice, so is Marlow's 1.8mm.

  83. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    I just ordered a Tune Kingkong front hub, place had them on sale for like $130 shipped. Also a 30mm ID front rim from Carbonfan, 360g.
    This will go with my DT swiss 180 rear hub and 27mm ID rear carbonfan rim.

    I have not rode my test wheel much, only about 6 miles, but it's been good.
    I don't notice any more compliance... when i lock out my fork, i still feel every little bump in the road...

    I had had to true it a good dozen times, but it seems to finally have settled down.

    I think the issue is that the splices and buries have to be set at a high tension.
    So, I designed this lacing and tensioning rig.

    It will allow one to measure, splice, lace tension and remeasure in a repeatable way up to 200Kg load with the toggle puller. I think it will be pretty essential to lacing new wheels efficiently.
    I mean, you can do it manually, like I did, but it will cause alot of additional tensioning, measuring and truing, until everything it set.

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-capture.jpg
    setting the buries and splices at a high load is critical. hand pulling with pliers to 30kg is not enough, you gotta tension them to at least 120kg so the buries are fully set.
    Ive already ordered all the parts and ill start my rear wheel with the 180 and 27mm ID carbonfan once I assemble it.


    I was not happy with just using a basic spoke length calculator so I CADDed up my new wheel and hub so I can make some exact measurements of needed length, hopefully I can correlate that back to spoke length calcs so once can get proper target spoke lengths with fiber spokes and a regular calculator by applying an offset or something. I did it so i can measure a spoke length on an already laced/spliced spoke radial from the hub flange for easy measurement in the rig.
    In this case, I will target 288mm, radially, measured from the hub flange (on this side)
    This rear wheel will be internal nipples so i'm using the measurement from the center of the hub hole to the inner of the hole INSIDE the rim, adding another 2mm for the nipple thread, and another 2.5mm for extra length for safety so I can actually thread it in.

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-capture2.jpg
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-capture3.jpg

  84. #284
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,563
    Still waiting to hear back from Armare. Will initiate a PayPal claim on Tuesday. Hoping to get this resolved in a positive manner.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Still waiting to hear back from Armare. Will initiate a PayPal claim on Tuesday. Hoping to get this resolved in a positive manner.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I hope they reply Monday. Maybe they were on vacation.
    I am having issues with the 1.25 DM20 I got from them.
    I am not sure it's single braid. I can't splice it at all. It's almost impossible to insert a needle into the center. OTOH, the marlow 1.8 is really easy to splice
    Have you tried the 2mm/3mm line you got? can you splice it?

  86. #286
    Chairman of the Beard
    Reputation: hirschmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    753
    Guys this is the most fascinating thing I've read in a long time.

    Keep it up! Amazing work so far.
    The correct number of bikes one should own is N+1, where N is the number of bikes currently owned.

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    I lots of updates but not much time to list it all out

    I have done some break testing of spokes, getting about 290-300kg (with the Marlow 1.8mm DM20 line)
    I have the jig built and putting it to use, it's working well.

    I used the jig and tensioned spokes with a 300kg scale, recording the natural frequency vs tension and charted it, so it can be used to determine spoke tension

    I have videos of everything - hope to get it organized soon.

  88. #288
    Hitching a ride
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,191
    That's neat. Where are the spokes breaking?

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    That's neat. Where are the spokes breaking?
    they were braking at the at the end of the spoke end taper (the fiber broke)

    I did get a call from Berd today. I guess they want to enforce their patent, obviously they are not happy about this thread.
    He was worried I made my initial inquiry to them just to "find out information" about the product, which was not the case. I was ready to buy until they came back and said they had to build them themselves or send it all to a "trusted bike shop" :-/
    I invited Charlie to post here, hopefully he does.
    Anyway, I don't know if they want information to be removed from the thread, to pursue me legally, for me to stop my wheel project, or what their specific goal was, but he did try to find out more personal info about me and a couple members here who were looking at making these spokes for themselves.
    He did not make any specific requests; only inquires. Hopefully they post here or make some specific demands.

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1
    Hey everyone, Berd Spokes here! We are sincerely flattered by your interest in our spokes. On the other hand, we are excited to say that we were recently granted a patent (United States Patent No. 10,150,332) on December 11th, 2018.

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US10150332B2/en

    This means that making our spokes is considered infringement of our patent. This is an excerpt from the USPTO website:

    "Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using, offering for sale, or selling any patented invention within the United States or U.S. Territories, or importing into the United States of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the infringement."

    If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please reach out to us through our contact form at Berd Spokes | Contact. Thanks!

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 006_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,205
    Quote Originally Posted by BerdSpokes View Post
    Hey everyone, Berd Spokes here! We are sincerely flattered by your interest in our spokes. On the other hand, we are excited to say that we were recently granted a patent (United States Patent No. 10,150,332) on December 11th, 2018.

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US10150332B2/en

    This means that making our spokes is considered infringement of our patent. This is an excerpt from the USPTO website:

    "Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using, offering for sale, or selling any patented invention within the United States or U.S. Territories, or importing into the United States of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the infringement."

    If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please reach out to us through our contact form at Berd Spokes | Contact. Thanks!

    Welcome to MTBR Berd. Awesome first post throw down.

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Sorry folks, I went OTB and broke a finger and collarbone, so have been incommunicado.

    The patent is linked above. Infringement is determined by comparing the claims of the patent to a device accused of infringement (accused device). The claims are the numbered paragraphs (really sentences) at the end of the patent. The rest of the patent text and drawings (called the specification) is an interpretation guide for the claims.

    A claim that does not refer to another claim is called an independent claim. In the Berd patent, Claims 1 and 19 are independent.

    1. A spoke for use in connection with a wheel, the spoke comprising:
    a braided fiber having a first end and a second end; and
    a rod having a first end and a second end, whereby the first end of the rod is threaded,
    wherein the second end of the rod is disposed inside the first end of the braided fiber, and wherein the braided fiber is configured to frictionally engage with the rod when tension is applied thereby reducing a diameter of the braided fiber surrounding the rod and increasing a holding force on the rod to inhibit the braided fiber from detaching from the rod.

    19. A wheel comprising:
    a tire affixed to a rim;
    a hub comprising:
    a flange including at least one aperture;
    a plurality of spokes comprising a braided fiber having a first end and a second end;
    a rod having a first end and a second end, whereby the first end of the rod is threaded, wherein the second end of the rod is disposed inside the first end of the braided fiber, and wherein the braided fiber is configured to frictionally engage with the rod when tension is applied thereby reducing a diameter of the braided fiber surrounding the rod and increasing a holding force on the rod to inhibit the braided fiber from detaching from the rod, and
    wherein the first end of the rod is fastened to the rim by means of a nipple.

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Sorry folks, I went OTB and broke a finger and collarbone, so have been incommunicado.

    The patent is linked above. Infringement is determined by comparing the claims of the patent to a device accused of infringement (accused device). The claims are the numbered paragraphs (really sentences) at the end of the patent. The rest of the patent text and drawings (called the specification) is an interpretation guide for the claims.

    A claim that does not refer to another claim is called an independent claim. In the Berd patent, Claims 1 and 19 are independent.

    1. A spoke for use in connection with a wheel, the spoke comprising:
    a braided fiber having a first end and a second end; and
    a rod having a first end and a second end, whereby the first end of the rod is threaded,
    wherein the second end of the rod is disposed inside the first end of the braided fiber, and wherein the braided fiber is configured to frictionally engage with the rod when tension is applied thereby reducing a diameter of the braided fiber surrounding the rod and increasing a holding force on the rod to inhibit the braided fiber from detaching from the rod.

    19. A wheel comprising:
    a tire affixed to a rim;
    a hub comprising:
    a flange including at least one aperture;
    a plurality of spokes comprising a braided fiber having a first end and a second end;
    a rod having a first end and a second end, whereby the first end of the rod is threaded, wherein the second end of the rod is disposed inside the first end of the braided fiber, and wherein the braided fiber is configured to frictionally engage with the rod when tension is applied thereby reducing a diameter of the braided fiber surrounding the rod and increasing a holding force on the rod to inhibit the braided fiber from detaching from the rod, and
    wherein the first end of the rod is fastened to the rim by means of a nipple.

    1 and 19 seem the same to me.
    Yes, obviously the wheel I have built does violate this part of patent, as I buried a spoke end into the fiber just like berd describes.
    I did build the wheel before the patent was issued. Berd didn't ask me to cease my project so I am not sure what to do... is my wheel okay since i build it before December? :-DD

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Continuing,

    One reads the claims above as sort of a "checklist" to determine if the features recited in the claim are present in the accused device. Dependent claims, that refer to another, incorporate the recitations of the claim to which it refers, so Claim 2 adds itself to claim 1, claim 3 adds itself to 2 and also to 1, etc.

    For Claim 1, the elements are fairly straightforward: a braided fiber, a threaded rod, and the Chinese finger-cuff arrangement to secure the fiber to the rod (described in the "wherein clause").

    Claim 19 is essentially similar, except that the spokes of Claim 1 are recited in an assembly with a tire, rim, hub, and flange. So claim 1 claims a single spoke, claim 19 an entire wheel.

    But, if you can find everything contained in a claim in an accused device (Okashira's or someone else's spoke or wheel), then that device infringes. If even one element is missing, there is no infringement except under extraordinary circumstances. That there are further elements in the accused device is immaterial. If a single claim is infringed, the patent is infringed.

    The claims I think are simple enough that most folks can do an infringement analysis, so I won't do one here. Claims sometimes are much longer, have more elements in them, more arcane languagr, and can be a challenge to interpret. But the basic idea is just as presented here.

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 006_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,205
    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    1 and 19 seem the same to me.
    Yes, obviously the wheel I have built does violate this part of patent, as I buried a spoke end into the fiber just like berd describes.
    I did build the wheel before the patent was issued. Berd didn't ask me to cease my project so I am not sure what to do... is my wheel okay since i build it before December? :-DD
    Depends - are you building them to sell them to others? If so, then Berd has every right to request that you stop.

    If you are building them yourself, for yourself, and showing the rest of us a cool project (at a level that berd is not willing to show) then I think Berd would look like less of a penis with ears to leave it be.

  96. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by okashira View Post
    1 and 19 seem the same to me.
    Yes, obviously the wheel I have built does violate this part of patent, as I buried a spoke end into the fiber just like berd describes.
    I did build the wheel before the patent was issued. Berd didn't ask me to cease my project so I am not sure what to do... is my wheel okay since i build it before December? :-DD
    See the above post for more patent info.

    The patent statute says the following:

    Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
    Because yours was made before the issue date and presumably you won't sell any, or import any, you are ok there, as long as you don't make any more of them, or sell what you've got. I honestly don't know if "using" the patented invention, when it's a thing and not a method or process, gives rise to patent infringement.

  97. #297
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,439
    Wow, they must be owned by Specialized.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  98. #298
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,689
    Whoa, who's the snitch?

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    717
    As I have pointed out earlier, there are two fundamental differences between spokes proposed in this thread (okashira's initial build aside) and Berd spokes, specifically:

    1. The use of an eyebolt to secure a spliced end of the rope to the nipple seated in the rim. Here Berd buries a shaft in the braided rope, held in place under tension like a finger-trap, which threads into the nipple.

    2. The use of a splice directly around the hub flange to secure the rope to the hub. Here Berd uses a bury splice with a small piece of material placed inside the splice hole to hold the end of the splice behind the hub flange.

    Berd has not mentioned either of these concepts in their patent which are both crucial to design of spokes discussed in this thread, which, as TwiceHorn has pointed out, makes this invention not a violation of the Berd patent as far as I am aware.

  100. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by sissypants View Post
    As I have pointed out earlier, there are two fundamental differences between spokes proposed in this thread (okashira's initial build aside) and Berd spokes, specifically:

    1. The use of an eyebolt to secure a spliced end of the rope to the nipple seated in the rim. Here Berd buries a shaft in the braided rope, held in place under tension like a finger-trap, which threads into the nipple.

    2. The use of a splice directly around the hub flange to secure the rope to the hub. Here Berd uses a bury splice with a small piece of material placed inside the splice hole to hold the end of the splice behind the hub flange.

    Berd has not mentioned either of these concepts in their patent which are both crucial to design of spokes discussed in this thread, which, as TwiceHorn has pointed out, makes this invention not a violation of the Berd patent as far as I am aware.
    I will just note that as to the flange and hub, neither Claim 1 nor Claim 19 reference how the spoke is attached to the flange or hub. That would then fall into the category of "additions" to the claimed subject matter that do not affect infringement.

  101. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Reiterating, every element recited in a patent claim must be present in an accused device for that to infringe the claim and thus the patent.

    Each patent claim is analyzed separately for infringement. Because only one claim need be infringed to establish infringement of the patent, it is common for only one or two of the claims to be infringed.

    Also, here is how to read dependent claims:

    Claim 3 of the patent may be re written as follows:


    [1.] 3 A spoke for use in connection with a wheel, the spoke comprising:
    a braided fiber having a first end and a second end; and
    a rod having a first end and a second end, whereby the first end of the rod is threaded,
    wherein the second end of the rod is disposed inside the first end of the braided fiber, and wherein the braided fiber is configured to frictionally engage with the rod when tension is applied thereby reducing a diameter of the braided fiber surrounding the rod and increasing a holding force on the rod to inhibit the braided fiber from detaching from the rod.
    [2. The spoke of claim 1, ]wherein the second end of the rod is fastened to an inside of the first end of the braided fiber with adhesive.
    [3. The spoke of claim 2, ]wherein the adhesive consists of ethyl cyanoacrylate glue.

    Underlining indicates the addition of claims 2 and 3 to claim 1. The brackets indicate deleted text.

  102. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    236
    Anything made by you before the patent was granted is exempt. Time travel doesn't exist.

    Infringement is possible in the US simply by you copying and executing their design, even for personal use (and if they go after anyone for that, they are d-bags - would it really be worth the expense to go after you legally?).

    If your method is significantly different than theirs, then you're not infringing. The key is in determining whether the differences are significant enough. Their patent has to be very specific as there is so little that is functionally different from a metal-spoked setup.

    Make an adhesive the method of securing the rod inside the "rope" and you've bypassed the finger trap patent. Or use a spoke chunk with an eyelet on one end and threads on the other.
    Change the method the rope attaches to the hub.
    You now have a significantly different product.
    Done.

    Look at Spyderco knives. That hole in the blade has to be circular for them to be able to go after anyone who does something similar. Make the hole a trapezoid, and they've got nothing on you.

  103. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Also, it appears that using a patented device made before the patent was granted would constitute infringement. Although what Okashira has done presents a very unique fact pattern, if, in fact, one of his made designs infringes. I express no opinion on that issue.

    I am a lawyer, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

  104. #304
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,488
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Also, it appears that using a patented device made before the patent was granted would constitute infringement. Although what Okashira has done presents a very unique fact pattern, if, in fact, one of his made designs infringes. I express no opinion on that issue.

    I am a lawyer, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
    Does it matter if he isn't selling it?
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  105. #305
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Does it matter if he isn't selling it?
    I thought that it does matter, but I have since been educated that even making the item constitutes infingement.

  106. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Reiterating, every element recited in a patent claim must be present in an accused device for that to infringe the claim and thus the patent.

    Each patent claim is analyzed separately for infringement. Because only one claim need be infringed to establish infringement of the patent, it is common for only one or two of the claims to be infringed.

    Also, here is how to read dependent claims:

    Claim 3 of the patent may be re written as follows:


    [1.] 3 A spoke for use in connection with a wheel, the spoke comprising:
    a braided fiber having a first end and a second end; and
    a rod having a first end and a second end, whereby the first end of the rod is threaded,
    wherein the second end of the rod is disposed inside the first end of the braided fiber, and wherein the braided fiber is configured to frictionally engage with the rod when tension is applied thereby reducing a diameter of the braided fiber surrounding the rod and increasing a holding force on the rod to inhibit the braided fiber from detaching from the rod.
    [2. The spoke of claim 1, ]wherein the second end of the rod is fastened to an inside of the first end of the braided fiber with adhesive.
    [3. The spoke of claim 2, ]wherein the adhesive consists of ethyl cyanoacrylate glue.

    Underlining indicates the addition of claims 2 and 3 to claim 1. The brackets indicate deleted text.

    Perfect, I think this helps.

    So the claims themselves are treated as "and" statements
    The dependent claims are treated as "and" statements to the prior claims
    Items within each claim are treated as "and" statements

    Individual claims are treated as "or" statements. (this patent has two individual claims)

    To elaborate, this tells me that if one was drafting their own patent, it would be desirable to limit the number of items within a claim and to reduce the number of dependent claims, would it not?

  107. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Also, it appears that using a patented device made before the patent was granted would constitute infringement. Although what Okashira has done presents a very unique fact pattern, if, in fact, one of his made designs infringes. I express no opinion on that issue.

    I am a lawyer, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
    you disagree with robbnj, but since you didn't stay at the Holiday Inn i'll have to side with you (I am guessing that is some kinda lawyer joke )

  108. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    As noted above the patent act forbids making using selling offering to sell and importing. Any single one of those acts is an act of infringement.

    As a practical matter, there are no damages if there are no sales, or none that can be easily quantified. But patent litigation is often pursued primarily for the injunction against further infringement.

  109. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Almost. Every claim is separate from every other claim in the sense that it is different and must be considered on its own. They are "or" statements as against each other.

    The patent has 20 claims. Two of the claims 1 and 19 can be read alone. The other 18 incorporate other claims. That's just shorthand notation so you don't have to repeat the claim language 20 times in full.

  110. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    As noted above the patent act forbids making using selling offering to sell and importing. Any single one of those acts is an act of infringement.

    As a practical matter, there are no damages if there are no sales, or none that can be easily quantified. But patent litigation is often pursued primarily for the injunction against further infringement.
    Theoretically by giving instruction here they could go after damages that way, no?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  111. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Also, it appears that using a patented device made before the patent was granted would constitute infringement. Although what Okashira has done presents a very unique fact pattern, if, in fact, one of his made designs infringes. I express no opinion on that issue.

    I am a lawyer, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
    You design/invent, and build a widget.
    Fred patents your invention.
    You now have no rights to the widget that you invented, built, and still own because Fred holds the patent on it?

    Color me intrigued.

  112. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Theoretically by giving instruction here they could go after damages that way, no?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Nope. Public knowledge by way of the patent. The patent actually must be detailed enough that someone could use it to make the item you've patented.

    If the instrcution is shared in order to educate, it's cool. But, don't be a d-bag and share the instrux in order to help people infringe the patent.

  113. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    Nope. Public knowledge by way of the patent. The patent actually must be detailed enough that someone could use it to make the item you've patented.

    If the instrcution is shared in order to educate, it's cool. But, don't be a d-bag and share the instrux in order to help people infringe the patent.
    That's not 100% accurate. The patent has to be clear enough that someone skilled in the art could use it, not just Joe Blow Public.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  114. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Theoretically by giving instruction here they could go after damages that way, no?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Yes. Supplying commodity parts and instructing assembly into an infringing device is generally known as "active inducement" of infringement. Supplying specially made components, less than a whole, that are assembled into an infringing device is generally known as "contributory" infringement. This stuff can get super-complicated.

    Talking about a published patent application or granted patent, and what it discloses, alone is not likely to be considered any type of infringement. It would require suppplying some parts to a specific customer and giving them information to assemble the parts into an infringing whole.

  115. #315
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    You design/invent, and build a widget.
    Fred patents your invention.
    You now have no rights to the widget that you invented, built, and still own because Fred holds the patent on it?

    Color me intrigued.
    That is a different deal entirely.

    Here every infringing act except use either didn't occur (sales, importation) or occurred prior to grant (making). Although it is a unique fact pattern, I believe use alone is sufficient to constitute patent infringement. There is an argument that infringement by "use" only occurs with method or process claims.

    There can also be liability from the date of publication rather than grant, if the claims dont change between publication and grant, which didn't happen here.

  116. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Yes. Supplying commodity parts and instructing assembly into an infringing device is generally known as "active inducement" of infringement. Supplying specially made components, less than a whole, that are assembled into an infringing device is generally known as "contributory" infringement. This stuff can get super-complicated.

    Talking about a published patent application or granted patent, and what it discloses, alone is not likely to be considered any type of infringement. It would require suppplying some parts to a specific customer and giving them information to assemble the parts into an infringing whole.
    Thanks, I'm better versed in tech patents so I wasn't sure how that would apply here.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  117. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Thanks, I'm better versed in tech patents so I wasn't sure how that would apply here.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Haha I have to laugh at "tech." This is "tech." It's insulting to all kinds of engineers to consider only IT things "tech." The name "Big Tech" is a misnomer and fallacious.

    I saw a ridiculous headline a few years ago: "Boeing goes high tech" referring to installation of wifi equipment on an airliner. As if 100 years of aircraft design and manufacture is somehow "low tech." GMAFB.

    /end rant

    To your point, however, most "tech" patents, presumably meaning software, contain method or process claims that consist of a series of steps rather than a list of physical items or components. Indirect (meaning inducement of or contributory infringement) gets very, very tricky. Much easier to deal with "apparatus" claims.

  118. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Haha I have to laugh at "tech." This is "tech." It's insulting to all kinds of engineers to consider only IT things "tech." The name "Big Tech" is a misnomer and fallacious.

    I saw a ridiculous headline a few years ago: "Boeing goes high tech" referring to installation of wifi equipment on an airliner. As if 100 years of aircraft design and manufacture is somehow "low tech." GMAFB.
    And I have to laugh at you for rejecting a word used in a way that has become ubiquitous.

    Seriously though, it wouldn't even need to be used in this case if the courts had some semblance of an understanding about software.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  119. #319
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,488
    So basically, all of us that are making our own home-made tire sealant are doing it illegally?

    I mean, technically, that's what all of us that are doing this are doing. We've figured out how to make something that works as well as what is sold by Stans, Orange, etc., we are using at least a very similar make-up and many of the same materials, and so on.

    I'd have to believe that the court would favor in your favor if you supplied your information on your process. While you may have been inspired by Berd to build your own polymer spoke wheels, you came up with your own open-source process to make these, in fact, you've documented it in this thread many times over, and these processes are different than Berd. That's what we did with sealant, we experimented with many materials until we settled on a formula that does what we want. They are simply trying to "strong arm" people in this thread that are interested in doing it themselves, because it's been revealed that it's something that can be done individually without big machinery and equipment. I'm sure they aren't happy about that.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  120. #320
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,212
    patent fights are not simple

    a water balloon patent fight cost 17 million dollars so far for the patent owner, and could go as high as 50 million by the time it is done
    -
    no one on either side can fight patents in courts unless you got financial backing deep enough
    -
    if Berd wants to pursue this they can



    it's probably best for the homemade poly spoke crowd to walk away from this issue

    for small potatoes sales like berd spokes, both sides, at a minimum, likely will be out $750,000 in legal fees just to -start- a patent battle
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  121. #321
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    So basically, all of us that are making our own home-made tire sealant are doing it illegally?

    I mean, technically, that's what all of us that are doing this are doing. We've figured out how to make something that works as well as what is sold by Stans, Orange, etc., we are using at least a very similar make-up and many of the same materials, and so on.

    I'd have to believe that the court would favor in your favor if you supplied your information on your process. While you may have been inspired by Berd to build your own polymer spoke wheels, you came up with your own open-source process to make these, in fact, you've documented it in this thread many times over, and these processes are different than Berd. They are simply trying to "strong arm" people in this thread that are interested in doing it themselves, because it's been revealed that it's something that can be done individually without big machinery and equipment. I'm sure they aren't happy about that.
    Not the same, I just did a quick Google patent search and the first three tire sealant patents are all expired.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  122. #322
    Hitching a ride
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,191
    Well this thread got interesting. I have to wonder why Berd bothered patenting something that is essentially tying rope in a known fashion, that anyone can do on their kitchen table.

    At any rate, I'll respect their patent.

  123. #323
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,488
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Not the same, I just did a quick Google patent search and the first three tire sealant patents are all expired.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Surely someone has a patent, Slime, WTB, etc. Patents can be renewed, I remember for a while that we all thought the FSR patent was expiring and it'd always end up renewed, until it eventually did expire, but it was way down the road from what we originally thought.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  124. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Surely someone has a patent, Slime, WTB, etc. Patents can be renewed, I remember for a while that we all thought the FSR patent was expiring and it'd always end up renewed, until it eventually did expire, but it was way down the road from what we originally thought.
    With the recent relative explosion in that area I would think they are all expired. There is also the unique and not obvious criteria. With multiple holders holding patents on a relatively simple item they may be scared to push too hard on litigation out of fears of invalidation. The two I gave a skim at looked so similar I'm not sure how the second got granted.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  125. #325
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    317
    No patent expert, but I didn't think you could just renew. That would defeat the whole point of them expiring. I thought you could add to a patent, which would in a way renew, but couldn't just hit a button to get another 17(?) years.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  126. #326
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by compengr View Post
    No patent expert, but I didn't think you could just renew. That would defeat the whole point of them expiring. I thought you could add to a patent, which would in a way renew, but couldn't just hit a button to get another 17(?) years.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
    You can't except in the rare case you can get Congress involved.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  127. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    And I have to laugh at you for rejecting a word used in a way that has become ubiquitous.

    Seriously though, it wouldn't even need to be used in this case if the courts had some semblance of an understanding about software.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Didn't mean to pick at you. It is the ubiquitousness of the term "tech" and its current definition with which I have a problem.

    The courts and principally the Supreme Court have jacked up software patent (and copyright to an extent) law to a fare the well. Still, its abstract yet material nature presents some difficult problems.

  128. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Didn't mean to pick at you. It is the ubiquitousness of the term "tech" and its current definition with which I have a problem.

    The courts and principally the Supreme Court have jacked up software patent (and copyright to an extent) law to a fare the well. Still, its abstract yet material nature presents some difficult problems.
    I get what you're saying. I still use the word technology in the sense you described. To me, "tech", is referring to an industry.

    It's rooted in ignorance on their behalf. Not a pejorative, I wouldn't expect a lay person to grasp all the concepts at play. Some of the criteria they settled on with Alice borders on the absurd.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  129. #329
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    So basically, all of us that are making our own home-made tire sealant are doing it illegally?

    I mean, technically, that's what all of us that are doing this are doing. We've figured out how to make something that works as well as what is sold by Stans, Orange, etc., we are using at least a very similar make-up and many of the same materials, and so on.

    I'd have to believe that the court would favor in your favor if you supplied your information on your process. While you may have been inspired by Berd to build your own polymer spoke wheels, you came up with your own open-source process to make these, in fact, you've documented it in this thread many times over, and these processes are different than Berd. That's what we did with sealant, we experimented with many materials until we settled on a formula that does what we want. They are simply trying to "strong arm" people in this thread that are interested in doing it themselves, because it's been revealed that it's something that can be done individually without big machinery and equipment. I'm sure they aren't happy about that.
    Patents cover very specific things, not general notions like "tire sealant" or "flexible spokes." You may be infringing a patent on a tire sealant with your home brew or maybe not. Depends on whether that formulation was patentable, and when, and whether anyone patented it.

    There are quite a few patents for "flexible spokes" of different configurations. Some are even expired or about to.

    Patent infringement is, for the most part, "strict liability," meaning you need not intend to infringe a patent, but if you do you do.

  130. #330
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    And no a patent cannot be "renewed." It has a term of 20 years from its earliest filing date. It is subject to payment of maintenance fees at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after its grant date. Failure to pay those results in early expiration.

    There are some procedures by which improvements on an original idea are patented that can appear to be "extensions" of the original patent, but they are not. They are patents on the improvements, only.

    There is so much misinformation about patents out there, particularly on technical hobby boards like this one, which is a big reason I decided to give some examples on this thread because it has such concrete examples.

  131. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    And no a patent cannot be "renewed." It has a term of 20 years from its earliest filing date. It is subject to payment of maintenance fees at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after its grant date. Failure to pay those results in early expiration.

    There are some procedures by which improvements on an original idea are patented that can appear to be "extensions" of the original patent, but they are not. They are patents on the improvements, only.

    There is so much misinformation about patents out there, particularly on technical hobby boards like this one, which is a big reason I decided to give some examples on this thread because it has such concrete examples.
    You also have the instances where you can get Congress to act if the USPTO drug its feet or interference happened. I do know those are extremely rare but they happen.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  132. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You also have the instances where you can get Congress to act if the USPTO drug its feet or interference happened. I do know those are extremely rare but they happen.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Oh yes, you are correct. There is such thing as a patent term extension, and it is an extension of the 20 year term. They are available only for pharmaceuticals or other items subject to approval by the FDA and compensate for "lost term" pending FDA approval.

    Pharma patent practice is super-rarefied stuff. Ordinary electro-chemical-mechanical types like me almost consider it an entirely different field.

    And, there are automatic term "adjustments" to compensate for PTO delay that usually appear on the face of the patent and are typically a matter of months or days. These just happen according to a formula that accounts for unusual delays by the Patent Office (PTO).

    The Berd patent has a term adjustment of 118 days. Assuming maintenance fees were paid, it would expire on May 5, 2036. But you have to add 118 days to that. Generally, we don't consider that too big a deal because in a lot of cases, patented technology is pretty obsolescent by the time it's 20 years old. Not always, but most of the time.

  133. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    Well this thread got interesting. I have to wonder why Berd bothered patenting something that is essentially tying rope in a known fashion, that anyone can do on their kitchen table.

    At any rate, I'll respect their patent.
    As will I. As soon as I get a chance, I will go through the thread and cull out any information or anything that may be seen as encouragement on how to violate their patent, and the details of their methodology.

  134. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    102
    spit balling here... what if one looped the cord through two spoke holes then tensioned at the hub. This would reduce nipple weight and threaded spoke weight at the rim and avoid the patent, but make it harder to true/tighten. aren't there hubs that tighten at the hub though?

  135. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    102
    To be clearer, I would thread the cord through a nipple that has threads on the outside. The outside nipple threads would mate with threads on the inside of the hub flange. Pull that cord into one rim hole and out the next on the same side. This open end could then be fed back through another hub flange nipple or just tied off. Tensioning would be done by screwing the hub flange mounted nipple away from the hub. This would reduce total weight and more importantly rim weight. It also skips the tricky and sketchy (to me) aspects of the fingerlick design.

    This ‘fat hole’ nipple could also be placed in the rim and not the hub. Seems a better and lighter system to me.
    Last edited by andrew k; 01-27-2019 at 10:04 PM. Reason: Add note

  136. #336
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,488
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Not the same, I just did a quick Google patent search and the first three tire sealant patents are all expired.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Well, I found this, granted in 2004. Filed in 2002, application dated 2003. That means at worst, it'd expire in 2022, right?

    US Patent 6,782,931
    What is claimed is:

    1. A system for converting and retrofitting a bicycle wheel having a tire with an inner cavity engaged to a rim with an inner channel, comprising: a strip of rim tape disposed within said channel; a strip of sealing tape disposed within said channel, wherein said sealing tape completely covers said rim tape; and a liquid sealing compound disposed within said channel and said cavity and adapted for disposal within said wheel for sealing along said sealing tape and said beads, wherein said sealing compound comprises: about 3 parts by volume liquid latex; about 7 parts by volume water; and about 6 parts by volume propylene glycol.

    2. The system of claim 1 further comprising a valve stem inserted through a predetermined portion of said rim tape, said sealing tape, and said rim tape.

    3. The system of claim 1, wherein said sealing compound further comprises about 0.25 parts by volume of an aggregate material.

    4. The system of claim 3, wherein said aggregate material comprises particles ranging in diameter from about 0.15 millimeters to about 0.60 millimeters.

    5. The system of claim 3, wherein said aggregate material comprises cornmeal.
    Also see: United States Patent Application 20030136490
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  137. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Well, I found this, granted in 2004. Filed in 2002, application dated 2003. That means at worst, it'd expire in 2022, right?

    US Patent 6,782,931


    Also see: United States Patent Application 20030136490
    Potentially, however that one is covering more than sealant which is a different problem statement. That's describing an entire system. You could probably get around it simply by removing the standard rim tape if you ever had to.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  138. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Potentially, however that one is covering more than sealant which is a different problem statement. That's describing an entire system. You could probably get around it simply by removing the standard rim tape if you ever had to.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    This is correct. This is directed to Stan's kits for "non-tubeless" rims, but as part of it recites the broad formula for the sealant.

    Also note that it expired early (June 2018) for failure to pay maintenance fees.

    And a very similar one, US7055569B2, also expired early.

  139. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    This is correct. This is directed to Stan's kits for "non-tubeless" rims, but as part of it recites the broad formula for the sealant.

    Also note that it expired early (June 2018) for failure to pay maintenance fees.

    And a very similar one, US7055569B2, also expired early.
    I would imagine, layman's guess, that they probably decided it wasn't enforceable thus not worth paying?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  140. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by andrew k View Post
    To be clearer, I would thread the cord through a nipple that has threads on the outside. The outside nipple threads would mate with threads on the inside of the hub flange. Pull that cord into one rim hole and out the next on the same side. This open end could then be fed back through another hub flange nipple or just tied off. Tensioning would be done by screwing the hub flange mounted nipple away from the hub. This would reduce total weight and more importantly rim weight. It also skips the tricky and sketchy (to me) aspects of the fingerlick design.

    This ‘fat hole’ nipple could also be placed in the rim and not the hub. Seems a better and lighter system to me.
    Pi-Rope has done something similar which requires proprietary hubs, as you need a threaded flange. With braided rope, you need to splice to get a strong junction, I'm not sure how splicing would fit into this description. Splicing is much stronger than knots or adhesive of any kind.

    I'd really avoid running rope through adjacent nipple holes as rims aren't designed to handle the stresses of a properly tensioned "spoke" laying across the rim bed. Alternatively, if you were to take two adjacent nipples and thread eyebolts into these adjacent nipples, then run rope from one hub flange through eyebolt 1, across to eyebolt 2, and down to the opposite flange on the other side of the hub, the angular force exerted on those two eyebolts for a properly tensioned spoke would torque the nipples out of the rim.

    One idea I have proposed earlier involves two adjacent eyebolts (A and B) attached to two adjacent nipples (A2 and B2) set on the rim bed. One end of the rope would be spliced into eyebolt A, passed through the corresponding hub flange, routed across the hub shell and passed through the opposite flange, and spliced taught through eyebolt B. Tensioning would be done by adjusting either nipple A2 or B2. Of course, a compatible spoke lacing pattern would have to be identified. This method would be faster and easier to build as it requires half of the amount of splicing. I think it would still be easy to true the wheel.

  141. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    102
    sissypants- you are probably right about threading the cord through the rim.

    i think it should be possible, however, to make a proprietary nipple with an inside portion that accepts the cord through the middle. The cord could be overhand knotted to prevent it from pulling through the nipple. This would probably be a weak point. Rather than a proprietary hub, i would think it would be possible to slip a female proprietary nipple into the hub and rim to accept the proprietary male (outside threaded) nipple (the one with the cord through the middle). Maybe there just isn't enough room in the hub hole for the cord and a male/female sheath around it?

    your eyebolt solution sounds tenable as well.

  142. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I would imagine, layman's guess, that they probably decided it wasn't enforceable thus not worth paying?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Pretty good guess. Or not worth enforcing these last few years given that no one other than Stans seems to sell that type of kit and now plain ol rim tape, valves and sealant are the order of the day.

    Might be surprised too how often these fees just get missed from someone dropping the ball. It's discovered later and everyone just shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well." The fees can be paid much, much later upon payment of a hefty surcharge.

  143. #343
    Armature speller
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,493
    Like people forgetting to pay the yearly fee for "microsoft.com".

  144. #344
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    @sissypants I think that idea falls apart at needing independent tension for every spoke. But I like it. Keep thinking. I still like the loop idea too. Patent got ends? Loop got no ends!

  145. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    90
    so what about what pi-rope have been doing, different material and propirotary hub interfaces, anything there that coulds be adjusted

  146. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    102
    i just looked at pi-rope. they seem to be doing just what i suggested above. Maybe it isn't possible, but i would think it would be possible to make a proprietary nipple that would be able to slide into most hubs - avoiding the need for a proprietary hub.

  147. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    @sissypants I think that idea falls apart at needing independent tension for every spoke. But I like it. Keep thinking. I still like the loop idea too. Patent got ends? Loop got no ends!
    Darth, in all reality, would you actually need to tension two adjacent spokes independently? Instead of truing your wheel with 28 spokes, can't you true it with 14 spokes? That is, assuming each of these adjacent pairs of spokes share the same tension.

    The only reason I'm not a fan of the loop idea is because it seems like it would look "not cool". I do think you'd end up using nearly the same amount of material, maybe a little more, but that would outweigh the time spent doing a single splice rather than two for each spoke.

  148. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by andrew k View Post
    i just looked at pi-rope. they seem to be doing just what i suggested above. Maybe it isn't possible, but i would think it would be possible to make a proprietary nipple that would be able to slide into most hubs - avoiding the need for a proprietary hub.
    The problem is the hub flange is soo small that by the time you have a female nipple behind the flange and going through the flange, and a male bolt going into the flange, you've got nothing left to epoxy in the rope, not to mention tensile strength of the system. Besides, you'll be adding weight (0.3g for the nipple, plus another 0.2-0.5g for the male bolt) and that defeats the purpose. It's also more complexity, more hardware, etc. You could make the hub flanges bigger, but you really don't want that extra nipple in the system, it just defeats the purpose.

  149. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by sissypants View Post
    Darth, in all reality, would you actually need to tension two adjacent spokes independently?
    If they are "adjacent" on the rim, yes. Each side has a different tension for dish.

    If they are "adjacent" on the hub yes too. Look at your lacing pattern. Gotta have crosses to receive the torque loads. Otherwise the torque will pull the string through the eye. Unless it's a rim brake front.

    I'm not saying there's no solution, I just can't visualize it yet.

  150. #350
    Hitching a ride
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,191
    How about a purpose made hub shell? Make it so one piece of string goes from nipple to nipple and wraps partially around the hub where it is clamped. Then you can tension each side from the rim side.

    Just the shell, say for a DT 350. Swap over internals.

  151. #351
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,399
    ooh, here's an idea to go with that. No hub holes at all. Hub torque received by friction of all the strings each wrapped halfway around it.

    Maybe you could macramé the strings into a kind of braid around the hub, push the hub into the center, tension it up.

    That would be a nightmare to start truing, I bet!

  152. #352
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,972
    Hey guys, I'm quite certain I'm going to attempt to build, slowly for my kid, a real WW hard tail 24" bicycle over the next 3-4 months to have it ready for when she is tall enough. Which is, uh definitely beyond my mechanical abilities.

    I'm planning to Alibaba a lot of stuff (i.e. bars, stem, cf frame mainly).

    Wheel choices appear to be pretty limited in this category so I'm probably going to have something built. Wondering if one of you wheel builder side guys would be interested in installing some Poly spokes on provided rims/ hubs?

    Also, if anyone has a lead on some inexpensive yet lightweight 24" wheels I'd love to hear it. Chinese made CF wheels would be ideal.

    Thanks!

  153. #353
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,629
    So this thread is pretty much dead in the water because of Berd's cease and desist?
    Work - Utility GIS Analyst
    Party - 2019 Guerrilla Gravity Revved Trail Pistol Sz 3

  154. #354
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,212
    I thought this thread was deleted or hidden and surprised it is here. wtf ? I have no stake in this just watchin and boom, it's back.
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  155. #355
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,972
    Bump

  156. #356
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Bump
    I'd let this die. If they bothered to C&D bringing back up isn't really advised.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  157. #357
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I'd let this die. If they bothered to C&D bringing back up isn't really advised.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Berd did not send a C&D. They have a good product and their patent(s) should be respected, however. :-)

  158. #358
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    Anyone able to source 12 strand DM20?

  159. #359
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    391
    And.....
    In looking outside the box to solve the cord-to-nipple interface issues....

    Anyone have thoughts on using donor Pillar 1432 spokes?
    Cutting them off leaving a short section of flat blade and then drilling them to attach the cord?
    You would already have the nipple thread, and easily be able to thread more\cut it off to length.
    It would also be reasonable to get 2 cord/nipple interfaces out of each J bend spoke.
    (@ ~$1 a pop for each spoke, and already having a spoke thread roller it works out pretty economical)

    Bits that concern me....
    It's only 3.2mm wide, so would have to be a 1.5mm cord.
    For a one off 32h wheel I'm on the verge of thinking it's a goer, but the tolerances on the bladed hole drilling would be exceptionally slim.

    I'm thinking it could be possible to leave it a bit longer ~10mm put 2 holes, and loop though both. But then you've got a non-inline force being applied at the holes when tensioned.

    Anyone got any opinions in this approach?

  160. #360
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    That's the exactly the approach I'm going to try. I figured I'd setup a jig in a drill press to ensure accuracy when drilling and chauffeuring. Close to sourcing some 1.5mm DM20 - not easy to find.

  161. #361
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    Test spoke end. Next step is test the eyelet for strength under tension with a piece of spliced 2.0mm DM20. Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-spoke1.jpg

  162. #362
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-83145027_10221423223800561_2325568784686907392_n.jpgMake your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-83891514_10221423371044242_7255305021238018048_o.jpgMake your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-84158861_10221423224000566_4661745124982652928_n.jpg

  163. #363
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by MaineLotus View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	83145027_10221423223800561_2325568784686907392_n.jpg 
Views:	78 
Size:	85.0 KB 
ID:	1308113Click image for larger version. 

Name:	83891514_10221423371044242_7255305021238018048_o.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	204.6 KB 
ID:	1308115Click image for larger version. 

Name:	84158861_10221423224000566_4661745124982652928_n.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	55.3 KB 
ID:	1308117
    Looking really good!

    With the bent spoke approach....
    Would it be an idea to splice the loop, then feed this through the hole in the spoke end, and loop over the thread, and pressed joint?
    This way the tension on the cord is helping force the joint together, and further reduce the risk of it failing at that join?
    (also makes it easier to swap an end if there is a failure of the thread or anything)

    TBH i'm probably over thinking it, as that joint may be strong enough on it's own as it is.

  164. #364
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    The spoke end is formed and then TIG welded, so there isn't really a joint to come apart. I did some destructive tests and it didn't not fail at the weld - the alloy spoke nipple stripped out. Maybe difficult to see in pictures - the DM20 is spliced to the spoke end and hub, there isn't any looping through either.

  165. #365
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    Front wheel laced up. They are easier to lace than steel spokes, so far so good.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-0128202222_hdr.jpg  

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-0128202222.jpg  


  166. #366
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,488
    Cool!
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  167. #367
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    3
    Guys, great project. I ordered 100 meters of rope. I think to combine 2 methods. For attaching to the hub: loop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ND8Gfk_bVI) + berd's technology. And to the rim is an analog of Pi Rope Or the method proposed by MaineLotus.

    MaineLotus, please say. Did you use spokes to make metal loops or bent from a wire and cut a thread?
    How is the operation of the wheels?

  168. #368
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    For the spoke ends, I used Pilar bladed spokes and formed the eyelet. The eye was then TIG welded and finally powder coated.

  169. #369
    be1
    be1 is offline
    the beat goes on
    Reputation: be1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by MaineLotus View Post
    For the spoke ends, I used Pilar bladed spokes and formed the eyelet. The eye was then TIG welded and finally powder coated.
    looks great! do you think this is better than steel spokes?

    seems like a fun project
    You just can't beat the person who never gives up. - B.Ruth

  170. #370
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    Pillar spokes are steel - stainless steel. As short as the spoke ends are, they are the heaviest part. I do have some bladed ti spokes to experiment with, but not sure how they'll work out.

    I may have misread your question - I think overall they are better than steel spokes. Lighter and have some compliance (from the reviews I've read).

  171. #371
    be1
    be1 is offline
    the beat goes on
    Reputation: be1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    284
    i am intrigued. well-done!

    i have been following this for awhile. to me the string to metal interface seemed like the weak point. looks like you nailed it.
    You just can't beat the person who never gives up. - B.Ruth

  172. #372
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by MaineLotus View Post
    For the spoke ends, I used Pilar bladed spokes and formed the eyelet. The eye was then TIG welded and finally powder coated.
    But did you bend it manually or did you use some kind of attachment?
    Firms that bend the wire, I can not do this because they have wire in coils, and there are more radii.

  173. #373
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    I created a metal form that is essentially to steel plates that come together to press the spokes into an eyelet.

  174. #374
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    3
    MaineLotus, I would be grateful if you reset the device photo (%
    I will do something similar.

  175. #375
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    47
    I had one of these from when my son was a cub scout and repurposed it for this project.

    https://www.amazon.com/Revell-Axle-S.../dp/B004AFAH3Q

    You'll need to drill it appropriately and use a piece of nail or screw to help form the eyelet. I used a large vice to press the two halves of the die together to to form the part. In the photos, I used a spoke end that was already formed, I didn't have any raw materials left.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-forming.jpg  

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-0211201305.jpg  

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-0211201308.jpg  

    Make your own polymer (UHMWPE) spokes?-0211201307.jpg  


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Polymer Berd Spokes
    By Jayem in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-17-2018, 08:02 AM
  2. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 09-10-2016, 12:07 AM
  3. Spokes Spokes Spokes
    By cb4photo in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-25-2008, 02:57 AM
  4. Ever wanted to own your own bike store?
    By pinkheadedbug in forum Eastern Canada
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 03:49 PM
  5. Own your own bike stable!!!
    By AZClydesdale in forum Where are the Best Deals?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-29-2004, 08:33 AM

Members who have read this thread: 128

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.