Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [Paul at PCW] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Paul at PCW wrote:
When I read this, I have a hard time imagining this being a real problem that requires a solution. Meaning, normal circular rims have been around forever and stresses at the nipple are very rarely problematic. I'd also think stress dissipation is just as much a function of the fiber type and layup, as it is of the design of the rim. And also - the images don't seem to show anything being under compression - in fact I would think the 'valleys' in between two spokes on your rims are more likely to be under compression than the area in between spokes in a standard wheel. No?
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [Benv] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wheels crack at the spoke nipples all the time. Aluminum and carbon both. Whether or not this will fix that, i have no idea. Outside of geometry, the matrix system and layup are most important for preventing cracking; i doubt fiber failure will occur.
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [imswimmer328] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
imswimmer328 wrote:
Wheels crack at the spoke nipples all the time. Aluminum and carbon both. Whether or not this will fix that, i have no idea. Outside of geometry, the matrix system and layup are most important for preventing cracking; i doubt fiber failure will occur.
How often is all the time? Just wondering because I don't know of anyone actually having that happen.
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [Benv] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Benv wrote:
Paul at PCW wrote:
When I read this, I have a hard time imagining this being a real problem that requires a solution. Meaning, normal circular rims have been around forever and stresses at the nipple are very rarely problematic. I'd also think stress dissipation is just as much a function of the fiber type and layup, as it is of the design of the rim. And also - the images don't seem to show anything being under compression - in fact I would think the 'valleys' in between two spokes on your rims are more likely to be under compression than the area in between spokes in a standard wheel. No?

But if you engineer a solution that is stronger, you can take away some material, with the result being lighter, but with the same strength...the question is whether the advantage of making it lighter is worth the effort. In some applications, sure. The alternative is to have something that is the same weight, but stronger. If the shape lends itself to making a stronger wheel, while being a more aerodynamic shape, then that is a real advantage. If it lends itself to being stronger, and better protected from steering torque (which allows you to be more aero because you are on the aerobars more and concentrating on pedaling rather than steering) then that is what I would call out. I think what would best benefit these young gentlemen would be carrying a unifying, easy to understand message and is supported by all the hard work that they have put into making this product. Otherwise, potential customers are left trying to figure it out for ourselves....Engineers and scientists are notorious for interacting poorly with the general public. Its like that quote from Office Space...

I deal with the goddam customers so the engineers don't have to!

Stephen J


I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)e2
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [Benv] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a friend who had that happen to him. Also seems pretty logical to me for that to happen because the small hole is going to be a stress concentration. Classic case of low load, high cycle fatigue loading. All the time was probably an incorrect statement, more so that it does happen, and IMO seems like one of the more likely failure modes outside of catastrophic damage.
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [hajamac] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello hajamac and All,

From Kraig Willet 2004 BikeTechReview ....

http://biketechreview.com/...ng/471-hang-or-stand

Hang or Stand?


A little known semantic debate revolving around the details of how bicycle wheels structurally support loads has been raging on the usenet newsgroups for quite some time. And, like any good debate, arguments are made and points of view defended (sometimes irrationally, I might add). The point of contention in this debate is whether or not a loaded bicycle wheel "stands" on the bottom spokes or "hangs" from the top ones? So, which one do you think best describes the situation?
Idle speculation on this topic can sometimes get out of hand - and that is where objective data/experimentation can help. In a recent re-hashing of this topic it was brought to my attention that the "standing" model may not necessarily be applicable to every type of wheel, despite the "standing" chief protagonist's insistence.
The goal of my little weekend experiment was to make a structurally sound wheel that has a hub that clearly "hangs" from the top spokes. Impossible! You might say that, but before you lay your ego on the line, let me demonstrate:
Ingredients:
  • 1 old three spoke wheel
  • 1 die grinder with a cut-off wheel
  • 1 really understanding and patient wife
  • a "couple" of Stone Pale Ales
  • lots of free time





Anybody have one of these to update the experiment?



Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster
Last edited by: nealhe: Sep 20, 18 19:47
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
https://cyclingtips.com/...-company-big-claims/

Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/
Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
WAKE 6560 with WHITE INDUSTRIES Hubs / $2200


2019 Princeton CarbonWorks product/price update.

http://www.princetoncarbon.com/product/wake-6560/




Paul Daniels
paul@princetoncarbon.com
http://www.princetoncarbon.com
Last edited by: Paul at PCW: Oct 29, 18 9:00
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [Paul at PCW] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Good for you for adjusting to the market....you lost potential buyers (like me) in the meantime but maybe you can recover.

If the EA is an attempt to sell a more economical version of the regular wheel, I think your price point is still unrealistic, unless of course, you are advertising the more economical wheel at an only slightly lower price with the hope that more people buy the more expensive version (call it the movie popcorn pricing theory). There is nothing economical about an $1,800 wheelset when sale prices on your competitors put their regular wheels in that same range.
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nealhe wrote:
Hello hajamac and All,

From Kraig Willet 2004 BikeTechReview ....

http://biketechreview.com/...ng/471-hang-or-stand

Hang or Stand?


I can't say that this is a question I had ever really considered, but it feels logical to me that they hang rather than stand. After all, we build wheels with all spokes under tension, and a spoke underneath the hub almost certainly doesn't enter compression (although I would expect the tension to decrease).

Perhaps if a test wheel was built with tensioned strings/ropes instead of metal spokes, it would be more obvious?
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [Liaman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes. Hang, not stand. Bill Mould has material on this at his website. http://www.billmouldwheels.com

Paul Daniels
paul@princetoncarbon.com
http://www.princetoncarbon.com
Quote Reply
Re: Princeton CarbonWorks "white paper" [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Update | CyclingTips James Huang
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/12/skys-sponsorship-woes-mclaren-vuelta-daily-news-digest/

Paul Daniels
paul@princetoncarbon.com
http://www.princetoncarbon.com
Quote Reply

Prev Next