This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Extlink: http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/wheel1.html
-- Christopherlin 21:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of disc wheels? Rather major piece missing from the article. Mathmo 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Does the Tufo 'tubular' cited as an example of a tubular without an inner tube truly constitute a tubular tire? If a tubular tire is defined as 'any tire that is designed to work on a tubular rim' It would not work. If tubular tire is defined as 'any tire that is stitched closed to form a torus' then this tire almost works. The reference refers to it as a 'tubeless road' and 'tubular clincher' tire. I am interested by the tire but inclined not to cite it as a reference that a tubular tire doesn't contain an inner tube. For the moment the article claims that a tubular 'almost always has an inner tube'. This seems like a fair compromise until we resolve this. Ender8282 ( talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The construction of a tubular tire is not the point of this article. Since this article references the tubular tyres article we don't need to go into construction details here. I have changed the aricle to discuss the interface between tire and rim contrasting it with a traditional clincher. I am not totally happy with the summary but maybe someone else can clean it up a little. Lets leave the tubeless tubular for the tubular tire page. Ender8282 ( talk) 21:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Caption to Image:Bamboobike.jpg claims that the rims are wooden... I doubt this and there is no mention of it in the image summary. They look like rusted steel to me. Have messaged the image uploaded but consider this a request for any other input. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As the image uploader I cannot solve the problem definately because the pic was taken a few years ago, very far from where I live and with a poor camera resolution. The only thing I can tell is that if there had been sthg unusual about the wheels, i would probably have noticed that and included it in the image summary. So it seems the wheels were made as they mostly are today - steel and rubber. other clues are what seem to be reflections on the rims and possible technological problems with joining wood with obviously metal spokes. Personally, I would opt for removing the example from the article until some Wikipedian from Holešovice in Prague goes for a nice walk to the nearby Technological Museum and finds out the Truth ;-) Mohylek 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
concerns about rotational inertia of bicycle wheels are vastly overstated--the inertia of all bicycle wheels is negligible compared to the mass of the rider.
Can you back this up with any data or references. Have you ridden wheels with low and high moments? There _is_ a noticeable difference when accelerating and climbing.
Ender8282 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The bit about rotational inertia being insignificant compared with the riders mass should be removed. Higher rotational inertia of wheels definitely can be easily felt by a rider and makes a significant difference in races such as critirums where you might accelerate from 30 kph to well over 50 kph more than 200 times (four corners X 50 laps) in little more than two hours. It can make more difference to the final outcome in a given race than the difference in the mass of two representative riders providing that for comparsion the two riders are nearly equal in ability and fitness (as they might well be in any given sanctioned race with very competitive racers), but one is a heavier rider. This is because in such a race a lot of the time you must stay very close to the rider in front of you and if the rider in front of you is the rider of nearly equal ability (but different weight) but now he can accelerate out of the corners using less energy than he did before when compared to you (when you were very nearly equal) due to lighter wheels and rims than you, you will have less effort left compared to him for that final long extremely hard effort when right at the very last the rotational inertia of the wheels can once again make a very important difference, even if it is only a fraction of an inch. The trade off here occurs when the heavier rider begins to experience 'squirrly' behavior or outright failure with rims that are too light and flex in hard cornering or sprints. I think the point for removing the claim that less rotational inertia is not really signifigant or is overstated when compared to the riders mass is a bit harder to prove for the case when climbing, but it looks like the 'number crunchers' have done so. 32.162.209.15 ( talk) 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
At time of writing, the article says:
Huh - Campagnolo rims (presumably, the rims used on Campy's own wheels) don't have spoke holes? Both my sets do! Which wheels don't use holes for spokes? If it is just a few designs, we should probably say "...for example some Campagnolo road rims...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikianJim ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
There are more companies than just velocity and campy that make whls without holes in the outer wall. Mavic (CrossMax, XM819 rims, Kyrsium & R-SYS) Shimano (DA road tubeless whls) Falcrum (I am not sure but since they are asian made campagnolo whls I suspect) It is a little hard deciding what brands/models to list and which not to list. I suspect that Mavic was first to market but I am not sure. Do we want to try to make a list of all of them or should we choose one or two as references? Is it possible to have a NPOV if we list some but not others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender8282 ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Clincher is a specific type of tire-rim design that is obsolete. What is usually referred to today as a "clincher" is in fact a wire-on or wire-type design. Clinchers have a bead that grips a hooked edge on the rim when the tire is under pressure. Wire-type simply rely on wire tension to offset the pressure and the tire is held on the rim by being slightly smaller than the rim.
Reference: Sharp, Archibald, "Bicycles & Tricycles, An Elementary Treatise on Their Design and Construction", Longmans, Green, 1896 pp495-497 (Reprinted MIT Press, 1979).
Michael Daly 06:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
ISO 8090 (“Cycles – Glossary of terms”) lists the following types of rims along with drawings:
There is no mention of “clincher”. Markus Kuhn ( talk) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry again about the revert, but the recent change had a lot of points to discuss
- AndrewDressel ( talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read the comments first. Okay, I get part of it. Let me try to restore what you had. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I lifted this paragraph from the article as it's just a bunch of unsourced claims. I suppose it should either be sourced and replaced, or left out.
Rolling resistance also is reduced with increasing tire pressure, although the practical benefits become small at pressures significantly above 120 psi for the average bicycle rider. citation needed Thinner bicycle tires are lighter and have less wind resistance than wider tires, however, wider tires offer better traction, comfort, and stability. citation needed
Can someone tell me if (and why) the mention of UST here? It seems irrelevant because UST rims are still made around the same 26" standard as non-UST rims, and this section of the article is talking about the size of the rim, right? HuntClubJoe ( talk) 21:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This section is mostly wrong and so are parts of other sections. "26-inch" wheels aren't rigidly 26 inches in diameter. Wheels are best specified by rim bead seat diameter; tires used with the same rim may vary. "26 x 1 3/4" size is nom osly used with very narrow tires. there is a good desciprtion of these issues at sheldonbrown.com/650b.html Jsallen1 ( talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC).
Read this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/eqovp/til_that_the_tensioned_spoke_bicycle_wheel_has/c1a64yp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.11.138 ( talk) 08:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how to measure the the diameter of the tire or rim, from the way it is described in the article. Both says smth with "where the tire sits", but exactly where is that? The tire and rim has an overlap if measured from the center of the circle and out. It needs a more precise/explicit explanation, or perhaps a diagram.
84.238.47.3 ( talk) 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The ISO standard measurement of tire and rim sizes (622 mm, 559 mm etc.) is the smallest diameter of the tyre, which matches the diameter of the bead seat of the rim. The bead seat is the little shelf inside either side of the rim. Some rims, however, do not have bead seats, relying instead on hooked edges to prevent the bead wires from pulling out over the edges of the rim. Some have both. Tyre width and depth may differ and still fit the same rim, so we get tyre specifications such as 25-622 and 38-622. All of the traditional tyre sizing systems were based on the outside diameter of the tyre, and so they collapsed into confusion as tyre widths began to change. Maybe I'll go edit now but I can't deal with the entire article at this time -- it is rife with confusion. Jsallen1 ( talk) 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I read the section on "dish" and I'd like to note for the prominent editors for this article that it needs a rewrite.
I found it odd to begin with that Sheldon Brown is referenced - but the section is a rewrite of it and took the reference which is correct and got it wrong or confused in the section when rewritten.
While for purposes of general casual and informal chats laymen might use "dish" as a description of the differing appearance of the two sides of a geared or disc wheel, for technical purposes that description is not correct.
To "dish" and "dishing" refers to the act of centering the rim between the outside of the axle lock nuts or end-caps. Either the wheel is dished or it isn't dished. There is no such thing as more dished or less dished. Regardless of extent - a wheel that is not dished is simply off dish. That is exactly what a dishing tool tests for.
The terms "asymmetrical" and "offset" are the best terms to use to explain the difference in appearance of the two sides of a wheels where geared and disc wheels are concerned. The existing write-up does tackle that aspect.
In short, all I'm recommending is a rewrite that simplifies the write-up by approaching the description more concretely or by getting straight to the point.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real mrrabbit ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This article could really do with explaining the difference between single/double/triple wall rims (with pics). Something like this 188.223.5.83 ( talk) 14:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"a long axle, typically 20 mm (110 mm width), 9 mm (100.33 mm width) in diameter for durability, onto which the fork/frame clamps (found on most mountain bike forks)."
seems to make no sense. Eregli bob ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"MTB Quick Releases Systems a Thing of the Past?". Retrieved 2012-08-12.. Definitely needs some cleanup though. For starters they're far from being found on most mountain bike forks. - Dhodges ( talk) 23:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is composed almost entirely of original research, self published sources and composed like an essay. Of all the sources, it is highly dependent on singular source of personal website of Sheldon Brown which is cited numerous times within the article. The references don't meet the standard WP:V, where not cited, it appears that it was written off of personal knowledge of editors, which again is not allowed per aforementioned policy. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 09:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Can we please keep this as 650B (which is what the standard is defined as), rather than inventing 27.5 Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This article disagrees with another in Wikipedia. From this article:
From 29er (bicycle)
Neither has a reference.
User5910 ( talk) 05:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm convinced prior art for nipples in the hub (and not in the rim) goes to Ringlé, 1991, but cannot find any reference for it online. They've been later bought by Sun, who've been the first to actually integrate the nipples (1994? 1995?) and not Industry Nine (2018) who are credited currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:A006:6453:4C6E:AFFF:FE0C:8218 ( talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Bicycle wheel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There are more than three directions for quantifiable stiffness in a bike wheel. Two of the more important others would be against nutation, and also resistance to taco failures. The wheel is a composite of the rim and spokes acting together. Tacos are a failure of this, and highlight the fact that the rim alone is weak, not inherently stiff. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Disc wheel, Deep Section wheel (like Starley 80mm) v shallow shaped rim, three/four/five spoke bike wheels, fat-tire wheels (for fatbikes), loop wheel, collapsible wheel, marc kerger's foldable wheel, Morph Wheel (it's actually for wheelchair but system could be used for bikes). Setenzatsu.2 ( talk) 06:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@McKnight, I undid the first of your two recent edits, because I highly doubt its content. Whatever the mechanic quoted in the reference witnessed, the explanation must be wrong. Rim diameter does not decrease with tire pressure, at least not noticeably. If rim diameter changed, rim circumference would also need to change. This in turn would require that the rim material would noticeably compress, which it does not. Solid materials, in particular metals, usually do not noticeably compress with pressure. Aluminium has a Young's_modulus of 70GPa. Let's try a naive approach and assume that the pressure is along the length of the rim. (I know it does not, the tire pressure is radial, but my gut feeling is that the end result remains about the same.) To get the length contraction, we divide the tire pressure (about 10bar=1MPa), by Young's Modulus and arrive at 1MPa/70GPa = 1/70000. For every meter of rim circumference, the tire compresses it by 14µm (0.014mm). Not noticeable, I'd say. -- RainerBlome ( talk) 20:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Extlink: http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/wheel1.html
-- Christopherlin 21:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of disc wheels? Rather major piece missing from the article. Mathmo 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Does the Tufo 'tubular' cited as an example of a tubular without an inner tube truly constitute a tubular tire? If a tubular tire is defined as 'any tire that is designed to work on a tubular rim' It would not work. If tubular tire is defined as 'any tire that is stitched closed to form a torus' then this tire almost works. The reference refers to it as a 'tubeless road' and 'tubular clincher' tire. I am interested by the tire but inclined not to cite it as a reference that a tubular tire doesn't contain an inner tube. For the moment the article claims that a tubular 'almost always has an inner tube'. This seems like a fair compromise until we resolve this. Ender8282 ( talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The construction of a tubular tire is not the point of this article. Since this article references the tubular tyres article we don't need to go into construction details here. I have changed the aricle to discuss the interface between tire and rim contrasting it with a traditional clincher. I am not totally happy with the summary but maybe someone else can clean it up a little. Lets leave the tubeless tubular for the tubular tire page. Ender8282 ( talk) 21:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Caption to Image:Bamboobike.jpg claims that the rims are wooden... I doubt this and there is no mention of it in the image summary. They look like rusted steel to me. Have messaged the image uploaded but consider this a request for any other input. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As the image uploader I cannot solve the problem definately because the pic was taken a few years ago, very far from where I live and with a poor camera resolution. The only thing I can tell is that if there had been sthg unusual about the wheels, i would probably have noticed that and included it in the image summary. So it seems the wheels were made as they mostly are today - steel and rubber. other clues are what seem to be reflections on the rims and possible technological problems with joining wood with obviously metal spokes. Personally, I would opt for removing the example from the article until some Wikipedian from Holešovice in Prague goes for a nice walk to the nearby Technological Museum and finds out the Truth ;-) Mohylek 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
concerns about rotational inertia of bicycle wheels are vastly overstated--the inertia of all bicycle wheels is negligible compared to the mass of the rider.
Can you back this up with any data or references. Have you ridden wheels with low and high moments? There _is_ a noticeable difference when accelerating and climbing.
Ender8282 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The bit about rotational inertia being insignificant compared with the riders mass should be removed. Higher rotational inertia of wheels definitely can be easily felt by a rider and makes a significant difference in races such as critirums where you might accelerate from 30 kph to well over 50 kph more than 200 times (four corners X 50 laps) in little more than two hours. It can make more difference to the final outcome in a given race than the difference in the mass of two representative riders providing that for comparsion the two riders are nearly equal in ability and fitness (as they might well be in any given sanctioned race with very competitive racers), but one is a heavier rider. This is because in such a race a lot of the time you must stay very close to the rider in front of you and if the rider in front of you is the rider of nearly equal ability (but different weight) but now he can accelerate out of the corners using less energy than he did before when compared to you (when you were very nearly equal) due to lighter wheels and rims than you, you will have less effort left compared to him for that final long extremely hard effort when right at the very last the rotational inertia of the wheels can once again make a very important difference, even if it is only a fraction of an inch. The trade off here occurs when the heavier rider begins to experience 'squirrly' behavior or outright failure with rims that are too light and flex in hard cornering or sprints. I think the point for removing the claim that less rotational inertia is not really signifigant or is overstated when compared to the riders mass is a bit harder to prove for the case when climbing, but it looks like the 'number crunchers' have done so. 32.162.209.15 ( talk) 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
At time of writing, the article says:
Huh - Campagnolo rims (presumably, the rims used on Campy's own wheels) don't have spoke holes? Both my sets do! Which wheels don't use holes for spokes? If it is just a few designs, we should probably say "...for example some Campagnolo road rims...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikianJim ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
There are more companies than just velocity and campy that make whls without holes in the outer wall. Mavic (CrossMax, XM819 rims, Kyrsium & R-SYS) Shimano (DA road tubeless whls) Falcrum (I am not sure but since they are asian made campagnolo whls I suspect) It is a little hard deciding what brands/models to list and which not to list. I suspect that Mavic was first to market but I am not sure. Do we want to try to make a list of all of them or should we choose one or two as references? Is it possible to have a NPOV if we list some but not others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender8282 ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Clincher is a specific type of tire-rim design that is obsolete. What is usually referred to today as a "clincher" is in fact a wire-on or wire-type design. Clinchers have a bead that grips a hooked edge on the rim when the tire is under pressure. Wire-type simply rely on wire tension to offset the pressure and the tire is held on the rim by being slightly smaller than the rim.
Reference: Sharp, Archibald, "Bicycles & Tricycles, An Elementary Treatise on Their Design and Construction", Longmans, Green, 1896 pp495-497 (Reprinted MIT Press, 1979).
Michael Daly 06:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
ISO 8090 (“Cycles – Glossary of terms”) lists the following types of rims along with drawings:
There is no mention of “clincher”. Markus Kuhn ( talk) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry again about the revert, but the recent change had a lot of points to discuss
- AndrewDressel ( talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read the comments first. Okay, I get part of it. Let me try to restore what you had. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I lifted this paragraph from the article as it's just a bunch of unsourced claims. I suppose it should either be sourced and replaced, or left out.
Rolling resistance also is reduced with increasing tire pressure, although the practical benefits become small at pressures significantly above 120 psi for the average bicycle rider. citation needed Thinner bicycle tires are lighter and have less wind resistance than wider tires, however, wider tires offer better traction, comfort, and stability. citation needed
Can someone tell me if (and why) the mention of UST here? It seems irrelevant because UST rims are still made around the same 26" standard as non-UST rims, and this section of the article is talking about the size of the rim, right? HuntClubJoe ( talk) 21:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This section is mostly wrong and so are parts of other sections. "26-inch" wheels aren't rigidly 26 inches in diameter. Wheels are best specified by rim bead seat diameter; tires used with the same rim may vary. "26 x 1 3/4" size is nom osly used with very narrow tires. there is a good desciprtion of these issues at sheldonbrown.com/650b.html Jsallen1 ( talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC).
Read this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/eqovp/til_that_the_tensioned_spoke_bicycle_wheel_has/c1a64yp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.11.138 ( talk) 08:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how to measure the the diameter of the tire or rim, from the way it is described in the article. Both says smth with "where the tire sits", but exactly where is that? The tire and rim has an overlap if measured from the center of the circle and out. It needs a more precise/explicit explanation, or perhaps a diagram.
84.238.47.3 ( talk) 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The ISO standard measurement of tire and rim sizes (622 mm, 559 mm etc.) is the smallest diameter of the tyre, which matches the diameter of the bead seat of the rim. The bead seat is the little shelf inside either side of the rim. Some rims, however, do not have bead seats, relying instead on hooked edges to prevent the bead wires from pulling out over the edges of the rim. Some have both. Tyre width and depth may differ and still fit the same rim, so we get tyre specifications such as 25-622 and 38-622. All of the traditional tyre sizing systems were based on the outside diameter of the tyre, and so they collapsed into confusion as tyre widths began to change. Maybe I'll go edit now but I can't deal with the entire article at this time -- it is rife with confusion. Jsallen1 ( talk) 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I read the section on "dish" and I'd like to note for the prominent editors for this article that it needs a rewrite.
I found it odd to begin with that Sheldon Brown is referenced - but the section is a rewrite of it and took the reference which is correct and got it wrong or confused in the section when rewritten.
While for purposes of general casual and informal chats laymen might use "dish" as a description of the differing appearance of the two sides of a geared or disc wheel, for technical purposes that description is not correct.
To "dish" and "dishing" refers to the act of centering the rim between the outside of the axle lock nuts or end-caps. Either the wheel is dished or it isn't dished. There is no such thing as more dished or less dished. Regardless of extent - a wheel that is not dished is simply off dish. That is exactly what a dishing tool tests for.
The terms "asymmetrical" and "offset" are the best terms to use to explain the difference in appearance of the two sides of a wheels where geared and disc wheels are concerned. The existing write-up does tackle that aspect.
In short, all I'm recommending is a rewrite that simplifies the write-up by approaching the description more concretely or by getting straight to the point.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real mrrabbit ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This article could really do with explaining the difference between single/double/triple wall rims (with pics). Something like this 188.223.5.83 ( talk) 14:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"a long axle, typically 20 mm (110 mm width), 9 mm (100.33 mm width) in diameter for durability, onto which the fork/frame clamps (found on most mountain bike forks)."
seems to make no sense. Eregli bob ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"MTB Quick Releases Systems a Thing of the Past?". Retrieved 2012-08-12.. Definitely needs some cleanup though. For starters they're far from being found on most mountain bike forks. - Dhodges ( talk) 23:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is composed almost entirely of original research, self published sources and composed like an essay. Of all the sources, it is highly dependent on singular source of personal website of Sheldon Brown which is cited numerous times within the article. The references don't meet the standard WP:V, where not cited, it appears that it was written off of personal knowledge of editors, which again is not allowed per aforementioned policy. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 09:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Can we please keep this as 650B (which is what the standard is defined as), rather than inventing 27.5 Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This article disagrees with another in Wikipedia. From this article:
From 29er (bicycle)
Neither has a reference.
User5910 ( talk) 05:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm convinced prior art for nipples in the hub (and not in the rim) goes to Ringlé, 1991, but cannot find any reference for it online. They've been later bought by Sun, who've been the first to actually integrate the nipples (1994? 1995?) and not Industry Nine (2018) who are credited currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:A006:6453:4C6E:AFFF:FE0C:8218 ( talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Bicycle wheel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There are more than three directions for quantifiable stiffness in a bike wheel. Two of the more important others would be against nutation, and also resistance to taco failures. The wheel is a composite of the rim and spokes acting together. Tacos are a failure of this, and highlight the fact that the rim alone is weak, not inherently stiff. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Disc wheel, Deep Section wheel (like Starley 80mm) v shallow shaped rim, three/four/five spoke bike wheels, fat-tire wheels (for fatbikes), loop wheel, collapsible wheel, marc kerger's foldable wheel, Morph Wheel (it's actually for wheelchair but system could be used for bikes). Setenzatsu.2 ( talk) 06:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@McKnight, I undid the first of your two recent edits, because I highly doubt its content. Whatever the mechanic quoted in the reference witnessed, the explanation must be wrong. Rim diameter does not decrease with tire pressure, at least not noticeably. If rim diameter changed, rim circumference would also need to change. This in turn would require that the rim material would noticeably compress, which it does not. Solid materials, in particular metals, usually do not noticeably compress with pressure. Aluminium has a Young's_modulus of 70GPa. Let's try a naive approach and assume that the pressure is along the length of the rim. (I know it does not, the tire pressure is radial, but my gut feeling is that the end result remains about the same.) To get the length contraction, we divide the tire pressure (about 10bar=1MPa), by Young's Modulus and arrive at 1MPa/70GPa = 1/70000. For every meter of rim circumference, the tire compresses it by 14µm (0.014mm). Not noticeable, I'd say. -- RainerBlome ( talk) 20:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)