Wow, cool to see my thesis here! I posted a picture of it [1] to r/bicycling yesterday titled <i>I managed to make my thesis in computer science be about bicycles!</i>, and it got some traction. I answered some questions in the discussion, if anyone is interested.<p>[1]: <a href="https://redd.it/3p8hua" rel="nofollow">https://redd.it/3p8hua</a>
Building bicycle wheels is incredibly satisfying, I built a set a friend used to win the local state cyclocross championship one year. There's a lot of technique in tightening the spokes, when I see the 'bad ride' simulation of the wheel in the video, it occurs to me you get the same types of visible behavoir if the spokes aren't tightened correctly. I wonder how spoke tension is modelled here?
Neat idea. Did the author read Jobst Brandt's book, "The Art of the Bicycle Wheel"?<p>Symmetry obviously makes the ride smoother. The real issue is dish and the incredible strain difference between. The drive side and the non-drive side: did the author simulate modern rear wheels?
This is interesting for sure in identifying novel spoke patterns that <i>might</i> result in a stronger/lighter wheel. Since the simulator identifies lots of possibilities it would be useful to have some kind of figure of merit to help with down-selection. It also seems like things like being out-of-dish or out of true are things that could be used to eliminate possibilities without user intervention.<p>Lastly I wonder if you constrain this enough whether it would spit out "standard" spoke patterns that are used commonly. I'd like to think that spoke patterns that we use now are close to optimal due to a kind of evolution based on lots of trial and error. But maybe that's not the case.
I assume it wouldn't function well, but I've always wondered about a wheel were some of the spokes do not go to the hub, but are instead connected directly to another spot on the rim.