Talk:Artillery wheel

Removed reqdiagram

Diagrams (photos actually), added since reqdiagram added. Egmason (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwirkle removing images

@Qwirkle: Why do you do this? Your comments are not rational. Look at the images. Eddaido (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Archibald wheels...

...and their relatives and descendants, are what is meant by the term “Artillery Wheel” as it is used here. Older forms were simply robust examples of wagon wheels. Qwirkle (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha. Was that in an article about "coaches"? Give us a citation. Eddaido (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

If you aren’t aware of the term “artillery wheel” as used for early autos (and some un-horseless carriages), to say nothing of late 19th and early 20th century artillery, you have little business editing articles about any of them. This is a dead-standard term for an Archibald-type wheel. Qwirkle (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is it I spend a year or two on research on a subject generally poorly covered in Wikipedia before writing about it (big subject, still working on it, years more yet) and Qwirkle buzzes like now in later, sometimes much later with weird results like with Concord Stagecoaches (as was). You believe Concord Coaches is right ! hahaha Eddaido (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is a detailed history the military development of artillery wheels, starting with Arcibald wheels, and including info on dishing. Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Eddaido

A few days ago I added two images of artillery with artillery wheels, the top image shows a wheel constructed in the conventional manner copied for early 20th century motor vehicles. These images were put there the minute I found them. If they were known to me in 2013 they would have been added at that time. Eddaido (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That’s the problem, in a nutshell. “Artillery wheel” has a meaning distinct from, “wheel found on a large gun”. It’s a distinctive method of construction which is not at all illustrated by the picture which you have mistakenly introduced to the article. Qwirkle (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What is your problem, your words are the opposite of what your eyes must surely see. Is this what they call blind faith? This is Concord all over again. Eddaido (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Schwarz wheel

While obviously a better illustration than the ones preceding, that’s an odd, fiddly, and ultimately unsuccessful design. A simple Army Archibald derivative would be a lot more typical. Qwirkle (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Got a good picture? Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I found the one that was on the article for years. Seems better. What do you think? Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think in an article this size, using the Schwarz as an illustration is bad. It’s not a representative type; a huge part of the point of spoked design is that the pieces are strong and modular. With these, that was a binary choice. Qwirkle (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

RESTART — topic is Artillery wheels

The Tsar cannon was put there to indicate why artillery needs special wheels and to start discussion. The topic is artillery wheels. An article about something else careens or archers or whatever may be justified and would be very welcome. Eddaido (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New edit comment by Qwirkle "Crap replaced, so tag re-added." That is progress. Now can we discuss our various concerns? Eddaido (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think his concern was that your pictures of artillery pieces with wheels did not show the type of wheel that the article describes (for many years, the article has been written about that type of wheel, so it's not a good idea to try to change it to be about wheels on artillery pieces more generally, if that's what you're trying to do with those pictures). It's all about the hub. See the old picture I restored, and the one from the book I referenced. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Along with several other concerns about accuracy.

See the trend from this... ...to this?

An artillery wheel

note hub size

(nb:while that shows the trend, the pictures themselves may have a different chronology.)

Go a couple steps further in pressed steel and you get what many motorheads think of as an “artillery wheel”.

Qwirkle (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

So add some pictures to extend the story. What are you saying is inaccurate? Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Several points. To begin with, wheels without dish were uncommon, period, except for spokeless designs, which were seen on some guncarriages, but, except for naval/garrison trucks, were made that way because wood was available and wheelwrights were not. US, British, Canadian, French, German...all used dished wooden wheels.

Next, while Archibald (et al.) didn’t turn their nose up at military business, their designs developed separately, and not because of any peculiarities of gun carriage design. Sarven and Archibald were responding to improvements in metallurgy and machining, to scarcity of good hub wood, and ability, to use an anachronistic term, of deskilling production. The dominant user of “artillery wheels” in the US was heavy civilian vehicles like fire trucks. Qwirkle (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: the ultimate demise of wood-spoked wheels had less to do with wire’s putative superiority, but with shortages of appropriate wood. When the second growth hickory began getting expensive, wood wheel’s days were numbered. Qwirkle (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: I'm still not sure I'm getting your point. The topic of this article is, and always has been, the types of wheels known as artillery wheels; specifically, not about wheels on artillery pieces more generally than that. Are you in agreement on that basic point, or not? Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Eddaido says in these posts that he's ignoring this discussion; he seems to not be accepting what the rest of us are agreed on re the scope of "artillery wheels" to be covered here, but he's recusing himself. Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Undue

The article now shows a fixation on the Sankey products of the early twentieth century, and was tagged for this reason. Sammy D III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted this, with a an edit summary that is was (a little early to wave flags?. Given that this is a long-standing problem going back to this edit in 2015, I restored the tag. Despite the fact that the problem was under discussion on the talk page with a rather strong cite regarding other more prominent and more recent usages, Sammy D again reverted, with the edit summary I see no talk about the subject on the talk page, do I? You just decide by yourself? Is there somewhere I should look?. When the Hemminggs article was pointed out to him, he again reverted, with a summary of You think you can BS me?. Now, that would be coals to Newcastle, but is there anyone else who disagrees that the Sankey wheels, while significant, are given an over-prominent size in this article? And further, that the sourcing suffers from corporate pressrealeasitis? Qwirkle (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You should know that won't work. The content you object to is from this edit in 2015 but this 2020 cite doesn't even relate to Sankey. You said nothing about him until you threw this flag to p someone off. Moot point now, this thread is here and Dicklyon is between you two and he's acting rationally. I assume you two will give @Eddaido: a chance to talk. Then the three of you will fix it instead of throwing your stupid flags. Sammy D III (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No. That cite shows that “artillery wheel” had a broader meaning than just some left-over from the 1920s. ‘36 Chevy scalloped wheels are what a certain breed of car nut thinks of, almost exclusively, when he hears “artillery wheel”. You can still buy the things, new, under that name. Qwirkle (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So what? Who cares about the name (where you are correct)? We were discussing Sankey. Focus. Sammy D III (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Who cares about the name? Someone who was interested in creating a meaningful, accurate article might, because it would show them that the subject was far broader than that covered here, and that might indicate that having about a quarter of it devoted to a single manufacturer might lend undue weight to certain ideas. and that we should improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. Right now, the article is very close to a coatrack for Sankey. We should focus on fixing that. Qwirkle (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who you think you're conning with your dance of the BS, you know it's not me. I came to break up an edit war and you waved your stupid flag without discussion. You can try to distract all you want but nobody is talking about the name and your cite (not even bothering to link it again) does not relate to Sankey. Just more smoke and mirrors. Snotty edit summaries don't make nonsense mean anything. Focus. Sammy D III (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The only con game here is the pretense that this is a pretty good little article. It isn’t, and we should warn the reader, and alert other writers and researchers.

If you have trouble understanding why a cite showing wider usage shows that the article might be too narrow, the problem just might not be on the transmission side. Qwirkle (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Who has said it is a pretty good little article? Am I arguing about the width of the article? Your cite does not relate to Stankey and the width stuff is from some other argument. I came to try to cool down an edit war (ironic, huh?), playing with you is just a bonus. Sammy D III (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Who has said it is a pretty good little article? You did, when you repeatedly removed a tag pointing out one of the things that was wrong with it. Qwirkle (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't, your twisted reasoning creates that false claim. Removing a personal provocation is in no way an opinion about the article. "Twistin' the night away" (Sam Cooke, 1960). Sammy D III (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The earlier history of wooden wheels, which I posted a source about above, should be given more weight. The Sankey steel wheels can be covered, too, but if there are sources on other brands then those could be used, too, to give some better balance. You've given a lot of historical perspective above, but not a lot of sourcing for it, so help out with that if you have/know any. The Hemmings "motoheads" article is good, but doesn't say who made the wheels for the Chevy. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sankey dominated some parts of the British market relatively early on. As to who made the wheels for Chevy (and Ford, contemporaneously), I do not know or remember off hand. Perhaps when libraries open again... Qwirkle (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you think Chevy/Ford bought vendor wheels or just stamped out their own? A Model T person may know if Ford made real artillery wheels themselves. Is this about early Ford wheels any use? Sammy D III (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I started a section based on the The Field Artillery Journal source. Needs a lot of work, obviously, but at least the source is cited to support expansion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Other countries, obviously, might have rather different histories, but most patent hubs look a good deal like Archibald or Sarven. Qwirkle (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido:, you need to focus, too. This is a talk page. You can't edit other people's comments, he posted it that way, correct? And this just plain stinks. Speak of stink, Sankey all alone like that. Can you put a couple of sections about other manufactures, spread things out? You shouldn't have a 1 without a 2. (damn ISP) Sammy D III (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 June 2020

The possessive linked construction "3.2-inch Breechloading Rifle (Converted)‘s" has a backwards curly apostrophe. Replace it with straight apostrophe per MOS:CURLY, and move the apostrophe inside so it's blue, as in "3.2-inch Breechloading Rifle (Converted)'s". It's still awkward, but we can work on that later. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Replacing This type of wheel, with wood spokes fitted together in a keystone fashion with miter joints, bolted into a two-piece metal nave, was used on the US Army's 3.2-inch Breechloading Rifle (Converted)‘s carriage in 1881, with a wheel diameter of 57 inches, when the Archibald Wheel Company claimed various advantages and the Board of Light Artillery Officers' tests confirmed the effectiveness of this design approach. The 1917, the 14-spoke wheel evolved to have 16 spokes, 0.5-inch high-carbon-steel tires, 2.875-inch felloes (8 sawed or 2 bent), improved spoke shoes, and 0.25 inch per foot dishing, to arrive at the wheel pictured.[1

With

“In 1881, the US Army adopted a slightly modified Archibald Wheel Company design after testing, first using it on the carriage of the....” might remove some of the clunkiness. Split up the blue a bit. Qwirkle (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: not worth delaying a minor change if this sort of construction is unworkable. Qwirkle (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably you should make a separate edit request and be explicit about the ellipsis. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have made the edit requested by Dick as it is trivial. Izno (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Another good picture

An M1885, according to 3.2-inch_gun_M1897, so this would have been among the earliest pieces with artillery wheels, which you can make out pretty clearly here, with the spokes mitered between the metal flanges.

Maybe put this one instead of the plain wheel image? Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The article might already be a little bit tilted to Usanian POV. As it stands, it looks like we were the only game in town for military wood wheel. (We weren’t, although the line to most auto wheels paralells those above more than, say, these below. Qwirkle (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

15 pdr. Note the offset spokes.

Not an awesome photo, and not a canonical construction, and not as old the US one, right? Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Canonical for what? This method wasn’t used much for cars, but it’s seen on some arty. No, I agree this isn’t a good photo for direct use in the article, but before the thing is through it has to make clear that not every gun carriage had the exact same kind of wheels. Not as old as the us, but look here from 1868. Qwirkle (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

2015}}

Armstrong gun deployed by Japan during the Boshin war (1868–69).

Why no pics? I could see rearrangement, but hiding ‘em? Qwirkle (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• They were bleeding down the page. --evrik ^(talk) 20:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Side-to-side, at the bottom of the page, thumbsize? Qwirkle (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I restored them and added a clear. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Artillery wheel. Austrian. Note dish.

An attempt at a draft

• Talk:Artillery_wheel/draft

Thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 16:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Do you mind direct editing of it, or run it through here first? Qwirkle (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is not long enough for all the images. I placed the images in a gallery. I also improved, or fixed each of the references, and i added an External links section. Go ahead and edit it, but I would focus on adding content, and worry less about the images. --evrik ^(talk) 19:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Not about the images, some of the language is in that grey area between misleading and inaccurate. Lemme take a couple of passes at it. Qwirkle (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Evrik: I don't think a rewrite is the right approach at this point. We should discuss specific problems and directions, and make the edits incrementally when the page is unprotected. Bringing in new concerns that raise new controversies, such as hiding the illustrations in a gallery, is not likely to be the kind of step we need right now. Maybe later we can discuss that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, perhaps you can work out the chnages on the draft? For example, the formatting of the page is off, and the references are off as well. I fixed both of those without getting into the content. I also went through and wikilinked many of the passages. --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    • We should work on a consensus for what's controversial during the protected time, and then get back to normal editing. I hadn't heard any controversy around layout and references, and I'm sure improvements there will be welcome, but making a branched draft screws up the normal process of checking changes. For now, we basically just need Eddaido to put up or shut up. Or if you have changes you want to see, incrementally, use a protected edit request. Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm going to be BOLD and post the structural changes, and improvements on the references. I have not really touched the content. --evrik ^(talk) 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In other languages

• es:Rueda de artillería

--evrik ^(talk) 18:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You just made that today, by translating your new draft. How is that relevant to us here? Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yup. I did that today. I think that the more languages multiplies the effect of the English article. --evrik ^(talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC

• How is that relevant to us here? Dicklyon (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I dunno. I was taught to register before firing for effect, if at all possible. Qwirkle (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it's done now. --evrik ^(talk) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 June 2020

"The 1917, the 14-spoke wheel evolved" should be "By 1917, the 14-spoke wheel evolved". Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Qwirkle (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Another source

This book Wheels of Misfortune mentions the Sankey/Morris 1913 connection: [1], [2]. Does anyone have a copy? Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a bit of a Google-dredge. Qwirkle (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it took a bit of dredging to find those snippets on the same page, and the 1913 date of the first Morris. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Eh, probably not the greatest addition. --evrik ^(talk) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If someone has the book, they can see what it says and decide. I was looking for a more independent source for the Sankey stuff, since what we have how is corporate promo stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Budd’s bio covers this, IMS. Qwirkle (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s also a lot of mention in commercial magazines; I don’t see much doubt Sankey was the dominant maker in a market that preferred that type of wheel. Where the article had problems is that it described a single track of development, based on British experience, which was not the same worldwide. Given the sheer size of the North American market -and its connections to Latin America and Oceania, among others, that wasn’t the dominant pattern. It’s also worth noting that the “big (number here)” model, with a small number of makers producing 90 percent of the cars in their space, had not grabbed hold yet in the early twenties, much less the turn of the century, e.g this. Qwirkle (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The long bit that was copied from the GKN article was all about Sankey and steel wheels, but didn't mention the word artillery; this book I found does. But if you have another source that connects Sankey to artillery wheels, use that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Other people connected Sankey to artillery wheels quite early, but they didn’t use the term much themselves until the 30s, when the brought out their own version of the final arty wheel design, the scalloped things you’ll see on the chopped-and-channeled. When there was still a real chance that someone might confuse their product with wood, they didn’t. So, you have some usages based on appearance, and others based on actual design ancestry, varying over time and place. Qwirkle (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder who wrote the definitive article about the first Morris Oxford of 1913 and remembers no mention of the word artillery. Eddaido (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Recommended fixes

1. Insert 'American' as the second word of the article so it reads "The American artillery wheel was . . . "
2. find a more accurate picture for the top right hand corner. The original image is not described as an artillery wheel but an artillery-spoked wheel. Furthermore its English and not American. For more information talk to the contributing editor.
3. Gallery - remove the first two images. The picture of the blue wheel is of a Sankey wheel. The second picture is also a Sankey wheel not an artillery wheel. I am open to providing my reasons (should it be considered necessary) but it would be more to the point to consult the motivations of the editor who recently created the new misleading captions to the images I created / provided many years ago. These wheels are in any case English and out of place in an American article. The weird wheel on a Rolls-Royce I don't know any more about and don't mind if it stays, its just extraordinary. Eddaido (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should it be an "American" artillery wheel? (I don't know the subject). The title isn't, aren't they supposed to match, with a qualification after? The title will never be changed. Did the "Americans" invent the hub design? Everybody (at least many) used the design, correct? Sammy D III (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ownership and competence issues would neatly explain it, as I’ve mentioned at WP:ANI. I strongly suspect DL picked the US wheel purely as an example, because it could be readily sourced. This type of wheel, and the double-dished example the British used, goes back a ways, but the automotive use, which is what this article is about, goes back more to Archibald et al. rather than, say Walter Hancock. Qwirkle (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Relates to an image. "but the automotive use, which is what this article is about"? The article is artillery - automotive wood - steel "style". You are using the same name for both the actual and the steel commonname wheels. It's not either/or, it's both. Should it have "Motor vehicles" wood and steel sub-sections? Sammy D III (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The best way to handle it, IMO, is to separate off the pre-automotive usage into an etymology section. Qwirkle (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The original wheel is mechanically more important than the steel one. You have military sources, a longer service life, and maybe (?) larger numbers. People like old guns. Steel "artillery" wheels were important because of the steel, not the spokes. Sammy D III (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What “original one” is that? There was not a single standard for gun carriage wheels, or wooden auto wheels, over time. The US wheel which is, perhaps, over-highlighted here was one of several. To a Briton of the same era, a wood wheel for a gun carriage would ordinarily suggest a double-dished wheel that looks and works somewhat different. Qwirkle (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The steel wheels should be spun off as Artillery style wheel but that's just pure stupid. But you shouldn't throw the original subject away for a short-lived commonname. Motor vehicles let you slide it in straight from wood to steel, they overlapped, correct?

No, they shouldn’t. It would be, in an article this size, “plain pure stupid”, to quote someone or other.

Yup, a lot of overlap.

Rough timeline: Earliest stuff, heavy steam carriage, 1830s, large-hub, spokes taped at the end for drive wheels, smaller hub for unpowered wheel. Used on some early locomotives and traction engines, too. Replaced by metal as engines grew. Deadended there, but inspired other designs.

Metal and metal-reinforced hubs become common by..I dunno, 1860s a good a date as any.

Cars show up, often with wire wheel designs borrowed from bicycle and horse-drawn vehicles. Gun carriages and heavy wagons continue with wood wheels with metal hubs.

Cars get more substantial, wheels are too. Wooden i.e “artillery” wheels dominate most markets.

1910, artilleroid steel wheels begin gaining greater market share, pondial split begins.

By early the 20s, pressed steel, steel disk and especially wire big in Britain, but North American market continues with wood until later in 20s

by 30s, steel wheels dominate most markets. “Modern” steel artillery wheel comes out both sides of pond mid 30s. This is the first time Sankey widely refers to them as such.

Note the word “rough” above. Different market segments changed at different times. Qwirkle (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That looks like a good timeline. You should outdent it, leave it on the left margin so it is obvious. Maybe even its own section? Sammy D III (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find an article about stamped steel wheels. Sammy D III (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The original article, back in 2013, covered the evolution from wood spoke construction for cannons to autos to steel. I see no particular need to split any of that out, as it's a sensible evolutionary story of what an artillery wheel is. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Three points. First, by separate, I do not mean make another article. As discussed elsewhere, I strongly dislike having two articles where one would do nicely. The antecedents are about the etymology, the article is about car wheels.

There’s a difference between the gun carriage wheel being called an “artillery wheel” and a car wheel called the same. One is a simple descriptive, the other is not. Real artillery wheels inspired the things named for them. That’s a narrow distinction, but a real one.

Finally, there wasn’t a clear division, ever, between civil and military wheel types. The article was being used to suggest otherwise. The reason why these are called “artillery wheels” is partly because that sounds cooler than..I dunno, steam bus wheels? Qwirkle (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you say "the article is about car wheels"? You said that before. The article was NOT written about cars, it isn't now, and I think you are the only person who has said it is. Sammy D III (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Because arty wheels weren’t designed any differently from wheels for other uses. The old article is inaccurate (and uncited, notice.) Looking at the particular time period the article now focuses on, the changes is gun carriage design mentioned in the article are all civilian wheel design being adopted by the military. Now, part of that is because the article is incomplete, but only part. It’s mostly true; for the US carriages mentioned (the article doesn’t cover the contemporaneous siege guns) it is completely true.

Techniques were adopted from other wheel uses, and vice-versa over the centuries.

Looking at that article from 2006, nearly every claim in it is wrong. That’s impressive, but not in a good way. Qwirkle (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to stick with cannons into autos.

I didn't see much on steel wheels. I think the first section of an article is here now.

I put up a British English tag here. The intro has "tyre" and I didn't think anybody would mind. Sammy D III (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sammy, check out the early history of the article. Certainly in 2013 at Eddaido's first edits it was all about car wheels. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"The artillery wheel was developed for use on gun carriages when it was found that the lateral forces involved in horse artillery manoeuvres caused normally-constructed cart wheels to collapse." was the first line of the article when created], at Eddaidos' edit, and the last edit before 2020. I think this article was about cannons first and autos second between 2006 and the current editing. Sammy D III (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are my responses to Eddaido's 3 suggestions:

1. Why would you want to split American and British artillery wheels to different articles, or make this one just American? This is an out-of-the-blue weird idea, I think.
2. It seems clear that in the lead image the description "artillery-spoked wheel" does not mean anything different from "artillery wheel", which is defined by how the spokes join at the hub.
3. I don't know why you want to remove the steel Sankey artillery-style wheel images that you originally added. Is there a caption improvement you could suggest instead? On the blue one, is that not the caption you gave it in this edit?

Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are my responses to Dicklyon's 3 questions:

1. The opening statement "The artillery wheel was a late-nineteenth-century style of wagon, gun carriage, and automobile wheel. Rather than having its spokes mortised into a wooden nave (hub), it has them fitted together in a keystone fashion with miter joints, bolted into a two-piece metal nave." may be correct if you are only considering the US, I don't know. It also provides a let out when someone says what about . . .? It also lets me say I don't feel I have to quarrel with the article. (This is also in response to Sammy D III's question above)
2. The current lead image was given the "artillery-spoked wheel" caption by the uploader, not by the author of the book published in 1912 or 1913. I guess that the uploading editor added it because it fitted a point being made within this article. I don't remember. But what makes it an artillery wheel? Eddaido (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Yes its regained the caption I gave it and the interim state has been disappeared. My primary concern is it is not an artillery wheel, it Is a Sankey wheel. Time for an American (see 1, above) definition of an artillery wheel.Eddaido (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Further responses to those points:

1. I added the image of the earlier British Armstrong gun used in Japan; similar hub/spoke design.
2. What makes it an artillery wheel is the way the spokes join at the hub.
3. I pointed out at least one source above the describes the first Sankey wheels for Morris (1913) as artillery wheels. This 1908 wheel looks like one, too, with the metal spokes. Do you think it's not? If it's not, why did you add it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Without endorsing some of his more outre points, some nuance with Sankey makes sense. If you look at contemporary sources, Sankey themselves didn’t use the term until the 30s, when proper wood-spoke wheels were no longer a real part of the market. Part of this was simple marketing, of course, but it was also an attempt to emphasize practical distinctions. Sankey’s design was unitized, proper artillery wheels are modular. Sankey’s are all steel, proper artillery wheels, in the stricter sense, had at least wood spokes, and usually, at least early on, wood felloes. Artillery wheels, in the stricter sense, were an integral part of the hub: the “Captain” wheel shows one answer to the issues that causes. The fasteners seen in the felloes held a detachable rim. Sankeys were generally demountable from a separate hub, like modern wheels. They were very different in practical use, and the differences were more extreme in the British market, which had run through good spoke wood before the war had ended, which meant for oversize, heavy spokes. Qwirkle (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a bunch of great sources, or are you 120 years old? Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I was born about 10,000 years ago.... Qwirkle (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Madras nave

When I think of it, these guys belong in here, too, at least on the arty side. Qwirkle (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sankey

Ad, 1920, no artillery

...yet this. Qwirkle (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This 1920 Sankey ad is clearly trying to establish their branding "Sankey wheels" over "artillery wheels". Not really relevant here. The other (undated) ad clearly acknowledges that what they were making were known as artillery wheels. Good find. Going back a bit further, here's a 1905 discussion on "Artillery v. Wire Wheels" that predates them. It says artillery-style wood wheels were first used by Hancock on steam carriages (as "wedge wheels"), and that they were "used some time previously in India for field guns", leading to the name. No dates on those points though. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Nahh. It’s not just branding. Sankey (and others; Budd, their US equivalent and sometime agent, had the same, exact same, design philosophy) was making unitized welded wheels. An all-metal artillery wheel can be made with separate spokes, but they decided not to. The Sankey is an artillery wheel only in aesthetics, kind of like the differences between a Levitt Cape and a real one. There was a sea-change in autos with the end of the Model T; by 36 or so, when Sankey brought out the Magna, drawn or stamped steel was the default.

That cite gives 1811 for the Madras nave, so that may nicely nail down the etymology. Good grab. Qwirkle (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, John Robison mentioned that 1811 date on the mentioned pages: "as far back of the year 1811, I had wheels with the spokes and naves of the same identical construction, made at Hyderabad, for some artillery carriages." Also says on next page "A construction very analogous to this has long been in use in the Madras Artillery ; in which service I have always understood that it gave every satisfaction." Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it is possible to find also cites excoriating them from authoritative sources, the brass (really bronze) naves never really made it out of one Presidency, let alone India. Qwirkle (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think some of your knowledge like this could be useful, if you'd point out the cites. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If I remember them, that is. A lot of what I write on wiki is based on old memory, with all that implies. Qwirkle (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Austin of England wheels

1910 Austin delivery van

1911 Austin taxi

On the left the vehicle has 12-spoke wheels, plain wheels wheels on the front and perhaps artillery wheels on the back for their load-carrying ability. You can see they may be artillery wheels by their reinforced outer edge all bolted together. That's not just a removable rim.

On the right there is the passenger version of the same chassis with 10-spoke wheels all, apparently by Sankey.

Is this any help at all in establishing distinctions?

Eddaido (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The one on the front of the 1910 van looks a lot like the one in the "artillery-spoked wheel" picture. The others are harder to tell; probably the ones on the right are Sankey steel. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a note on automobiles: the hub on an unpowered axle (like a front steer) is different than a driven axle. There are also two types of driven axles, semi- and full-floating. The different hubs have a common mounting for the wheels but all look and work differently. Most of the time, always exceptions. Sammy D III (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, the spokes often as well. The larger hub wheels were needed for power wheels, or for wheels that did serious braking. Arty wheels proper, for gun carriages -unlike Hancock’s, or later auto wheels- were meant to be pulled, not driven by the axle.

Model T rear wheels on several model years were nearly flat, with just a tiny amount of spring dish, where the steering axle, which had to deal with more side load, but not power windup, had noticeable dish because of this. Qwirkle (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Small hub wooden wheels look like a horrible design to power. You are using bolts (every other spoke) meant only to hold the wheel together to turn them, too. The bolts are right by the inside end of a tapered-fit long wooden spoke. If you wanted to invent a wheel meant to wear itself out this would be the hot set-up.

If you look at some of the old chain drives, they had a second toothed gear much larger than the hub. For some, e.g. Thornycroft, that wheel was nealy as big as the felloes, and attached near the outer end of the spokes. Qwirkle (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Chain-drive Mack AC-APs had the rear sprocket attached to the wheel with bolts in the spokes too. These are heavy-duty vehicles, though.

Chain drive allowed a stronger axle. Back then you couldn't make much of an axle-housing with differential so you put a huge beam in and mounted the best differential you had directly on the frame. Less un-sprung weight and the strongest drive-line available at the time. Sammy D III (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sankey (whoever) looks like direct replacements for wood, the only difference is the lug bolt length? Steel ends the wear but it is still the same bad layout.

My rear-hub comment only applies to "big hub"s, I just got a look at small hubs (semi-floating in Model T). Sorry.

There isn't a Sankey or Chevy wheel by the text, there isn't any Chevy at all. If you dropped the cannon into the gallery you could have wheels above and their use in the gallery? You have good images coming out your ears but not much content to space them out. Sammy D III (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Haven’t run across any decent, free pics of Chevy or Sankey arty wheels from the 30s. The Graces Guide Magna might be usable, but I’m not sure. Qwirkle (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: you do images. I suggest Chevy, the important Sankey is already there? Sammy D III (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has moved into fields with which I am totally unfamiliar. Here's a little bit that I do know: in America they held onto wooden spoke wheels into the 1930s — decades after England had taken to steel wheels or (for very expensive or "fast" cars) retained the classic wire wheels which could be so accurately made and tensioned and balanced they ran perfectly true. The patented Sankey wheels were two entire pressed halves welded together.** They were fitted to relatively low-powered for their weight cars which moved about relatively gently, even in the countryside, on a smooth-paved excellently finished and maintained road system (by the standards of the day) and the original Sankey gave no problems. I simply do not know what is meant by "Chevy wheels". Sorry, Eddaido (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

** from: Handbook of the collections illustrating land transport. ... Science Museum (Great Britain).

Pressed Steel Wheel for Motor Cars patented 1908 and 1910 Joseph Sankey & Sons

"The wheel is made in two pieces, each pressed out of a circular plate, the spokes being formed, and the edges being folded and bent so as to form a rim suitable for holding a pneumatic tyre. The two parts are then welded together at their edges, which meet on the central plane of the wheel, a hollow steel . . . . " To read this description in full and similar descriptions for many other types of wheel up to the year 1936 please go to this address and search for item 413. Any difficulties please complain to me. Eddaido (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As noted at WP:ANI, competence is required. One has to wonder how many other articles are screwed up in like fashion. Qwirkle (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? A completely personal attack out of the blue for an innocent talk page post? Don't bother with your ANI threats, I'll have fun there and you know it. Sammy D III (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

When it gets to ANI, your edit war against previous and current consensus, supposedly, in your words, coming to break up an edit war will undoubtedly provide comic relief. Qwirkle (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You really are a one-man consensus, aren't you? Do you use the royal "We"?

With a wider audience I believe I would start by showing the page's revision history and point out the vicious battle between 12 June 2020 and when I got there on the 17th. Let others see the "previous...consensus". For them to see the "and current consensus" they would have to go somewhere after I stopped editing, wouldn't they?

My first edit here reverted an edit war between Eddaido and you that took this to end. You're a touch weak on consensus other than the voices inside your head.

Nope. Every falsehood that Eddaido had added to the article has been removed, including the risible examples of “typical” cannon wheels he added. It is all rightly gone. The consensus before was this was an article about the sorts of things used on cars called artillery wheels, and the particular gun carriage wheels they descended from, that’s what the article is about now. Nothing “one man” about it, it was what the article was about years before I edited it. Qwirkle (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

My second, third, and fourth/last edits were deleting your personal attack flag. There was no discussion, again, the only consensus were the voices in your head. If we had a wider audience I would put some links to this page here. Soooo, about your consensuses... Sammy D III (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And this just plain stinks. Speak of stink, Sankey all alone like that. Can you put a couple of sections about other manufactures, spread things out? ‘nuff said. Qwirkle (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

* Photo of an early Sankey

From a US truck POV:

The 1909 Sankey is a couple of pie-pans with a little reinforcing welded back to back. You say it was flimsy, seems right. Direct replacement for wood, probably the same hub.

The 1929 Sankey is a truck wheel and doesn't relate to the 1909. Modern design but not quite mature. Welding, bolts, and rivets.

"Chevy" was generic, I think. Modern "big hub" with steel disc and rim welded. Any steel wheel today. I think the "Artillery" is the stamped-in spokes.

The US probably had more trees left and carried heavier loads but they have a "wild card", Henry Ford. I think Ford was a technological black hole, only "cheap" could escape. And since they built most of the cars...

This is a damn shame. We have development of auto/truck wheels from 1900 until they hit maturity in 1930 and it is stuck in an obscure article that nobody reads and is only part of the story anyway. Sammy D III (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No, “Chevy” really isn’t generic. For some reason, despite the fact that sort of wheel was used earlier by Ford and earlier still by Dodge, “artillery wheel” means a particular Chevy OEM wheel to many gearheads. Qwirkle (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle's never-ending attacks on Eddaido

First, I am Eddaido's friend and they invited me here.

@Eddaido: and @Qwirkle: have a history and I believe Qwirkle brought it here full-force. I don't know if Qwirkle hunts or just stumbles on Eddaido but it immediately gets ugly. Take a look at the edit history of June 2020 and you get the idea. At 20.20 15 June 2020 Qwirkle showed up and made an edit that they knew was controversial. Twenty-three bad faith edits between then and 20.07 17 June 2020. There was no consensus on anything during that time and every edit was disputed.

At 21.34 June 2020 @Dicklyon: re-started with a stable version and things smoothed out.

At 16.47 18 June 2020 the page was protected for 3 days (the discussion continued) but that was after Dicklyon had smoothed things out.

Now to the talk page.

Through-out the page Qwirkle makes countless personal insults and attacks on Eddaido, both openly and very lightly veiled. Check their edit summaries. Here's a couple I was at:

When Eddaido answered a direct question from me Qwirkle made a unprovoked direct personal attack.

When I asked Eddaido about a point Qwirkle answered with a direct personal insult before making a good answer.

After I called Qwirkle on their lack of consensus they went on this rant: "Nope. Every falsehood that Eddaido had added to the article has been removed, including the risible examples of “typical” cannon wheels he added. It is all rightly gone. The consensus before was this was an article about the sorts of things used on cars called artillery wheels, and the particular gun carriage wheels they descended from, that’s what the article is about now. Nothing “one man” about it, it was what the article was about years before I edited it.". Note the irony of Qwirkle calling Eddaido a liar when they (Qwirkle) are lying themselves about the subject being automobile wheels.

Qwirkle and I also chat but it is far less hateful. I have been taken out of context (I wouldn't buy his tangent), had false words put in my mouth (I don't think I have ever commented on quality), and had a friendly chat presented as an insult (this one may not be clear to outsiders).

This is not meant to support any of Eddaido's edits or actions. This is meant to show that Qwirkle constantly attacks Eddaido and makes it difficult for him to even post on this talk page. Sammy D III (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Which is to say that, canvassed to a discussion, @Sammy D III: proceded to knee-jerk revert to his friend’s inaccurate position, only abandoning this when other eyes began looking at it, with personal attacks up to and including “hearing the voices.” Yeah, perhaps this does belong back at ANI. Qwirkle (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: @Sammy D III: (Re-ping needed?) Qwirkle (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It explains a lot. But a more gentle approach from you might help. I know you accused me of being a sea lion when I tried to argue gently with you, but I think it works better. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon:, seriously, what have I done to support @Eddaido:? (I notice Qwirkle didn't ping them). I went from an edit war to the last stable version, which you started editing effectivly. I removed 3 attack flags. That's it. I have edited no content and talked with both Eddaido and Qwirkle on the talk page. Have I supported anything Eddaido has said or done prior to posting this section?

This section was a direct result of this post. I feel that was over the top.

I'll talk to anyone with a remotly NPOV but going around with Qwirkle (or Eddaido) seems like a poor idea. Sammy D III (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"falsehood" was not the best choice of words, but the point remains. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Sorry, I wasn't watching. We talked about this before but didn't follow up. I am re-posting it:

"Sammy, check out the early history of the article. Certainly in 2013 at Eddaido's first edits it was all about car wheels. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"The artillery wheel was developed for use on gun carriages when it was found that the lateral forces involved in horse artillery manoeuvres caused normally-constructed cart wheels to collapse." was the first line of the article when created], at Eddaidos' edit, and the last edit before 2020. I think this article was about cannons first and autos second between 2006 and the current editing. Sammy D III (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)"

Follow up: I think the article is about a wooden wheel with some special hub (EDIT: which you are the only one who knows what it looks like, that's pretty clear). Sankey is a lame replacement and Chevy is a stylistic knock-off. I am interested in why the auto is the subject instead of an evolution of the wooden hub. I'll watch. Sammy D III (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing “lame” about Sankey wheels; it was a good product that addressed local needs pretty well, and got some business in North America, Oceania, etc. It’s also, oddly enough, an ancestor of the jerrycan. Qwirkle (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

First, @Sammy D III:, you should not change your writing after people have responded to it, except, say, for minor typos. You removed your use of the word “lame”, which leaves my response to it hanging oddly, and you have added something which didn’t need to be slipped into the older part of the tread. Regarding the Schwarz wheels, they are a poor primary illustration, no? So why use them? Qwirkle (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right about "lame", I just didn't think it struck through very clearly. I don't have any problem with adding marked edits in my comments. I added a compliment about a pic. I don't know what a Schwartz wheel is and I'm not editing. Somebody who does know may answer you but you may want to put/start it somewhere else. Just a suggestion. Sammy D III (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Just for example, look at these, and compare and contrast them with Eddaido’s....unique?...ideas about pondial differences in terminology. (The synopsis of the actual sources is “there were next to none.”)As I wrote above there are obvious competence issues, not helped by obvious canvassing and obvious tag-teaming. Qwirkle (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)