Talk:Dreadnaught wheel

Pedrail Confusion.

"Some references also use the term Pedrail, but a Pedrail does not operate as a Wheel and axle mechanism and is more akin to Continuous track. Bottrill referred to the rails as 'Ped-rail shoes'."

Not true. The Diplock Chaintrack is a type of continuous track. The earlier Diplock Pedrail Wheel is a wheel and axle mechanism, with sprung spokes. Pedrail Wheel patent shown here; Pedrail Chaintrack patent shown here. Will adjust text. Hengistmate (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rails?

Re the opening sentence "A dreadnaught wheel is a wheel with articulated rails attached at the rim...", this doesn't seem right. Those are not rails. Rails are long thin things: railroad rails, railings, fence rails. Those are more like "feet" or something. Herostratus (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the photo, the wheels have a rim like a train wheel, they then following the 'planks' ie rails, which are laid down just ahead of the wheel. Thus the continuous revolution of the rails are then for the equivalent of train rails for wheels to roll over. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The wheels have a rim like a train wheel. So. The "feet"... "planks"... whatever they are, serve the purpose of rails (somewhat). That doesn't make them rails. Airplanes serve the purpose of airships, that doesn't mean that they are airships, and so on. Herostratus (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

'Endless rails' is what the inventor called them back in 1840's. If you were to lay them end to end they would form a long rail, all that is happening is that the wheel lays a 'rail', rolls over it, then lifts the rail, while laying another rail. BTW a rail need not be long, I have seen short rails in museums supporting displayed trains etc.

Feel free to change it to 'appear to function as rails' or the like if it really means that much to you. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW this is from the Wikipedia article on rail, "History - Early rails were used on horse drawn wagonways, originally with wooden rails" ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Herostratus (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, "rail" originally comes from a enlongated piece of wood, or something to guide you. Perhaps "slab" would be more appropriate, but it does look as if part of the design is too guide the wheels along whatever track the "rail" or "slab" is laid on, since it would be difficult to get steering authority on slippery surfaces, and you also don't want the wheel to slide off the "shoe" into the mud. I would say that "rail" meant something to them back then, or else they wouldn't have used the term...to them a "rail" was a hard surface which one could roll over easily, while "track" implied a path of sorts. A locomotive followed a path...a "track", which was laid with "rails": hard, smooth surfaces which made traveling over the "track" much easier. "Track" to refer to the rails and ties and everything, but also the right-of-way, as opposed to now, when people assume "rails" and "railroad track" are synonyms. And since steam was all the rage, and locomotives booming, I can easily imagine the inventors trying to capitalize on the vision of a locomotive which could lay its own rails (rails follow a track.45Colt 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Artillery in WWI

Isn't this basically the same exact thing as the loose-ish bands of articulated slabs they would fix around the wheels of heavy artillery in WWI, to make it easier to transport in the mud of the combat area? Knd of a tank track, but with only one wheel. There are hundreds of pictures out there, and while I can't recall what term they used for them, it's obviously a very similar idea to this. Shouldn't that be included? Here's a photo...I'm surprised I couldn't find more on Google...I've seen them in dozens of photos before, but not recalling the term for them probably isn't helping):

http://s11.photobucket.com/user/GrandLunar/media/Artillery/28cmmortar7.jpg.html

Also related are "spuds" and "frogplates" (I'm pretty sure that was the term, but Google doesn't give me anything. Weird.) Frogplates (?) are extensions of the track plates to increase surface area, while "spuds" are large lugs which can be affixed to a steel tractor/traction engine wheel or tank track to give it traction in soft mud (some even were hinged to allow travel on harder surfaces). At least merit a place in the "see also" section, although I don't think there's any wiki page on either one..45Colt 17:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They're rather different. Dreadnaught is similar (in aims, if not execution) to the Pedrail wheel. Both work better than hinged plates.

The problem with simple hinged plates is that they dig in. The first vehicle along probably does better, but anything following it tends to see a progressively worse surface. Dreadnaught uses two cables running over a curved surface to control the foot's tilt path (a bit like a Rolamite). Diplock's Pedrail has an internal cam track to position the foot pads. Their purpose is to avoid churning up even more mud.

Spuds (I've never heard of "frogplates") increase longitudinal grip but don't do anything to increase footprint or reduce ground pressure. Spuds were carried as standard on traction engines, often hung on the front axle or the steering drum. Grousers (sometimes the same thing as spuds) are used to temporarily widen tracks sideways, giving less ground pressure and usually also a spud-like effect for more grip. They're a long job to fit though and easily broken off. If the climate makes this sort of thing, like snow, a regular problem, then two sets of tracks are used, wide and narrow. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is it called "Dreadnaught"?

Is there a source that explains where the name came from? It seems that it might be a proper noun/ trade name? I'll be interested in the response. Hengistmate (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a line from Milton

Fear naught; dread naught; but trust in all the gods and saints

It's actually a mis-quote, as the full line is,

Fear naught; dread naught; but trust in all the gods and saints
that you parade through the streets on your many festival days!

— The Book of the Woods

Which is Milton banging on again about Papist idolatry (they're spoken by a Devil inspiring the Catholics before scooting back to Hades).

An odd choice, given that it's not exactly a positive light from Milton, but it seems to have become a popular brand name in the 18th century for something particularly durable or refractory. Captain Cook's crew on the 2nd voyage circumnavigating the Antarctic were issued with 'Fearnaught' coats against the cold. As this was done (most unusually) at Admiralty expense, there was some explaining to be made back in Greenwich. Potters and suppliers of kiln equipment seemed to have liked them as a brandname in particular. Maybe some hellish association to Milton?

In the Victorian age of the 1860s, there was a town called Milton in Massachusetts, with a stud farm outside belonging to the Russell family. Presumably inspired by Milton (I don't know how much connection the town itself claimed) they named two of their promising racehorses Fearnaught and Dreadnaught. The horses did well, and much in the style of James Neill's Eclipse hacksaw blades from Sheffield, their names became yet more popular as a brand.

I don't know when the two words became one, or when the a became an o. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"dread" and "naught" are two words in the English language. I don't know if Milton was the first person to string them together, and I'm not sure it is reasonable to assume that every use of the phrase is specifically referencing Milton. Iapetus (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)