Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
too-long spokes
212 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Cooper
Oct 30, 2012, 11:26:58 AM10/30/12
to
Just built a wheel, and although it’s not fully tensioned yet, it’s a good guess that the drive-side spokes are too long by one mm.
I can feel the spokes under two layers of rim tape (Velox Fond de Jante).
Two-inch tires will be mounted and run at about forty psi.
Is it worth the effort to unlace the wheel and start over?
Any advice appreciated,
Bob
I can feel the spokes under two layers of rim tape (Velox Fond de Jante).
Two-inch tires will be mounted and run at about forty psi.
Is it worth the effort to unlace the wheel and start over?
Any advice appreciated,
Bob
Jay Beattie
Oct 30, 2012, 11:52:55 AM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 8:26 am, Robert Cooper <robertcoo...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
IMO, if they're one mm too long, I would just grind them flat to the
nipple, assuming you can get a tool to them. The deal is that you
don't know how much too long they are until the wheel is fully
tensioned. If I were building the wheel and the spokes were 1mm too
long before the wheel was fully tensioned, I would be a little nervous
and would probably swap in shorter spokes, depending on what I had
sitting around, how much I wanted to spend and whether the wheel was
that important to me.
I've gotten away with too long spokes in beater wheels -- up to 2mm
probably, but what happens to me is that the wheel gets beat up over
time, spokes settle in, things happen, and you need to re-true the
wheel, and you don't have any threads to work with.
-- Jay Beattie.
wrote:
nipple, assuming you can get a tool to them. The deal is that you
don't know how much too long they are until the wheel is fully
tensioned. If I were building the wheel and the spokes were 1mm too
long before the wheel was fully tensioned, I would be a little nervous
and would probably swap in shorter spokes, depending on what I had
sitting around, how much I wanted to spend and whether the wheel was
that important to me.
I've gotten away with too long spokes in beater wheels -- up to 2mm
probably, but what happens to me is that the wheel gets beat up over
time, spokes settle in, things happen, and you need to re-true the
wheel, and you don't have any threads to work with.
-- Jay Beattie.
Message has been deleted
thirty-six
Oct 30, 2012, 2:09:00 PM10/30/12
to
Whizz off one nipple at a time and put a washer or two under it. Use
a power screwdriver where you can. if after tensioning, the spoke
still protrudes so that it could show through the first tape, then
file or grind it flush.
>
> Any advice appreciated,
>
> Bob
Frank Krygowski
Oct 30, 2012, 2:29:57 PM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 11:26 am, Robert Cooper <robertcoo...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
I agree with the advice to carefully grind (or file) them shorter.
One millimeter isn't much, and I've done that successfully.
- Frank Krygowski
wrote:
One millimeter isn't much, and I've done that successfully.
- Frank Krygowski
datakoll
Oct 31, 2012, 1:11:14 PM10/31/12
to
CHECK YOUR RIDE HISTORY....distances.....wheel rebuilds.....spokes out of whack..STRAIGHTEN WHEEL IN A WHEEL JIG ?
if you venture into these areas with some frequency consider buying new spokes at the correct lengths...ask the LBS for an eyeball
add the GROUND DOWN spokes to the shelf.
itsa tossup. if you ride distance not around the block or commute then probalillllities for a gross nagging screwup from those too long spokes is around the corner
whereupon, bummmer you will do what ?
buy correct length spokes !!
BTW how did this happen ?
drugs ?
if you venture into these areas with some frequency consider buying new spokes at the correct lengths...ask the LBS for an eyeball
add the GROUND DOWN spokes to the shelf.
itsa tossup. if you ride distance not around the block or commute then probalillllities for a gross nagging screwup from those too long spokes is around the corner
whereupon, bummmer you will do what ?
buy correct length spokes !!
BTW how did this happen ?
drugs ?
Dan O
Oct 31, 2012, 2:06:44 PM10/31/12
to
On Oct 31, 10:11 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> CHECK YOUR RIDE HISTORY....distances.....wheel rebuilds.....spokes out of whack..STRAIGHTEN WHEEL IN A WHEEL JIG ?
>
> if you venture into these areas with some frequency consider buying new spokes at the correct lengths...ask the LBS for an eyeball
>
My favorite LBS only charged me two bits apiece to cut down and roll
> CHECK YOUR RIDE HISTORY....distances.....wheel rebuilds.....spokes out of whack..STRAIGHTEN WHEEL IN A WHEEL JIG ?
>
> if you venture into these areas with some frequency consider buying new spokes at the correct lengths...ask the LBS for an eyeball
>
spokes that I brought in.
<snip>
AMuzi
Oct 31, 2012, 2:12:25 PM10/31/12
to
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/SPOKFORM.JPG
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
AMuzi
Oct 31, 2012, 2:18:34 PM10/31/12
to
> datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> CHECK YOUR RIDE HISTORY....distances.....wheel rebuilds.....spokes out of whack..STRAIGHTEN WHEEL IN A WHEEL JIG ?
>> if you venture into these areas with some frequency consider buying new spokes at the correct lengths...ask the LBS for an eyeball
>> CHECK YOUR RIDE HISTORY....distances.....wheel rebuilds.....spokes out of whack..STRAIGHTEN WHEEL IN A WHEEL JIG ?
>> if you venture into these areas with some frequency consider buying new spokes at the correct lengths...ask the LBS for an eyeball
Dan O wrote:
> My favorite LBS only charged me two bits apiece to cut down and roll
> spokes that I brought in.
> <snip>
>
That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
> My favorite LBS only charged me two bits apiece to cut down and roll
> spokes that I brought in.
> <snip>
>
if you are buying a set of spokes. And then stand behind the
result, saving you from calculations, anguish and grinding a
wrong length spoke once built.
Dan O
Oct 31, 2012, 2:50:10 PM10/31/12
to
On Oct 31, 11:18 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> CHECK YOUR RIDE HISTORY....distances.....wheel rebuilds.....spokes out of whack..STRAIGHTEN WHEEL IN A WHEEL JIG ?
> >> if you venture into these areas with some frequency consider buying new spokes at the correct lengths...ask the LBS for an eyeball
>
> Dan O wrote:
>
> > My favorite LBS only charged me two bits apiece to cut down and roll
> > spokes that I brought in.
> > <snip>
>
> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
> if you are buying a set of spokes. And then stand behind the
> result, saving you from calculations, anguish and grinding a
> wrong length spoke once built.
>
Yes - appreciated. (In this case, I was rebuilding an ebay wheel, and
> > datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> CHECK YOUR RIDE HISTORY....distances.....wheel rebuilds.....spokes out of whack..STRAIGHTEN WHEEL IN A WHEEL JIG ?
> >> if you venture into these areas with some frequency consider buying new spokes at the correct lengths...ask the LBS for an eyeball
>
> Dan O wrote:
>
> > My favorite LBS only charged me two bits apiece to cut down and roll
> > spokes that I brought in.
> > <snip>
>
> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
> if you are buying a set of spokes. And then stand behind the
> result, saving you from calculations, anguish and grinding a
> wrong length spoke once built.
>
had a box of new spokes onhand that were a little long. I felt like
they were going above and beyond for me there.)
Robert Cooper
Oct 31, 2012, 3:31:35 PM10/31/12
to
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>
> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
>
The LBS calculated the lengths and then inspected the first iteration of the wheel.
>
> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
>
Said is was no problem.
I still think it IS a problem, so I’m going on to Plan B.
I will post again, if Plan B works or if it does not work.
(The calculation was a little non-standard, because I was using an Ultegra hub spaced to 135 -- with a replacement axle of correct length -- to fit my frame.)
Bob
David Scheidt
Oct 31, 2012, 3:40:14 PM10/31/12
to
Robert Cooper <robert...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
The axle length doesn't change where the flanges are with regards to
the rim. That's what sets the length of the spokes.
--
sig 115
the rim. That's what sets the length of the spokes.
--
sig 115
Jay Beattie
Oct 31, 2012, 4:40:33 PM10/31/12
to
On Oct 31, 12:40 pm, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
Axle length and spacing does affect dish. If he were dumping a bunch
of spacers on the left side, it would mean he could lengthen the
spokes on the right and reduce the over-all dish.
-- Jay Beattie.
of spacers on the left side, it would mean he could lengthen the
spokes on the right and reduce the over-all dish.
-- Jay Beattie.
David Scheidt
Oct 31, 2012, 4:52:57 PM10/31/12
to
AMuzi
Oct 31, 2012, 5:09:23 PM10/31/12
to
On 10/31/2012 2:40 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
> Robert Cooper <robert...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> :On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> :>
> :> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
> :>
>
> :The LBS calculated the lengths and then inspected the first iteration of the wheel.
>
> :Said is was no problem.
>
> :I still think it IS a problem, so I’m going on to Plan B.
> Robert Cooper <robert...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> :On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> :>
> :> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
> :>
>
> :The LBS calculated the lengths and then inspected the first iteration of the wheel.
>
> :Said is was no problem.
>
>
> :I will post again, if Plan B works or if it does not work.
>
> :(The calculation was a little non-standard, because I was using an Ultegra hub spaced to 135 -- with a replacement axle of correct length -- to fit my frame.)
>
> The axle length doesn't change where the flanges are with regards to
> the rim. That's what sets the length of the spokes.
>
Did you ask them to replace the wrong length spokes?
> :I will post again, if Plan B works or if it does not work.
>
> :(The calculation was a little non-standard, because I was using an Ultegra hub spaced to 135 -- with a replacement axle of correct length -- to fit my frame.)
>
> The axle length doesn't change where the flanges are with regards to
> the rim. That's what sets the length of the spokes.
>
I think you should have asked and I also think they should
have replaced them. But I'm an outside observer here.
AMuzi
Oct 31, 2012, 5:19:07 PM10/31/12
to
> :On Oct 31, 12:40� pm, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
> :> Robert Cooper <robertcoo...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
> :> :>
> :>
> :> :The LBS calculated the lengths and then inspected the first iteration of the wheel.
> :>
> :> :Said is was no problem.
> :>
> :> :I still think it IS a problem, so I’m going on to Plan B.
> :> Robert Cooper <robertcoo...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
> :> :>
> :>
> :> :The LBS calculated the lengths and then inspected the first iteration of the wheel.
> :>
> :> :Said is was no problem.
> :>
> :>
> :> :I will post again, if Plan B works or if it does not work.
> :>
> :> :(The calculation was a little non-standard, because I was using an Ultegra hub spaced to 135 -- with a replacement axle of correct length -- to fit my frame.)
> :>
> :> The axle length doesn't change where the flanges are with regards to
> :> the rim. � That's what sets the length of the spokes.
> :> :I will post again, if Plan B works or if it does not work.
> :>
> :> :(The calculation was a little non-standard, because I was using an Ultegra hub spaced to 135 -- with a replacement axle of correct length -- to fit my frame.)
> :>
> :> The axle length doesn't change where the flanges are with regards to
>
> :Axle length and spacing does affect dish. If he were dumping a bunch
> :of spacers on the left side, it would mean he could lengthen the
> :spokes on the right and reduce the over-all dish.
>
> Duh. I retract mhy earlier comment.
>
Sorry I replied to you and not to OP but I don't think you
> :Axle length and spacing does affect dish. If he were dumping a bunch
> :of spacers on the left side, it would mean he could lengthen the
> :spokes on the right and reduce the over-all dish.
>
> Duh. I retract mhy earlier comment.
>
are wrong.
Running a quick calc with a single wall Weinmann 215 27" on
Alivio rear hubs in 130mm and 135mm I get 0.4mm left side
difference and zero right side difference.
I still think the shop is in error and ought to exchange the
spokes.
James
Oct 31, 2012, 6:06:50 PM10/31/12
to
to the left side of the axle and removing some from the right, that
would effectively require longer right side spokes to maintain the rim
centred between the axle ends.
--
JS.
datakoll
Oct 31, 2012, 6:53:26 PM10/31/12
to
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
for riders not capable of counting their toes with a real time mock up on a homemade dishing tool...
LBS meat
yawl could wear a pointy hat ?
datakoll
Oct 31, 2012, 7:57:33 PM10/31/12
to
THIS ANTIQUO BEFORE INTERNET BOOK IN BIKE HISTORY TELLS HOW TO A DISHING BEAM. YAWL PLACE RIM ON BEAM WITH HUB IN CENTER HOLE, PLACE STRAIGHT EDGE....FIR ?////ACROSS MARK N MEASURE BUY 2 SPOKES EACH QUAD THEN INSERT TO SEEE IF THIS WORKS. DUH,
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bicycling-magazines-complete-guide-to-upgrading-your-bike-frank-j-berto/1000373334?ean=9780878577514
I CANNU BELIEVE YAWL PROMOTING MATH FOR BUILDING WHEELS. WHERE CRAFTSMANSHIP VS PSUEDO ROCKET SCIENCE FROM AN LBS ?
WHATS THE L STAND FOR ?
datakoll
Oct 31, 2012, 8:05:25 PM10/31/12
to
Dan O
Oct 31, 2012, 8:23:59 PM10/31/12
to
On Oct 31, 4:57 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> THIS ANTIQUO BEFORE INTERNET BOOK IN BIKE HISTORY TELLS HOW TO A DISHING BEAM. YAWL PLACE RIM ON BEAM WITH HUB IN CENTER HOLE, PLACE STRAIGHT EDGE....FIR ?////ACROSS MARK N MEASURE BUY 2 SPOKES EACH QUAD THEN INSERT TO SEEE IF THIS WORKS. DUH,
>
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bicycling-magazines-complete-guide-to...
> THIS ANTIQUO BEFORE INTERNET BOOK IN BIKE HISTORY TELLS HOW TO A DISHING BEAM. YAWL PLACE RIM ON BEAM WITH HUB IN CENTER HOLE, PLACE STRAIGHT EDGE....FIR ?////ACROSS MARK N MEASURE BUY 2 SPOKES EACH QUAD THEN INSERT TO SEEE IF THIS WORKS. DUH,
>
>
> I CANNU BELIEVE YAWL PROMOTING MATH FOR BUILDING WHEELS. WHERE CRAFTSMANSHIP VS PSUEDO ROCKET SCIENCE FROM AN LBS ?
>
> WHATS THE L STAND FOR ?
I need to make one. My snazzy Park truing stand is supposed to self
> I CANNU BELIEVE YAWL PROMOTING MATH FOR BUILDING WHEELS. WHERE CRAFTSMANSHIP VS PSUEDO ROCKET SCIENCE FROM AN LBS ?
>
> WHATS THE L STAND FOR ?
center but has a load of tolerance (slop or skew or something) and
doesn't really. It's still great for truing, but I wonder about dish
on rear wheel sometimes (symmetrical front s/b close if spoke tension
is even side-to-side).
datakoll
Oct 31, 2012, 9:06:03 PM10/31/12
to
fool proof. the blockheaded sloth wanna be wheel builders develop over one shot MO ordering and divinity knows what other mental inadequacies leading to prostration before the GREAT GOD SPOKE CLAC when a tuba4 and a coupla wood shums...
mindbuckleing
datakoll
Oct 31, 2012, 9:06:49 PM10/31/12
to
almost beyond redemtion
datakoll
Oct 31, 2012, 9:07:51 PM10/31/12
to
no style points forever
Jay Beattie
Oct 31, 2012, 9:19:13 PM10/31/12
to
On Oct 31, 2:19 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 3:52 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 3:52 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > :On Oct 31, 12:40Â pm, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
> > :> Robert Cooper <robertcoo...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > :>
> > :> :On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> > :> :>
> > :> :> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
> > :> :>
> > :>
> > :> :The LBS calculated the lengths and then inspected the first iteration of the wheel.
> > :>
> > :> :Said is was no problem.
> > :>
> > :> :I still think it IS a problem, so I’m going on to Plan B.
> > :>
> > :> :I will post again, if Plan B works or if it does not work.
> > :>
> > :> :(The calculation was a little non-standard, because I was using an Ultegra hub spaced to 135 -- with a replacement axle of correct length -- to fit my frame.)
> > :>
> > :> The axle length doesn't change where the flanges are with regards to
> > :> the rim. Â That's what sets the length of the spokes.
> > :> Robert Cooper <robertcoo...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > :>
> > :> :On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> > :> :>
> > :> :> That's nice, but most competent LBS will calc them for you
> > :> :>
> > :>
> > :> :The LBS calculated the lengths and then inspected the first iteration of the wheel.
> > :>
> > :> :Said is was no problem.
> > :>
> > :> :I still think it IS a problem, so I’m going on to Plan B.
> > :>
> > :> :I will post again, if Plan B works or if it does not work.
> > :>
> > :> :(The calculation was a little non-standard, because I was using an Ultegra hub spaced to 135 -- with a replacement axle of correct length -- to fit my frame.)
> > :>
> > :> The axle length doesn't change where the flanges are with regards to
>
> > :Axle length and spacing does affect dish. If he were dumping a bunch
> > :of spacers on the left side, it would mean he could lengthen the
> > :spokes on the right and reduce the over-all dish.
>
> > Duh. I retract mhy earlier comment.
>
> Sorry I replied to you and not to OP but I don't think you
> are wrong.
>
> Running a quick calc with a single wall Weinmann 215 27" on
> Alivio rear hubs in 130mm and 135mm I get 0.4mm left side
> difference and zero right side difference.
>
> I still think the shop is in error and ought to exchange the
> spokes.
I ran it a bunch of times on this: http://www.prowheelbuilder.com/spokelengthcalculator/
> > :Axle length and spacing does affect dish. If he were dumping a bunch
> > :of spacers on the left side, it would mean he could lengthen the
> > :spokes on the right and reduce the over-all dish.
>
> > Duh. I retract mhy earlier comment.
>
> Sorry I replied to you and not to OP but I don't think you
> are wrong.
>
> Running a quick calc with a single wall Weinmann 215 27" on
> Alivio rear hubs in 130mm and 135mm I get 0.4mm left side
> difference and zero right side difference.
>
> I still think the shop is in error and ought to exchange the
> spokes.
It allows you to monkey with axle width and spacing. I'm getting
differences of like .1mm on the right, which seems intuitively wrong.
Let's say I respace to 135 and stack 5mm of washers on the left side.
Just visualizing it, I would think that my right side spoke length
would change by more than .1mm to center the rim. But then whadda I
know.
-- Jay Beattie.
datakoll
Nov 1, 2012, 7:46:38 AM11/1/12
to
spoke clac arrives at a theoretical spoke length not a real spoke length...before adding in unknown variable eg double wall rims.
The real spoke length is shorter than the theoretcial length by 2-3-4-5 mm.
eyeyehahhhahahhahahah then you guess at it.
eyeyehahahahahhahaha
I have witnessed LBS and Mail Odor warhouse personnel believing spake clac lengths are TRUE which obviously isnot the situation.
The real spoke length is shorter than the theoretcial length by 2-3-4-5 mm.
eyeyehahhhahahhahahah then you guess at it.
eyeyehahahahahhahaha
I have witnessed LBS and Mail Odor warhouse personnel believing spake clac lengths are TRUE which obviously isnot the situation.
datakoll
Nov 1, 2012, 7:52:24 AM11/1/12
to
and itsa bummer you know sit down for a sculpture artsy craftsy mechanical building experience only to wind up with the wrong length spokes.
we have asked spoke clac originators...HARRIS-SHELDON BROPWN spomsor one right ?
for truth in calculating up front on the instructions without redress.
frankly these guys suck pig assholes
datakoll
Nov 1, 2012, 9:09:05 AM11/1/12
to
think about it...how does spoke clac stack against the evils of USPOSTAL ?
frkr...@gmail.com
Nov 1, 2012, 11:01:30 AM11/1/12
to
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 9:19:13 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> I ran it a bunch of times on this: http://www.prowheelbuilder.com/spokelengthcalculator/
>
> It allows you to monkey with axle width and spacing. I'm getting
>
> differences of like .1mm on the right, which seems intuitively wrong.
>
> Let's say I respace to 135 and stack 5mm of washers on the left side.
>
> Just visualizing it, I would think that my right side spoke length
>
> would change by more than .1mm to center the rim. But then whadda I
>
> know.
O.1mm doesn't sound unreasonable to me. The length is certainly not going to change much. Play with the trigonometry and see.
>
> I ran it a bunch of times on this: http://www.prowheelbuilder.com/spokelengthcalculator/
>
> It allows you to monkey with axle width and spacing. I'm getting
>
> differences of like .1mm on the right, which seems intuitively wrong.
>
> Let's say I respace to 135 and stack 5mm of washers on the left side.
>
> Just visualizing it, I would think that my right side spoke length
>
> would change by more than .1mm to center the rim. But then whadda I
>
> know.
Or even easier, just sketch it out at your desk - a right triangle with a tall vertical and a short horizontal, so the hypotenuse representing the spoke is near vertical. Adding 5mm to the horizontal barely changes the hypotenuse.
- Frank Krygowski
Robert Cooper
Nov 1, 2012, 12:24:24 PM11/1/12
to
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:01:30 AM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> O.1mm doesn't sound unreasonable to me. The length is certainly not going to change much. Play with the trigonometry and see.
>
> Or even easier, just sketch it out at your desk - a right triangle with a tall vertical and a short horizontal, so the hypotenuse representing the spoke is near vertical. Adding 5mm to the horizontal barely changes the hypotenuse.
Yes. What I meant was that the 135 axle plus Ultegra hub complicated the thinking even though it may not have changed the geometry of the wheel or the spoke length by any significant amount.
>
> O.1mm doesn't sound unreasonable to me. The length is certainly not going to change much. Play with the trigonometry and see.
>
> Or even easier, just sketch it out at your desk - a right triangle with a tall vertical and a short horizontal, so the hypotenuse representing the spoke is near vertical. Adding 5mm to the horizontal barely changes the hypotenuse.
Red herring, I suppose it's called.
Bob
thirty-six
Nov 1, 2012, 2:02:43 PM11/1/12
to
thing I want is encouragement to eat cooked flesh even if it be from
fish. I'm having difficulty resisting a bottle of pickled herrings as
it is.
I can tell I'll not last out the day.
Oh, f@@k, I'll give in to a raw egg and see if that tides me over.
Not before a nip of Highland Park though.
datakoll
Nov 1, 2012, 6:52:17 PM11/1/12
to
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:01:30 AM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
ungwack ugha borno borno eeeeeeeiiiiiiiayayyayayayya
wu wu wu wu......trig....knuck knuck kncuk
datakoll
Nov 1, 2012, 7:02:29 PM11/1/12
to
ok say you grind the spokes...then wheel is bent or needs restressing then what ?
grind again ? belivee you me this gets tedious...
your explaination is typical: spoke clac does not reason for your problems only the authors'
AMuzi
Nov 1, 2012, 7:37:36 PM11/1/12
to
AMuzi
Nov 1, 2012, 7:47:55 PM11/1/12
to
into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to
succeed."
datakoll
Nov 1, 2012, 8:04:32 PM11/1/12
to
Muzi supports a 'no true advice' position for spoke clac instructions ?
one answer on 'no alteration to the clac gospel' was 'he's (the software author) DEAD
well sheeeet DIG HIM UP !
AMuzi
Nov 1, 2012, 9:05:30 PM11/1/12
to
a handy way to calc an unknown spoke length quickly.
For some common builds I will advise my employee 'eleven and
19/32 inches' or something I learned years before I was
conversant in metric spoke lengths, i.e., if you actually
know it with meatware, you don't need software.
DirtRoadie
Nov 1, 2012, 11:54:26 PM11/1/12
to
Never heard the term before, but I like it.
I'm afraid it is disappearing from this group.
DR
datakoll
Nov 2, 2012, 8:56:44 AM11/2/12
to
WELL COOP YAWL SEE THE PROB NO ?
but wait ? does spoke clac give spoke lengths shorter than reality or only lengths longer than reality ?
is that software important ?
to grind or not to grind
0-1-0-1-0-0-0-0 ?
et tu Sapim ?
but wait ? does spoke clac give spoke lengths shorter than reality or only lengths longer than reality ?
is that software important ?
to grind or not to grind
0-1-0-1-0-0-0-0 ?
et tu Sapim ?
datakoll
Nov 2, 2012, 9:00:02 AM11/2/12
to
BBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZ
in a court of authority.
..
if all spoke clac lengths were too long , never too short
this would be an admission of liability !
in a court of authority.
..
if all spoke clac lengths were too long , never too short
this would be an admission of liability !
thirty-six
Nov 2, 2012, 11:35:40 AM11/2/12
to
the spoke with the hub-flange, or that of the nipple to the rim, or
the stretch that a spoke incurs when tensioned. Possibly the biggest
difficulty is obtaining the correct across the rim dimension. Do a
rim rollout and measure the depth to a spoke nipple, do some jiggery
pokery with the figures, invoke PI and Bob's your mother's brother.
Expected final tension, x-sect A and elasticty of steel can be stirred
in the hat and we can pull out a rubber chicken. With a spoke inside
the flange, the bedding in is minor and I feel it well to take it that
1mm will be the average that is taken up when one considers both sides
if the flange and both ends.
If you use two lengths on the same side, make the longer the trailing
spokes on a back wheel. They should also be inside the flange when
typically using interlaced spokes (you MUST).
AMuzi
Nov 2, 2012, 3:37:37 PM11/2/12
to
value including full nipple depth and others do not, some
add in 2mm to include the nipple head, some hyper-correct or
second guess and so end up too long or short. 'ERD' then has
different values for different people and I am truly
sympathetic to the issue.
That being said, when one builds wheels regularly and
develops a functional system (be that trial and error with a
notebook of values or a software program or a chunk of wood
or what have you)these errors disappear or are at least
mitigated. Think of a competent tailor, who will chalk your
cuffs and take up slacks correctly and quickly without
knowing any numeric values for whatever is called 'inseam'
on any given day.
frkr...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2012, 7:07:43 PM11/2/12
to
On Friday, November 2, 2012 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>
> That being said, when one builds wheels regularly and
>
> develops a functional system (be that trial and error with a
>
> notebook of values or a software program or a chunk of wood
>
> or what have you)these errors disappear or are at least
>
> mitigated. Think of a competent tailor, who will chalk your
>
> cuffs and take up slacks correctly and quickly without
>
> knowing any numeric values for whatever is called 'inseam'
>
> on any given day.
That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.
>
> That being said, when one builds wheels regularly and
>
> develops a functional system (be that trial and error with a
>
> notebook of values or a software program or a chunk of wood
>
> or what have you)these errors disappear or are at least
>
> mitigated. Think of a competent tailor, who will chalk your
>
> cuffs and take up slacks correctly and quickly without
>
> knowing any numeric values for whatever is called 'inseam'
>
> on any given day.
I recall when a very good friend of mine (professional finish carpenter) was helping me finish my basement room, a project that involved some unusual angles. When he was absent, I took at least 15 minutes using my Machinery's Handbook to compute some weird compound angle I had to cut. When he arrived, he said something like "I'd have just done _this_" (holding up two pieces of wood to demonstrate) "and been done with it." And he was right.
My way might have been more precise. But, "Good enough is perfect."
- Frank Krygowski
datakoll
Nov 2, 2012, 7:41:12 PM11/2/12
to
ahhh no no no there's NO confusion. Spoke Clac is touted as a real measurement so Cooper show up asking WTF ?
ITSNOT A REAL MEASUREMENT
SPOKE CLAC IS A THEORETICAL MEASUREMENT FROM WHICH MM IS SUNTRACTED TO GET THE REAL MEASUREMENT*
ALL SPOKE CLAC INSTURCTIONS SHOULD STATE THESE FACTS UPFRONT
they do not.
worser, people in lBS and Mail Odor beleive Spake Clac is a real measure doling out wrong sized spokes until beheaded by reality.
* 36's post shows how worser the situation grows.
spokes too long are NO GOOD
The problem has nothing to do with craftsmanship
its fraud, misrepresentation, unethical ambiguity....
no explanation for the problems egregious effects
ITSNOT A REAL MEASUREMENT
SPOKE CLAC IS A THEORETICAL MEASUREMENT FROM WHICH MM IS SUNTRACTED TO GET THE REAL MEASUREMENT*
ALL SPOKE CLAC INSTURCTIONS SHOULD STATE THESE FACTS UPFRONT
they do not.
worser, people in lBS and Mail Odor beleive Spake Clac is a real measure doling out wrong sized spokes until beheaded by reality.
* 36's post shows how worser the situation grows.
spokes too long are NO GOOD
The problem has nothing to do with craftsmanship
its fraud, misrepresentation, unethical ambiguity....
no explanation for the problems egregious effects
Lou Holtman
Nov 3, 2012, 7:14:32 AM11/3/12
to
Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkr...@gmail.com schreef:
better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
the job better I don't do it myself.
Lou
> That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.
The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
the job better I don't do it myself.
Lou
datakoll
Nov 3, 2012, 7:52:09 AM11/3/12
to
shreeep-
buy a watch ? get one with 26 hours/day
buy a watch ? get one with 26 hours/day
Dan O
Nov 3, 2012, 3:21:23 PM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
> Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
"good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
quality combine that way.
That said, I, too, prefer doing things myself - both for the "if you
want something done right... " paradigm, and the feeling of self-
sufficiency. I really appreciate the pros especially, and other
gurus who help steer me in the right direction.
> Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
"good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
quality combine that way.
That said, I, too, prefer doing things myself - both for the "if you
want something done right... " paradigm, and the feeling of self-
sufficiency. I really appreciate the pros especially, and other
gurus who help steer me in the right direction.
AMuzi
Nov 3, 2012, 3:43:16 PM11/3/12
to
cost of doing something badly, doing it over or even slowly
is too much to bear and so people develop systems to give
good results dependably and consistently regardless of
nomenclature.
Just exactly as with 'ERD', no one knows what 'inseam' means
or from whence to measure and yet tailors take up slacks
without knowing any numerical value for whatever inseam
might be.
It does not matter what you call ERD or how you achieve a
spoke length decision. It does matter if the spoke is the
correct length and it does matter quite a bit if one is in
error.
frkr...@gmail.com
Nov 3, 2012, 5:30:19 PM11/3/12
to
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
>
> >
>
> > > That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.
>
> >
>
> > The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
>
> > better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>
> > quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>
> > possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>
> > only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>
> > all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>
> > as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>
> > motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>
> > the job better I don't do it myself.
>
> It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>
> "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>
> work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>
> quality combine that way.
The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
> On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
>
> >
>
> > > That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.
>
> >
>
> > The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
>
> > better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>
> > quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>
> > possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>
> > only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>
> > all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>
> > as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>
> > motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>
> > the job better I don't do it myself.
>
> It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>
> "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>
> work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>
> quality combine that way.
I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.
BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Nov 3, 2012, 5:54:02 PM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 2:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
>
> > > > That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.
>
> > > The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
>
> > > better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>
> > > quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>
> > > possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>
> > > only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>
> > > all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>
> > > as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>
> > > motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>
> > > the job better I don't do it myself.
>
> > It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>
> > "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>
> > work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>
> > quality combine that way.
>
> The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
>
... in cost competitive production of quantities.
> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
>
> > > > That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.
>
> > > The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
>
> > > better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>
> > > quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>
> > > possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>
> > > only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>
> > > all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>
> > > as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>
> > > motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>
> > > the job better I don't do it myself.
>
> > It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>
> > "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>
> > work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>
> > quality combine that way.
>
> The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
>
> I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.
>
cares about excellence such that he has developed competency to the
point of "churning out" excellent work without even trying.
> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>
datakoll
Nov 3, 2012, 7:11:19 PM11/3/12
to
cuffs ! always too long ...cut to comfort....drape FLEXIBLE....comes in rolls...bill to buyer...
this is an analogy ?
this is an analogy ?
John B.
Nov 4, 2012, 1:13:56 AM11/4/12
to
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danov...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 3, 2:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>> > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > > Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
>>
>> > > > That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.
>>
>> > > The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
>>
>> > > better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>>
>> > > quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>>
>> > > possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>>
>> > > only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>>
>> > > all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>>
>> > > as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>>
>> > > motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>>
>> > > the job better I don't do it myself.
>>
>> > It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>>
>> > "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>>
>> > work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>>
>> > quality combine that way.
>>
>> The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
>>
>
>... in cost competitive production of quantities.
>
>> I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.
>>
>
>I just meant there's a more rare wonderful synergy where a pro who
>cares about excellence such that he has developed competency to the
>point of "churning out" excellent work without even trying.
>
I don't think that happens. What I do see is people who have trained
themselves to work at very close tolerances, but they certainly do
try.... all the time.
>> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>>
>
>And good enough is certainly good enough.
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>On Nov 3, 2:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>> > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > > Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
>>
>> > > > That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.
>>
>> > > The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
>>
>> > > better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>>
>> > > quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>>
>> > > possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>>
>> > > only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>>
>> > > all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>>
>> > > as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>>
>> > > motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>>
>> > > the job better I don't do it myself.
>>
>> > It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>>
>> > "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>>
>> > work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>>
>> > quality combine that way.
>>
>> The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
>>
>
>... in cost competitive production of quantities.
>
>> I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.
>>
>
>I just meant there's a more rare wonderful synergy where a pro who
>cares about excellence such that he has developed competency to the
>point of "churning out" excellent work without even trying.
>
themselves to work at very close tolerances, but they certainly do
try.... all the time.
>> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>>
>
>And good enough is certainly good enough.
Cheers,
John B.
Dan O
Nov 4, 2012, 2:02:56 AM11/4/12
to
On Nov 3, 11:13 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
All of them? ... all the time? ... for excellence??
> >> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>
> >And good enough is certainly good enough.
>
... or it wouldn't be,
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
> >> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>
> >And good enough is certainly good enough.
>
John B.
Nov 4, 2012, 5:53:42 AM11/4/12
to
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 00:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danov...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It undoubtedly varies with the trade. I was talking abut machinists
and yes, the guys that did good work did good work all the time.
the ones that did less good work didn't change much either. That is
how you assigned the work - stuff that had to be as close as perfect
as possible went to That Guy; bushings in a back-hoe arm went to That
Other Guy.
It may well be that the guys I worked with don't exist any more but
back in the day you had to make something to get your journeyman's
papers and if it wasn't good enough you didn't get your certificate.
Most of the guys did the best job that they could do, not because the
Boss would get on their ass, but because they didn't ever want anyone
to pick up something that they had done and say, "Who made this POS?"
>> >> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>>
>> >And good enough is certainly good enough.
>>
>
>... or it wouldn't be,
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
and yes, the guys that did good work did good work all the time.
the ones that did less good work didn't change much either. That is
how you assigned the work - stuff that had to be as close as perfect
as possible went to That Guy; bushings in a back-hoe arm went to That
Other Guy.
It may well be that the guys I worked with don't exist any more but
back in the day you had to make something to get your journeyman's
papers and if it wasn't good enough you didn't get your certificate.
Most of the guys did the best job that they could do, not because the
Boss would get on their ass, but because they didn't ever want anyone
to pick up something that they had done and say, "Who made this POS?"
>> >> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>>
>> >And good enough is certainly good enough.
>>
>
>... or it wouldn't be,
Cheers,
John B.
datakoll
Nov 4, 2012, 7:58:02 AM11/4/12
to
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:43:18 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 2:21 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>
> >> Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
>
> >>
>
> >>> That makes sense to me.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSS
> On 11/3/2012 2:21 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>
> >> Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
>
> >>
>
> >>> That makes sense to me.
the bicycle wheel is not a bridge across Puget Sound.
the bicycle wheel does not require a math planning, paper/computer construction from its immense size and cost...
nor does cutting fabric for a pants leg.
the craftsman takes the finished product materials or templatye materials fitting the pieces together to arrive at a temporary end product. The temporary end product is then evaluated against the desired goal of the finished final product.
that's how its done. Spke clac is unecessary, unuseful, regressive, backwards and stupid.
Dan O
Nov 4, 2012, 2:29:59 PM11/4/12
to
On Nov 4, 2:53 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 00:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
You're right; I understand and agree; and I didn't mean they weren't
trying to do good work. I just meant they can be even be distracted
from focused pursuit of excellence and still knock it out (virtually
in their sleep).
> the ones that did less good work didn't change much either. That is
> how you assigned the work - stuff that had to be as close as perfect
> as possible went to That Guy; bushings in a back-hoe arm went to That
> Other Guy.
>
Exactly.
> It may well be that the guys I worked with don't exist any more but
> back in the day you had to make something to get your journeyman's
> papers and if it wasn't good enough you didn't get your certificate.
>
Some guys can be talented enough to ace the "exams" , but don't care
about what they're doing. I don't want them building my bike.
> Most of the guys did the best job that they could do, not because the
> Boss would get on their ass, but because they didn't ever want anyone
> to pick up something that they had done and say, "Who made this POS?"
>
That's a horrible motivation. Fear? (Fear has it's place - like
motivating me off the road forthwith when that car came at me head on,
but... ) Pride? That's not so all bad, either. Desire and intent to
satisfy something outside is important (pleasing the Big Boss Man is
kind of sad, unless it's out of deserved respect - not mere contrived
hierarchy); but genuine excellence has to come from inside.
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 00:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
trying to do good work. I just meant they can be even be distracted
from focused pursuit of excellence and still knock it out (virtually
in their sleep).
> the ones that did less good work didn't change much either. That is
> how you assigned the work - stuff that had to be as close as perfect
> as possible went to That Guy; bushings in a back-hoe arm went to That
> Other Guy.
>
> It may well be that the guys I worked with don't exist any more but
> back in the day you had to make something to get your journeyman's
> papers and if it wasn't good enough you didn't get your certificate.
>
about what they're doing. I don't want them building my bike.
> Most of the guys did the best job that they could do, not because the
> Boss would get on their ass, but because they didn't ever want anyone
> to pick up something that they had done and say, "Who made this POS?"
>
motivating me off the road forthwith when that car came at me head on,
but... ) Pride? That's not so all bad, either. Desire and intent to
satisfy something outside is important (pleasing the Big Boss Man is
kind of sad, unless it's out of deserved respect - not mere contrived
hierarchy); but genuine excellence has to come from inside.
Dan O
Nov 4, 2012, 2:36:07 PM11/4/12
to
you're saying there and agree, and would love to learn from gurus and
be able to work with meatware and 2x4's and whatnot; but spocacl was
at least *useful* to me when I had that ebay wheel with the nine
trashed spokes from a thrown chain. I had good DT spokes onhand, but
too long. Spocalc told me (ostensibly) how long they needed to be, I
took them in to the LBS, told the guy how long spocalc said they
shoudl be, he cut and rolled them, I replaced the damaged spokes one-
at-a-time, tensioned and trued (came up really round and straight),
with perfect nipple engagement.
David Scheidt
Nov 4, 2012, 4:38:43 PM11/4/12
to
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
unneccessary, regressive, backwards, and stupid. Since we understand
the geometry of the wheel, given a particular ERD, flange spacing, and
dish, we can use math to make the wheel perfect the first time and not
have to waste time and material with trial and error. There are no
subjective hoo-haw with a bicycle wheel. It needs to be round, true,
tensioned properly, and stress relieved properly. A wheel that meets
those standards is just like any other wheel that does, it doesn't
matter if I use spoccalc to come up with the spoke length, I fit
spokes and reroll them till they're short enough, or give to a wizard
who just looks at it and rolls some spokes without measuring.
--
sig 108
:On Nov 4, 4:58 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:43:18 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
:> > On 11/3/2012 2:21 PM, Dan O wrote:
:>
:> > > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
:>
:> > >> Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
:>
:> > >>> That makes sense to me.
:>
:> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSS
:>
:> the bicycle wheel is not a bridge across Puget Sound.
:>
:> the bicycle wheel does not require a math planning, paper/computer construction from its immense size and cost...
:>
:> nor does cutting fabric for a pants leg.
:>
:> the craftsman takes the finished product materials or templatye materials fitting the pieces together to arrive at a temporary end product. The temporary end product is then evaluated against the desired goal of the finished final product.
:>
:> that's how its done. Spke clac is unecessary, unuseful, regressive, backwards and stupid.
No, it's not. that's the 'artisanal' way of doing things, which is
:> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:43:18 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
:> > On 11/3/2012 2:21 PM, Dan O wrote:
:>
:> > > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
:>
:> > >> Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
:>
:> > >>> That makes sense to me.
:>
:> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSS
:>
:> the bicycle wheel is not a bridge across Puget Sound.
:>
:> the bicycle wheel does not require a math planning, paper/computer construction from its immense size and cost...
:>
:> nor does cutting fabric for a pants leg.
:>
:> the craftsman takes the finished product materials or templatye materials fitting the pieces together to arrive at a temporary end product. The temporary end product is then evaluated against the desired goal of the finished final product.
:>
:> that's how its done. Spke clac is unecessary, unuseful, regressive, backwards and stupid.
unneccessary, regressive, backwards, and stupid. Since we understand
the geometry of the wheel, given a particular ERD, flange spacing, and
dish, we can use math to make the wheel perfect the first time and not
have to waste time and material with trial and error. There are no
subjective hoo-haw with a bicycle wheel. It needs to be round, true,
tensioned properly, and stress relieved properly. A wheel that meets
those standards is just like any other wheel that does, it doesn't
matter if I use spoccalc to come up with the spoke length, I fit
spokes and reroll them till they're short enough, or give to a wizard
who just looks at it and rolls some spokes without measuring.
--
sig 108
Lou Holtman
Nov 4, 2012, 4:50:25 PM11/4/12
to
Op zaterdag 3 november 2012 22:30:19 UTC+1 schreef frkr...@gmail.com het volgende:
We have a state of the art laser cutter in our R&D workshop. It can produce holes in any kind of form with an in between hole tolerance of plus minus 0.15 mm right from a CAD drawing. If that is good enough for me there is no use to put dimensions and tolerances on the drawing. It comes right out of the laser cutter within half an hour after I finished my drawing. That is progress in my kind of work. Fast and right every time.
Lou
> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
>
> >
>
> > > better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>
> >
>
> > > quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>
> >
>
> > > possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>
> >
>
> > > only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>
> >
>
> > > all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>
> >
>
> > > as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>
> >
>
> > > motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>
> >
>
> > > the job better I don't do it myself.
>
> >
>
> > It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>
> >
>
> > "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>
> >
>
> > work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>
> >
>
> > quality combine that way.
>
>
>
> The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
>
With that kind of tolerances you talking about machining. In machining tolerances are determent by tools and equipment. If I put a tolerance on one of my drawings it says more about on what equipment/tool it will be made than which person it will make.
>
> > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
>
> >
>
> > > better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>
> >
>
> > > quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>
> >
>
> > > possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>
> >
>
> > > only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>
> >
>
> > > all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>
> >
>
> > > as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>
> >
>
> > > motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>
> >
>
> > > the job better I don't do it myself.
>
> >
>
> > It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>
> >
>
> > "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>
> >
>
> > work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>
> >
>
> > quality combine that way.
>
>
>
> The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
>
We have a state of the art laser cutter in our R&D workshop. It can produce holes in any kind of form with an in between hole tolerance of plus minus 0.15 mm right from a CAD drawing. If that is good enough for me there is no use to put dimensions and tolerances on the drawing. It comes right out of the laser cutter within half an hour after I finished my drawing. That is progress in my kind of work. Fast and right every time.
Lou
frkr...@gmail.com
Nov 4, 2012, 4:59:35 PM11/4/12
to
On Sunday, November 4, 2012 4:50:25 PM UTC-5, Lou Holtman wrote:
> Op zaterdag 3 november 2012 22:30:19 UTC+1 schreef frkr...@gmail.com het volgende:
>
> >
>
> Op zaterdag 3 november 2012 22:30:19 UTC+1 schreef frkr...@gmail.com het volgende:
>
> >
>
> > The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
>
> >
>
>
>
> With that kind of tolerances you talking about machining. In machining tolerances are determent by tools and equipment. If I put a tolerance on one of my drawings it says more about on what equipment/tool it will be made than which person it will make.
>
> We have a state of the art laser cutter in our R&D workshop. It can produce holes in any kind of form with an in between hole tolerance of plus minus 0.15 mm right from a CAD drawing. If that is good enough for me there is no use to put dimensions and tolerances on the drawing. It comes right out of the laser cutter within half an hour after I finished my drawing. That is progress in my kind of work. Fast and right every time.
Right. But not everything can be made by those methods. Tolerances - however they may be expressed - are still necessary in almost all work. That includes things as disparate as carpentry, cooking, fiddling or building bike wheels.
>
> >
>
>
>
> With that kind of tolerances you talking about machining. In machining tolerances are determent by tools and equipment. If I put a tolerance on one of my drawings it says more about on what equipment/tool it will be made than which person it will make.
>
> We have a state of the art laser cutter in our R&D workshop. It can produce holes in any kind of form with an in between hole tolerance of plus minus 0.15 mm right from a CAD drawing. If that is good enough for me there is no use to put dimensions and tolerances on the drawing. It comes right out of the laser cutter within half an hour after I finished my drawing. That is progress in my kind of work. Fast and right every time.
- Frank Krygowski
datakoll
Nov 4, 2012, 6:29:33 PM11/4/12
to
so what's Cooper's problem ?
Coops problem is what I experience...
the deal here is we're trying to mesh with the process not play electronic games with 2nd and tertiary information/input/output.
we should be the wheel, feel the wheel, understand the wheel personaly up front close in..
right form the start
Coops problem is what I experience...
the deal here is we're trying to mesh with the process not play electronic games with 2nd and tertiary information/input/output.
we should be the wheel, feel the wheel, understand the wheel personaly up front close in..
right form the start
John B.
Nov 4, 2012, 7:13:56 PM11/4/12
to
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 11:29:59 -0800 (PST), Dan O <danov...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It wasn't so much the "ability to do good work", whatever that is, it
was basically the habit of working to close tolerances - measure it
twice, cut it once, for example. And perhaps the patience to take a
little longer, run the machine slower, make a little smoother cut...
and of course, having done it at least once.
>> the ones that did less good work didn't change much either. That is
>> how you assigned the work - stuff that had to be as close as perfect
>> as possible went to That Guy; bushings in a back-hoe arm went to That
>> Other Guy.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> It may well be that the guys I worked with don't exist any more but
>> back in the day you had to make something to get your journeyman's
>> papers and if it wasn't good enough you didn't get your certificate.
>>
>
>Some guys can be talented enough to ace the "exams" , but don't care
>about what they're doing. I don't want them building my bike.
>
>> Most of the guys did the best job that they could do, not because the
>> Boss would get on their ass, but because they didn't ever want anyone
>> to pick up something that they had done and say, "Who made this POS?"
>>
>
>That's a horrible motivation. Fear? (Fear has it's place - like
>motivating me off the road forthwith when that car came at me head on,
>but... ) Pride? That's not so all bad, either. Desire and intent to
>satisfy something outside is important (pleasing the Big Boss Man is
>kind of sad, unless it's out of deserved respect - not mere contrived
>hierarchy); but genuine excellence has to come from inside.
>
Pleasing the Boss, or perhaps doing it well enough that the Boss will
find it acceptable, is certainly a valid concept, nor does the Boss
need to be someone who has earned universal respect (although that
helps). All he needs to be is a figurehead who ruins the place.
Without the Boss we have situation where Dan O sits on his arse all
day, smoking cigarettes and not producing anything billable. Or the
really boring jobs ignored.
Years ago I used to take my car, to be maintained, to a shop that paid
the mechanics strictly by the flat-rate manual. "My" mechanic told me
that the Boss had to assign some jobs (the ones that took a long time
and didn't pay as well) otherwise no one would have taken them... and
the Boss practically had to maintain a roster of who did what, when,
to avoid the mechanics from arguing that they were being unfairly
assigned work where they couldn't make a day's wages.
So, the Boss is a necessary evil.
>> >> >> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>>
>> >> >And good enough is certainly good enough.
>>
>> >... or it wouldn't be,
>>
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
was basically the habit of working to close tolerances - measure it
twice, cut it once, for example. And perhaps the patience to take a
little longer, run the machine slower, make a little smoother cut...
and of course, having done it at least once.
>> the ones that did less good work didn't change much either. That is
>> how you assigned the work - stuff that had to be as close as perfect
>> as possible went to That Guy; bushings in a back-hoe arm went to That
>> Other Guy.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> It may well be that the guys I worked with don't exist any more but
>> back in the day you had to make something to get your journeyman's
>> papers and if it wasn't good enough you didn't get your certificate.
>>
>
>Some guys can be talented enough to ace the "exams" , but don't care
>about what they're doing. I don't want them building my bike.
>
>> Most of the guys did the best job that they could do, not because the
>> Boss would get on their ass, but because they didn't ever want anyone
>> to pick up something that they had done and say, "Who made this POS?"
>>
>
>That's a horrible motivation. Fear? (Fear has it's place - like
>motivating me off the road forthwith when that car came at me head on,
>but... ) Pride? That's not so all bad, either. Desire and intent to
>satisfy something outside is important (pleasing the Big Boss Man is
>kind of sad, unless it's out of deserved respect - not mere contrived
>hierarchy); but genuine excellence has to come from inside.
>
find it acceptable, is certainly a valid concept, nor does the Boss
need to be someone who has earned universal respect (although that
helps). All he needs to be is a figurehead who ruins the place.
Without the Boss we have situation where Dan O sits on his arse all
day, smoking cigarettes and not producing anything billable. Or the
really boring jobs ignored.
Years ago I used to take my car, to be maintained, to a shop that paid
the mechanics strictly by the flat-rate manual. "My" mechanic told me
that the Boss had to assign some jobs (the ones that took a long time
and didn't pay as well) otherwise no one would have taken them... and
the Boss practically had to maintain a roster of who did what, when,
to avoid the mechanics from arguing that they were being unfairly
assigned work where they couldn't make a day's wages.
So, the Boss is a necessary evil.
>> >> >> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>>
>> >> >And good enough is certainly good enough.
>>
>> >... or it wouldn't be,
>>
Cheers,
John B.
John B.
Nov 4, 2012, 7:22:29 PM11/4/12
to
that your work piece has been temperature soaked in that enclosure for
at least 24 hours and that while you were cutting the holes you
constantly measured the temperature of the work piece. If not then
you're really not working to close tolerance.
After all 0.15mm is only about .005". Hardly close tolerance.
--
Cheers,
John B.
AMuzi
Nov 4, 2012, 8:10:46 PM11/4/12
to
Or spoke length!
Woefully inadequate for a chain rivet.
frkr...@gmail.com
Nov 4, 2012, 8:49:50 PM11/4/12
to
(I once talked to a guy who said "I get them perfect." Obviously, he didn't understand the question!)
- Frank Krygowski
thirty-six
Nov 4, 2012, 9:19:35 PM11/4/12
to
On 4 Nov, 21:38, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
construction.
> Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On Nov 4, 4:58 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:43:18 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> :> > On 11/3/2012 2:21 PM, Dan O wrote:
> :>
> :> > > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
> :>
> :> > >> Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
> :>
> :> > >>> That makes sense to me.
> :>
> :> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSS
> :>
> :> the bicycle wheel is not a bridge across Puget Sound.
> :>
> :> the bicycle wheel does not require a math planning, paper/computer construction from its immense size and cost...
> :>
> :> nor does cutting fabric for a pants leg.
> :>
> :> the craftsman takes the finished product materials or templatye materials fitting the pieces together to arrive at a temporary end product. The temporary end product is then evaluated against the desired goal of the finished final product.
> :>
> :> that's how its done. Spke clac is unecessary, unuseful, regressive, backwards and stupid.
>
> No, it's not. that's the 'artisanal' way of doing things, which is
> unneccessary, regressive, backwards, and stupid. Since we understand
> the geometry of the wheel, given a particular ERD, flange spacing, and
> dish, we can use math to make the wheel perfect the first time and not
> have to waste time and material with trial and error. There are no
> subjective hoo-haw with a bicycle wheel. It needs to be round, true,
> tensioned properly, and stress relieved properly.
No need for stress relieving a wheel, I talk to it gently while under
>
> :On Nov 4, 4:58 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:43:18 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> :> > On 11/3/2012 2:21 PM, Dan O wrote:
> :>
> :> > > On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
> :>
> :> > >> Op 3-11-2012 0:07, frkry...@gmail.com schreef:
> :>
> :> > >>> That makes sense to me.
> :>
> :> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSS
> :>
> :> the bicycle wheel is not a bridge across Puget Sound.
> :>
> :> the bicycle wheel does not require a math planning, paper/computer construction from its immense size and cost...
> :>
> :> nor does cutting fabric for a pants leg.
> :>
> :> the craftsman takes the finished product materials or templatye materials fitting the pieces together to arrive at a temporary end product. The temporary end product is then evaluated against the desired goal of the finished final product.
> :>
> :> that's how its done. Spke clac is unecessary, unuseful, regressive, backwards and stupid.
>
> No, it's not. that's the 'artisanal' way of doing things, which is
> unneccessary, regressive, backwards, and stupid. Since we understand
> the geometry of the wheel, given a particular ERD, flange spacing, and
> dish, we can use math to make the wheel perfect the first time and not
> have to waste time and material with trial and error. There are no
> subjective hoo-haw with a bicycle wheel. It needs to be round, true,
> tensioned properly, and stress relieved properly.
construction.
thirty-six
Nov 4, 2012, 9:23:15 PM11/4/12
to
annointed with Bruichladdich 10. The wheel will have life and it
shall be strong and brave.
thirty-six
Nov 4, 2012, 9:30:32 PM11/4/12
to
2% is certainly generally acceptable, but there may be rim distortion
which means that these fine construction levels levels are impossible
to obtain without spending excessive time is straightening a rim.using
clamps, levers and hammers.
James
Nov 4, 2012, 9:57:02 PM11/4/12
to
On 5/11/2012 12:49 PM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral
> error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
>
> (I once talked to a guy who said "I get them perfect." Obviously, he
> didn't understand the question!)
>
Only an estimation, as I don't actually measure the deviations from
> OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral
> error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
>
> (I once talked to a guy who said "I get them perfect." Obviously, he
> didn't understand the question!)
>
true, but I'd say about +/- 0.5mm or better for both.
To put that into perspective, I've just recently built three wheels, and
a fourth is on the way. I have no truing stand or jig as such, only a
dish tool to check the rim is about centre. To true the wheel I use an
old frame and fork with brakes attached, and a ruler. I use the ruler
as a guide to detect the out of round deviations.
I'm sure with a nice stand I could easily improve my +/- 0.5mm, and
probably be faster at it than using an old frame, but I doubt the wheel
or its user would notice the difference if it was closer to true. For
me it's good enough.
The back wheel I built some months ago has been used ever since it was
finished, has not needed adjustment and doesn't appear to have become
less true than when it was new, despite taking a few knocks. I rode a
few kms of dirt/gravel on Saturday on this wheel with 23 mm tyres. No
problems.
--
JS
David Scheidt
Nov 4, 2012, 11:47:53 PM11/4/12
to
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
:OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within 0.001"
of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes almost
loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out of round
(big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and spoke tension
within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel notices that hop, but
he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd surely notice if his
spokes broke. I suspect if I were building wheels for sale, I'd have
looser standards, but I'm not. I build wheels for me, and
occaisonally for a friend, so if it takes an extra hour to get it
perfect, I don't care. A shop getting flat rate per wheel has to, but
they get more practice in a week than I do in years.
:(I once talked to a guy who said "I get them perfect." Obviously, he didn't understand the question!)
:- Frank Krygowski
--
sig 25
:OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within 0.001"
of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes almost
loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out of round
(big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and spoke tension
within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel notices that hop, but
he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd surely notice if his
spokes broke. I suspect if I were building wheels for sale, I'd have
looser standards, but I'm not. I build wheels for me, and
occaisonally for a friend, so if it takes an extra hour to get it
perfect, I don't care. A shop getting flat rate per wheel has to, but
they get more practice in a week than I do in years.
:(I once talked to a guy who said "I get them perfect." Obviously, he didn't understand the question!)
:- Frank Krygowski
--
sig 25
James
Nov 5, 2012, 12:08:58 AM11/5/12
to
On 5/11/2012 3:47 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral
> error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
>
> Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
> wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within
> 0.001" of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes
> almost loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out
> of round (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and
> spoke tension within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel
> notices that hop, but he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd
> surely notice if his spokes broke. I suspect if I were building
> wheels for sale, I'd have looser standards, but I'm not. I build
> wheels for me, and occaisonally for a friend, so if it takes an extra
> hour to get it perfect, I don't care. A shop getting flat rate per
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral
> error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
>
> Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
> wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within
> 0.001" of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes
> almost loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out
> of round (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and
> spoke tension within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel
> notices that hop, but he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd
> surely notice if his spokes broke. I suspect if I were building
> wheels for sale, I'd have looser standards, but I'm not. I build
> wheels for me, and occaisonally for a friend, so if it takes an extra
> hour to get it perfect, I don't care. A shop getting flat rate per
See below.
> wheel has to, but they get more practice in a week than I do in
> years.
>
>
> :(I once talked to a guy who said "I get them perfect." Obviously,
> he didn't understand the question!)
JS.
Dan O
Nov 5, 2012, 12:43:37 AM11/5/12
to
On Nov 4, 8:47 pm, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
thingie, I no longer keep trying for perfectly round and true, instead
shooting for a balance as you describe, and have better wheels.)
I tolerate quite a bit out of true (gets to multiple mm before I can't
stand it anymore - mostly just on anal-retentive principle). I am
happy with about a mm or so, but that is mostly because the cheap rims
on my main bike don't just don't fall into better true like some other
wheels. I'd really like to build a pair w/ Velocity rims 'cause PW
said they build up nice and true.
I've had some wheels that I could get damn near perfect. Of course
they go out because I beat the hell out of them, but they have all
served admirably.
> I suspect if I were building wheels for sale, I'd have
> looser standards, but I'm not.
Absolutely and nothing wrong with that; that's as expected and as it
should be. If someone wants ultimate instead of good enough they
should either 1) do it themselves or (distant) 2) pay cost-no-object
or be lucky enough to have some special relationship with a dedicated
master wheelbuilder with free time.
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
>
> Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
> wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within 0.001"
> of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes almost
> loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out of round
> (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and spoke tension
> within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel notices that hop, but
> he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd surely notice if his
> spokes broke.
Yeah, there are tradeoffs aplenty. (Since I got the tensiometer
>
> :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
>
> Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
> wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within 0.001"
> of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes almost
> loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out of round
> (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and spoke tension
> within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel notices that hop, but
> he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd surely notice if his
> spokes broke.
thingie, I no longer keep trying for perfectly round and true, instead
shooting for a balance as you describe, and have better wheels.)
I tolerate quite a bit out of true (gets to multiple mm before I can't
stand it anymore - mostly just on anal-retentive principle). I am
happy with about a mm or so, but that is mostly because the cheap rims
on my main bike don't just don't fall into better true like some other
wheels. I'd really like to build a pair w/ Velocity rims 'cause PW
said they build up nice and true.
I've had some wheels that I could get damn near perfect. Of course
they go out because I beat the hell out of them, but they have all
served admirably.
> I suspect if I were building wheels for sale, I'd have
> looser standards, but I'm not.
should be. If someone wants ultimate instead of good enough they
should either 1) do it themselves or (distant) 2) pay cost-no-object
or be lucky enough to have some special relationship with a dedicated
master wheelbuilder with free time.
Lou Holtman
Nov 5, 2012, 1:37:53 AM11/5/12
to
On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:22:32 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:50:25 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:50:25 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
>
> And, one assumes that you are a temperature controlled enclosure; and
>
> that your work piece has been temperature soaked in that enclosure for
>
> at least 24 hours and that while you were cutting the holes you
>
> constantly measured the temperature of the work piece. If not then
>
> you're really not working to close tolerance.
20 mu close enough?
>
> that your work piece has been temperature soaked in that enclosure for
>
> at least 24 hours and that while you were cutting the holes you
>
> constantly measured the temperature of the work piece. If not then
>
> you're really not working to close tolerance.
> After all 0.15mm is only about .005". Hardly close tolerance.
Of course. Same goes for a CNC milling machine. It is in the machine and tool. It is hard getting tolerances larger that are common for a given machine.
Lou
thirty-six
Nov 5, 2012, 5:11:41 AM11/5/12
to
with a high quality rim.
For a 25mm overall width rim, that makes +/- 0.25mm lateral
deviation.acceptable
For a 20mm deep rim, that makes +/-0.2mm radial deviation acceptable,
although in practice is not needed with 28 spokes and more, 0.5mm is
sufficient.
In each case the full deviation should not be within 1/4 of the rim's
circumference.
These are exacting standards are achievable with quality rims with
ease when using sound construction methods.
Remember that it is more important that a wheel stays true under load,
in actual riding, than getting 0.5mm and better accuracy in the
stand. With experience in riding one's own wheels with enthusiasm,
one should detect the misgivings in them.
John B.
Nov 5, 2012, 6:02:12 AM11/5/12
to
Like most things, I hear people saying this and that but when you look
into it there seems to be a lot of "Yup, that's close enough".
--
Cheers,
John B.
datakoll
Nov 5, 2012, 7:50:15 AM11/5/12
to
INCROYABLE ! the problem is on hand....wheel builders defending spoke clac..
forest-trees
reason spoke clac is diss cussed is it doesn't produce real results , produces theoretical results
using spoke clac is regressive to a sensory understanding of the mechanism, riding skill.
if clac worked there would be no Cooper.
forest-trees
reason spoke clac is diss cussed is it doesn't produce real results , produces theoretical results
using spoke clac is regressive to a sensory understanding of the mechanism, riding skill.
if clac worked there would be no Cooper.
David Scheidt
Nov 5, 2012, 9:50:24 AM11/5/12
to
James <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
the limit of my dial indicator, and below my ability to see the
difference; and tension that's uniform, within 5%. It doesn't mean
Plato's cave perfect.
:--
:JS.
--
sig 23
:On 5/11/2012 3:47 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
:> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
:>
:> :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral
:> error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
:>
:> Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
:> wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within
:> 0.001" of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes
:> almost loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out
:> of round (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and
:> spoke tension within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel
:> notices that hop, but he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd
:> surely notice if his spokes broke. I suspect if I were building
:> wheels for sale, I'd have looser standards, but I'm not. I build
:> wheels for me, and occaisonally for a friend, so if it takes an extra
:> hour to get it perfect, I don't care. A shop getting flat rate per
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:See below.
Perfect in this case meaning round and true within a thou, which is
:> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
:>
:> :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral
:> error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
:>
:> Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
:> wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within
:> 0.001" of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes
:> almost loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out
:> of round (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and
:> spoke tension within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel
:> notices that hop, but he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd
:> surely notice if his spokes broke. I suspect if I were building
:> wheels for sale, I'd have looser standards, but I'm not. I build
:> wheels for me, and occaisonally for a friend, so if it takes an extra
:> hour to get it perfect, I don't care. A shop getting flat rate per
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:See below.
the limit of my dial indicator, and below my ability to see the
difference; and tension that's uniform, within 5%. It doesn't mean
Plato's cave perfect.
:--
:JS.
--
sig 23
thirty-six
Nov 5, 2012, 10:20:29 AM11/5/12
to
gaining the knowledge in producing excellent wheels. No mechanic that
built resilient wheels ever made trigonometric calculations of such
depth. They referred to standard wheels and fudged accordingly when
differences in components were used.
it's the use of dual-wall rims of such differing depths which has
complicated the issue and it has been reported that there are users of
the calculative method which get the spoke-length too far out to use
the purchased spokes. I'd like to use 3/8" long nipples just to show
two-fingers to the spokecalc proponents. When I find them and
straight-gauge chromed 15swg I'll tie and solder the crossings, use
linseed oil and a non-eyeletted rim with minimally-tensioned spokes.
Oh, and punch-set both ends and will not "stress-relieve" as this
spunk wont last forever. Anything I missed to contradict the self-
proclaimed wheel-scientist?
When the so-called science doesn't match the art then the scientific
approach has failed and is in error.
Jay Beattie
Nov 5, 2012, 10:34:17 AM11/5/12
to
On Nov 4, 9:43 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 8:47 pm, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
>
> > Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
> > wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within 0.001"
> > of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes almost
> > loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out of round
> > (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and spoke tension
> > within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel notices that hop, but
> > he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd surely notice if his
> > spokes broke.
>
> Yeah, there are tradeoffs aplenty. (Since I got the tensiometer
> thingie, I no longer keep trying for perfectly round and true, instead
> shooting for a balance as you describe, and have better wheels.)
>
> I tolerate quite a bit out of true (gets to multiple mm before I can't
> stand it anymore - mostly just on anal-retentive principle). I am
> happy with about a mm or so, but that is mostly because the cheap rims
> on my main bike don't just don't fall into better true like some other
> wheels. I'd really like to build a pair w/ Velocity rims 'cause PW
> said they build up nice and true.
Velocity makes straight rims, and they're not ungodly expensive. I use
> On Nov 4, 8:47 pm, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
>
> > Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
> > wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within 0.001"
> > of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes almost
> > loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out of round
> > (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and spoke tension
> > within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel notices that hop, but
> > he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd surely notice if his
> > spokes broke.
>
> Yeah, there are tradeoffs aplenty. (Since I got the tensiometer
> thingie, I no longer keep trying for perfectly round and true, instead
> shooting for a balance as you describe, and have better wheels.)
>
> I tolerate quite a bit out of true (gets to multiple mm before I can't
> stand it anymore - mostly just on anal-retentive principle). I am
> happy with about a mm or so, but that is mostly because the cheap rims
> on my main bike don't just don't fall into better true like some other
> wheels. I'd really like to build a pair w/ Velocity rims 'cause PW
> said they build up nice and true.
a disc versions of the Aerohead on my commuter (my test wheel with the
Teflon pipe dope as thread lock). I touched those up yesterday as
part of my fall fluff-up, and they were pretty straight even after
lots of beating. I might get some A23s and try building a super-wheel
(on some DT or CK hubs) for my racing bike. I've built a bunch of
Aeorhead OCs and, regrettably, some had spoke hole cracking at or
near recommended tension of 115kgf. That's when I started going with
thread lock and lower tension. I built wheels in the early '80s as a
cottage industry and used MA2/E2/Mod Es that were really straight, but
then Mavic rims started getting irregular in the 90s/2000s,
particularly the cheaper models. I don't know what they're like now.
I built a DT rim a while ago that was really straight, too -- good
450g rim.
I agree that balanced tension -- and the right tension -- is the most
important part of building. I could care less if my wheel is within .
000005mm for five minutes. I want something that can take a beating
and stay reasonably true. And to be clear, I do re-true my wheels. I
am not one of those people who builds a wheel and never, ever re-trues
it. Those people either weight 100lbs or have magical skills that I
lack.
-- Jay Beattie.
David Scheidt
Nov 5, 2012, 11:37:22 AM11/5/12
to
Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
magic wheels, they're more expensive than wheels that don't pretend to
be magic. I have a set of Fusions on my commuter, I built one, and
got the rear as a pre-built. The front was a breeze to build. Has
anyone built one with a rim made since they abanoned Australian
production in favor of a lower-cost labor country?
--
sig 39
:On Nov 4, 9:43 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> On Nov 4, 8:47 pm, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
:>
:> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
:>
:> > :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
:>
:> > Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
:> > wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within 0.001"
:> > of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes almost
:> > loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out of round
:> > (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and spoke tension
:> > within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel notices that hop, but
:> > he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd surely notice if his
:> > spokes broke.
:>
:> Yeah, there are tradeoffs aplenty. (Since I got the tensiometer
:> thingie, I no longer keep trying for perfectly round and true, instead
:> shooting for a balance as you describe, and have better wheels.)
:>
:> I tolerate quite a bit out of true (gets to multiple mm before I can't
:> stand it anymore - mostly just on anal-retentive principle). I am
:> happy with about a mm or so, but that is mostly because the cheap rims
:> on my main bike don't just don't fall into better true like some other
:> wheels. I'd really like to build a pair w/ Velocity rims 'cause PW
:> said they build up nice and true.
:Velocity makes straight rims, and they're not ungodly expensive. I use
They do, and while their a lot cheaper than say, asian made european
:> On Nov 4, 8:47 pm, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
:>
:> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
:>
:> > :OK, serious question: What tolerance do people here use for lateral error in wheel truing? How about for hop, or out-of-round?
:>
:> > Well, the other part of that is what you do with tension. I built a
:> > wheel around a Sun cr18 a year or two ago, and I could get within 0.001"
:> > of round and true, but only by having a couple of the spokes almost
:> > loose. That's no good, so I settled for almost a 1/16th out of round
:> > (big dip at the joint), a couple tough out of true, and spoke tension
:> > within 5%. I doubt they guy who's got the wheel notices that hop, but
:> > he'd notice that much out of true, and he'd surely notice if his
:> > spokes broke.
:>
:> Yeah, there are tradeoffs aplenty. (Since I got the tensiometer
:> thingie, I no longer keep trying for perfectly round and true, instead
:> shooting for a balance as you describe, and have better wheels.)
:>
:> I tolerate quite a bit out of true (gets to multiple mm before I can't
:> stand it anymore - mostly just on anal-retentive principle). I am
:> happy with about a mm or so, but that is mostly because the cheap rims
:> on my main bike don't just don't fall into better true like some other
:> wheels. I'd really like to build a pair w/ Velocity rims 'cause PW
:> said they build up nice and true.
:Velocity makes straight rims, and they're not ungodly expensive. I use
magic wheels, they're more expensive than wheels that don't pretend to
be magic. I have a set of Fusions on my commuter, I built one, and
got the rear as a pre-built. The front was a breeze to build. Has
anyone built one with a rim made since they abanoned Australian
production in favor of a lower-cost labor country?
--
sig 39
frkr...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2012, 12:06:26 PM11/5/12
to
On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:50:24 AM UTC-5, David Scheidt wrote:
>
>
> Perfect in this case meaning round and true within a thou, which is
>
> the limit of my dial indicator, and below my ability to see the
>
> difference; and tension that's uniform, within 5%.
Wow. Well, I'm sure I've never achieved trueness within 0.001". I don't use my machinist dial indicators when wheel building; instead, I just use the metal guides on my inexpensive truing stand. But I think I probably stop work when I get within about 0.020" or half a millimeter. I do try to balance spoke tension, but I do that only by ear, plucking the spokes.
>
>
> Perfect in this case meaning round and true within a thou, which is
>
> the limit of my dial indicator, and below my ability to see the
>
> difference; and tension that's uniform, within 5%.
I re-true only when I can detect a problem. Unless I've hit a big pothole, that generally means a scraping brake shoe. Being a non-connoisseur has some advantages.
- Frank Krygowski
David Scheidt
Nov 5, 2012, 12:42:45 PM11/5/12
to
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
I hit a trench the gas company left in the road on my beater bike last
fall, about a 5 or 6" ledge. It was dark, didn't realize it was that
big, and hit it about 20 mph I did an impressive over the bars (I hit a
parked car with my head, on the other side of the street). Bent the fork.
Wheel is still true. I'm sure it's not as good as it was when I built
it, but it's certainly not rubbing the brakes, or anywhere close.
If I fix an existing wheel for some reason, I don't even try to get
much better than even tension and not rubbing the brakes. Starting
with good new parts is a lot easier than starting with used, bent
ones.
--
sig 19
fall, about a 5 or 6" ledge. It was dark, didn't realize it was that
big, and hit it about 20 mph I did an impressive over the bars (I hit a
parked car with my head, on the other side of the street). Bent the fork.
Wheel is still true. I'm sure it's not as good as it was when I built
it, but it's certainly not rubbing the brakes, or anywhere close.
If I fix an existing wheel for some reason, I don't even try to get
much better than even tension and not rubbing the brakes. Starting
with good new parts is a lot easier than starting with used, bent
ones.
--
sig 19
datakoll
Nov 5, 2012, 3:05:51 PM11/5/12
to
36..... They should also be inside the flange when
>
> typically using interlaced spokes (you MUST).
what I find is a full thread leads to a tangle of problems at wheels end. Qith max mileage and replacement on the horizon, 36's points then bring total length over the nipple head into the tube area velox or no velox...not even $14 Duck tape...by time you deal with spoke length broken head warped rim dings bump hollows and noreasters....shit yawl do weel throw ing wheel away with 20% of its running time.
>
> typically using interlaced spokes (you MUST).
what I find is a full thread leads to a tangle of problems at wheels end. Qith max mileage and replacement on the horizon, 36's points then bring total length over the nipple head into the tube area velox or no velox...not even $14 Duck tape...by time you deal with spoke length broken head warped rim dings bump hollows and noreasters....shit yawl do weel throw ing wheel away with 20% of its running time.
Tom $herman (-_-)
Nov 7, 2012, 9:32:31 PM11/7/12
to
>> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@usenet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>>> That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.
>>
>>
>>>> The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,
>>
>>>> better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>>
>>>> quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>>
>>>> possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>>
>>>> only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>>
>>>> all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>>
>>>> as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>>
>>>> motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>>
>>>> the job better I don't do it myself.
>>
>>> It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>>
>>> "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>>
>>> work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>>
>>> quality combine that way.
>>
>> The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
>>
>
>>
>>>> better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of
>>
>>>> quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result
>>
>>>> possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The
>>
>>>> only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not
>>
>>>> all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least
>>
>>>> as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the
>>
>>>> motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do
>>
>>>> the job better I don't do it myself.
>>
>>> It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to
>>
>>> "good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent
>>
>>> work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and
>>
>>> quality combine that way.
>>
>> The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.
>>
>
> ... in cost competitive production of quantities.
>
>> I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.
>>
>
> I just meant there's a more rare wonderful synergy where a pro who
> cares about excellence such that he has developed competency to the
> point of "churning out" excellent work without even trying.
>
>
>> I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.
>>
>
> I just meant there's a more rare wonderful synergy where a pro who
> cares about excellence such that he has developed competency to the
> point of "churning out" excellent work without even trying.
>
>> BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.
>>
>
> And good enough is certainly good enough.
>
Exactly. A Taiwanese robot TIG welded frame can perform just as well as
>>
>
> And good enough is certainly good enough.
>
a hand brazed frame from say Richard Sachs.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
datakoll
Nov 8, 2012, 7:02:57 AM11/8/12
to
perfect is he cannot see the error...that's goog enough or better for sport riding.
or we have no more time for this task ect.....good enough
or commuting in and out of Portland in winter good enough....
the rim is bent good enough
lotta ways for not 'seeing' the error
situational wheel truing
or we have no more time for this task ect.....good enough
or commuting in and out of Portland in winter good enough....
the rim is bent good enough
lotta ways for not 'seeing' the error
situational wheel truing
Robert Cooper
Nov 9, 2012, 9:09:26 PM11/9/12
to
On Monday, November 5, 2012 7:50:15 AM UTC-5, datakoll wrote:
> if clac worked there would be no Cooper.
Update, as promised:
> if clac worked there would be no Cooper.
I ordered new spokes, 2 mm shorter on the non-drive side and 4 mm shorter on the drive side, unlaced the wheel and stated from scratch.
All is well; and to all of you, thank you for your help,
Bob Cooper
James
Nov 9, 2012, 9:27:17 PM11/9/12
to
didn't realise the problem was so big in the first place.
I've been looking for an economical source of spokes. There's nothing
I've found locally. Seems Chain Reaction Cycles has a fair selection at
reasonable price - just in case you feel like building more. I've
recently built a wheel reusing a rim from another wheel, and intend to
lace up another this weekend so I'll have spare wheels for my road bike
at long last.
--
JS.
AMuzi
Nov 9, 2012, 9:35:41 PM11/9/12
to
Enjoy the ride.
datakoll
Nov 9, 2012, 9:42:40 PM11/9/12
to
hey 2-3-4 mm why complain ?
WE MARCH ON THE CASTLE AT TWILIGHT EST
torches supplied
0 new messages