ERD ERD ERD MEASUREMENTS

WELL, here we are again. Dave White's information, posted under ERD
and THE FLUSH TWICE MOVEMENT, works but seems to require an on paper
graphic record for measurements. AS, how much thread is there in the
nipples.
Bringing me to ask, when spokes are measured for sale, the measurement
includes the spoke bend to bottom cone of the spoke head. OK, so does
ERD plus the evil demon Spoke Calc account for spoke bend plus head
cone in spoke flange hole.
And Dave ? why not measure the distance from flange hole to top spoke/
rim/insert area with a tape measure with rim and flange set in a
dishing tool ?

kolldata wrote:

WELL, here we are again. Dave White's information, posted under ERD
and THE FLUSH TWICE MOVEMENT, works but seems to require an on paper
graphic record for measurements. AS, how much thread is there in the
nipples.
Bringing me to ask, when spokes are measured for sale, the measurement
includes the spoke bend to bottom cone of the spoke head. OK, so does
ERD plus the evil demon Spoke Calc account for spoke bend plus head
cone in spoke flange hole.
And Dave ? why not measure the distance from flange hole to top spoke/
rim/insert area with a tape measure with rim and flange set in a
dishing tool ?

Spoke Calc certainly isn't an evil in my mind. I have and use it
regularly. However, not ALL rims or hubs are included. So sometimes you
have to do your own measuring and plugging the measurements into the
spreadsheet.

To the best of my knowledge, spoke lengths DO NOT include the bend, per
se. Perhaps it is most clear when you look at the measuring tool I use
http://www.parktool.com/product/spoke-bearing-and-cotter-gauge-sbc-1.
You hook the spoke head into the elongated hole and measure the spoke's
length. The thing is certainly accurate to 1mm and every time I have
ordered a spoke in a given length, they have matched on this tool when I
checked.

I am sure there are many ways to measure ERD. I am not sure I am getting
what you are suggesting. I just use the method I suggested because (a)
it is cheap/free, (b) it was easy enough for me to understand, (c)
required no special tools that I lacked, (d) it seemed to work and match
the results I got when using Spoke Calc's database. Good enough for me!

Cheers

On Jul 5, 3:22*pm, David White wrote:
kolldata wrote:

WELL, here we are again. Dave White's information, posted under ERD
and THE FLUSH TWICE MOVEMENT, works but seems to require an on paper
graphic record for *measurements. AS, how much thread is there in the
nipples.
Bringing me to ask, when spokes are measured for sale, the measurement
includes the spoke bend to bottom cone of the spoke head. OK, so does
ERD plus the evil demon Spoke Calc account for spoke bend plus head
cone in spoke flange hole.
And Dave ? why not measure the distance from flange hole to top spoke/
rim/insert area with a tape measure with rim and flange set in a
dishing tool ?

Spoke Calc certainly isn't an evil in my mind. I have and use it
regularly. However, not ALL rims or hubs are included. So sometimes you
have to do your own measuring and plugging the measurements into the
spreadsheet.

To the best of my knowledge, spoke lengths DO NOT include the bend, per
se. Perhaps it is most clear when you look at the measuring tool I use
http://www.parktool.com/product/spoke-bearing-and-cotter-gauge-sbc-1.
You hook the spoke head into the elongated hole and measure the spoke's
length. The thing is certainly accurate to 1mm and every time I have
ordered a spoke in a given length, they have matched on this tool when I
checked.

I am sure there are many ways to measure ERD. I am not sure I am getting
what you are suggesting. I just use the method I suggested because (a)
it is cheap/free, (b) it was easy enough for me to understand, (c)
required no special tools that I lacked, (d) it seemed to work and match
the results I got when using Spoke Calc's database. Good enough for me!

Cheers

do you know of the wood dishing beam ? one length straight and solid
2x4 with blocks either end at rim diameter up from 2x4 surface at dish
height or 1/2 axle span for front wheel. The hub sits in a depression
made in 2x4 or 2x4 shim (for alternate hub's with differing hub
shapes) or made to fit the axle directly using a longer axle, a more
precise but unecessary design feature.

In use, the builder measures distance from hub flange hole to inside
rim with or without a nipple. Builder then goes to LBS and buys 8 of
these length spokes, 2 for each wheel quadrant. Insert spokes, make
finally measurments adjustments.

measured then bought as in use as a wheel not as a incorrect mathmatic
construct feed into software.

The wood beam then gives the correct dish as spokes are woven into rim
during building. The beam holding rim in correct shape, rests on your
lap or table.

The use of computer software for wheel building is tangential to the
project's successful completion. A curiosity, no more.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:43:19 -0700 (PDT), kolldata wrote:

The use of computer software for wheel building is tangential to the
project's successful completion. A curiosity, no more.

I must disagree. Picking the correct spoke length makes building MUCH
faster. The appropriate nipple driver will quickly bring all spokes to
the same effective lenght, ideally just as the spokes start to see
tension as the last spoke's nipple goes on. Easiest way to get the
lenght right the first time on a rim/hub/pattern you've never built
before is to measure the parts and plug in to a
program/spreadsheet/whatever.

(Thinking back, I realize I've been using such a calculator since
summer of 1982, running on my then new HP 15-C. Following year TRS-80
PC-3's (pocket computer) programed with similar program were gifts to
a bunch of the mechanics I worked with. We were not impressed when
Avocet (IIRC ... or was it DT?) started to market their calculator a
few years later.)

--
ershc

ERSHC wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:43:19 -0700 (PDT), kolldata wrote:
The use of computer software for wheel building is tangential to the
project's successful completion. A curiosity, no more.

I must disagree. Picking the correct spoke length makes building MUCH
faster. The appropriate nipple driver will quickly bring all spokes to
the same effective lenght, ideally just as the spokes start to see
tension as the last spoke's nipple goes on. Easiest way to get the
lenght right the first time on a rim/hub/pattern you've never built
before is to measure the parts and plug in to a
program/spreadsheet/whatever.

(Thinking back, I realize I've been using such a calculator since
summer of 1982, running on my then new HP 15-C. Following year TRS-80
PC-3's (pocket computer) programed with similar program were gifts to
a bunch of the mechanics I worked with. We were not impressed when
Avocet (IIRC ... or was it DT?) started to market their calculator a
few years later.)


I agree that building once with the correct length beats
building, interpolating and building twice!

Those are all fine platforms. Or a slide rule. Or a data set
such as notes written on the wall by the wheel station.

Or ink on meat:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/SPOKFORM.JPG

The point being the result, whichever process one prefers.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"AMuzi" wrote in message
...
ERSHC wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:43:19 -0700 (PDT), kolldata
wrote:
The use of computer software for wheel building is tangential to the
project's successful completion. A curiosity, no more.

I must disagree. Picking the correct spoke length makes building MUCH
faster. The appropriate nipple driver will quickly bring all spokes to
the same effective lenght, ideally just as the spokes start to see
tension as the last spoke's nipple goes on. Easiest way to get the
lenght right the first time on a rim/hub/pattern you've never built
before is to measure the parts and plug in to a
program/spreadsheet/whatever.

(Thinking back, I realize I've been using such a calculator since
summer of 1982, running on my then new HP 15-C. Following year TRS-80
PC-3's (pocket computer) programed with similar program were gifts to
a bunch of the mechanics I worked with. We were not impressed when
Avocet (IIRC ... or was it DT?) started to market their calculator a
few years later.)


I agree that building once with the correct length beats building,
interpolating and building twice!

Those are all fine platforms. Or a slide rule. Or a data set such as notes
written on the wall by the wheel station.

Or ink on meat:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/SPOKFORM.JPG

The point being the result, whichever process one prefers.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I thought Gene was perhaps being humorous with his use of the word
"tangential".
Kerry

On Jul 6, 10:13*pm, "Kerry Montgomery" wrote:
"AMuzi" wrote in message

...





ERSHC wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:43:19 -0700 (PDT), kolldata
wrote:
The use of computer software for wheel building is tangential to the
project's successful completion. A curiosity, no more.

I must disagree. Picking the correct spoke length makes building MUCH
faster. The appropriate nipple driver will quickly bring all spokes to
the same effective lenght, ideally just as the spokes start to see
tension as the last spoke's nipple goes on. Easiest way to get the
lenght right the first time on a rim/hub/pattern you've never built
before is to measure the parts and plug in to a
program/spreadsheet/whatever.

(Thinking back, I realize I've been using such a calculator since
summer of 1982, running on my then new HP 15-C. Following year TRS-80
PC-3's (pocket computer) programed with similar program were gifts to
a bunch of the mechanics I worked with. We were not impressed when
Avocet (IIRC ... or was it DT?) started to market their calculator a
few years later.)

I agree that building once with the correct length beats building,
interpolating and building twice!

Those are all fine platforms. Or a slide rule. Or a data set such as notes
written on the wall by the wheel station.

Or ink on meat:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/SPOKFORM.JPG

The point being the result, whichever process one prefers.

--
Andrew Muzi
*www.yellowjersey.org/
*Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I thought Gene was perhaps being humorous with his use of the word
"tangential".
Kerry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nooooo tangential. you speakee englisee ?

look.


yawl building a bicycle wheel, right ?
Posters are first time wheel builders.

So you need a dishing tool. The dishing tool and a tape measure give
the complete irrduceable and often correct lengths without feeding
figures that have no bearing whatsoever on the real time bicycle wheel
into a software machine that spouts figures for which you have noooooo
data to compare with 'ceptin the idiotic software based ERD tool.

The wheel and the wooden beam are built with hands and mind not mind
and unknown machinery from a distant...and airless... planet