Originally Posted by
mrrabbit
It seems like you are disagreeing - just to be able to disagree....
Not quite, go back to my original post (#9) about the relative significance of the three measurements, which you felt needed correcting. So maybe the pot is calling the kettle....
I believe that you're exaggerating very small differences making the immaterial seem material, but we'll leave it there. I think I've prefaced my posts on this as splitting hairs, or not material in the scheme of things.
Originally Posted by
mrrabbit
1. I never said the spokes don't take a straight path to the rim...I'm talking about spoke length calculation with a focus on offsets and the distance - and how it affects spokes and wheel builds...which is very little.
Here we agree that the difference is very little.
Originally Posted by
mrrabbit
2. however inside and outside spokes are covering a different distance, a difference that varies with offset and flange diameter.
Here we disagree. I believe that the interlacing causes spokes to take routes that are essentially equal in distance from rim to their respective side of the hub. With equal tension, each spoke has the same deflection as it's crossed partner, and the point of cross will be such as to mitigate most or all of what would have been a difference in length.
Originally Posted by
mrrabbit
3. .... However, the distance being covered by the spoke inside and outside is different.
You keep saying this, and that's the crux of our disagreement.
Originally Posted by
mrrabbit
I just don't like Shimano's and Campagnolo's bias to outside measurement cause it makes for a spoke length that's a tad longer than necessary - plus once again to get multiple parties measure the same thing but with different references. I know Campagnolo is simply a reference to the outside of the flange thickness (1.6mm), but Shimano? I can't be sure, because no matter how hard I try I can't get a consistent number for the difference between on center and their number...
I understand you don't like their analyses, and I don't either since I consider anything but actual raw data a complication in published specs. (remember I'm the Joe Friday who doesn't like nipple head considerations in ERD specs.) I was simply explaining that their method was a (unnecessary) way to compensate for the longer spoke route.
Originally Posted by
mrrabbit
So I have to wait until the hub is in my hand...or someone else provides a convincing numbers...as kirosska did.
100% in agreement. Since everybody insists in "correcting" their raw data to compensate for various factors without saying whether it's raw or adjusted, I find all published date useless. You'll note that I still calculate spokes based on an old algorithm that doesn't include flange diameter, or the number of crosses, but a direct measurement of the locations of both ends of the spoke, corrected, within reason for flange offset. Things that cause minor differences of an order of less that what I'm rounding to anyway are disregarded as immaterial. It's stood me well for 40+ years, and makes me immune to errors caused by nice people "helping" by
correcting their data.
BTW- my last post on this, I think we've both exhausted the subject and readers can read and draw their own conclusions as they prefer.