Originally Posted by
FBinNY
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.
Here we agree that the difference is very little.
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.
You keep saying this, and that's the crux of our disagreement.
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.
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.
1. Why are you claiming I'm exaggerating when from the get go WE BOTH AGREE the impact is minimal...
It's like criticizing a seller who posts a beat up Masi on Craigslist with a low price noting the poor condition - for posting a Masi in poor condition.
2. Distance is distance. A distance penalty equally applied to both is going to affect both the same. Both now have to travel farther.
3. Math is math:
[Begin Math Example By Using Inside Spoke Offset and Outside Spoke Offset for the Non-Drive Side of a Maillard 700 Series Rear 126mm]
C:\SPOKEC~1>spoke
Enter the number of spokes on one side:
16
Enter the number of crossings to be used:
3
Enter the rim diameter in millimeters:
612
Enter the hub diameter in millimeters:
44
Enter the offset in millimeters:
37
Your spoke length for this side of the wheel is: 299.560394
C:\SPOKEC~1>spoke
Enter the number of spokes on one side:
16
Enter the number of crossings to be used:
3
Enter the rim diameter in millimeters:
612
Enter the hub diameter in millimeters:
44
Enter the offset in millimeters:
43
Your spoke length for this side of the wheel is: 300.357849
C:\SPOKEC~1>
[End Math Example]
Notice the difference of approximately .74mm in length for the inside and outside spoke.
Impact? For typical builds with 10mm nipples back in the day and 12mm nipples today - not much.
Interlacing doesn't improve one or the other - they'll BOTH just have to "crawl" and extra micron or two. Once again, not a big deal.
I provided raw numbers and graphics FBinNY...and this isn't the first time. Sometimes I think your're in a rush to disagreement...cause sometimes I find myself thinking, "Disagree? Doesn't sound like it..."
=8-)
Welp that's all for now...
=8-)