Old 02-13-14, 10:34 AM
  #60  
rpenmanparker 
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by mrrabbit
The reason I'm picking "little bones" is that I detected a little "insistence" on aiming for the top of a nipple.

For a "newbie", insistence can be interpreted as, "that's the way it's supposed to be."

That's discarding the limiting effect a nipple has too much in my opinion. We have to be careful here - especially when helping others.


Nowadays most 12mm brass nipples used with modern day 9.0mm - 9.5mm threaded spokes will allow 1-2 threads past the top. But counting on that as a matter of practice can be fatal.

A good example were the EDCO 12mm brass nipples produced right around the early 1990s. These had an extra thread in them - and they were advertised as a better or stronger nipple because of it.

Problem was - more threads in the nipple = more restrictive threading behavior. Builders calculating and building by habit - aiming for the top - would be left scratching there heads when they discovered they had run out of threads before achieving the tension they wanted. These nipples allowed the spoke to go about about 2 threads past the flat instead of going to or slight past the top. They were almost indistinguishable from your DT and Wheelsmith cousins.

If folks consistently grasp that the word "effective" in ERD means exactly that - and the reference is to a particular distance in a wheel...AND test nipple and thread behavior - they'll find themselves off to a good start with the wheels they build 99% of the time.

That's all...just "bones" - no gripes.

=8-)
That's all good to know. And you're right, I WAS insisting. That was mainly due to relying on Damon Rinard's diagram and instructive text. After reading your approach, I can't say he is (or I was) wrong regarding what was a traditional and effective method, but I see how that is not the only way, likely no longer even the best way IN GENERAL. And it shouldn't be taught as such. Just as in so many other pursuits understanding why you are doing something is so much better than just rote learning. Regarding the risk of running out of spokes, I have likely just been lucky. I do plan to dial the aiming point down in future to avoid that possibility.

Thanks again.
__________________
Robert

Originally Posted by LAJ
No matter where I go, here I am...
rpenmanparker is offline