Originally Posted by
smontanaro
Thanks for the replies. I don't expect the stays to necessarily move the same amount, but they should be closer to equidistant from the centerline if I spread them together rather than using the Sheldon Brown 2x4 method. I use a 4-foot level between the dropouts and the head tube to measure the distance from the seat tube (the string method with a "better" string). That will be good enough for me. As for the clamp on the seat stays, they contact the stays below the bridge. Their faces are parallel to one another while the stays form more of a Λ shape. (Also, that pic was taken on my first try a few days ago, so may not reflect "refinements" in positioning.)
I'll try the 5mm increment thing. I'm happy nobody said, "That won't work. Your tubing is heat treated."
Why would this un controlled method be better than doing the two sides separately? I can measure the rear triangle centering and the dropout width and move the side a set amount then do the other side the same way. Not only do I end up with the drop out width goal but at the same time insure a centered rear wheel WRT the front triangle. One process does both goal at the same time.
I'll quibble with the heat treated comment. To my knowledge all bike tubing (and all steel production) uses heating steps at different points along the process. The bike industry use of the term "heat treated" is an attempt to use engineering terms for marketing purposes. All "heat treated" tubing is is just the continuing use of thermal treatment to further affect the strength of the tube beyond the other offerings that company also makes. Andy (who does know what you meant, but feeling a bit randy today though)