I have seen you post that same comment before. Fair enough, but just let me ask, do you use the "checking tool" for checking even though not for building? You don't really make that clear. Do you check the wheels you build/service for final tension levels and uniformity with a calibrated meter?

The tighten-to-warpage technique has been highly regarded in the past, and has been recommended by notable wheel building authorities. However with the easy availability of an inexpensive tool like the Park tension meter, I don't see the point in pushing the wheel so close to its failure points, both re: potato chipping and spoke pull through (the rim holes) these days. Keep in mind if the wheel is that close to potato chipping, it won't take much stress from an incident on the road to push it over the edge. My recommendation is build your wheels exactly as you like to up to the point of dialing in final tension. You're happy with that, so why not. But I would apply the tension meter when setting the final tension and choose a well accepted level for the particular rims you are building. This is especially true in the case of radial spoking where over tensioning the spokes can not only cause rim damage but hub damage as well.

Hmm - you did check the dish, right? The consistent difference between the sides makes me thing that perhaps the rim is not centered over the locknuts.

As for tension vs. alignment, once one has achieved sufficient tension such that the wheel is rigid and spokes are not going to loosen due to the rhythmic change in tension and road shock even tension is indeed less important. If that were not true a lot of wheels that have suffered some minor indignities would have to be considered unusable.

One other thought is that one could say that the goal of "truing" is actually to align the hub so that it is perfectly cent4ered and at a right angle at all points in respect to the rim.

Well, off course not. I don't have a dishing tool. I'm learning as I go. Any way to check with improvised tools?

just put the front wheel in the fork and check that it's centered between the tines. same for back wheel exept and use chainstays. it's close enough with just eyeballing.

I will use a tension meter when I am dealing with less familiar components or when I want to get nerdy and check for spoke elongation... I have also built and taken apart wheels so I could measure the spokes after tensioning to see how much different types of spokes stretch.

I could build a dozen wheels and you could put your tension meter to work and you'd find that they'd all be within working tolerances... tension meters have not been around forever (and lots of wheels have been built without them) when you do it professionally you develop better senses than those who do this infrequently or as a hobby. If you have read Brandt's treatise on wheelbuilding you would know there are other ways to check spoke tension without a tensionometer.

I was once challenged to build a wheel with my eyes closed... it came out to be 5 by 5 (.005 tolerance) and has been run hard for the past three years and is still 5 x 5.

I also did this because I have a friend who is blind and wants to learn how to build wheels... she will probably do very well at this.

Put the wheel in the fork or rear dropouts. If the dropouts are wider than the distance between the locknuts then push the wheel against one dropout. Note how far the rim is from the fork blade or seat stay. Then reverse the wheel and check again. If the wheel shifts position then you need to move the entire rim in the opposite direction of the shift (1/2 the distance). If your tension is OK now just loosen all the spokes on one side 1/4 turn and tighten the other side the same amount and recheck.

FB has a unique method, but I'll let him explain it when he hits this thread again.

All well and good, and what you are saying sounds okay in those words. But what about saying it another way, that you don't make mistakes? It doesn't sound so good when translated that way.

In my opinion the lack of instrumental quality control and assurance applied to every wheel you work on is inexcusable. Brandt's book is (I think) more than 30 years old. I know I first read it decades ago. But that was then, and this is now. Use whatever building techniques you like, with a meter, without a meter, blindfolded, whatever; I don't care about that. You can brag on and on about how good they are, but not measuring the final tensions and demonstrating that each and every wheel is within your claimed tolerances is shoddy workmanship. Anyone who knows a manufacturing process industry involving individual product assembly knows this is true. And it is true whether it is Mavic, Campy or John Doe.

Let me see if I can clear up some of the confusion and conflict with an anology.

Imaging that you're a teamster who has to run a team and wagon on a narrow road and because the edges are bad must be very careful to keep the wagon from running off either edge.

So you can hire a pair of big burly men to run along either side and nudge the wheels over whenever they drift to either side. Or you can steer the horses down the center with full confidence that the wagon will follow.

If you're a good teamster who knows how to control a team, you'll do the latter. But if you're less experienced with horses, you might need the security of the two safeties.

As for the reference to JB's book, many of us were building for years before it came out, and had the benefit of a century of experienced passed down. Others, who learned from a book might have become dependent on his approach, and never learned other techniques or developed the skills to build without the additional tools.


That's downright insulting.
By extension, you'd claim that a skilled cabinet maker cannot turn out good work without the latest in tools and machinery. Or would have a house painter tell Mr. DeVinci how it's done. In any case, let me return the insult (with apology) by suggesting that you don't have the credentials for your opinion on this to matter.

The patented FB home dishing gauge

Parts list.

a table,
three matched soup cans, cups, or glasses,
a bunch or quarters, or other stackable discs.

Place the three cans in a triangle to make a tripod support for the rim. Place the wheel on the stand and stack up the quarters until they come up to the height of the locknut face (not the end of the axle). Invert the wheel and the other face should be the same height.

Why insulting. I didn't criticize something he has no control over. He is the one who is insulting his customers. He can choose to do the right thing anytime he wants. And it isn't just about wheel building in which I do have considerable, albeit amateur, experience. In a broader sense it is about manufacturing quality control and assurance on which subject I spent a large part of a career and am actually quite expert. It is inexcusable for a manufacturer to say that quality control and assurance isn't necessary because he knows how to do the job right. That is just plain BS. Attitudes like that are exactly how Detroit was overcome by Japan in the '70s auto war. Likely also how Schwinn lost out to Giant and Trek, et al. You can bet your life no one at GM or Ford is saying stuff like that now.

Regarding your analogies to craftsmen and artists, you picked two areas which are judged subjectively and not defined by objective dimensional specifications. There is no similarity between them and what we are discussing here.

Your problem is that you're trying to apply QC rules to craftsmen. Factories have been using tensionmeters as intended as a QC instrument for decades. But not to measure relative tension of spokes. They're used to measure average tension and make sure that all the wheels conform to the intended spec. and reset their machinery if/when needed.

Craftsmen, hand building wheels might likewise use the tool to check the calibration of their fingers, as I do from time to time, or with odd builds where I can't trust myself.

But skilled craftsmen turn out good work without needing the added tools and steps that an unskilled or production worker might need. The QC is built into the pride and skill of the craftsman, not into the kind of calibration you seem to think is necessary. Good process assures good product more reliably than poor process with lots of after checking.

Now if any of my or Sixty Fiver's clients feel cheated because we didn't measure the tension of every spoke, they're very welcome to find a by the numbers builder, but I assure they won't get a better wheel.

What an interesting analogy! Not perfect, of course, but then hardly any analogy is. What makes it so interesting is that is perfectly highlights the difference between your view of our discussion and mine. When you talk about getting through the dangerous pass safely as being the object, you are limiting the discussion to a process. Once through, all is well. And that is pretty much how you introduced all this conversation at the outset. Do the job right (do the process right) and the wheels are by definition right. But I am focused on the product, and that is where the analogy breaks down, because there is no product at the end of the wagon ride to judge for quality. In contrast there ARE wheels at the end of the building process to judge and to use. It is one thing to say that doing the job right will yield good wheels and quite another thing to add on that, by the way, you (or anyone with this philosophy) never checks to make sure.

But the analogy is really so good that I would pursue it a bit with you. I see modern wheel building by someone interested in doing it for the long haul (not just one wheel or pair) as being analogous to the wagon with the two "safeties" on board at hardly any cost. They are there whether you need them or not. So you may think you are the best teamster to ever drive horses, but does it really make sense to command your big buddies to keep their seats in the wagon while you show them how an expert drives a wagon. See, I don't think so. Why not take the free help that is right there for you, ask them to do their job, and then buy them a beer on the other side. Same with wheel building. You've got the meter. Even if you don't want to build with it, because you do so well without (I do truly understand that), why not verify the quality of the build at the end. To try to justify not doing so seems to me to just be perverse. I mean the downside is obvious, but what could possibly be the upside?

Is there a rule of thumb on how much tension can differ between spokes before it is worrisome? 10%?

First of all we are not talking about poor process. Let's say the process is the same either way. I am just maintaining that the customer has a right to the equivalent of a "certificate of analysis." It doesn't have to be on paper, it can be verbal or even just implied. The customer has a right to know that you verified the quality of the wheels with the easily accessed measurement systems that are available to all. If I interviewed a wheel builder who told me he didn't instrumentally check his product for conformance to his own personal specifications, I would simply say, "Sayonara, dude," and look elsewhere. Builders who share your philosophy would likely be tickled to get rid of me so early on. I know that. But that's fine, I have no trouble looking elsewhere. Of course my ultimate solution has always been to build my own.

It has taken us a while, but by diligent discussion (argument maybe :) ) we have gotten to the crux of the matter, the real disagreement between us, which appears to be philosophy. And this is important. You regard hand wheel building as a craft, as status which it would seem you think needs to be preserved and protected, and I don't. Yes, it is done by hand, and yes you have to know how to do it, but it is just a repetitive assembly job. Done by hand is better than done by machine but only because inventing a machine with the necessary capabilities to make nearly perfect wheels is very hard. But that doesn't justify the builder hiding behind the craftsman label and saying, "As a craftsman everything I do is wonderful. I don't have to check on myself, and neither does the customer." Maybe that is true for art completely defined subjectively, but not for mechanical goods, which, other than the rather minor aspect of appearance, are completely defined objectively. When a vendor of mechanical goods of any kind puts his hand on your shoulder, looks you in the eyes, and says, "I am a craftsman, trust me," it is time to run as fast and as far away as you can.

BTW, if wheel building were really the formulaic process (e.g. specific number of turns of the nipple results in a good wheel only needing some touch up truing), machine-built wheels wouldn't be so inferior to hand built. It just occurred to me that what you are criticizing in my approach to wheel building are just those procedures that the wheel-building machine isn't capable of. Interesting.

i sometimes worry about the massive discrepancy in tension between the drive side spokes and non-drive side spokes on my rear wheels. but i'm in therapy, and it's helping... :)

Yes, but it's changed over the years. First we said, all dish is bad, then when 5s went to 6s there was concern. But over time we kept pushing the rule of thumb ahead as we got used to the prior "craziness". These days the limit is about 2:1. But I don't know if this is a real limit, or just where we are now.

I agree, and I can live with 2:1. I have to say when I have built wheels at 2.5:1 I found the result disconcerting. At that point with such hubs I opted to use the 8:16 drilling to double the NDS tension. Sure it is a compromise, but I like it better than the alternative for those hubs.

Thank you. Yes, it highlights the difference in approach and outlook. You come from a QC/inspection background, I come from a manufacturing engineering background. As such, you're highly focused on outcomes, ie. no rejects escaping. Meanwhile I see the goal of QC as not to spot rejects, but to spot problems with the manufacturing process itself, so they can be corrected and eliminate the production of rejects in the first place.

So you're right. To me it's all about the process, and I live by that. The guiding principle is trust the process, have a process you can trust.

Going back to the wagon analogy, you missed that the "product" is the safe delivery of a wagonload to the destination. You would add extra crew in case the wagon went off the road. I'd save that dough and hire better drovers who can be relied to keep the wagon on the road. The test of the approaches would be which would most consistently deliver wagonloads at the lows cost. (cost is ALWAYS a factor).

BTW- you're wrong in assuming that those of us who build without tensionmeters are living on blind faith in our abilities. We do use them as a QC device following the rules of statistical process control (sometimes without knowing that's what we're doing).

All of this begs the question you should be asking. Why/how are some people able to build true, evenly tensioned wheels without a tension meter, while others can't? and more specifically, how did my changing his focus move the OP from building potato chips to wheels?

I disagree that the customer has any right to my internal work process. His rights are limited to a good product, and only that. I'm a big believer of the saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If I give you good pudding, you should enjoy it, and leave it's making to me.

You like numbers and people who rely on them. However if you came to me it would likely be based on reputation, or referral. By the same token,
if you went to a restaurant of with a chef of high repute, you wouldn't (or I wouldn't) call him out of the kitchen and cross examine him about his methods.

But you're right about one thing. If you asked me for numbers it would be a tossup. I might send you away, or I might toss you a tension meter and say please yourself.

BTW- while you feel entitled to have someone numerically confirm the quality of wheels, I'm sure you don't ask the same with everything you buy. You don't get process certificates when you buy any bike parts, cars, food, housing, and so on.

Over the numbers cruncher, I'll take the craftsman any day. While perfectly tensioned wheels don't always end up round and true, those from the craftsman do!

Of course, you are right about this, but in most of those areas I depend upon statistical process control and quality assurance being used. FSA for example doesn't boast about not needing to perform quality assurance. What set me off in this thread was the bold claim by sixty-fiver that he didn't need to check his product. As I said before, that is one of the mistakes that cost the USA its manufacturing leadership. I consider it to be the height of arrogance.

But you're right that a process focus is paramount. Product inspection is a poor substitute for competent processing. I don't truly believe in using inspection to catch errors due to shoddy processing. But quality assurance can never be completely abandoned. Or at least that is what I was taught. The level of inspection has to be consistent with your established quality history. And even then it should err on the conservative side. My opinion, that's all.

Wanderer, you're misquoting. Nobody said go for perfect tension rather than true. I said true was necessary to even have a wheel worthy of the name, and even tension is necessary for the wheel to last.

Never forget that just like everything else, half of all wheel builders are below average. Whoa, that's not a pretty thought. Are you sure you are using one of the good ones? How would you know? Better not measure anything on the wheel. That would be a cop out. Better just believe his line of blather. That is what a "good" customer would do.

Not naming FSA per se, but some of the worst crap sold in the bike world was made by companies with the best ISO QC protocols. Granted it's well documented crap, but crap nonetheless.

Yeah, that's the funny thing about quality. It doesn't mean something is good, just that it is what it was intended to be. Apparently such manufacturers were making crap, because they wanted to sell crap. Uh, oh! I hope those weren't companies I depend on. :)

I wasn't clear - I mean variance between spokes on the same side of a wheel.

There is no established standard. I like a range less than or equal to the mean plus or minus 5%. Sometimes with crappy rims I have had to settle for plus or minus 20%.

Frankly, I never thought about this. I build as true as practical, and with the most even tension the materials allow. I've never used a tension meter to measure comparative tension, so I can't give you a number.

Based on experience, I'd venture that keeping tension within 10% is relatively easy on modern rims (it was rougher when joint distortion was a common problem), so there's no reason to think about what the worst case limit would be.

You are trying make something out of nothing (typical of QC types)-------- I never quoted anything - just made a statement.

How I use a limit is to decide when to send a rim back for replacement. A few years ago I got a really stinky Velocity Aerohead. Pro Wheel Builder was very gracious about taking it back and sending a replacement that worked much, much better. My numbers told me the story.