| |
Main
Date: 03 Aug 2007 03:15:26
From: Gig Miller
Subject: Double Butted Spokes
|
I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
be nearly equal.
Thanks,
Greg
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 14:22:37
From:
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
Gig Miller writes:
> I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The
> length of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm,
> while the length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only
> 3mm above the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted
> lengths should be nearly equal.
I believe that occurs because you have a short spoke, most being in
the 300mm+ length and swaging a spoke is a major manufacturing step so
not too many lengths are made from which the various lengths are cut.
At the DT SWISS, the cut is made just before threading and the elbow
is bent last although the spoke head is formed first.
Cutting long finished spokes shorter is the way I have experienced it
in local shops that have a threading machine.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 06:45:16
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Gig Miller writes:
>
>> I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The
>> length of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm,
>> while the length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only
>> 3mm above the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted
>> lengths should be nearly equal.
>
> I believe that occurs because you have a short spoke, most being in
> the 300mm+ length and swaging a spoke is a major manufacturing step so
> not too many lengths are made from which the various lengths are cut.
jobst, your language is incorrect - you're using a process to describe a
result. swaging is the process. butting is the result. and butting is
the result of drawing or grinding too.
you /are/ interested in getting facts correct aren't you?
> At the DT SWISS, the cut is made just before threading and the elbow
> is bent last although the spoke head is formed first.
>
> Cutting long finished spokes shorter is the way I have experienced it
> in local shops that have a threading machine.
>
> Jobst Brandt
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 10:23:35
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Aug 7, 10:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 12:57 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> >>> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
> >>>> Could it be that the older Asahi made Wheelsmith double-butted spokes
> >>>> were made by grinding and the newer Wheelsmith spokes made in Cheeseland
> >>>> are butted by forging? What is the age of the spokes "jim beam" is
> >>>> examining?
> >>>> Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
> >>>> Universe to implode)?
> >>> Well, this is a detail, but: For jim beam to be right even in that
> >>> case, he'd have to change his statement to "the older Wheelsmith
> >>> spokes I examined...", rather than a simple blanket statement about
> >>> current Wheelsmith spokes, "wheelsmith
> >>> grind, then polish." (Note the present tense.)
> >>> And of course, we don't have a hint that there was such a change in
> >>> process. Except the discrepancy between Wheelsmith's statement and
> >>> jim beam's testimony, which many of us have learned not to trust.
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> so get with the testing program krygowski - /you/ are the "engineering
> >> professor" - /you/ have access to the facilities!!! idiot.
>
> > I do have that access. But I don't have any Wheelsmith spokes. I
> > prefer DT.
>
> > And I'm hardly going to rush off to do an assignment given by a
> > discredited ex-metallurgist. He can do his own homework.
>
> wow!!! krygowski heads for the hills when there's a barn raising - how
> to disgrace your institution and your profession!!!
When the going gets tough.......the GasBag deflates. ;-)
>
> btw, it would cost you about $2.50 to buy all the parts necessary to
> bury the beamster. you'd make that investment if you really thought you
> were right. idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 14:28:08
From:
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Aug 7, 11:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
>
> wow!!! krygowski heads for the hills when there's a barn raising - how
> to disgrace your institution and your profession!!!
>
> btw, it would cost you about $2.50 to buy all the parts necessary to
> bury the beamster. you'd make that investment if you really thought you
> were right. idiot.
jim beam, you want me to go to the bike shop, buy spokes, take them to
the university, dig into the metallography equipment, cut, polish,
etch, photograph, and analyze in order to defend YOUR position?
ROTFL!
As it stands right now, Wheelsmith says you're wrong about how
Wheelsmith makes spokes. The best evidence is against you. So it's
not me who has to do the work! Do your own homework.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 20:08:24
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 7, 11:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> wow!!! krygowski heads for the hills when there's a barn raising - how
>> to disgrace your institution and your profession!!!
>>
>> btw, it would cost you about $2.50 to buy all the parts necessary to
>> bury the beamster. you'd make that investment if you really thought you
>> were right. idiot.
>
> jim beam, you want me to go to the bike shop, buy spokes, take them to
> the university, dig into the metallography equipment, cut, polish,
> etch, photograph, and analyze in order to defend YOUR position?
> ROTFL!
you're a peach krygowski. this is about /your/ denial. /prove/ me
wrong. i double dare you. fucking idiot.
>
> As it stands right now, Wheelsmith says you're wrong about how
> Wheelsmith makes spokes. The best evidence is against you. So it's
> not me who has to do the work! Do your own homework.
>
resign your position krygowski. you shame anything associated with
"education".
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 15:07:16
From:
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Aug 7, 12:57 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
>
> >> Could it be that the older Asahi made Wheelsmith double-butted spokes
> >> were made by grinding and the newer Wheelsmith spokes made in Cheeseland
> >> are butted by forging? What is the age of the spokes "jim beam" is
> >> examining?
>
> >> Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
> >> Universe to implode)?
>
> > Well, this is a detail, but: For jim beam to be right even in that
> > case, he'd have to change his statement to "the older Wheelsmith
> > spokes I examined...", rather than a simple blanket statement about
> > current Wheelsmith spokes, "wheelsmith
> > grind, then polish." (Note the present tense.)
>
> > And of course, we don't have a hint that there was such a change in
> > process. Except the discrepancy between Wheelsmith's statement and
> > jim beam's testimony, which many of us have learned not to trust.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> so get with the testing program krygowski - /you/ are the "engineering
> professor" - /you/ have access to the facilities!!! idiot.
I do have that access. But I don't have any Wheelsmith spokes. I
prefer DT.
And I'm hardly going to rush off to do an assignment given by a
discredited ex-metallurgist. He can do his own homework.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 20:46:18
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 7, 12:57 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
>>>> Could it be that the older Asahi made Wheelsmith double-butted spokes
>>>> were made by grinding and the newer Wheelsmith spokes made in Cheeseland
>>>> are butted by forging? What is the age of the spokes "jim beam" is
>>>> examining?
>>>> Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
>>>> Universe to implode)?
>>> Well, this is a detail, but: For jim beam to be right even in that
>>> case, he'd have to change his statement to "the older Wheelsmith
>>> spokes I examined...", rather than a simple blanket statement about
>>> current Wheelsmith spokes, "wheelsmith
>>> grind, then polish." (Note the present tense.)
>>> And of course, we don't have a hint that there was such a change in
>>> process. Except the discrepancy between Wheelsmith's statement and
>>> jim beam's testimony, which many of us have learned not to trust.
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> so get with the testing program krygowski - /you/ are the "engineering
>> professor" - /you/ have access to the facilities!!! idiot.
>
> I do have that access. But I don't have any Wheelsmith spokes. I
> prefer DT.
>
> And I'm hardly going to rush off to do an assignment given by a
> discredited ex-metallurgist. He can do his own homework.
>
wow!!! krygowski heads for the hills when there's a barn raising - how
to disgrace your institution and your profession!!!
btw, it would cost you about $2.50 to buy all the parts necessary to
bury the beamster. you'd make that investment if you really thought you
were right. idiot.
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 00:05:22
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:45:15 -0700, frkrygow wrote:
> On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Could it be that the older Asahi made Wheelsmith double-butted spokes
>> were made by grinding and the newer Wheelsmith spokes made in Cheeseland
>> are butted by forging? What is the age of the spokes "jim beam" is
>> examining?
>>
>> Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
>> Universe to implode)?
>
> Well, this is a detail, but: For jim beam to be right even in that
> case, he'd have to change his statement to "the older Wheelsmith
> spokes I examined...", rather than a simple blanket statement about
> current Wheelsmith spokes, "wheelsmith
> grind, then polish." (Note the present tense.)
>
> And of course, we don't have a hint that there was such a change in
> process.
Especially since the Wheelsmith employee I quoted on the move to
"Cheeseland" also said that Wheelsmith uses the same processes as Asahi
when making its own spokes.
> Except the discrepancy between Wheelsmith's statement and
> jim beam's testimony, which many of us have learned not to trust.
>
Exactly.
> - Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 21:45:15
From:
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote:
>
>
> Could it be that the older Asahi made Wheelsmith double-butted spokes
> were made by grinding and the newer Wheelsmith spokes made in Cheeseland
> are butted by forging? What is the age of the spokes "jim beam" is
> examining?
>
> Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
> Universe to implode)?
Well, this is a detail, but: For jim beam to be right even in that
case, he'd have to change his statement to "the older Wheelsmith
spokes I examined...", rather than a simple blanket statement about
current Wheelsmith spokes, "wheelsmith
grind, then polish." (Note the present tense.)
And of course, we don't have a hint that there was such a change in
process. Except the discrepancy between Wheelsmith's statement and
jim beam's testimony, which many of us have learned not to trust.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 21:57:06
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
>>
>> Could it be that the older Asahi made Wheelsmith double-butted spokes
>> were made by grinding and the newer Wheelsmith spokes made in Cheeseland
>> are butted by forging? What is the age of the spokes "jim beam" is
>> examining?
>>
>> Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
>> Universe to implode)?
>
> Well, this is a detail, but: For jim beam to be right even in that
> case, he'd have to change his statement to "the older Wheelsmith
> spokes I examined...", rather than a simple blanket statement about
> current Wheelsmith spokes, "wheelsmith
> grind, then polish." (Note the present tense.)
>
> And of course, we don't have a hint that there was such a change in
> process. Except the discrepancy between Wheelsmith's statement and
> jim beam's testimony, which many of us have learned not to trust.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
so get with the testing program krygowski - /you/ are the "engineering
professor" - /you/ have access to the facilities!!! idiot.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:02:47
From:
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Aug 6, 8:55 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> John Dacey wrote:
> > Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
>
> > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:22:17 -0700, jim beam
> > <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> >> they may indeed, but inspection doesn't reveal any evidence of such a
> >> process being used. compare d.t. spokes, sapim and wheelsmith with a
> >> sufficiently strong magnifier. spokes that are drawn or hammered show
> >> distinctive marks evidencing each production process - as you will see.
> >> wheelsmith don't. they are featureless - just like you'd expect from
> >> something with the marks polished out. and polishing something that has
> >> been drawn or hammered makes no financial sense since finish quality is
> >> already sufficient.
>
> > So let me understand your reasoning: since Wheelsmith's butted spokes
> > have a finish that's better than you think they need to be, that's
> > proof positive that they're lying about (or worse, that they don't
> > understand themselves) the fabrication process?
>
> at best, that's too simplistic. at worst, that's contrived and
> misleading. so here's what i suggest: provide samples of all 3 spokes
> to a metallurgy lab and have then do the metallography for you. the
> microstructure will reveal all.
>
> you can also try the magnet test, but that's not only more subjective to
> the tester, but it's non-definitive. should give you a rough idea
> though. use a strong magnet like one out an old hard drive. [cold
> worked "forged" austenite of certain grades becomes martensitic, thus
> more magnetic - the center sections should be more magnetic if formed by
> a hammering or drawing technique that their description implies.]
I'd say that "what you suggest" is up to the guy who claims he knows
more than Wheelsmith does, based on his own cursory look at their
spokes.
Wheelsmith's reputation is solid, jim beam. Your is not. If you want
to salvage something from this, it's up to you to provide conclusive
proof that Wheelsmith doesn't know how Wheelsmith makes spokes.
Your move.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:48:35
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:55 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> John Dacey wrote:
>>> Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:22:17 -0700, jim beam
>>> <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> they may indeed, but inspection doesn't reveal any evidence of such a
>>>> process being used. compare d.t. spokes, sapim and wheelsmith with a
>>>> sufficiently strong magnifier. spokes that are drawn or hammered show
>>>> distinctive marks evidencing each production process - as you will see.
>>>> wheelsmith don't. they are featureless - just like you'd expect from
>>>> something with the marks polished out. and polishing something that has
>>>> been drawn or hammered makes no financial sense since finish quality is
>>>> already sufficient.
>>> So let me understand your reasoning: since Wheelsmith's butted spokes
>>> have a finish that's better than you think they need to be, that's
>>> proof positive that they're lying about (or worse, that they don't
>>> understand themselves) the fabrication process?
>> at best, that's too simplistic. at worst, that's contrived and
>> misleading. so here's what i suggest: provide samples of all 3 spokes
>> to a metallurgy lab and have then do the metallography for you. the
>> microstructure will reveal all.
>>
>> you can also try the magnet test, but that's not only more subjective to
>> the tester, but it's non-definitive. should give you a rough idea
>> though. use a strong magnet like one out an old hard drive. [cold
>> worked "forged" austenite of certain grades becomes martensitic, thus
>> more magnetic - the center sections should be more magnetic if formed by
>> a hammering or drawing technique that their description implies.]
>
> I'd say that "what you suggest" is up to the guy who claims he knows
> more than Wheelsmith does, based on his own cursory look at their
> spokes.
>
> Wheelsmith's reputation is solid, jim beam. Your is not. If you want
> to salvage something from this, it's up to you to provide conclusive
> proof that Wheelsmith doesn't know how Wheelsmith makes spokes.
>
> Your move.
it's funny. whenever there's a barn raising, krygowski and his shovel
are never to be found. yet if there's a chance to shovel the shit onto
jim beam's coffin, krygowski's there, shovel to the fore. anyone would
think he was afraid of /real/ work.
bottom line krygowski, if you /really/ want to bury the beamster, go
chat with one of your "engineering" buddies and get the metallography
done on the spokes, just like i suggest. then publish the results. but
you won't, just like you won't even try the magnet test. because it's
not as easy as bleating like the other sheep. fucking idiot.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 22:00:31
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 8:55 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> John Dacey wrote:
>>>> Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:22:17 -0700, jim beam
>>>> <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> they may indeed, but inspection doesn't reveal any evidence of such a
>>>>> process being used. compare d.t. spokes, sapim and wheelsmith with a
>>>>> sufficiently strong magnifier. spokes that are drawn or hammered show
>>>>> distinctive marks evidencing each production process - as you will
>>>>> see.
>>>>> wheelsmith don't. they are featureless - just like you'd expect from
>>>>> something with the marks polished out. and polishing something
>>>>> that has
>>>>> been drawn or hammered makes no financial sense since finish
>>>>> quality is
>>>>> already sufficient.
>>>> So let me understand your reasoning: since Wheelsmith's butted spokes
>>>> have a finish that's better than you think they need to be, that's
>>>> proof positive that they're lying about (or worse, that they don't
>>>> understand themselves) the fabrication process?
>>> at best, that's too simplistic. at worst, that's contrived and
>>> misleading. so here's what i suggest: provide samples of all 3 spokes
>>> to a metallurgy lab and have then do the metallography for you. the
>>> microstructure will reveal all.
>>>
>>> you can also try the magnet test, but that's not only more subjective to
>>> the tester, but it's non-definitive. should give you a rough idea
>>> though. use a strong magnet like one out an old hard drive. [cold
>>> worked "forged" austenite of certain grades becomes martensitic, thus
>>> more magnetic - the center sections should be more magnetic if formed by
>>> a hammering or drawing technique that their description implies.]
>>
>> I'd say that "what you suggest" is up to the guy who claims he knows
>> more than Wheelsmith does, based on his own cursory look at their
>> spokes.
>>
>> Wheelsmith's reputation is solid, jim beam. Your is not. If you want
>> to salvage something from this, it's up to you to provide conclusive
>> proof that Wheelsmith doesn't know how Wheelsmith makes spokes.
>>
>> Your move.
>
> it's funny. whenever there's a barn raising, krygowski and his shovel
> are never to be found. yet if there's a chance to shovel the shit onto
> jim beam's coffin, krygowski's there, shovel to the fore. anyone would
> think he was afraid of /real/ work.
>
> bottom line krygowski, if you /really/ want to bury the beamster, go
> chat with one of your "engineering" buddies and get the metallography
> done on the spokes, just like i suggest. then publish the results. but
> you won't, just like you won't even try the magnet test. because it's
> not as easy as bleating like the other sheep. fucking idiot.
Could it be that the older Asahi made Wheelsmith double-butted spokes
were made by grinding and the newer Wheelsmith spokes made in Cheeseland
are butted by forging? What is the age of the spokes "jim beam" is
examining?
Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
Universe to implode)?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 11:43:09
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:00:31 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote:
>"jim beam" wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 8:55 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> John Dacey wrote:
>>>>> Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:22:17 -0700, jim beam
>>>>> <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> they may indeed, but inspection doesn't reveal any evidence of such a
>>>>>> process being used. compare d.t. spokes, sapim and wheelsmith with a
>>>>>> sufficiently strong magnifier. spokes that are drawn or hammered show
>>>>>> distinctive marks evidencing each production process - as you will
>>>>>> see.
>>>>>> wheelsmith don't. they are featureless - just like you'd expect from
>>>>>> something with the marks polished out. and polishing something
>>>>>> that has
>>>>>> been drawn or hammered makes no financial sense since finish
>>>>>> quality is
>>>>>> already sufficient.
>>>>> So let me understand your reasoning: since Wheelsmith's butted spokes
>>>>> have a finish that's better than you think they need to be, that's
>>>>> proof positive that they're lying about (or worse, that they don't
>>>>> understand themselves) the fabrication process?
>>>> at best, that's too simplistic. at worst, that's contrived and
>>>> misleading. so here's what i suggest: provide samples of all 3 spokes
>>>> to a metallurgy lab and have then do the metallography for you. the
>>>> microstructure will reveal all.
>>>>
>>>> you can also try the magnet test, but that's not only more subjective to
>>>> the tester, but it's non-definitive. should give you a rough idea
>>>> though. use a strong magnet like one out an old hard drive. [cold
>>>> worked "forged" austenite of certain grades becomes martensitic, thus
>>>> more magnetic - the center sections should be more magnetic if formed by
>>>> a hammering or drawing technique that their description implies.]
>>>
>>> I'd say that "what you suggest" is up to the guy who claims he knows
>>> more than Wheelsmith does, based on his own cursory look at their
>>> spokes.
>>>
>>> Wheelsmith's reputation is solid, jim beam. Your is not. If you want
>>> to salvage something from this, it's up to you to provide conclusive
>>> proof that Wheelsmith doesn't know how Wheelsmith makes spokes.
>>>
>>> Your move.
>>
>> it's funny. whenever there's a barn raising, krygowski and his shovel
>> are never to be found. yet if there's a chance to shovel the shit onto
>> jim beam's coffin, krygowski's there, shovel to the fore. anyone would
>> think he was afraid of /real/ work.
>>
>> bottom line krygowski, if you /really/ want to bury the beamster, go
>> chat with one of your "engineering" buddies and get the metallography
>> done on the spokes, just like i suggest. then publish the results. but
>> you won't, just like you won't even try the magnet test. because it's
>> not as easy as bleating like the other sheep. fucking idiot.
>
>Could it be that the older Asahi made Wheelsmith double-butted spokes
>were made by grinding and the newer Wheelsmith spokes made in Cheeseland
>are butted by forging? What is the age of the spokes "jim beam" is
>examining?
>
>Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
>Universe to implode)?
No, the stability of the universe is assured as long as Jobst remains in
disagreement. Or at least disagreeable.
Ron
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 19:41:59
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
RonSonic who? wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:00:31 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote:
>
>> Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
>> Universe to implode)?
>
> No, the stability of the universe is assured as long as Jobst remains in
> disagreement. Or at least disagreeable.
I hate you.
You hate me.
We're a dysfunctional RBT family. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 20:08:57
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 8:55 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> John Dacey wrote:
>>>>> Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:22:17 -0700, jim beam
>>>>> <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> they may indeed, but inspection doesn't reveal any evidence of such a
>>>>>> process being used. compare d.t. spokes, sapim and wheelsmith with a
>>>>>> sufficiently strong magnifier. spokes that are drawn or hammered
>>>>>> show
>>>>>> distinctive marks evidencing each production process - as you will
>>>>>> see.
>>>>>> wheelsmith don't. they are featureless - just like you'd expect
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> something with the marks polished out. and polishing something
>>>>>> that has
>>>>>> been drawn or hammered makes no financial sense since finish
>>>>>> quality is
>>>>>> already sufficient.
>>>>> So let me understand your reasoning: since Wheelsmith's butted spokes
>>>>> have a finish that's better than you think they need to be, that's
>>>>> proof positive that they're lying about (or worse, that they don't
>>>>> understand themselves) the fabrication process?
>>>> at best, that's too simplistic. at worst, that's contrived and
>>>> misleading. so here's what i suggest: provide samples of all 3 spokes
>>>> to a metallurgy lab and have then do the metallography for you. the
>>>> microstructure will reveal all.
>>>>
>>>> you can also try the magnet test, but that's not only more
>>>> subjective to
>>>> the tester, but it's non-definitive. should give you a rough idea
>>>> though. use a strong magnet like one out an old hard drive. [cold
>>>> worked "forged" austenite of certain grades becomes martensitic, thus
>>>> more magnetic - the center sections should be more magnetic if
>>>> formed by
>>>> a hammering or drawing technique that their description implies.]
>>>
>>> I'd say that "what you suggest" is up to the guy who claims he knows
>>> more than Wheelsmith does, based on his own cursory look at their
>>> spokes.
>>>
>>> Wheelsmith's reputation is solid, jim beam. Your is not. If you want
>>> to salvage something from this, it's up to you to provide conclusive
>>> proof that Wheelsmith doesn't know how Wheelsmith makes spokes.
>>>
>>> Your move.
>>
>> it's funny. whenever there's a barn raising, krygowski and his shovel
>> are never to be found. yet if there's a chance to shovel the shit
>> onto jim beam's coffin, krygowski's there, shovel to the fore. anyone
>> would think he was afraid of /real/ work.
>>
>> bottom line krygowski, if you /really/ want to bury the beamster, go
>> chat with one of your "engineering" buddies and get the metallography
>> done on the spokes, just like i suggest. then publish the results.
>> but you won't, just like you won't even try the magnet test. because
>> it's not as easy as bleating like the other sheep. fucking idiot.
>
> Could it be that the older Asahi made Wheelsmith double-butted spokes
> were made by grinding and the newer Wheelsmith spokes made in Cheeseland
> are butted by forging? What is the age of the spokes "jim beam" is
> examining?
wow, so you /are/ capable of rational analysis! why don't you do this
more often?
>
> Could both Krygowski and "beam" be right (or would that cause the
> Universe to implode)?
>
nah, krygowski's black hole of idiocy would consume time itself.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 09:21:41
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:18:53 -0400, John Dacey wrote:
> Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
>
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:22:17 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>they may indeed, but inspection doesn't reveal any evidence of such a
>>process being used. compare d.t. spokes, sapim and wheelsmith with a
>>sufficiently strong magnifier. spokes that are drawn or hammered show
>>distinctive marks evidencing each production process - as you will see.
>> wheelsmith don't. they are featureless - just like you'd expect from
>>something with the marks polished out. and polishing something that has
>>been drawn or hammered makes no financial sense since finish quality is
>>already sufficient.
>
> So let me understand your reasoning: since Wheelsmith's butted spokes
> have a finish that's better than you think they need to be, that's
> proof positive that they're lying about (or worse, that they don't
> understand themselves) the fabrication process?
I emailed wheelsmith about this on Friday. This is the response that I got
today:
"Hello Gary -
Thank you for your interest in our product.
Wheelsmith Spokes are not ground. Our process of "Swaging Spokes" is
actually a hammering process to create the swaged or butted section of
the spoke. There is no grinding that occurs.
Thank you
Laura
Hayes Bicycle"
I would have been more happy to get something from one of their engineers,
but given jim beam's lack of credibility, I'm not inclined to pursue this
any further.
On another note, I don't think wheelsmith uses Asahi blanks anymore. I
base that on this message posted on a listserve:
"The old owner of Wheelsmith was retiring and sold us the business. We
relocated it from Big Timber, MT to Milwaukee, WI in December 2006.
As for what spokes came from whom - The 14g non-butted spokes (SS-14)
were made in their entirety by Wheelsmith with machinery purchased
from Asahi in Japan using the exact same raw materials. The AE-14,
DH-13, all 15g spokes were made by Asahi for Wheelsmith. DB-14 were
sometimes bought complete from Asahi, but usually were made from
blanks shipped to the US. Wheelsmith had the machines to make DB-14's
in Montana but rarely used it. We have produced some SS-14 spokes over
the past 2 months here in Milwaukee.
After we purchased Wheelsmith in September, Asahi informed us they
were closing down production. We've recently sent our spoke maker to
Japan to train at Asahi for 3 weeks - this is after spending 2 weeks
training at Montana. While he was there we also purchased all of
Asahi's machinery and will be moving that to Milwaukee in a few short
months.
What does this mean? All Wheelsmith spokes will soon be made in
Milwaukee. Same machinery, Same raw materials, Same techinques and the
Same attention to detail. Our spoke maker is a very dedicated
individual with a strong background in high-performance steel
manufacturing. We are very confident that Wheelsmith spokes will
continue to be the best in the industry."
http://tinyurl.com/2w449j
============================================
Obviously, that doesn't speak to wheelsmith's butting method and I only
offer it as clarification of wheelsmith's relation to Asahi.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:30:49
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
Gary Young wrote:
> ...
> "The old owner of Wheelsmith was retiring and sold us the business. We
> relocated it from Big Timber, MT to Milwaukee, WI in December 2006....
Much better beer, and I DON'T mean Miller.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 12:34:58
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Aug 3, 4:15 am, Gig Miller <thunderha...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
> of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
> length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
> the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
> be nearly equal.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
I'm thinking they were recut to that length, reducing the butted
length. No big deal in terms of performance.
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 13:20:43
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
Gig Miller wrote:
> I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
> of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
> length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
> the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
> be nearly equal.
Spoke makers swadge blanks then thread and trim them to order so the
butt varies at the threaded end a bit.
c.f. seat post internal diameter - makers cut several sizes from each blank.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 12:25:12
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
A Muzi wrote:
> Gig Miller wrote:
>> I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
>> of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
>> length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
>> the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
>> be nearly equal.
>
> Spoke makers swadge blanks
not all of them, only some. d.t. swage, but sapim draw, and wheelsmith
grind, then polish. they are all very different forming processes and
it's wrong to confuse the terms. "butted" is the correct generic term.
please don't perpetuate the jobstian mistake.
> then thread and trim them to order so the
> butt varies at the threaded end a bit.
>
> c.f. seat post internal diameter - makers cut several sizes from each
> blank.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 22:15:08
From: John Dacey
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
"Ecce signum!" - Falstaff
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:25:12 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>not all of them, only some. d.t. swage, but sapim draw, and wheelsmith
>grind, then polish. they are all very different forming processes and
>it's wrong to confuse the terms. "butted" is the correct generic term.
> please don't perpetuate the jobstian mistake.
According to Wheelsmith's website, their butted spokes are not ground
but rather forged.
http://www.wheelsmith.com/index_files/spoketech.htm (scroll to the
middle of the page).
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
Phone: 305-273-4440
http://www.businesscycles.com
-------------------------------
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 20:20:32
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
John Dacey wrote:
> "Ecce signum!" - Falstaff
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:25:12 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> not all of them, only some. d.t. swage, but sapim draw, and wheelsmith
>> grind, then polish. they are all very different forming processes and
>> it's wrong to confuse the terms. "butted" is the correct generic term.
>> please don't perpetuate the jobstian mistake.
>
> According to Wheelsmith's website, their butted spokes are not ground
> but rather forged.
>
> http://www.wheelsmith.com/index_files/spoketech.htm (scroll to the
> middle of the page).
i think their copy writer is, er, "confused". i've seen asahi spokes in
their unpolished state, and those are /definitely/ butted by grinding.
since wheelsmith are made by asahi, it doesn't take much to join the
dots. especially since they have all the exact same features apart from
being polished.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 23:00:11
From: John Dacey
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
"Splendide mendax" - Horace
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:20:32 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>John Dacey wrote:
>> According to Wheelsmith's website, their butted spokes are not ground
>> but rather forged.
>>
>> http://www.wheelsmith.com/index_files/spoketech.htm (scroll to the
>> middle of the page).
>i think their copy writer is, er, "confused". i've seen asahi spokes in
>their unpolished state, and those are /definitely/ butted by grinding.
>since wheelsmith are made by asahi, it doesn't take much to join the
>dots. especially since they have all the exact same features apart from
>being polished.
For them who've elected not to follow the above link to Wheelsmith's
page, please note that a section dealing with their double butted
spokes reads in part:
"The center sections are forged rather than cut, ground or drawn to
smaller diameter giving them greater strength and uniformity."
Such an unequivocal denial that they're ground doesn't sound like the
sort of statement that might be concocted by an over-eager copy writer
nor one that would be overlooked by those at Wheelsmith charged with
approving the contents of the company website. Why would they
deliberately lie about the process if it could easily be proved
otherwise?
That Asahi might fashion some butted spokes by grinding (taking your
word for it) for product sold under their own label doesn't preclude
them from having the expertise to forge the butts for spokes they
fabricate for Wheelsmith.
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
Phone: 305-273-4440
http://www.businesscycles.com
-------------------------------
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:22:17
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
John Dacey wrote:
> "Splendide mendax" - Horace
>
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:20:32 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> John Dacey wrote:
>
>>> According to Wheelsmith's website, their butted spokes are not ground
>>> but rather forged.
>>>
>>> http://www.wheelsmith.com/index_files/spoketech.htm (scroll to the
>>> middle of the page).
>
>> i think their copy writer is, er, "confused". i've seen asahi spokes in
>> their unpolished state, and those are /definitely/ butted by grinding.
>> since wheelsmith are made by asahi, it doesn't take much to join the
>> dots. especially since they have all the exact same features apart from
>> being polished.
>
> For them who've elected not to follow the above link to Wheelsmith's
> page, please note that a section dealing with their double butted
> spokes reads in part:
> "The center sections are forged rather than cut, ground or drawn to
> smaller diameter giving them greater strength and uniformity."
>
> Such an unequivocal denial that they're ground doesn't sound like the
> sort of statement that might be concocted by an over-eager copy writer
> nor one that would be overlooked by those at Wheelsmith charged with
> approving the contents of the company website. Why would they
> deliberately lie about the process if it could easily be proved
> otherwise?
i have no idea. why do people claim they can eliminate metal fatigue in
stainless steel with no endurance limit? but it's probably not
deliberate, simply the product of a misunderstanding. the spoke heads
are "forged" [more accurately, "upset"].
>
> That Asahi might fashion some butted spokes by grinding (taking your
> word for it) for product sold under their own label doesn't preclude
> them from having the expertise to forge the butts for spokes they
> fabricate for Wheelsmith.
they may indeed, but inspection doesn't reveal any evidence of such a
process being used. compare d.t. spokes, sapim and wheelsmith with a
sufficiently strong magnifier. spokes that are drawn or hammered show
distinctive marks evidencing each production process - as you will see.
wheelsmith don't. they are featureless - just like you'd expect from
something with the marks polished out. and polishing something that has
been drawn or hammered makes no financial sense since finish quality is
already sufficient.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 01:18:53
From: John Dacey
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:22:17 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>they may indeed, but inspection doesn't reveal any evidence of such a
>process being used. compare d.t. spokes, sapim and wheelsmith with a
>sufficiently strong magnifier. spokes that are drawn or hammered show
>distinctive marks evidencing each production process - as you will see.
> wheelsmith don't. they are featureless - just like you'd expect from
>something with the marks polished out. and polishing something that has
>been drawn or hammered makes no financial sense since finish quality is
>already sufficient.
So let me understand your reasoning: since Wheelsmith's butted spokes
have a finish that's better than you think they need to be, that's
proof positive that they're lying about (or worse, that they don't
understand themselves) the fabrication process?
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
Phone: 305-273-4440
http://www.businesscycles.com
-------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 05:55:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
John Dacey wrote:
> Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
>
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:22:17 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> they may indeed, but inspection doesn't reveal any evidence of such a
>> process being used. compare d.t. spokes, sapim and wheelsmith with a
>> sufficiently strong magnifier. spokes that are drawn or hammered show
>> distinctive marks evidencing each production process - as you will see.
>> wheelsmith don't. they are featureless - just like you'd expect from
>> something with the marks polished out. and polishing something that has
>> been drawn or hammered makes no financial sense since finish quality is
>> already sufficient.
>
> So let me understand your reasoning: since Wheelsmith's butted spokes
> have a finish that's better than you think they need to be, that's
> proof positive that they're lying about (or worse, that they don't
> understand themselves) the fabrication process?
at best, that's too simplistic. at worst, that's contrived and
misleading. so here's what i suggest: provide samples of all 3 spokes
to a metallurgy lab and have then do the metallography for you. the
microstructure will reveal all.
you can also try the magnet test, but that's not only more subjective to
the tester, but it's non-definitive. should give you a rough idea
though. use a strong magnet like one out an old hard drive. [cold
worked "forged" austenite of certain grades becomes martensitic, thus
more magnetic - the center sections should be more magnetic if formed by
a hammering or drawing technique that their description implies.]
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:40:27
From:
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
I think that the main reason to "re-butt" a spoke on the nipple end is
that threads work better for building with larger diameters. And to
the extent that spokes break at the thread, a wider diameter cuts down
on breakage. Neither reason requires an extended butt at the nipple.
One other reason you may be seeing differences is that it is probably
cheaper to draw spokes to one length and then cut them to different
sizes and thread afterwards. That would lead to different sized butts.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 01:17:25
From: still me
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:40:27 -0700, paypal@pantravelers.org wrote:
>One other reason you may be seeing differences is that it is probably
>cheaper to draw spokes to one length and then cut them to different
>sizes and thread afterwards. That would lead to different sized butts.
Personally, I prefer a trimmer butt to a big butt.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 15:12:26
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:40:27 -0700, paypal@pantravelers.org wrote:
>> One other reason you may be seeing differences is that it is probably
>> cheaper to draw spokes to one length and then cut them to different
>> sizes and thread afterwards. That would lead to different sized butts.
still me wrote:
> Personally, I prefer a trimmer butt to a big butt.
me too!
http://my.core.com/~karendubois/kmd1.jpg
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:19:57
From:
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:15:26 -0700, Gig Miller
<thunderhawkk@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
>of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
>length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
>the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
>be nearly equal.
>
>Thanks,
>Greg
Dear Greg.
The butting on the elbow end may be more extensive because that's
where most spokes break, not down at the nipple.
In the only available test for spoke failure from 1984-5, Wheelsmith
had 76 heavily loaded spokes cycled to failure at Stanford:
http://www.duke.edu/~hpgavin/papers/HPGavin-Wheel-Paper.pdf
Of the 76 spokes, 68 (~90%) broke at the elbow. The other 8 broke at
the nipple.
Further evidence can be found in the motorcycle world, where
single-butted spokes are found, invariably butted at the elbow. This
modest trials motorcycle spoke is single-butted:
http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/spokes.jpg
There are also some single-butted bicycle spokes.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 04:04:16
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
In article
<e4o6b3tlspp7f5vc7qjmb8bni726140hca@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:15:26 -0700, Gig Miller
> <thunderhawkk@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
> >of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
> >length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
> >the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
> >be nearly equal.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Greg
>
> Dear Greg.
>
> The butting on the elbow end may be more extensive because that's
> where most spokes break, not down at the nipple.
No, no, no, no, no.
The butt on the threaded end is shorter because that is
where the spoke is cut to length.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 08:04:11
From: Gig Miller
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Aug 3, 10:34 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Gig Miller wrote:
> > I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
> > of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
> > length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
> > the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
> > be nearly equal.
>
> do you have structural concerns or aesthetic? structurally, most people
> want butting for a slight increase in elasticity and a slight decrease
> in weight. what you describe improves both.
I have both structural concerns as well as aesthetic. I purchased some
285mm spokes, DB14 a few weeks ago, and the butted ends were nearly
the same length.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:23:51
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
Gig Miller wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:34 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Gig Miller wrote:
>>> I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
>>> of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
>>> length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
>>> the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
>>> be nearly equal.
>> do you have structural concerns or aesthetic? structurally, most people
>> want butting for a slight increase in elasticity and a slight decrease
>> in weight. what you describe improves both.
>
> I have both structural concerns as well as aesthetic. I purchased some
> 285mm spokes, DB14 a few weeks ago, and the butted ends were nearly
> the same length.
>
your concerns are misplaced - there are no structural issues with some
factional percentage increase in elasticity and an even smaller
fractional decrease in weight.
as for your aesthetic sensibilities, you're on your own.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:04:06
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:04:11 -0700, Gig Miller <thunderhawkk@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Aug 3, 10:34 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Gig Miller wrote:
>> > I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
>> > of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
>> > length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
>> > the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
>> > be nearly equal.
>>
>> do you have structural concerns or aesthetic? structurally, most people
>> want butting for a slight increase in elasticity and a slight decrease
>> in weight. what you describe improves both.
>
>I have both structural concerns as well as aesthetic. I purchased some
>285mm spokes, DB14 a few weeks ago, and the butted ends were nearly
>the same length.
Now you know how to tell them apart if they get mingled.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 07:34:03
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Double Butted Spokes
|
Gig Miller wrote:
> I recently purchased some Wheelsmith DB14 x 279 mm spokes. The length
> of the butted portion on the elbow side was approx 25mm, while the
> length of the butted portion on the threaded side was only 3mm above
> the threads. Is this normal? It seems to me the butted lengths should
> be nearly equal.
do you have structural concerns or aesthetic? structurally, most people
want butting for a slight increase in elasticity and a slight decrease
in weight. what you describe improves both.
|
|
