Correct Torque value for Presta Valve?

Sheldon Brown said:

I've seen the light and now use a torque wrench for all threaded
fasteners and bottlecaps.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the recommended torque spec
for the little knurled nuts on my Presta valves.

Anybody got a definitive answer?

I've been using 0.0000013 ton/furlongs, but I'm not sure that's quite
correct...

Carapace Completed Umber
McMurdo Bay, Ant.

I know you're looking for something /quantitative/, Sheldon. I don't
have that, but . . .

I tighten them with increasing force until a slight hissing can be
heard, then back them off 1/16th of a turn.

HTH,

Neil

"Sheldon Brown" wrote: (clip) I've been using 0.0000013 ton/furlongs,
(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where did you find a torque wrench calibrated in ton-furlongs? I spent a
micro-century Googling for it and got nowhere.

Sheldon Brown said:

I've seen the light and now use a torque wrench for all threaded
fasteners and bottlecaps.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the recommended torque spec
for the little knurled nuts on my Presta valves.

Anybody got a definitive answer?

I've been using 0.0000013 ton/furlongs, but I'm not sure that's quite
correct...

Carapace Completed Umber
McMurdo Bay, Ant.

A torque wrench is not needed if you cross-thread the nut and apply
Loctite. Alternately, leave the nut off and crimp a resilient tension
flange in place with sleeve band; no sense not using MIL-spec tech in
such a critical area.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Neil Brooks said:

Sheldon Brown said:

I've seen the light and now use a torque wrench for all threaded
fasteners and bottlecaps.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the recommended torque spec
for the little knurled nuts on my Presta valves.

Anybody got a definitive answer?

I've been using 0.0000013 ton/furlongs, but I'm not sure that's quite
correct...

Carapace Completed Umber
McMurdo Bay, Ant.

I know you're looking for something /quantitative/, Sheldon. I don't
have that, but . . .

I tighten them with increasing force until a slight hissing can be
heard, then back them off 1/16th of a turn.

Ahh, a new twist to the old rule of thumb:
"Crank 'er up until she talks to ya and then back her off a bit"

dkl

Sheldon Brown said:

I've seen the light and now use a torque wrench for all threaded
fasteners and bottlecaps.

- snip

Quoted message said:

I've been using 0.0000013 ton/furlongs, but I'm not sure that's quite
correct...

That can't be correct, Sheldon. ton/furlong is not a unit of torque
(which is force through a distance). I can't even figure out what
force per distance might be.

I'd suggest that 6.31×10^-09 ton furlongs might be about correct 🙂

John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

<[email hidden]> wrote: (clip) I can't even figure out what
force per distance might be.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Suppose you set up a lever, which presses upward on a load at some arbitrary
fixed distance from the fulcrum. Now, press down on the lever to create a
lifting force on the load. The amount of lifting force will be proportional
to the distance from the fulcrum, so you have tons/furlong. What could be
more obvious? :-)

Sheldon Brown said:

I've seen the light and now use a torque wrench for all threaded
fasteners and bottlecaps.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the recommended torque spec
for the little knurled nuts on my Presta valves.

Anybody got a definitive answer?

I've been using 0.0000013 ton/furlongs, but I'm not sure that's quite
correct...

Carapace Completed Umber
McMurdo Bay, Ant.
+--------------------------------------------+
| If it can't be expressed in figures, |
| it is not science; it is opinion. |
| --Robert A. Heinlein |
+--------------------------------------------+

Dear Sheld--er, Carapace,

You could use one of these micro-torque wrenches and
experiment with 16-32 inch-ounces:

http://www.specialized.net/ecommerce/shop/layout.asp?product%5Fid=176X200

http://www.jensentools.com/product/group.asp?parent_id=4040

That's 1-2 foot-lbs, roughly the same as your 0.0000013
furlong/tons (1.716 ft-lbs @ 1,320,000 ft-lbs per
ton/furlong).

Thanks for making me finally add furlongs/fortnight and
furlong/tons to my conversion spreadsheet.

Off to see if I can average 53,760 furlongs/fortnight (20
mph @ 1 mph per 2688 furlongs/fortnight).

Just my nickel's worth,

Carl Fogel
Times-Picayune Help Desk

Sheldon Brown said:

I've seen the light and now use a torque wrench for all threaded
fasteners and bottlecaps.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the recommended torque spec
for the little knurled nuts on my Presta valves.

Anybody got a definitive answer?

See the "Presto!" adaptor for the Tork-Grip pliers on p. 8 of the
ShelBroCo catalogue. Fit the adaptor, give the knurled nut five full
turns and Presto! (sp?), it's busted.

Happy Birthday.
"Who can trust a people who celebrate, as their national event, a
jailbreak?" - M. Thatcher

-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996.
http://www.businesscycles.com

Leo Lichtman said:

<[email hidden]> wrote: (clip) I can't even figure out what
force per distance might be.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Suppose you set up a lever, which presses upward on a load at some arbitrary
fixed distance from the fulcrum. Now, press down on the lever to create a
lifting force on the load. The amount of lifting force will be proportional
to the distance from the fulcrum, so you have tons/furlong. What could be
more obvious? :-)

I know you've got the smiley, but:

Since the torque is directly proportional, it'd be ton·furlong. If the
relationship had been inversely proportional, then it'd be ton/furlong.

I'm course, you probably knew that and I'm probably an ass...but who's
counting? 🙂

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
http://www.underthecouch.org
..:you may want to fix my email
address before you send anything:.

"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Since the torque is directly proportional, it'd
be ton·furlong. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for noticing the smiley--it was meant to be funny, but it was also
meant to be technically correct, so now I will defend it.

We have a lever, lifting a load. If we consider every parameter in the
lever equation fixed, except the distand from the fulcrum to the applied
force, then the force applied to the load will be given by
F = k L, where F is the lifting force on the load, in tons, K is a constant
of proportionality and L is the distance from the fulcrum to the applied
force, in furlongs. For each furlong from fulcrum to applied force, some
number of tons will be developed. So the units of k will be "tons/furlong."
:-) :-)

Leo Lichtman said:

"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Since the torque is directly proportional, it'd
be ton·furlong. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for noticing the smiley--it was meant to be funny, but it was also
meant to be technically correct, so now I will defend it.

We have a lever, lifting a load. If we consider every parameter in the
lever equation fixed, except the distand from the fulcrum to the applied
force, then the force applied to the load will be given by
F = k L, where F is the lifting force on the load, in tons, K is a constant
of proportionality and L is the distance from the fulcrum to the applied
force, in furlongs. For each furlong from fulcrum to applied force, some
number of tons will be developed. So the units of k will be "tons/furlong."
:-) :-)

Some physicists pedandically insist on the dot notation for torque,
though, despite the fact that the other makes perfect sense. I prefer
amu/megaparsecs myself.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:18:27 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"

Quoted message said:

"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Since the torque is directly proportional, it'd
be ton·furlong. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for noticing the smiley--it was meant to be funny, but it was also
meant to be technically correct, so now I will defend it.

We have a lever, lifting a load. If we consider every parameter in the
lever equation fixed, except the distand from the fulcrum to the applied
force, then the force applied to the load will be given by
F = k L, where F is the lifting force on the load, in tons, K is a constant
of proportionality and L is the distance from the fulcrum to the applied
force, in furlongs. For each furlong from fulcrum to applied force, some
number of tons will be developed. So the units of k will be "tons/furlong."
:-) :-)

Some physicists pedandically insist on the dot notation for torque,
though, despite the fact that the other makes perfect sense. I prefer
amu/megaparsecs myself.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Clarification: amu/megaparsecs would be units for Leos "k" rather than the Capt'n's Presto torque.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for making me finally add furlongs/fortnight and
furlong/tons to my conversion spreadsheet.

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel
Times-Picayune Help Desk

Do you have stone-Angstroms in there?

AMU-Megaparsecs was a clever unit of torque, but AMU is mass, not force
and therefore you'd have to multiply by "g"... which is problematical
since g is not constant across any reasonable portion of a megaparsec.

--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

Diablo Scott said:

Quoted message said:

Thanks for making me finally add furlongs/fortnight and
furlong/tons to my conversion spreadsheet.

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel
Times-Picayune Help Desk

Do you have stone-Angstroms in there?

AMU-Megaparsecs was a clever unit of torque, but AMU is mass, not force
and therefore you'd have to multiply by "g"... which is problematical
since g is not constant across any reasonable portion of a megaparsec.

Dear Diablo,

Naturally, the Times-Picayune help desk has only a small
selection of units, but luckily we have that one handy,
since it's useful for tightening up connections on pesky
long-polymer molecules.

Sheldon is considering tightening his Presta valve cap to
about 0.000000045931759 stone/angstroms. He may need his
reading glasses to see the dial--for some reason, it tends
to be fuzzy.

Carl Fogel
Times-Picayune Help Desk

In message <[email hidden]>, Sheldon Brown
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I've seen the light and now use a torque wrench for all threaded
fasteners and bottlecaps.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the recommended torque spec
for the little knurled nuts on my Presta valves.

Anybody got a definitive answer?

I've been using 0.0000013 ton/furlongs, but I'm not sure that's quite
correct...

Can't help with the Presta valves as the finger and thumb adapter is
missing from my socket set but this should help with those bottlecaps:

http://www.vibrac.com/products/captorque.asp
--

Martyn Aldis, e-mail [email hidden]
==============================================================================

Leo Lichtman said:

"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Since the torque is directly proportional, it'd
be ton·furlong. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for noticing the smiley--it was meant to be funny, but it was also
meant to be technically correct, so now I will defend it.

We have a lever, lifting a load. If we consider every parameter in the
lever equation fixed, except the distand from the fulcrum to the applied
force, then the force applied to the load will be given by
F = k L, where F is the lifting force on the load, in tons, K is a constant
of proportionality and L is the distance from the fulcrum to the applied
force, in furlongs. For each furlong from fulcrum to applied force, some
number of tons will be developed. So the units of k will be "tons/furlong."
:-) :-)

OMG you're about to give me a heart atta

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
http://www.underthecouch.org
..:you may want to fix my email
address before you send anything:.

"Paul Hobson" wrote: OMG you're about to give me a heart atta
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Has anyone heard from Paul Hobson since 3:54?

Leo Lichtman said:

"Paul Hobson" wrote: OMG you're about to give me a heart atta
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Has anyone heard from Paul Hobson since 3:54?

When is that in sideral time?
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Leo Lichtman said:

"Paul Hobson" wrote: OMG you're about to give me a heart atta
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Has anyone heard from Paul Hobson since 3:54?

Hope he was wearing his helmet when he keeled over!

;o)