CX-Ray tension with the Park TM-1?

Mike Reed said:

I'm building my first set with bladed spokes. The TM-1 table says the
tool should read 13-14 for 100-110kgf (2.3mm x 0.9mm bladed). I've got
the front up to 10 now, but it's feeling pretty stiff already.

Should I keep going? My TM-1 has maintained accuracy on all my other
wheels, double-checked tonight on a 2-year old wheelset -- it reads
what I build it with.

hmmm.
1. do you trust the calibrated instrument, or
2. do you trust a gut feeling?

this is why tensiometers were invented - go ahead and continue
deployment until the job is done. it will give you reliable and
consistent results every time - unlike the other method. use the low
end of the spread if you're still worried.

jim beam said:

Mike Reed said:

I'm building my first set with bladed spokes. The TM-1 table says the
tool should read 13-14 for 100-110kgf (2.3mm x 0.9mm bladed). I've got
the front up to 10 now, but it's feeling pretty stiff already.

Quoted message said:

Should I keep going? My TM-1 has maintained accuracy on all my other
wheels, double-checked tonight on a 2-year old wheelset -- it reads
what I build it with.

hmmm.
1. do you trust the calibrated instrument, or
2. do you trust a gut feeling?

this is why tensiometers were invented - go ahead and continue
deployment until the job is done. it will give you reliable and
consistent results every time - unlike the other method. use the low
end of the spread if you're still worried.

lol, yeah, I finished the front off just above the bottom of the
spectrum. The rear I'm taking all the way up.

Mike Reed said:

I'm building my first set with bladed spokes. The TM-1 table says the
tool should read 13-14 for 100-110kgf (2.3mm x 0.9mm bladed). I've got
the front up to 10 now, but it's feeling pretty stiff already.

I had thought they were very stiff, I just kept going until the were in
limits and stoppped there.

The CX-ray was used to calibrate the chart. The CX-ray does not
measure 2.3mm by our caliper, but 2.1. The 0.9 was rounded to 1mm.
Use the 2.1 x 1 column on the CX-ray. Again, that was the spoke we
used for that column.

Calvin Jones
Park Tool

Mike Reed said:

I'm building my first set with bladed spokes. The TM-1 table says the
tool should read 13-14 for 100-110kgf (2.3mm x 0.9mm bladed). I've got
the front up to 10 now, but it's feeling pretty stiff already.

Should I keep going? My TM-1 has maintained accuracy on all my other
wheels, double-checked tonight on a 2-year old wheelset -- it reads
what I build it with.

Calvin Jones said:

The CX-ray was used to calibrate the chart. The CX-ray does not
measure 2.3mm by our caliper, but 2.1. The 0.9 was rounded to 1mm.
Use the 2.1 x 1 column on the CX-ray. Again, that was the spoke we
used for that column.

Calvin Jones
Park Tool

good post - great clarification.

Quoted message said:

Mike Reed said:

I'm building my first set with bladed spokes. The TM-1 table says the
tool should read 13-14 for 100-110kgf (2.3mm x 0.9mm bladed). I've got
the front up to 10 now, but it's feeling pretty stiff already.

Should I keep going? My TM-1 has maintained accuracy on all my other
wheels, double-checked tonight on a 2-year old wheelset -- it reads
what I build it with.

jim beam said:

Calvin Jones said:

The CX-ray was used to calibrate the chart. The CX-ray does not
measure 2.3mm by our caliper, but 2.1. The 0.9 was rounded to 1mm.
Use the 2.1 x 1 column on the CX-ray. Again, that was the spoke we
used for that column.

Quoted message said:

Calvin Jones
Park Tool

good post - great clarification.

Thanks for letting us know that you approve of the Park Tool rep's
clarification. I must say, that without your confirmation, I would
have ignored Calvin's post. But now, thanks to you, a whole new world
of tension measurement is open to me.

You are the final arbiter of truth!

D'ohBoy

D'ohBoy said:

jim beam said:

Calvin Jones said:

The CX-ray was used to calibrate the chart. The CX-ray does not
measure 2.3mm by our caliper, but 2.1. The 0.9 was rounded to 1mm.
Use the 2.1 x 1 column on the CX-ray. Again, that was the spoke we
used for that column.
Calvin Jones
Park Tool

good post - great clarification.

Thanks for letting us know that you approve of the Park Tool rep's
clarification. I must say, that without your confirmation, I would
have ignored Calvin's post. But now, thanks to you, a whole new world
of tension measurement is open to me.

You are the final arbiter of truth!

POTW!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On Jan 24, 9:15 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email hidden]> wrote to jim beam:

Quoted message said:

You are the final arbiter of truth!

You're confusing jb with JB.( If you write that to Brandt, he'll get a
big cyber-woody.)

D'ohBoy said:

jim beam said:

Calvin Jones said:

The CX-ray was used to calibrate the chart. The CX-ray does not
measure 2.3mm by our caliper, but 2.1. The 0.9 was rounded to 1mm.
Use the 2.1 x 1 column on the CX-ray. Again, that was the spoke we
used for that column.
Calvin Jones
Park Tool

good post - great clarification.

Thanks for letting us know that you approve of the Park Tool rep's
clarification. I must say, that without your confirmation, I would
have ignored Calvin's post. But now, thanks to you, a whole new world
of tension measurement is open to me.

You are the final arbiter of truth!

ok, you go ahead and show it to be bogus. buy the offending spoke,
measure, then calibrate your tensiometer using said spoke and the
requisite weights. share your results.

jim beam said:

D'ohBoy said:

jim beam said:

Calvin Jones wrote:
> The CX-ray was used to calibrate the chart. The CX-ray does not
> measure 2.3mm by our caliper, but 2.1. The 0.9 was rounded to 1mm.
> Use the 2.1 x 1 column on the CX-ray. Again, that was the spoke we
> used for that column.
> Calvin Jones
> Park Tool
good post - great clarification.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for letting us know that you approve of the Park Tool rep's
clarification. I must say, that without your confirmation, I would
have ignored Calvin's post. But now, thanks to you, a whole new world
of tension measurement is open to me.

Quoted message said:

You are the final arbiter of truth!

ok, you go ahead and show it to be bogus. buy the offending spoke,
measure, then calibrate your tensiometer using said spoke and the
requisite weights. share your results.

Dear Jim,

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Your poor reading comprehension is showing. I was
commenting on the total lack of value in your attaboy to Calvin,
through the vehicle of sarcasm. For a primer on this rhetorical
device, I refer you to any number of Bill Sornson's posts, or many of
mine for that matter. What the author does is use hyperbole and irony
to highlight a point. Essentially, they say one thing but mean
another (!). It can be confusing, but the discerning reader will
detect it immediately and interpret it correctly.

BTW, I already accepted the info from the source. Your congratulatory
posting was meaningless, except to highlight your sense of self-
importance. Which was my point.

D'ohBoy, who received the same info from Park in a private e-mail
exchange a year and a half ago....

D'ohBoy said:

jim beam said:

D'ohBoy said:

On Jan 23, 9:40 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Calvin Jones wrote:
>> The CX-ray was used to calibrate the chart. The CX-ray does not
>> measure 2.3mm by our caliper, but 2.1. The 0.9 was rounded to 1mm.
>> Use the 2.1 x 1 column on the CX-ray. Again, that was the spoke we
>> used for that column.
>> Calvin Jones
>> Park Tool
> good post - great clarification.
Thanks for letting us know that you approve of the Park Tool rep's
clarification. I must say, that without your confirmation, I would
have ignored Calvin's post. But now, thanks to you, a whole new world
of tension measurement is open to me.
You are the final arbiter of truth!

ok, you go ahead and show it to be bogus. buy the offending spoke,
measure, then calibrate your tensiometer using said spoke and the
requisite weights. share your results.

Dear Jim,

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Your poor reading comprehension is showing. I was
commenting on the total lack of value in your attaboy to Calvin,
through the vehicle of sarcasm. For a primer on this rhetorical
device, I refer you to any number of Bill Sornson's posts, or many of
mine for that matter. What the author does is use hyperbole and irony
to highlight a point. Essentially, they say one thing but mean
another (!). It can be confusing, but the discerning reader will
detect it immediately and interpret it correctly.

hardly - you were just being sarcastic.

Quoted message said:

BTW, I already accepted the info from the source. Your congratulatory
posting was meaningless, except to highlight your sense of self-
importance. Which was my point.

no, you were being sarcastic. as was i. but i guess you missed that.

Quoted message said:

D'ohBoy, who received the same info from Park in a private e-mail
exchange a year and a half ago....

so wtf didn't you share??? better yet, confirm authenticity!!! jeepers.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

D'ohBoy said:

jim beam said:

D'ohBoy said:

On Jan 23, 9:40 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Calvin Jones wrote:
>> The CX-ray was used to calibrate the chart. The CX-ray does not
>> measure 2.3mm by our caliper, but 2.1. The 0.9 was rounded to 1mm.
>> Use the 2.1 x 1 column on the CX-ray. Again, that was the spoke we
>> used for that column.
>> Calvin Jones
>> Park Tool
> good post - great clarification.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for letting us know that you approve of the Park Tool rep's
clarification. I must say, that without your confirmation, I would
have ignored Calvin's post. But now, thanks to you, a whole new world
of tension measurement is open to me.

Quoted message said:

You are the final arbiter of truth!

ok, you go ahead and show it to be bogus. buy the offending spoke,
measure, then calibrate your tensiometer using said spoke and the
requisite weights. share your results.

Dear Jim,

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Your poor reading comprehension is showing. I was
commenting on the total lack of value in your attaboy to Calvin,
through the vehicle of sarcasm. For a primer on this rhetorical
device, I refer you to any number of Bill Sornson's posts, or many of
mine for that matter. What the author does is use hyperbole and irony
to highlight a point. Essentially, they say one thing but mean
another (!). It can be confusing, but the discerning reader will
detect it immediately and interpret it correctly.

BTW, I already accepted the info from the source. Your congratulatory
posting was meaningless, except to highlight your sense of self-
importance. Which was my point.

D'ohBoy, who received the same info from Park in a private e-mail
exchange a year and a half ago....

I found this page to be a great help.

<http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/howtobesarcastic/>

--
Michael Press