Wheel truing with dial indicators

anonymous writes timidly:

Quoted message said:

I just put together a truing stand with dial indicators for radial and lateral truing. Also, a
dish tool with a dial indicator. (No flames on this, please - I know that some will say that this
level of precision is overkill but I like making things.)

Quoted message said:

While Jobst's fine book suggests that dial indicators have some value, I haven't found any
reference that tells me what level of truing and dish accuracy is considered acceptable. I don't
have enough experience to know by look/feel/calipers when a wheel is considered good enough so I
can't translate build quality by those more subjective standards into objective measurement
criteria. What are reasonable targets in thousandths?

Depending on what sort of brakes and pad clearance you use, lateral alignment between +-0.005 is
fine. Just remember that brake pads drag on rear wheels anyway with dual pivot brakes because their
higher mechanical advantage demands lower brake pad clearance. For this reason many professional
riders leave the rear QR open on long climbs and Campagnolo switched back to a single pivot 1:1
ratio caliper for rear brakes.

These are the criteria for trueness, aside from the need for uniform tension among spokes of the
same side for rear wheels and all spokes for front wheels. It seems to me that if you are designing
tools, the goal should already be known and the method of achieving that arrived upon from practice.
Quantifying lateral and vertical trueness is one thing, but doing it so that it assists truing a
wheel requires more than just that. It must be practical. Reading numbers may not be as useful to
the experienced mechanic than watching an air gap between rim and gauge point grow and shrink when
the wheel is rotated. This method has served well with good results for a long time.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

in article said:

Depending on what sort of brakes and pad clearance you use, lateral alignment between +-0.005
is fine.

What units are you using there?

Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

Quoted message said:

Depending on what sort of brakes and pad clearance you use, lateral alignment between +-0.005
is fine.

Quoted message said:

What units are you using there?

Oh how clever. What else? Did you perhaps think millimeters, nanometers, or Angstroms. This reminds
me of Snap-on Tools changing their metric wrench markings to, for instance, to 10MM instead of 10,
so the American will know it's not a 10inch end wrench, much less a 30inch on a large one. Lower
case m's were not good enough either, while English sizes were not changed to show that they are in
inches. I guess for some folks a 25x error is easy to make when measuring or selecting tools.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

in article said:

Shane Stanley said:

Quoted message said:

Depending on what sort of brakes and pad clearance you use, lateral alignment between +-0.005
is fine.

What units are you using there?

Oh how clever.

It wasn't particularly meant to be, although I guess one could argue that being unsure and not
asking would be dumb.

Quoted message said:

What else? Did you perhaps think millimeters, nanometers, or Angstroms.

I assumed inches, but I was wondering if the answer was none of these. The only other site I can
find that mentions a value (admittedly not specifically for a new wheel) says 1/16th of an inch,
which is more than 10 times 0.005 inches. Given the disparity, I thought it not unreasonable to
check if the difference was one of units.

Quoted message said:

I guess for some folks a 25x error is easy to make when measuring or selecting tools.

And I guess for some clever folks an error of judgment about a simple question is easy to make.

Shane Stanley

Saltytri <[email hidden]> wrote:
: I just put together a truing stand with dial indicators for radial and lateral truing. Also, a
: dish tool with a dial indicator. (No flames on this, please - I know that some will say that this
: level of precision is overkill but I like making things.) While Jobst's fine book suggests that
: dial indicators have some value, I haven't found any reference that tells me what level of truing
: and dish accuracy is considered acceptable. I don't have enough experience to know by
: look/feel/calipers when a wheel is considered good enough so I can't translate build quality by
: those more subjective standards into objective measurement criteria. What are reasonable targets
: in thousanths?

I aim for less than 1mm - 0.039" - which is pretty easy to achieve. I doubt there is any real
benefit in a lower figure other than some kind of perverse satisfaction. Tyres are usually out of
round to a greater extent anyway.

I don't buy Jobst's version of brake pads rubbing on rims. Curiously, my single pivoted bike climbs
just as easily as my dual pivoted one. Sounds like bicycle folklore.

Cheerz, Lynzz

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley said:

Quoted message said:

Depending on what sort of brakes and pad clearance you use, lateral alignment between +-0.005
is fine.

What units are you using there?

Oh how clever. What else?

Besides being snide, it'd be handy if you told us what it is that the units obviously are. .005in
seems too little - turning one nipple 1/4 turn on a conventional 36-spoke wheel moves the rim
laterally by more than an eighth of a millimeter, and you yourself say a 1/4 turn is the minimum
necessary adjustment. .005cm is even smaller, and .005 meters is ridiculously large.

So, no, it's not just pedantry. I have no idea what the units are here; and I thought exactly the
same thing as Mr. Stanley on first reading your articles.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

David Damerell said:

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley said:

>Depending on what sort of brakes and pad clearance you use, lateral alignment between +-0.005
>is fine.
What units are you using there?

Oh how clever. What else?

Besides being snide, it'd be handy if you told us what it is that the units obviously are.

.................

Quoted message said:

So, no, it's not just pedantry. I have no idea what the units are here; and I thought exactly the
same thing as Mr. Stanley on first reading your articles.

Me too, in fact. Though I soon suspected you were only teasing about it. Were you really?

Sergio Pisa

Quoted message said:

lateral alignment between +-0.005 is fine

Seems to be about twice what I can usually achieve (depends somewhat on spoke count and rim type),
and I haven't had any problems with durability, brakes rubbing, etc. I'm satisfied to get the
lateral trueness within .25 mm by eyeball. How does one get closer than that, especially as a slight
waviness sets in as the wheel is brought up to final tension (e.g., ~120 kgF drive-side tension on a
road wheel with 14/15 DB spokes, measured by Wheelsmith tensiometer)?

Mike Yankee

(Address is munged to thwart spammers. To reply, delete everything after "com".)

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

anonymous writes timidly:

Quoted message said:

I just put together a truing stand with dial indicators for radial and lateral truing. Also, a
dish tool with a dial indicator. (No flames on this, please - I know that some will say that
this level of precision is overkill but I like making things.)

Quoted message said:

While Jobst's fine book suggests that dial indicators have some value, I haven't found any
reference that tells me what level of truing and dish accuracy is considered acceptable. I don't
have enough experience to know by look/feel/calipers when a wheel is considered good enough so I
can't translate build quality by those more subjective standards into objective measurement
criteria. What are reasonable targets in thousandths?

Depending on what sort of brakes and pad clearance you use, lateral alignment between +-0.005 is
fine. Just remember that brake pads drag on rear wheels anyway with dual pivot brakes because
their higher mechanical advantage demands lower brake pad clearance. For this reason many
professional riders leave the rear QR open on long climbs and Campagnolo switched back to a single
pivot 1:1 ratio caliper for rear brakes.

These are the criteria for trueness, aside from the need for uniform tension among spokes of the
same side for rear wheels and all spokes for front wheels. It seems to me that if you are
designing tools, the goal should already be known and the method of achieving that arrived upon
from practice. Quantifying lateral and vertical trueness is one thing, but doing it so that it
assists truing a wheel requires more than just that. It must be practical. Reading numbers may
not be as useful to the experienced mechanic than watching an air gap between rim and gauge point
grow and shrink when the wheel is rotated. This method has served well with good results for a
long time.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

Lateral error should be <.5 mm I suggest you get a copy of Barnett's Chapter 17 on Wheel Truing. I
think you will find that precision in tension balancing is more important than getting extremely
precise truing. Spoke alignment, proper spoke tension, tension balancing, and stress relieving are
all covered in Jobst's book. A quote from Wheelsmith's website at URL
wheelsmith.compage4.htmlOpen ↗ bears repeating: "Wheelsmith's wheelbuilding philosophy
emphasizes strength and durability, and the key is high, uniform spoke tension. Spoke tension is the
most difficult and elusive aspect of wheelbuilding. It is the characteristic of the wheel most
difficult to evaluate, yet the most critical to its performance. This approach to wheelbuilding,
based on combining both art and science, and focusing on tension rather than cosmetic trueness, was
pioneered by Wheelsmith and remains at the foundation of our process. Cosmetic trueness can actually
come at the expense of a wheel's strength because it can result in unbalanced tension. So do not be
misled by some builders' claims about trueness, because what really matters is not how true a wheel
is now, but how true it is 1,000 miles from now."

David Ornee, Western Springs, IL

David Ornee said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

[stuff]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

Spoke alignment, proper spoke tension, tension balancing, and stress relieving are all covered in
Jobst's book.

I think you'll find the gentleman to whom you have replied knows what is in Jobst's book quite well.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley said:

Quoted message said:

Depending on what sort of brakes and pad clearance you use, lateral alignment between +-0.005
is fine.

Quoted message said:

What units are you using there?

Oh how clever. What else? Did you perhaps think millimeters, nanometers, or Angstroms. This
reminds me of Snap-on Tools changing their metric wrench markings to, for instance, 10MM instead
of 10, so the American will know it's not a 10inch end wrench, much less a 30inch on a large one.
Lower case m's were not good enough either, while English sizes were not changed to show that
they are in inches. I guess for some folks a 25x error is easy to make when measuring or
selecting tools.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

So you're actually saying that a +-5 mm lateral alignment is sufficient.

--
Replace the dots to reply

Perre

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Ornee said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

[stuff]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

Spoke alignment, proper spoke tension, tension balancing, and stress relieving are all covered in
Jobst's book.

I think you'll find the gentleman to whom you have replied knows what is in Jobst's book
quite well.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

I was replying to the group in what I thought would be a helpful sequence. I apologize if my input
was out of order or not useful to you.

David Ornee, Western Springs, IL

Lindsay Rowlands <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Saltytri <[email hidden]> wrote:
: I just put together a truing stand with dial indicators for radial and lateral truing. Also, a
: dish tool with a dial indicator. (No flames on this, please - I know that some will say that
: this level of precision is overkill but I like making things.) While Jobst's fine book suggests
: that dial indicators have some value, I haven't found any reference that tells me what level of
: truing and dish accuracy is considered acceptable. I don't have enough experience to know by
: look/feel/calipers when a wheel is considered good enough so I can't translate build quality by
: those more subjective standards into objective measurement criteria. What are reasonable targets
: in thousanths?

I aim for less than 1mm - 0.039" - which is pretty easy to achieve. I doubt there is any real
benefit in a lower figure other than some kind of perverse satisfaction. Tyres are usually out of
round to a greater extent anyway.

I don't buy Jobst's version of brake pads rubbing on rims. Curiously, my single pivoted bike
climbs just as easily as my dual pivoted one. Sounds like bicycle folklore.

Cheerz, Lynzz

I thought that the reason Campy went to single pivot rear was to save weight. After all, the rear
brake does not provide much stopping power compared with the front. Further, locking up the rear is
easy and potentially dangerous with high mechanical advantage calipers. So, the two-pivot rear
caliper gives no real stopping advantage but exacts a weight penalty.

Does anyone know why bikes are made with the right hand brake controlling the rear wheel? Most of us
are right handed and would have better control if the right hand lever operated the front brake, in
my opinion. But I digress.

Regarding how true is true, I think it is a good question ‘cause I am interested to see the opinion
of others. It seems as if ±0.005" is a good objective. A total swing of 0.01" easy to see without
indicators, but the difference between 0.005 and 0.006" is impossible to know without dial
indicators. I think I'll try to find some old feeler gauges or get some shim stock just to give me
an idea how true my wheels are. While I do not think wheel wobble is terribly important as long as
the brakes don't rub, now I'm curious to see if I can make measurements with simple tools. Why?
Because it is a matter of pride to make wheels that are very, very true. Since unusual spoking
patterns are of no real benefit, the skilled amateur can find satisfaction with careful selection of
components and meticulous assembly as his accomplishments. I'd like to quantify (once will probably
be enough for me) just how true my home-built wheels are.

How bad is unacceptable? I do not think I'd worry about a set of wheels with more than ±0.005
depending upon the circumstances. For example, I'd relax my standards for a used wheel with sticky
spokes / nipples. As long as I can get even spoke tension, avoid brake rubbing, and make the rider
happy, I'd be satisfied. Steve Shapiro

"Jobst Brandt">> >> Depending on what sort of brakes and pad clearance you use, lateral

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

alignment between +-0.005 is fine.

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley writes (trolls??):

Quoted message said:

What units are you using there?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Oh how clever. What else? Did you perhaps think millimeters, nanometers, or Angstroms. This
reminds me of Snap-on Tools changing their metric wrench markings to, for instance, to 10MM
instead of 10, so the American will know it's not a 10inch end wrench, much less a 30inch on a
large one. Lower case m's were not good enough either, while English sizes were not changed to
show that they are in inches. I guess for some folks a 25x error is easy to make when measuring or
selecting tools.

Yes I was dismayed as well when SnapOn started with the redundant _capital_ "MM" markings.

Every other brand of USA made wrench here is similarly marked ( although not all in capital
letters). My VAR, Weinmann and Hozan just display the number.

I just expected more of SnapOn, an otherwise quality product.

--
Andrew Muzi yellowjersey.orgyellowjersey.orgOpen ↗ Open every day since 1 April 1971

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know why bikes are made with the right hand brake controlling the rear wheel? Most of
us are right handed and would have better control if the right hand lever operated the front brake,
in my opinion. But I digress.

snip move to Australia, we use right hand front brake. as to the reason l have heard it has
something to do with what side of the road you ride on, but as far as l know no one has figured
out for sure why some drive on the right and some on the left so fell free to come up with your
owe theory

"MikeYankee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lateral alignment between +-0.005 is fine

Seems to be about twice what I can usually achieve

(depends somewhat on spoke

Quoted message said:

count and rim type), and I haven't had any problems with

durability, brakes

Quoted message said:

rubbing, etc. I'm satisfied to get the lateral trueness

within .25 mm by

Quoted message said:

eyeball. How does one get closer than that, especially as

a slight waviness

Quoted message said:

sets in as the wheel is brought up to final tension (e.g.,

~120 kgF drive-side

Quoted message said:

tension on a road wheel with 14/15 DB spokes, measured by

Wheelsmith

Quoted message said:

tensiometer)?

If the tension is even and the rim doesn't kiss the brake pads intermittently as it goes around,
then it's good enough for me -- as it should be for anyone who isn't clinically
obsessive-compulsive. If you ask me to quantify this level of straightness with a number, I can't
tell you. I've never bothered to measure it because it's irrelevent.

Dial, schmial.

Matt O.

"stu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know why bikes are made with the right hand

brake

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

controlling the rear wheel? Most of us are right handed

and would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have better control if the right hand lever operated the

front brake,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in my opinion. But I digress.

Quoted message said:

move to Australia, we use right hand front brake. as to

the reason l have

Quoted message said:

heard it has something to do with what side of the road

you ride on, but as

Quoted message said:

far as l know no one has figured out for sure why some

drive on the right

Quoted message said:

and some on the left so fell free to come up with your owe

theory

This horse has been beaten to a pulp here. I beleive it's in the FAQ too. Please try a Google search
rather than start up another discussion about it! Please, oh please!

Matt O.

Steve Shapiro said:

Lindsay Rowlands <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I aim for less than 1mm - 0.039" - which is pretty easy to achieve. I doubt there is any real
benefit in a lower figure other than some kind of perverse satisfaction....

Regarding how true is true, I think it is a good question ‘cause I am interested to see the
opinion of others. It seems as if ±0.005" is a good objective. A total swing of 0.01" easy to see
without indicators, but the difference between 0.005 and 0.006" is impossible to know without dial
indicators. I think I'll try to find some old feeler gauges or get some shim stock just to give me
an idea how true my wheels are.

I just put a dial indicator on the wheels of a new bike we bought (decent quality Terry bike, maybe
100 miles on it) and found 0.020" TIR. Looking at this visually, I'd probably be perfectly satisfied
with this if I were building the wheel.

I didn't put the dial indicator on the two bikes I ride the most, but it looks to me like they're at
roughly 0.040" TIR. Like Lindsay, I'm satisfied with that. It would need to be much worse before I'd
feel the need to straighten them. I should mention, though, that those bikes (my touring bike and my
commuting bike) both have cantilever brakes, so dragging a super-sensitive double-pivot brake shoe
isn't one of my concerns.

Regarding Steve's statement: I'm not convinced "a total swing of 0.01"
[is] easy to see without indicators." A machinist's six inch rule goes down to 0.01" resolution, and
that's not real easy to read even with a workpiece that's sitting still. Maybe you can see
0.01" on a rotating wheel - but I bet you can't see it from five feet away!

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

"stu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know why bikes are made with the right hand brake controlling the rear wheel? Most of
us are right handed and would have better control if the right hand lever operated the front
brake, in my opinion. But I digress.

snip move to Australia, we use right hand front brake. as to the reason l have heard it has
something to do with what side of the road you ride on, but

as

Quoted message said:

far as l know no one has figured out for sure why some drive on the right and some on the left so
fell free to come up with your owe theory

Doesn't this lead to awkward front brake cable routing?

Robin Hubert