I've been using the expression that left-right different-diameter lacing corrects the difference in spoke tension, but I received a comment about that.
"I think it's completely wrong to say that tension changes when different-diameter lacing is done. Since tension is balanced on both sides, there's no way it can change on just one side."
Yes, actually that statement itself is correct.
Separately from that,
"I'd also like you to stop using this arbitrary definition of 'the nth tension.'"
But that's not going to happen.
Today I'm writing about that stuff.
Today as well, doesn't count toward the wheel situation (details omitted).
I assembled the front wheel of Nomu Lab Wheel No. 5.
The rim has damage from the start, so it can't be sold as-is.
I plan to clean it up nicely later and re-assemble it into a non-saleable wheel.
Black hub 20H, all Champion reverse nipple radial lacing, and
not really worth mentioning separately, but I got the radial and lateral runout dialed in precisely—
centered dead-on.
So while it is all Champion,
one side is laced with 14-gauge plain, and the other side with 15-gauge plain.
I call the numerical value that appears on the tension meter "First Spoke Tension,"
and the spoke tension in the general sense that results from converting that to a conversion table
"Second Spoke Tension,"
but since I'm not forcing this on anyone,
if someone doesn't like it, they can just call my "Second ST" plain "spoke tension"
and build and evaluate wheels only within what they can understand that way.
There's no reason anyone should tell me to stop.
First ST is likewise a numerical value that changes with the magnitude of spoke tension,
so I treat it as a type of spoke tension,
and since I can determine Second ST from it (Second ST comes later),
I'm putting the general sense of spoke tension as number two.
For the wheel just mentioned, I assembled it so the Second ST would be around 1000N.
The reason I used 14-gauge plain and 15-gauge plain is
to be able to use Hozan's tension meter conversion table as-is.
At 1000N, Hozan's First ST (H1ST) is
130 for 14-gauge and 116 for 15-gauge.
Similarly, I also check the First ST on DT's tension meter (D1ST).
Of the three rows horizontally, the left is 15-gauge, the middle is 14-gauge, but
the Second ST value near 1000N is like this.
Hozan's conversion table goes from 1000N directly to 1300N, which is
practically too large a gap, so
I've separately researched what H1ST corresponds to when D1ST is around 1100N or 1200N.
For me, DT's tension meter is the "standard" so to speak,
and Hozan is for daily use.
DT has individual conversion tables for various butted spokes (being a spoke maker after all),
but as a practical tool, Hozan is simpler.
Although there's some variation in spoke tension (both First and Second),
I found a spoke on the 14-gauge side with H1ST of roughly 130.
Its D1ST should be 2.19, but
it was 2.16. Within the margin of error.
Hozan's conversion table from First ST to Second ST is limited to just three spoke gauges: 13, 14, and 15,
so for cases like Competizione or CX-RAY (treating it as the same as Aero Lite),
I need to create a conversion table using H1ST derived from their D1ST.
If the 14-gauge side reads 1000N in both H1ST and D1ST,
then the 15-gauge side should be around 116 in H1ST and around 1.77 in D1ST, but
I deliberately selected spokes from the variation that came out to about that.
What becomes clear from this is that when left-right different-diameter lacing is done,
the Second ST doesn't change.
However, since the spoke cross-section is different, the resistance to deformation differs.
A spoke's resistance to deformation isn't determined by Second ST alone—
cross-sectional area (gauge, spoke specific gravity) is also involved.
Wanting to quantify that as much as possible is what led me to conceive
Third ST, which is proprietary information so I won't write the details.
My actual evaluation criterion for assembled spokes is Third ST,
and the Third ST values correlate pretty well with
the general reputation of hand-built wheels assembled by me or others, as well as factory-built wheels,
so based on that I decide the spoke gauge and lacing method
for wheels that have dish (offset).
Therefore, the expression that left-right different-diameter lacing on a dished hub
corrects the difference in spoke tension was about Third ST, not Second ST. I apologize for that.
Actually, in past posts there are places where I've used the term spoke tension
meaning Third ST.
The rim's maximum specified tension is Second ST, but
if you only think about wheels in terms of Second ST,
you end up making the mistake of thinking:
"Since the spoke tension is the same, a front wheel with
1000N radial lacing assembled from Champion and one assembled from Revolution
will have the same stiffness," which is obviously not true.
Next, about "stop using these arbitrary definitions of nth tension."
Who cares. If you don't use it, that's all there is to it.
While I could leave it at just saying that, let me give an example of a wheel
that can't be assembled without the concept of First ST.
It's a Campagnolo aluminum spoke wheel, but initially I couldn't get
the documents shown above, so all I knew was:
"Among off-the-shelf rear wheels, very few reach H1ST of 240 on the freewheel side,
and tensioned examples hover around 235 in the tensioned phase"—
so when replacing the rim or tightening up, I used that as the reference.
Currently, I know that I can assemble the rear right with D1ST capped at 1.75
(but I still use the H1ST of 235 approach instead).
By the way, aluminum spokes score very highly in Third ST evaluation.
↑This is a Roval wheel's inspection sheet, and
the 0.41 and such at the very bottom of the image are the rear wheel's spoke tension.
And this is not Second ST, but D1ST.
Certainly, if you're assembling the same specs of wheels in quantity,
it's simpler to use First ST as the standard rather than needing to reference conversion tables
(this applies to Nomu Lab wheels too).
Also, I think a lot of amateur wheel builders use Park Tool's tension meter,
and I suspect many people, after building a few and getting the hang of it,
find themselves using P1ST (Park Tool's First ST)
as their reference without looking at the conversion table.
When I get comments like those at the beginning,
people sometimes say things like
"You don't even understand basic physics"
or "People who understand physics just laugh at you,"
but when I ask whether, based on that "basic physics,"
there's actually been anyone who's assembled and released a wheel into the world,
to my knowledge there isn't one (really, there isn't).
Without practice backing it up, it's nothing but "armchair theorist nonsense."
If you can, please go ahead and assemble a wheel and then tell me
that it's superior to what this fool Nomu Lab builds.
I've taken rear wheels from ZIPP, Reynolds, and Shimano and re-assembled them with the Nomu Lab method,
and I've never been told "it got worse,"
and there are plenty of cases where re-assembly has eliminated chain slap and such,
but the question is whether someone can build a wheel
with enough difference to be noticeable in feel
beyond my re-assembled Reynolds rear wheel, for example.
Also, ZIPP, Reynolds, and Shimano rear wheels are inferior
even to my physics-ignorant concepts.
This has been proven through practice.
It's not as though I lack ideas for exceeding the current Nomu Lab wheel,
but what I mainly want to do with them is
"freely determine hub dimensions"—the sort of thing only manufacturers can do.
But Campagnolo and Fulcrum Lightweight are already doing this (in different forms),
and they've released wheels that venture into territory impossible for hand-built wheels.
(Next tier: Mavic Ksyrium, etc. Other manufacturers mostly
have straight-gauge spokes—otherwise they're basically the same as hand-built wheels.
This is about wheel theory; ENVE, ZIPP, Reynolds, etc. are rim makers
so their rims are very excellent.)
If you could get a Bora One for around 50,000 yen,
there might be no need to build a Nomu Lab wheel.
Also, while I don't write the specifics here, I often ask customers:
"Between Nomu Lab Wheel No. ○ and a factory-built ××
you already own—which rolls faster? On flat? On climbs? Which has better snap?"
That's data collection for Third ST. Hehehehe.
"I think it's completely wrong to say that tension changes when different-diameter lacing is done. Since tension is balanced on both sides, there's no way it can change on just one side."
Yes, actually that statement itself is correct.
Separately from that,
"I'd also like you to stop using this arbitrary definition of 'the nth tension.'"
But that's not going to happen.
Today I'm writing about that stuff.
Today as well, doesn't count toward the wheel situation (details omitted).
I assembled the front wheel of Nomu Lab Wheel No. 5.
The rim has damage from the start, so it can't be sold as-is.
I plan to clean it up nicely later and re-assemble it into a non-saleable wheel.
Black hub 20H, all Champion reverse nipple radial lacing, and
not really worth mentioning separately, but I got the radial and lateral runout dialed in precisely—
centered dead-on.
So while it is all Champion,
one side is laced with 14-gauge plain, and the other side with 15-gauge plain.
I call the numerical value that appears on the tension meter "First Spoke Tension,"
and the spoke tension in the general sense that results from converting that to a conversion table
"Second Spoke Tension,"
but since I'm not forcing this on anyone,
if someone doesn't like it, they can just call my "Second ST" plain "spoke tension"
and build and evaluate wheels only within what they can understand that way.
There's no reason anyone should tell me to stop.
First ST is likewise a numerical value that changes with the magnitude of spoke tension,
so I treat it as a type of spoke tension,
and since I can determine Second ST from it (Second ST comes later),
I'm putting the general sense of spoke tension as number two.
For the wheel just mentioned, I assembled it so the Second ST would be around 1000N.
The reason I used 14-gauge plain and 15-gauge plain is
to be able to use Hozan's tension meter conversion table as-is.
At 1000N, Hozan's First ST (H1ST) is
130 for 14-gauge and 116 for 15-gauge.
Similarly, I also check the First ST on DT's tension meter (D1ST).
Of the three rows horizontally, the left is 15-gauge, the middle is 14-gauge, but
the Second ST value near 1000N is like this.
Hozan's conversion table goes from 1000N directly to 1300N, which is
practically too large a gap, so
I've separately researched what H1ST corresponds to when D1ST is around 1100N or 1200N.
For me, DT's tension meter is the "standard" so to speak,
and Hozan is for daily use.
DT has individual conversion tables for various butted spokes (being a spoke maker after all),
but as a practical tool, Hozan is simpler.
Although there's some variation in spoke tension (both First and Second),
I found a spoke on the 14-gauge side with H1ST of roughly 130.
Its D1ST should be 2.19, but
it was 2.16. Within the margin of error.
Hozan's conversion table from First ST to Second ST is limited to just three spoke gauges: 13, 14, and 15,
so for cases like Competizione or CX-RAY (treating it as the same as Aero Lite),
I need to create a conversion table using H1ST derived from their D1ST.
If the 14-gauge side reads 1000N in both H1ST and D1ST,
then the 15-gauge side should be around 116 in H1ST and around 1.77 in D1ST, but
I deliberately selected spokes from the variation that came out to about that.
What becomes clear from this is that when left-right different-diameter lacing is done,
the Second ST doesn't change.
However, since the spoke cross-section is different, the resistance to deformation differs.
A spoke's resistance to deformation isn't determined by Second ST alone—
cross-sectional area (gauge, spoke specific gravity) is also involved.
Wanting to quantify that as much as possible is what led me to conceive
Third ST, which is proprietary information so I won't write the details.
My actual evaluation criterion for assembled spokes is Third ST,
and the Third ST values correlate pretty well with
the general reputation of hand-built wheels assembled by me or others, as well as factory-built wheels,
so based on that I decide the spoke gauge and lacing method
for wheels that have dish (offset).
Therefore, the expression that left-right different-diameter lacing on a dished hub
corrects the difference in spoke tension was about Third ST, not Second ST. I apologize for that.
Actually, in past posts there are places where I've used the term spoke tension
meaning Third ST.
The rim's maximum specified tension is Second ST, but
if you only think about wheels in terms of Second ST,
you end up making the mistake of thinking:
"Since the spoke tension is the same, a front wheel with
1000N radial lacing assembled from Champion and one assembled from Revolution
will have the same stiffness," which is obviously not true.
Next, about "stop using these arbitrary definitions of nth tension."
Who cares. If you don't use it, that's all there is to it.
While I could leave it at just saying that, let me give an example of a wheel
that can't be assembled without the concept of First ST.
It's a Campagnolo aluminum spoke wheel, but initially I couldn't get
the documents shown above, so all I knew was:
"Among off-the-shelf rear wheels, very few reach H1ST of 240 on the freewheel side,
and tensioned examples hover around 235 in the tensioned phase"—
so when replacing the rim or tightening up, I used that as the reference.
Currently, I know that I can assemble the rear right with D1ST capped at 1.75
(but I still use the H1ST of 235 approach instead).
By the way, aluminum spokes score very highly in Third ST evaluation.
↑This is a Roval wheel's inspection sheet, and
the 0.41 and such at the very bottom of the image are the rear wheel's spoke tension.
And this is not Second ST, but D1ST.
Certainly, if you're assembling the same specs of wheels in quantity,
it's simpler to use First ST as the standard rather than needing to reference conversion tables
(this applies to Nomu Lab wheels too).
Also, I think a lot of amateur wheel builders use Park Tool's tension meter,
and I suspect many people, after building a few and getting the hang of it,
find themselves using P1ST (Park Tool's First ST)
as their reference without looking at the conversion table.
When I get comments like those at the beginning,
people sometimes say things like
"You don't even understand basic physics"
or "People who understand physics just laugh at you,"
but when I ask whether, based on that "basic physics,"
there's actually been anyone who's assembled and released a wheel into the world,
to my knowledge there isn't one (really, there isn't).
Without practice backing it up, it's nothing but "armchair theorist nonsense."
If you can, please go ahead and assemble a wheel and then tell me
that it's superior to what this fool Nomu Lab builds.
I've taken rear wheels from ZIPP, Reynolds, and Shimano and re-assembled them with the Nomu Lab method,
and I've never been told "it got worse,"
and there are plenty of cases where re-assembly has eliminated chain slap and such,
but the question is whether someone can build a wheel
with enough difference to be noticeable in feel
beyond my re-assembled Reynolds rear wheel, for example.
Also, ZIPP, Reynolds, and Shimano rear wheels are inferior
even to my physics-ignorant concepts.
This has been proven through practice.
It's not as though I lack ideas for exceeding the current Nomu Lab wheel,
but what I mainly want to do with them is
"freely determine hub dimensions"—the sort of thing only manufacturers can do.
But Campagnolo and Fulcrum Lightweight are already doing this (in different forms),
and they've released wheels that venture into territory impossible for hand-built wheels.
(Next tier: Mavic Ksyrium, etc. Other manufacturers mostly
have straight-gauge spokes—otherwise they're basically the same as hand-built wheels.
This is about wheel theory; ENVE, ZIPP, Reynolds, etc. are rim makers
so their rims are very excellent.)
If you could get a Bora One for around 50,000 yen,
there might be no need to build a Nomu Lab wheel.
Also, while I don't write the specifics here, I often ask customers:
"Between Nomu Lab Wheel No. ○ and a factory-built ××
you already own—which rolls faster? On flat? On climbs? Which has better snap?"
That's data collection for Third ST. Hehehehe.