> Following up on Jim's comments, I suggest that the probability of
> achieving a "perfect" Housel is nearly impossible. The reason is that
> the frame, when removed and reinserted, even if the orientation is the
> same, will not go in the exact same spot because of the spacing at
> either end of the topbar. If it displaces a few mm in either direction,
> you can end up with "improperly" oriented frames. Even the vertical
> spacing can change if the frame does not set down exactly as it had
> been. As can lateral displacement, but that would only increase spacing
> between frames.

I'm amazed this kind of noise gets approved. Totally out of context with
what the Housel positioning is about. It's comb orientation, not comb
spacing. Now we get a straw man thrown into the discussion only to muddy it
up further. You sure "nailed" this one!

Regards,
Barry