Re: Dumb question #3 - counting gears
Frank Krygowski writes:
>>>> "Defective Cycling" is a great one for half truths and misleading
>>> I do not agree with every word in that book. However, most of it is
>>> definitely correct, in my experience.
>>>> John Howard pandered to the plaintiffs claims as well brining us
>>>> "lawyer lips" long before the disk brake fiasco made them somewhat
>>> My guess is you're confusing John Howard (who is not mentioned
>>> above) with John Schubert (who is). They are not the same person.
>> Not at all. John Howard testified in a case where a rider claimed he
>> had properly closed a QR and that the wheel came out after he had
>> ridden some insignificant distance. John Howard testified that as a
>> professional racer he was aware the QR's work loose and the the claim
>> of the plaintiff was valid. The result at that time were lawyer lips
>> on dropouts of less expensive bicycles. Only later when wheel
>> separations occurred on MTB's with disk brakes did these devices
>> become common and meaningful. Road racers still want to drop a wheel
>> out fast and install a replacement one without these retention ridges
>> and they do so.
>> Besides, when I see an expert witness outright lie in a law suit, it
>> destroys his credibility altogether for me. "I was lying then, but
>> now I'm telling the truth." What can you believe? I get involved in
>> these cases only when I see grave harm being done to the bicycle
>> business, be that a retail shop or a major manufacturer. The retail
>> shop is the cruelest one where there is no deep pockets and insurance,
>> if it must pay, will often pull the plug or raise the premium beyond
>> what the shop can afford.
> I understand. And, FWIW, I wouldn't trust John Howard on anything
> but, perhaps, advice on building a world-record motor pacing bike -
> even though it's not impossible for such a person to give valid
> advice on other matters.
> What I meant, though, was that the list of sources I cited did not
> include John Howard.
Well I have run into Sloan, Green, and Forester, all testifying to BS
that would fool a jury unless someone explained why their story was
untrue. These were up to million dollar damage claims.
OK, so you need to hear the typical story:
I came across Forester more than once, the most recent time was about
a sponsored MTB racer who made up a **** and bull story how a flat
front tire caused his fall, claiming the flat was caused by a faulty
rim strip that cut the tube. In fact he rode with too low inflation
pressure on a knobby large cross section tire after muddy trails,
descending a paved road where he rolled the tire that did not separate
from the rim.
When such a tire rolls to one side it gets snake bite cuts, not on the
side as though you were to pinch your cheek, but on the underside as
if you were to pinch your adam's apple. Visualize pinching under the
chin and leaning the head to one side as the tire did. This causes
the underside of the tube to get pinched.
The tube was about half the size of the tire volume, so when inflated
it was far larger than deflated. The pinch slits caused by rolling
forward while lying to one side were spaced about as far apart as the
rim strip was wide. Hence a plausible cause to an uninitiated viewer.
What doesn't work is that the tube would have cuts half as far apart
as the width of the tape (if it had been the cause) when inspected
because it shrank to its un-inflated size and would have marks half a
wide as the rim tape width. Beyond that, pinch flats always have an
impression of the bias ply casing embossed into the rubber leaving
characteristic cloth markings.
Above and beyond that, the rider lied about the circumstances,
something that was brought out by the service log of the rescue crew
that picked him up... at home instead of painfully lying on the road
at the scene as he claimed. Meanwhile he cooked up the story so he
could explain his crash to his peers as being someone else's fault.
In court, grazing incident photos clearly showed the cloth marks,
cited the circumstances under which they were made along with the
reconnaissance of the crash scene where there was a pot hole in the
apex of the turn that had to be avoided by cutting inside of it. This
rolled the tire.
All this didn't seem to bother Forester who, if he is as astute as he
puts forth, should have recognized the whole scenario as I did. His
claims did not hold up under scrutiny. The bicycle shop was spared