Anodizing effect on fatigue life of aluminum alloy



M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]m>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
> > errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
> > from anyone purporting to be an engineer.

>
> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
>
> > ... not only do you defend
> > these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!

>
> :) This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
> it's hilarious!
>
>
> > a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
> > tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....

>
> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?


H2 is much larger than He.

--
Michael Press
 
J

Jay Beattie

Guest
On Apr 25, 10:28 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]m>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > jobst, let's get this straight.  you have made a series of fundamental
> > > errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
> > > from anyone purporting to be an engineer.

>
> > And  yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
> > Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
> > and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.

>
> > >  ... not only do you defend
> > > these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!

>
> > :)  This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
> > it's hilarious!

>
> > > a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking.  a spoke
> > > tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....

>
> > Welds cannot be designed to resist tension?  No bicycle parts are
> > cast?  Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?

>
> H2 is much larger than He.
>


The use of lower case letter in a proper name. Where will it all end?
-- Jay Beattie.
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Apr 25, 10:28 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email protected]m>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > > > jobst, let's get this straight.  you have made a series of fundamental
> > > > errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
> > > > from anyone purporting to be an engineer.

> >
> > > And  yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
> > > Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
> > > and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.

> >
> > > >  ... not only do you defend
> > > > these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!

> >
> > > :)  This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
> > > it's hilarious!

> >
> > > > a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking.  a spoke
> > > > tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....

> >
> > > Welds cannot be designed to resist tension?  No bicycle parts are
> > > cast?  Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?

> >
> > H2 is much larger than He.

>
> The use of lower case letter in a proper name. Where will it all end?


I am not ready for it to end. Let's hang in a bit longer.

--
Michael Press
 
J

jim beam

Guest
_ wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:46:58 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.

>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
>>
>>> ... not only do you defend
>>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!

>> :) This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
>> it's hilarious!
>>
>>
>>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
>>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....

>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>

>
> No brake bolts or QR spindles are made with cut threads?


shimano? campy? tektro? mavic? not a single cut thread there.


>
> Crank cotters are tightened with the nut?


sure they are. in the real world.


>
> Profanity is a complete refutation of facts? (ooops, you did that one
> already...)


funny - watching the educationally challenged compete to be holier than
thou! but i guess they have nothing else at which they could excel.
 
J

jim beam

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]m>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.

>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
>>
>>> ... not only do you defend
>>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!

>> :) This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
>> it's hilarious!
>>
>>
>>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
>>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....

>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?

>
> H2 is much larger than He.
>


in the chosen world of michael press. because he gets to exclude facts
that don't suit him!
 
?

_

Guest
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:49:37 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>>

>>
>> No brake bolts or QR spindles are made with cut threads?

>
> shimano? campy? tektro? mavic? not a single cut thread there.
>
>


Examples - complete with photos - were posted. You're just being wilfully
ignorant again.
 
J

jim beam

Guest
_ wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:49:37 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>>>
>>> No brake bolts or QR spindles are made with cut threads?

>> shimano? campy? tektro? mavic? not a single cut thread there.
>>
>>

>
> Examples - complete with photos - were posted. You're just being wilfully
> ignorant again.


boring ass. all the above are rolled. we've done all this before. use
google.
 
?

_

Guest
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:34:22 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> _ wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:49:37 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>>>>
>>>> No brake bolts or QR spindles are made with cut threads?
>>> shimano? campy? tektro? mavic? not a single cut thread there.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Examples - complete with photos - were posted. You're just being wilfully
>> ignorant again.

>
> boring ass. all the above are rolled. we've done all this before. use
> google.


No they weren't - I posted the photos, you can't even look at a thread and
tell if it's cut or rolled.

And I see that you are back to using profanity as a refutation of fact.
You done *that* before, it's true...
 
On Apr 25, 9:47 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
> >> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
> >> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.

>
> > And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
> > Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
> > and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.

>
> oh, it's easy to be an engineer on r.b.t! simply /call/ yourself an
> engineer...


Alternately, one could get the education, do the practice, qualify
for, take, and ace the exam for a Professional Engineer's license, and
get licensed in a couple states. That's what I did.

How about you?


> > No bicycle parts are
> > cast?

>
> name one! thixoforming is not casting.


Name yet _another_ one? Previously, I gave links to several companies
casting many bike parts. And it takes only one counterexample to
disprove your claim that no bike parts are cast.

But here's yet another one: http://www.asiancastings.com/bicycle_parts.htm

- Frank Krygowski
 
J

jim beam

Guest
_ wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:34:22 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> _ wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:49:37 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>>>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No brake bolts or QR spindles are made with cut threads?
>>>> shimano? campy? tektro? mavic? not a single cut thread there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Examples - complete with photos - were posted. You're just being wilfully
>>> ignorant again.

>> boring ass. all the above are rolled. we've done all this before. use
>> google.

>
> No they weren't - I posted the photos, you can't even look at a thread and
> tell if it's cut or rolled.


do you also think the mood is made of cheese? because if you don't know
better, you wouldn't be able to say otherwise.

bottom line, yes you can. or rather, if you know what you're looking at
you can. ignorance and inexperience don't allow you to misstate facts.


>
> And I see that you are back to using profanity as a refutation of fact.
> You done *that* before, it's true...


"ass" is hardly much of a profanity. btw, who used that word here first?
 
J

jim beam

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 25, 9:47 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
>>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
>>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
>>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
>>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
>>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.

>> oh, it's easy to be an engineer on r.b.t! simply /call/ yourself an
>> engineer...

>
> Alternately, one could get the education, do the practice, qualify
> for, take, and ace the exam for a Professional Engineer's license, and
> get licensed in a couple states. That's what I did.
>
> How about you?


got your ticket punched krygowski? that's amazing for a guy that
doesn't know what a casting is, but thinks he's qualified to lecture on
the subject.



>
>
>>> No bicycle parts are
>>> cast?

>> name one! thixoforming is not casting.

>
> Name yet _another_ one? Previously, I gave links to several companies
> casting many bike parts. And it takes only one counterexample to
> disprove your claim that no bike parts are cast.


but none of them are castings!!! the metallurgy is completely
different!!! have you /never/ used a microscope???


>
> But here's yet another one: http://www.asiancastings.com/bicycle_parts.htm


thixoforming krygowski. we've been here before. but it's a metallurgy
thing so think you have a right to remain ignorant even when shown the
facts. blathering great idiot.
 
J

jim beam

Guest
jim beam wrote:
> _ wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:34:22 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> _ wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:49:37 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>>>>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No brake bolts or QR spindles are made with cut threads?
>>>>> shimano? campy? tektro? mavic? not a single cut thread there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Examples - complete with photos - were posted. You're just being
>>>> wilfully
>>>> ignorant again.
>>> boring ass. all the above are rolled. we've done all this before.
>>> use google.

>>
>> No they weren't - I posted the photos, you can't even look at a thread
>> and
>> tell if it's cut or rolled.

>
> do you also think the mood


"moon"

> is made of cheese? because if you don't know
> better, you wouldn't be able to say otherwise.
>
> bottom line, yes you can. or rather, if you know what you're looking at
> you can. ignorance and inexperience don't allow you to misstate facts.
>
>
>>
>> And I see that you are back to using profanity as a refutation of fact.
>> You done *that* before, it's true...

>
> "ass" is hardly much of a profanity. btw, who used that word here first?
 
G

Gary Young

Guest
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:08:39 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 9:47 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of
>>>>> fundamental errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are
>>>>> just ridiculous from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
>>>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
>>>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an
>>>> engineer, and lacks the background to understand much of the
>>>> discussions anyway.
>>> oh, it's easy to be an engineer on r.b.t! simply /call/ yourself an
>>> engineer...

>>
>> Alternately, one could get the education, do the practice, qualify for,
>> take, and ace the exam for a Professional Engineer's license, and get
>> licensed in a couple states. That's what I did.
>>
>> How about you?

>
> got your ticket punched krygowski? that's amazing for a guy that
> doesn't know what a casting is, but thinks he's qualified to lecture on
> the subject.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>> No bicycle parts are
>>>> cast?
>>> name one! thixoforming is not casting.

>>
>> Name yet _another_ one? Previously, I gave links to several companies
>> casting many bike parts. And it takes only one counterexample to
>> disprove your claim that no bike parts are cast.

>
> but none of them are castings!!! the metallurgy is completely
> different!!! have you /never/ used a microscope???
>
>
>
>> But here's yet another one:
>> http://www.asiancastings.com/bicycle_parts.htm

>
> thixoforming krygowski. we've been here before. but it's a metallurgy
> thing so think you have a right to remain ignorant even when shown the
> facts. blathering great idiot.


You mean like in that photo of the guy pouring molten metal from a bucket
into a mold? That's thixoforming?
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email protected]m>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
> >>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
> >>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
> >> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
> >> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
> >> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
> >>
> >>> ... not only do you defend
> >>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!
> >> :) This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
> >> it's hilarious!
> >>
> >>
> >>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
> >>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....
> >> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
> >> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?

> >
> > H2 is much larger than He.
> >

>
> in the chosen world of michael press. because he gets to exclude facts
> that don't suit him!


You misspelled my name.

You cannot support the claim about the relative sizes of H2 and He.

--
Michael Press
 
J

jim beam

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <[email protected]m>,
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
>>>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
>>>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
>>>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
>>>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
>>>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> ... not only do you defend
>>>>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!
>>>> :) This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
>>>> it's hilarious!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
>>>>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....
>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>> H2 is much larger than He.
>>>

>> in the chosen world of michael press. because he gets to exclude facts
>> that don't suit him!

>
> You misspelled my name.


no i didn't!


>
> You cannot support the claim about the relative sizes of H2 and He.
>



and you're retreating to the last argument you lost? that's not too smart.
 
On Apr 26, 2:08 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 9:47 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> oh, it's easy to be an engineer on r.b.t! simply /call/ yourself an
> >> engineer...

>
> > Alternately, one could get the education, do the practice, qualify
> > for, take, and ace the exam for a Professional Engineer's license, and
> > get licensed in a couple states. That's what I did.

>
> > How about you?

>
> got your ticket punched krygowski?


It's not an easy ticket to get punched. But, to repeat the question:
How about you? Registered PE, or no?


> that's amazing for a guy that
> doesn't know what a casting is, but thinks he's qualified to lecture on
> the subject.


Well, _one_ of us doesn't know what casting is, that's for sure!

> > But here's yet another [cast bicycle part]: http://www.asiancastings.com/bicycle_parts.htm

>
> thixoforming krygowski. we've been here before.


Indeed, we have, back when you previously lost the argument.

So, where on that page does it use the word "thixoforming"?
Alternately, what sources do you have that claim investment casting is
not _casting_?

One of my bike friends is a manager of a company that investment casts
turbine blades. He'd be astonished to learn that what they do is
somehow not casting!

- Frank Krygowski
 
T

Tom Sherman

Guest
[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2:08 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 25, 9:47 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> oh, it's easy to be an engineer on r.b.t! simply /call/ yourself an
>>>> engineer...
>>> Alternately, one could get the education, do the practice, qualify
>>> for, take, and ace the exam for a Professional Engineer's license, and
>>> get licensed in a couple states. That's what I did.
>>> How about you?

>> got your ticket punched krygowski?

>
> It's not an easy ticket to get punched. But, to repeat the question:
> How about you? Registered PE, or no?
>

I thought they gave those out to almost anybody? ;)

>
>> that's amazing for a guy that
>> doesn't know what a casting is, but thinks he's qualified to lecture on
>> the subject.

>
> Well, _one_ of us doesn't know what casting is, that's for sure!
>

But is an expert in trolling!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <[email protected]m>,
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
> >>>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
> >>>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
> >>>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
> >>>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
> >>>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>>> ... not only do you defend
> >>>>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!
> >>>> :) This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
> >>>> it's hilarious!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
> >>>>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....
> >>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
> >>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
> >>> H2 is much larger than He.
> >>>
> >> in the chosen world of michael press. because he gets to exclude facts
> >> that don't suit him!

> >
> > You misspelled my name.

>
> no i didn't!


Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

> > You cannot support the claim about the relative sizes of H2 and He.

>
> and you're retreating to the last argument you lost? that's not too smart.


Winning and losing? H2 and He molecules are the same size.
Their van der Waals b parameters are 2.65e-5 and 2.34e-5 m^3/mole
respectively. Nothing like much larger as you said.

--
Michael Press
 
J

jim beam

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <[email protected]m>,
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> jobst, let's get this straight. you have made a series of fundamental
>>>>>>> errors, which while not apparent to the layperson, are just ridiculous
>>>>>>> from anyone purporting to be an engineer.
>>>>>> And yet, the majority of engineers posting here tend to agree with
>>>>>> Jobst and disagree with jim beam - who, of course, is not an engineer,
>>>>>> and lacks the background to understand much of the discussions anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... not only do you defend
>>>>>>> these mistakes, you do so with abusive derision!!!
>>>>>> :) This is so far beyond "the pot calling the kettle black" that
>>>>>> it's hilarious!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a dye penetrant test does not determine a cause of cracking. a spoke
>>>>>>> tension gauge needs to account for spoke thickness....
>>>>>> Welds cannot be designed to resist tension? No bicycle parts are
>>>>>> cast? Profanity is essential in a technical discussion?
>>>>> H2 is much larger than He.
>>>>>
>>>> in the chosen world of michael press. because he gets to exclude facts
>>>> that don't suit him!
>>> You misspelled my name.

>> no i didn't!

>
> Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
>
>>> You cannot support the claim about the relative sizes of H2 and He.

>> and you're retreating to the last argument you lost? that's not too smart.

>
> Winning and losing? H2 and He molecules are the same size.
> Their van der Waals b parameters are 2.65e-5 and 2.34e-5 m^3/mole
> respectively. Nothing like much larger as you said.
>


so that's why they have different diffusion rates??? tell me, what are
the diffusion rates for both through rubber and through steel? that's
public data. cite and explain.
 
On Apr 28, 12:24 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> outside of lugs, [and even then, not all lugs],
> >> name a single cast bike component. [this is going to be fun!]

>
> > :) How about this one:

>
> >http://www.asiancastings.com/bicycle_parts.htm

>
> > Look familiar? It's a "handlebar bracket." It's not a lug.

>
> how many "cast" parts on your bike krygowski?


:) Funny! jim beam asks for "a single cast bike component." I
provide him with a single cast bike component - the very one I'd
linked to in the previous post.

But we don't hear "Well, OK, that is a casting after all; I was
wrong." Instead, we get a demand for a cast part on _my_ bike.

What's next, jim, a demand for a cast part on the front half of my
bike? A cast part on the front half of my bike between 20" and 30"
above the ground? A cast part facing due north?

> how about your seat post?
> your brakes? your crank? your handlebars? your stem? your
> fasteners? come on idiot, be /real/ specific.


:) People are also supposed to be real specific about whether
they're engineers or not. Until it turns out I am, and you are not.

Here's another link:

http://www.allproducts.com/manufacture12/goldenpond/p6.html

Note the cast brake levers, brake lever bodies, brake arms, and
pedals.

Oh, and I've got several bikes. Each of those components I just
mentioned are on at least one of my bikes.

Not that it matters much. Your original claim was "No bike parts are
cast."

But you still don't have enough class to admit you were very, very
wrong. Again.

- Frank Krygowski