Carlton Reid on QR safety



James Annan wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >
> >
> > LOL. "My degree is bigger than yours" Vandeman-style.

>
> You were the one who brought up the subject of your being as a
> "scientist".


Non sequitur.

> > Zero
> > credibility.

>
> Yes, that seems a fair summary of your scientific background.


And here we have a concise summary of James Annan. Takes the data that
fits his view, and rejects the rest.

To real scientists, this is called "junk science".

Thanks for playing, James.

E.P.
 
jim beam wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> <snip drivel>
>> I see. And that situation is insurmountable? The designers are
>> incompetent to deal with that? Good heavens. Might as well go back
>> to V-brakes, dude. Oh wait, those are mounted on the front too- no
>> doubt there are millions of them being ripped off of forks even as we
>> speak.

>
> oh dear. sorry tim, zero points. do the math on the force at the brake
> bosses compared to a disk tab. look at the comparative size differences
> too and use that to estimate stress.


How can we "look at the size differences" on a non-existent design? That
stress is greater on rear mounted disk brake tabs than on cantilever bosses
is true, but irrelevant.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>James Annan wrote:
>>
>>>Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dvt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Any comment on the measured pullout forces in the paper referenced in
>>>>>this thread (and others)?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Any comment on the pullout forces with lawyers lips in place?
>>>>
>>>
>>>The value of the Howat paper is in addressing your first "doubt", that a
>>>properly-used QR can slip in normal use.
>>>James

>>
>>holy cow, that's a peach! /any/ fastener can slip if the force is great
>>enough. but if it's retention exceeds load, it doesn't! sensation! new
>>discovery!!!

>
>
> And since nobody has demonstrated that retention always exceeds load, even
> with properly fastened QRs, despite your repeated claims to the contrary,
> what do we conclude?
>

that they're missing the point. the much-vaunted "howat" paper shows
retention exceeding the "annan factor" by a substantial margin. but
we're not supposed to say that judging by the deafening silence on that
issue.
 
James Annan wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>


> >>>
> >>>I have read the claims, in this thread and others, that this design is
> >>>"dangerous". How can that possibly be true if no injuries have
> >>>resulted from it? Logic, James - nothing more.
> >>
> >>Do you think this standard of "verified injury" as a threshold for any
> >>action on the part of the manufacturers applies in law, or that it
> >>should apply in law?

> >
> >
> > You asked it twice, and I'm not going to play your fishing game.
> > Latching on to a phrase and trying to divert the conversation away from
> > direct testing of your hypothesis isn't going to work.
> >

>
> If you agree that the phrase is inappropriate and irrelevant to the
> matter then I'll happily agree with you and not mention it again. It was
> you who introduced it as a reason for dismissing the problem.


Err, no. Your reading comprehension problems are again surfacing. The
legal aspect is a red herring in any case.

If there is no injury in many thousands of hours of common usage, then
the thing in question can't seriously be called "dangerous".

> > Prove your hypothesis.

>
> I see no evidence that you understand either the first or third of those
> words.


Logical fallacy: ad hominem.

> In particular, you don't seem to have ever formulated any
> hypothesis, nor tested it (let along "proved" it) in your entire
> "scientific" career.


And yet, miraculously, I understand the scientific method well enough
to summarize for you. And the strangest part about that is that
first-year high school science students learn what constitutes the
scientific method almost as the first lesson. It's not terribly
arcane.

Oh, as to your comment - logical fallacy: ad hominem.

> Your empty pretence of a scientific background
> looks pretty silly now you've given your name.


Funny how I can possibly know anything about science, isn't it?

Logical fallacy: ad hominem.

When you can't answer the point, attack the person making the point.

Go ahead - show your experimental data (a statistically significant set
of samples would be grand) [this would be a "results" section], and
describe your methods and materials. [This is called the
"experimental" section.]. We already have plenty of introductory
background, I think. An abstract would be good for your website, too.
After you've done that, maybe you could "discuss" the results, and come
to some "conclusion."

Oh, and if you could, it'd be great if you could get some other
educated folks to look it over, just to "review" it some.

Heh.

E.P.
 
James Annan wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>
>> "interference between materials"??? "dead end"? so how come /i/ am
>> the poor dolt that had to point out that axle faces are serrated and
>> that subsequent indentation significantly increases retention force?
>> i can't see you bothering to point out such trivial details tim.
>>

>
> All I need to do is point to the pictures that jim beam so kindly
> provided:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/nishiki_before.jpeg
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/nishiki_indent.jpeg
>
> Of course, a particularly dull-witted person might not wonder why it is
> that someone (who?) bothered to scrape the paint off the dropout of an
> old fork that happened to be lying around, nor what the picture might
> have looked like had the fork end been left normally painted. But I
> think most people reading this thread will have got the message clearly
> enough.


eh? that's spectacular b.s. that is a fork i happened to have laying
about. the paint was already off. the snide implication that i somehow
"prepared" it to alter the result is as bogus as it is desperate. it
also shows incredible ignorance if you think a simple paint layer offers
any significant resistance to steel indentors.

i can see b.s. may be the only way you could have any come-back on the
evidence annan, but resorting to such a pathetic diversion is below even
you. integrity and credibility go hand in hand, in case you never
learned it before. [why did you leave scotland again?]

>
> Of course, for those who are still unconvinced, there is also Marvin's
> comment posted earlier:
>
> "Every new bike I assembled today, I checked before and after on the
> indentations. All of them embossed the paint to a fairly minor degree
> with a single clamping, repeated clampings on one test subject made
> them a little more obvious. None of them were to the same level as jim
> beam's example above."
>
>
> James


straw clutch city. that was from a single thumb-pressure application.
what now - suggest i have some kind of digital deformity and super-human
strength so the result can be "ignored"? do the math on the indentation
force. no, wait, /google/ for the math on the indentation force - it's
been done for you. but i warn you, you'll be straying into retention
force territory annan - you probably won't want to go there.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Ed Pirrero writes:
>
> >>>> The issue of loosening threaded fasteners is well-known in
> >>>> mechanical engineering. Perhaps you think that the laws
> >>>> governing such things are different for bicycles?

>
> >>> Yes it is as are the methods of preventing it - and two of those
> >>> methods are built into a standard QR. Perhaps you think those
> >>> measures work everywhere in engineering except bicycles

>
> >> Other brakes don't create an ejection force, and neither should
> >> disk brakes. Simple as that.

>
> > And there you have it. An *opinion*. Which is what most of this
> > argument boils down to, in the end.

>
> > Some force exists, and folks have opinions on how it should, or
> > should not, be addressed. While opinions are interesting, and
> > fodder for lengthy usenet discussions, they do not rise to the level
> > of fact or data.

>
> > The militant will vehemently disagree, of course. As always.

>
> How about a practical test.


[same non-data-producing "test" snipped]

While this test gives the antis a warm, fuzzy feeling all over, it
doesn't generate any real data on what the forces actually are for the
system. There is so much conjecture and so little real, actual, hard
data, that it's hard to take the conjecture very seriously.

Even for the vast array and abilities of the users of the current
system, it appears quite effective, if for no other reason than the
stunning lack of reported (not to say verified) injuries. I'm not even
sure that they would even rise above the statistical noise. It would
be nice to have actual data, such that the debate could be put to rest.

> As I see it a proper solution could be a motorcycle type clamped axle
> with a QR lever as the clamping element, making the wheel manually
> exchangeable and functionally safe. This can be accomplished in a way
> that even with the QR left open, the axle will merely rattle in place
> but not separate with brake application. For this, the through-axle
> would need a detent (groove) into which a spring loaded ball could
> register in the home position similar to indexing shift levers. QR
> levers at each fork blade would securely clamp the axle. In fact,
> with a close fit, only one end would require a closure lever.


The QR20 axle system is close to this.

Maybe all forks will be that way in 10 years. But until the problem is
backed with something more than a FBD and the opinions of some
usenetters, it seems somewhat unlikely.

Class action lawsuit, if one could round up a big enough class.

E.P.
 
jim beam wrote:
> James Annan wrote:


> >
> > http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/QRReport1.pdf
> >
> >
> > The Howat numbers are an order of magnitude lower than your risible
> > "calculation" of the retention ability of a QR that you made up
> > previously. They are similar to (often lower than) the estimated
> > ejection force.

>
> they're lower if the qr is not tightened sufficiently [go figure -
> obviously it would take a climatologist to work that one out] and
> substantially higher when tightened correctly.


Please define "tightened correctly", and describe how a rider can
achieve this with no tools. You may find it helpful to refer to
instructions provided by any QR manufacturer, or bike manufacturer, or
retailer. Note that your method to ensure that the skewer is "tightened
correctly" should guard against overtightening, as well as
undertightening.

James
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
>
>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Michael Press wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Other brakes don't create an ejection force, and neither should disk
>>>>>>brakes. Simple as that.
>>>>>
>>>>>And there you have it. An *opinion*. Which is what most of this
>>>>>argument boils down to, in the end.
>>>>
>>>>You can do the experiment.
>>>
>>>
>>>What new data does this experiment give?
>>>
>>>These sorts of hand-wavings don't address the root lack of data on why
>>>there is so little carnage.
>>>
>>>If the set-up were as bad as the detractors claim, there would be
>>>injuries to report. Where are they? Don't change the subject - just
>>>answer the question.

>>
>>There are - including the widely-publicised case of an experienced rider
>>who is now confined to a wheelchair

>
>
> I'm sorry - last time this was discussed, the mode of failure was still
> unknown. Where is the data that shows it was indeed a disk
> brake-related failure?
>


That's a pretty offensive attitude. It sure wasn't cantilever brakes
that caused Russ' crash.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
> > Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > >
> > > Zero
> > > credibility.

> >
> > Yes, that seems a fair summary of your scientific background.

>
> And here we have a concise summary of James Annan. Takes the data that
> fits his view, and rejects the rest.
>
> To real scientists, this is called "junk science".
>


How would you know what a "real scientist" would think? Have you ever
met one?

James
 
A Muzi wrote:
>> jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>> Hey jim - found those BROKEN brake bolts yet?
>>> You've decided they are unsafe - show us the evidence...

>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> i've told you before, answer my questions and i will. what are you
>> afraid of?

>
>
> 1.)The overwhelming bulk of brake center bolts have cut threads and


incorrect.

> 2.)failure is virtually unknown - even after being bent from hitting the
> downtube in a crash.


bending is not fatigue. rolled threads mitigate fatigue.

>
> Does anyone seriously dispute either statement?


see below.

>
> If I recall, Mr Beam asserted that brake bolts have rolled threads
> (which is a good idea, I suppose, but in the world we actually live
> in, they don't) and hasn't yet had either the opportunity to look at
> brake bolts closely or the grace to walk away from his hasty statement.
> Did I miss anything?


yes. see below.

>
> I looked at vintage and modern brake bolts a few weeks ago but tonight I
> shot a photo of a brand new Campagnolo Chorus caliper:
>
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/CHRCALIP.JPG
>
> Note that in the profile shot, the thread is clearly smaller than (cut
> from ) the body of the bolt. Rolled threads are raised above the base
> diameter.
>
> OK, is this over yet?


andrew, sorry, but that /is/ a rolled thread. you missed it, but i
posted a while ago on features to look for in differentiation of the two
types. google. in manufacture, part of the shank is reduced, then
rolled with the threads rising to the same nominal diameter as the
unreduced part. it's simple to understand when you see it being done.
/no/ mainstream manufacturer uses cut threads in this application -
fatigue mitigation.
 
James Annan wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>>James Annan wrote:
>>
>>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>
>>>>Zero
>>>>credibility.
>>>
>>>Yes, that seems a fair summary of your scientific background.

>>
>>And here we have a concise summary of James Annan. Takes the data that
>>fits his view, and rejects the rest.
>>
>>To real scientists, this is called "junk science".
>>

>
>
> How would you know what a "real scientist" would think? Have you ever
> met one?
>
> James
>

he is one annan. he's all over the web if you know who you're looking for.
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>Tim McNamara wrote:
>><snip drivel>
>>
>>>I see. And that situation is insurmountable? The designers are
>>>incompetent to deal with that? Good heavens. Might as well go back
>>>to V-brakes, dude. Oh wait, those are mounted on the front too- no
>>>doubt there are millions of them being ripped off of forks even as we
>>>speak.

>>
>>oh dear. sorry tim, zero points. do the math on the force at the brake
>>bosses compared to a disk tab. look at the comparative size differences
>>too and use that to estimate stress.

>
>
> How can we "look at the size differences" on a non-existent design?


eh? disk tabs and brake bosses exist. do we have a communication problem?

> That
> stress is greater on rear mounted disk brake tabs than on cantilever bosses
> is true, but irrelevant.


it's /highly/ relevant in fatigue!

>
 
James Annan wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>James Annan wrote:

>
>
>>>http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/QRReport1.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>The Howat numbers are an order of magnitude lower than your risible
>>>"calculation" of the retention ability of a QR that you made up
>>>previously. They are similar to (often lower than) the estimated
>>>ejection force.

>>
>>they're lower if the qr is not tightened sufficiently [go figure -
>>obviously it would take a climatologist to work that one out] and
>>substantially higher when tightened correctly.

>
>
> Please define "tightened correctly",


i refer you to your favorite paper, howat. or failing that, read
manufacturer instructions some time.

> and describe how a rider can
> achieve this with no tools.


read the shimano instructions. you /do/ read instructions don't you annan?

> You may find it helpful to refer to
> instructions provided by any QR manufacturer, or bike manufacturer, or
> retailer. Note that your method to ensure that the skewer is "tightened
> correctly" should guard against overtightening, as well as
> undertightening.


hmm, so when, in print, a manufacturer instructs a user to tighten "with
as much strength as possible", do you find that equivocal in any way?
do you seriously think you can break a qr by hand???

>
> James
>
 
A Muzi wrote:
>> jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>> How many BROKEN brake bolts have you seen?

>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> more than you evidently - the kid that'll call names but won't fight.
>> come on, be a man. come out to the parking lot and answer my questions.

>
>
> Oh, come on.
>
> In spite of some childish banter, brake bolts are overwhelmingly cut,
> not rolled. Anyone with a magnifying glass and a caliper can verify that.
>
> And failure is virtually unknown. Ask any bike mechanic. Bent? sure.
> Damaged threads? sure. Vise grip marks? sure. Broken? Can't recall the
> last time I saw one - it's been a long while.
>
> Here's a new Chorus caliper for those of you who do not have a bike handy:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/CHRCALIP.JPG
>
> Can we drop this now?


with respect andrew, you're mistaken in assuming shaft diameter is the
only indicator - it's not. the shank has to be reduced in the threaded
portion before rolling as the two sections need to be the same diameter
for fit purposes.
 
"jim beam" wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
> > Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >
> >>James Annan wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Zero
> >>>>credibility.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, that seems a fair summary of your scientific background.
> >>
> >>And here we have a concise summary of James Annan. Takes the data that
> >>fits his view, and rejects the rest.
> >>
> >>To real scientists, this is called "junk science".
> >>

> >
> >
> > How would you know what a "real scientist" would think? Have you ever
> > met one?
> >
> > James
> >

> he is one annan. he's all over the web if you know who you're looking for.


One sock puppet vouching for the credibility of another sock puppet!
Wow!

--
Tom Sherman
 
James Annan wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > James Annan wrote:
> > > Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Zero
> > > > credibility.
> > >
> > > Yes, that seems a fair summary of your scientific background.

> >
> > And here we have a concise summary of James Annan. Takes the data that
> > fits his view, and rejects the rest.
> >
> > To real scientists, this is called "junk science".
> >

>
> How would you know what a "real scientist" would think? Have you ever
> met one?


Have you?

E.P.
 
"jim beam" wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > "jim beam" who? wrote:
> >
> >>...
> >>oh, and since you obviously missed it countless times before, the reason
> >>for /not/ front mounting a caliper is FATIGUE. cast alloys such as
> >>those in forks and calipers ARE NOT GOOD IN TENSILE FATIGUE. that's a
> >>pretty fundamental omission from someone that seems to feel qualified to
> >>lecture on what comprises good engineering design.

> >
> >
> > Gee, the fork manufacturers could simply increase the size of the
> > protrusion that the disc brake caliper bolt threads into and the wall
> > thickness of the fork tubing in this area so the stresses from braking
> > are below those that will cause fatigue failure within the expected
> > lifespan of the fork (with a standard factor of safety). That is what
> > an ENGINEER would do.

>
> why would they do that? it's not just the fork material, it's the
> caliper material as well. it's pointless to increase the sprung mass
> when one can simply ensure loading is compressive, not tensile, as
> engineers through out the bicycle and motorcycle industries are now doing.
>
> >
> > A (former?) material scientist with an ax to grind [1] apparently has a
> > different approach.

>
> it's not different - go look in a motorcycle show room some time.


I am sure that I will find many motorcycles with downward facing, open
ended dropouts and quick-release skewers. [End Sarcasm].

--
Tom Sherman
 
jim beam wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >>James Annan wrote:

> >
> >
> >>>http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/QRReport1.pdf
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The Howat numbers are an order of magnitude lower than your risible
> >>>"calculation" of the retention ability of a QR that you made up
> >>>previously. They are similar to (often lower than) the estimated
> >>>ejection force.
> >>
> >>they're lower if the qr is not tightened sufficiently [go figure -
> >>obviously it would take a climatologist to work that one out] and
> >>substantially higher when tightened correctly.

> >
> >
> > Please define "tightened correctly",

>
> i refer you to your favorite paper, howat. or failing that, read
> manufacturer instructions some time.
>
> > and describe how a rider can
> > achieve this with no tools.

>
> read the shimano instructions. you /do/ read instructions don't you annan?


Yes, I do, which is why I asked you what you meant. And of course you
ducked the question, because you are making this up as you go along,
ducking and weaving as you go.

In fact, it is clear that the manufacturers' instructions do not
guarantee that the QR will withstand a disk brake force. For starters,
they do not instruct the user to chip all the paint off his fork
dropouts.

> > You may find it helpful to refer to
> > instructions provided by any QR manufacturer, or bike manufacturer, or
> > retailer. Note that your method to ensure that the skewer is "tightened
> > correctly" should guard against overtightening, as well as
> > undertightening.

>
> hmm, so when, in print, a manufacturer instructs a user to tighten "with
> as much strength as possible", do you find that equivocal in any way?


I find it worrying that any manufacturer would think it appropriate to
give such instructions.

> do you seriously think you can break a qr by hand???


That comment is particularly good timing, coming as it does just a few
days after someone in a different thread mentions a case of just this
happening. Are you actually claiming that it is not possible to
overtighten a QR?

First google hit:

-----
OVERTIGHTENING THE QUICK RELEASE MECHANISM MAY DAMAGE THE QUICK RELEASE
ASSEMBLY. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON CORRECT ADJUSTMENT OF THE QUICK
RELEASE TENSION, SEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW:

To properly close the quick release mechanism requires between 15
and 45 pounds of force. [55 to 200 Newton]. If the required closing
force is greater than 45 pounds, open the lever and loosen the
mechanism adjusting nut. Close the lever again.
-----

I know that Salsa give an explicit range of 24-30 pounds of force on
the QR lever.

So, how about that "correctly tightened" thing. Care to try again?

James
 
jim beam wrote:
> hmm, so when, in print, a manufacturer instructs a user to tighten "with
> as much strength as possible", do you find that equivocal in any way?
> do you seriously think you can break a qr by hand???


Interestingly (or maybe not), in the quick release instructions for my
Giant OCR, they described the necessary force as "leaving an impression
in the palm". Interesting because that force put excessive preload on
the wheel bearings and noticeably affected rolling resistance at low
speed. The wheels were supplied as set up by Shimano and the QR was the
matching Shimano model. In order to use Giant's recommended closure
force, I first had to back off the cones slightly so that bearing
preload was correct after closure.

Despite following the instructions to the letter it would appear that
not everyone is singing from the same hymn book. Indeed the initial
response from the LBS was to apply a little less force.

Jon
 
James Annan wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>James Annan wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>James Annan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/QRReport1.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The Howat numbers are an order of magnitude lower than your risible
>>>>>"calculation" of the retention ability of a QR that you made up
>>>>>previously. They are similar to (often lower than) the estimated
>>>>>ejection force.
>>>>
>>>>they're lower if the qr is not tightened sufficiently [go figure -
>>>>obviously it would take a climatologist to work that one out] and
>>>>substantially higher when tightened correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please define "tightened correctly",

>>
>>i refer you to your favorite paper, howat. or failing that, read
>>manufacturer instructions some time.
>>
>>
>>>and describe how a rider can
>>>achieve this with no tools.

>>
>>read the shimano instructions. you /do/ read instructions don't you annan?

>
>
> Yes, I do, which is why I asked you what you meant. And of course you
> ducked the question, because you are making this up as you go along,
> ducking and weaving as you go.


eh? you say: "describe how a rider can achieve this with no tools", i
quote the manufacturer instructions verbatim, and you start bleating
that i'm "ducking & weaving". holy **** annan, you got some serious
reality distortion issues going on there guy.

>
> In fact, it is clear that the manufacturers' instructions do not
> guarantee that the QR will withstand a disk brake force. For starters,
> they do not instruct the user to chip all the paint off his fork
> dropouts.


bwah bwah bwah. what other goal posts do you want to move?

>
>
>>>You may find it helpful to refer to
>>>instructions provided by any QR manufacturer, or bike manufacturer, or
>>>retailer. Note that your method to ensure that the skewer is "tightened
>>>correctly" should guard against overtightening, as well as
>>>undertightening.

>>
>>hmm, so when, in print, a manufacturer instructs a user to tighten "with
>>as much strength as possible", do you find that equivocal in any way?

>
>
> I find it worrying that any manufacturer would think it appropriate to
> give such instructions.


eh? which way do you want it annan?

>
>
>>do you seriously think you can break a qr by hand???

>
>
> That comment is particularly good timing, coming as it does just a few
> days after someone in a different thread mentions a case of just this
> happening. Are you actually claiming that it is not possible to
> overtighten a QR?
>
> First google hit:
>
> -----
> OVERTIGHTENING THE QUICK RELEASE MECHANISM MAY DAMAGE THE QUICK RELEASE
> ASSEMBLY. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON CORRECT ADJUSTMENT OF THE QUICK
> RELEASE TENSION, SEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW:
>
> To properly close the quick release mechanism requires between 15
> and 45 pounds of force. [55 to 200 Newton]. If the required closing
> force is greater than 45 pounds, open the lever and loosen the
> mechanism adjusting nut. Close the lever again.
> -----
>
> I know that Salsa give an explicit range of 24-30 pounds of force on
> the QR lever.
>
> So, how about that "correctly tightened" thing. Care to try again?
>
> James
>


that's an open cam skewer annan. we've discussed the failings of that
design before. oh, wait, you want to change the rules in the middle of
the game? sorry, my bad.

i mean this seriously - if you weren't such a jerk and played a straight
game, you'd stand a chance of making a contribution, but the way you're
acting now, like an abused 2 year old with an attention-seeking tantrum,
you're just pissing any chance of credibility away. why do you act up
like this? are you at risk of having to return to your homeland and the
beatings you received as a kid? i'd be interested to observe the
british climatology community's reaction to your employability.