J
jim beam
Guest
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.
> 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.