Carlton Reid on QR safety

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by James Annan, Feb 4, 2006.

  1. In article <[email protected]>,
    Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

    > jim beam wrote:
    > >
    > > it's nylocked /and/ serrated, therefore it /is/ designed to resist
    > > vibration.

    >
    > As recommended as two of the three ways to prevent vibration loosening
    > in the Bolt Science website that JA uses as the basis for his vibration
    > loosening theory. That bit always seems to be glossed over for some reason.


    We know how to secure threaded fasteners against
    vibration. The point is that it should never have been
    necessary.

    --
    Michael Press
     


  2. In article <[email protected]>,
    Ian Blake <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:15:42 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > >>

    > >
    > >so james, are you able to differentiate between someone that doesn't
    > >operate their qr correctly [user error] and design flaw? no? are you
    > >going to keep on ignoring the FACT that correctly fastened qr's retain
    > >wheels with a significant safety margin? [also ignoring the efficacy of
    > >lawyer lips of course.] until you can, you're simply the lunatic the
    > >industry is going to ignore.

    >
    > I resent the idea that I do not know how to tighten a QR on the front
    > wheel of one of my bicycles but a capable of tightening the other
    > five.
    >
    > My case
    >
    > I ride my disc equipped bike for a year with no problem at all. As
    > something ages the problems start. I do not suffer ejection despite
    > the absence of 'lawyers lips'. However occasionally after sharp
    > braking the wheel would move in the drop out causing the disc to rub
    > against the brake. So I would need to stop, reset the wheel and
    > tighten the QR. I conclude that maybe the problem is with the X-Lite
    > QR so I swap in a Shimano one from my bits box. The problem ceases
    > for a while but eventually the problem returns.
    >
    > Unfortunately I no longer have that fork. When I needed to replace it
    > I specified that the brake is mounted on the front of the right hand
    > fork. Problem solved.
    >
    > Your assertion that the problem does not exist is false. Although
    > thankfully like cancer the condition is rare.


    If the rear mounted disc brake caliper problem caused more
    frequent catastrophes than it does, the problem would be
    fixed by now. :(

    > However you seem to be
    > claiming 'None of my friends and family have cancer therefore nobody
    > has cancer' I apologise if anyone you know does. It remains correct
    > that we find solution to problems even if they do not apply to you.


    --
    Michael Press
     
  3. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    "James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > I recall an internet video clip whose link was (IIRC) posted on this
    > > group. It showed about four mountain bikers starting a ride in a
    > > parking lot. One guy tried to wheelie over a speed bump (or some such
    > > thing) and lost his front wheel completely. He apparently hadn't
    > > fastened his QR at all.
    > >
    > > This shows that, at least for some distances on certain terrains, a
    > > completely loose QR isn't necessarily obvious. I'd assume that for
    > > shorter distances in somewhat rougher terrain, a partially loose QR is
    > > also not obvious.

    >
    > IIRC this was at the end of a ride, the QR had actually broken at some
    > unknown point during the ride. Given the way that disk brake users often
    > describe routinely overtightening their skewers to keep the wheel in
    > place, it's hardly surprising that such failures happen. But anyway,
    > your point still stands.
    >


    No, I believe the one referenced above was definitely at the beginning of
    the ride and was attributed to user error.

    Greg
     
  4. Richard

    Richard Guest

    G.T. wrote:
    > "James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I recall an internet video clip whose link was (IIRC) posted on this
    >>>group. It showed about four mountain bikers starting a ride in a
    >>>parking lot. One guy tried to wheelie over a speed bump (or some such
    >>>thing) and lost his front wheel completely. He apparently hadn't
    >>>fastened his QR at all.
    >>>
    >>>This shows that, at least for some distances on certain terrains, a
    >>>completely loose QR isn't necessarily obvious. I'd assume that for
    >>>shorter distances in somewhat rougher terrain, a partially loose QR is
    >>>also not obvious.

    >>
    >>IIRC this was at the end of a ride, the QR had actually broken at some
    >>unknown point during the ride. Given the way that disk brake users often
    >>describe routinely overtightening their skewers to keep the wheel in
    >>place, it's hardly surprising that such failures happen. But anyway,
    >>your point still stands.
    >>

    >
    >
    > No, I believe the one referenced above was definitely at the beginning of
    > the ride and was attributed to user error.


    If I attempted to wheelie over a speed bump and lost my front wheel, it
    sure as hell would be the end of my ride, however far I'd gone. :)

    R.
     
  5. In article <[email protected]>,
    Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] says...
    >
    > >Loosening of the quick release nut from brake forces and
    > >rough terrain vibration. The quick release clamp is not
    > >designed for these conditions.

    >
    > You either have a defective design or improplery tightened QR's. QR's are
    > designed to hold your wheel in place under all riding conditions.


    No, they are not. They are not designed for the conditions
    I outlined. Many riders have testified that best quality
    quick release systems loosen after one mountain descent.

    A sign that you allow your critical faculties to lapse is
    your implication that I ride a bicycle where the quick
    release clamps spontaneously loosen.

    > I ride
    > over rough roads, NYC, and I also have a disc brake on the front wheel. I have
    > never had my QR come loose. The QR on this bike is one of those cheap made
    > in Taiwan jobs that is not as well made as shimano QR's.


    Many qualified riders with best equipment do see the quick
    release nuts loosen.

    > This leads me to
    > believe that your problem may be associated with user error.


    _My_ problem?

    --
    Michael Press
     
  6. JD

    JD Guest

    G.T. wrote:
    > jim beam wrote:
    > > eh? how does that effect grade or braking magnitude???

    >
    > Uhh, to loosen the QR you need to be braking a lot more than can be done
    > on those wimpy Marin hills.



    I think sending jim to Blowhard Mountain in UT would be appropriate in
    more ways than one.

    JD
     
  7. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    G.T. wrote:
    > "James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > [email protected] wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > > I recall an internet video clip whose link was (IIRC) posted on this
    > > > group. It showed about four mountain bikers starting a ride in a
    > > > parking lot. One guy tried to wheelie over a speed bump (or some such
    > > > thing) and lost his front wheel completely. He apparently hadn't
    > > > fastened his QR at all.
    > > >
    > > > This shows that, at least for some distances on certain terrains, a
    > > > completely loose QR isn't necessarily obvious. I'd assume that for
    > > > shorter distances in somewhat rougher terrain, a partially loose QR is
    > > > also not obvious.

    > >
    > > IIRC this was at the end of a ride, the QR had actually broken at some
    > > unknown point during the ride. Given the way that disk brake users often
    > > describe routinely overtightening their skewers to keep the wheel in
    > > place, it's hardly surprising that such failures happen. But anyway,
    > > your point still stands.
    > >

    >
    > No, I believe the one referenced above was definitely at the beginning of
    > the ride and was attributed to user error.
    >


    If you mean the one referenced here:

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/8f76c4a7d17c675d?hl=en&

    I was in email contact with the rider in question, and according to
    what I wrote at the time, it was a stripped QR. Of course the rider
    does not know exactly when it stripped - it doesn't seem particularly
    likely that it was at the precise moment of the crash, though, so
    Frank's point still stands.

    The video isn't at that url any more, but I could probably dig it up
    again. It's not particularly relevant other than to see the nasty
    nature of such a crash since even at a slow speed there is no time to
    react. I posted it in answer to the comments along the lines of "just
    do the QR up tighter" and "so what if it causes a crash, I fall off all
    the time". Doing the QR up too tight will cause these failures, and
    it's a far from typical crash, even at low speed.

    James
     
  8. jim beam

    jim beam Guest

    Tim McNamara wrote:
    > jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Tim McNamara wrote:
    >>
    >>>Or you could just mount the caliper on the leading side of the fork
    >>>and eliminate the need for the discussion entirely.

    >>
    >>no tim, it's bad deployment of both fork material and caliper
    >>material. compressive force [rear mounting] is much safer. which is
    >>why it's done.

    >
    >
    > We've been through that before, Jim, and it was pointed out to you
    > that the loading is the same on either side of the fork. The wheel
    > turns in a circle after all.


    same magnitude, different sign. tension != compression. a lot of
    castings are typically are rated for tensile fatigue load at only at 30%
    to 50% of their compressive fatigue load rating. hence, you put the tab
    on the rear. very simple.
     
  9. jim beam

    jim beam Guest

    G.T. wrote:
    > jim beam wrote:
    >
    >> G.T. wrote:
    >>
    >>> jim beam wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> [email protected] wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Benjamin Lewis writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I am not questioning the direction of the load, what I _am_
    >>>>>>>>> questioning is its magnitude in relation to the other loads
    >>>>>>>>> present. To find the value of the ejection force and the value
    >>>>>>>>> of the retaining forces we need to know the geometry of the whole
    >>>>>>>>> bike and rider.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I don't see why. All that is required is what I stated, the ratio
    >>>>>>>> of disk diameter to tire OD and the position of the caliper. The
    >>>>>>>> fore that the caliper puts on the fork relative to the wheel is as
    >>>>>>>> I stated, only caliper location is the matter at hand.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Except that there is a maximum force that be generated in this way,
    >>>>>>> and to find the maximum we need to consider the factors I've
    >>>>>>> mentioned.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Assuming a conventional upright bike, with wheelbase a little over
    >>>>>>> 1 metre, the maximum braking effort is found when the back wheel
    >>>>>>> lifts, at which point the retardation will be about 0.65g.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> You don't think you can momentarily spike the braking force above
    >>>>>> that without doing an endo?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Use your imagination. The rider is descending a bumpy trail, causing
    >>>>> intermittent lift-off. When he lands, the wheel skids and he bounces
    >>>>> again. Anyone who has some trail experience has heard and seen this
    >>>>> effect. It does not involve and end-over.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> so jobst, on my ride this sunday, i descended three sections of
    >>>> rocky trail that were so steep,
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Get back to us when you descend something for more than 30 seconds.
    >>>
    >>> Greg
    >>>

    >> eh? how does that effect grade or braking magnitude???

    >
    >
    > Uhh, to loosen the QR you need to be braking a lot more than can be done
    > on those wimpy Marin hills.
    >
    > Greg
    >


    duration != magnitude.
     
  10. jim beam

    jim beam Guest

    Ian Blake wrote:
    > On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:15:42 -0800, jim beam <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>so james, are you able to differentiate between someone that doesn't
    >>operate their qr correctly [user error] and design flaw? no? are you
    >>going to keep on ignoring the FACT that correctly fastened qr's retain
    >>wheels with a significant safety margin? [also ignoring the efficacy of
    >>lawyer lips of course.] until you can, you're simply the lunatic the
    >>industry is going to ignore.

    >
    >
    > I resent the idea that I do not know how to tighten a QR on the front
    > wheel of one of my bicycles but a capable of tightening the other
    > five.
    >
    > My case
    >
    > I ride my disc equipped bike for a year with no problem at all. As
    > something ages the problems start. I do not suffer ejection despite
    > the absence of 'lawyers lips'. However occasionally after sharp
    > braking the wheel would move in the drop out causing the disc to rub
    > against the brake. So I would need to stop, reset the wheel and
    > tighten the QR. I conclude that maybe the problem is with the X-Lite
    > QR so I swap in a Shimano one from my bits box. The problem ceases
    > for a while but eventually the problem returns.
    >
    > Unfortunately I no longer have that fork. When I needed to replace it
    > I specified that the brake is mounted on the front of the right hand
    > fork. Problem solved.
    >
    > Your assertion that the problem does not exist is false. Although
    > thankfully like cancer the condition is rare. However you seem to be
    > claiming 'None of my friends and family have cancer therefore nobody
    > has cancer' I apologise if anyone you know does. It remains correct
    > that we find solution to problems even if they do not apply to you.
    >
    >
    >

    ok, so it's you, james, and who else? is the auto industry going to
    recall all vehicles because the brake pedal is positioned next to the
    gas pedal so that someone can accidentally hit the wrong one? obviously
    not because most of us don't have a problem even though there may be
    incompetents out there. similarly, are we to recall the entire disk
    braked mtb world that happily rides with no problem whatsoever, just
    because /you/ "know how to use a qr but still had slippage"? it's the
    same as the senior that says "i was pressing the brake pedal, but the
    car just kept accelerating" after the crash. no one believes them
    either. it follows that you can "resent the idea" that you're not using
    the qr correctly all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that
    correctly deployed, this design is fine, as literally millions of
    rider-hours of usage shows.
     
  11. jim beam

    jim beam Guest

    Simon Brooke wrote:
    > in message <[email protected]>, jim beam
    > ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>Try it. Undo your quick release until it just releases over the
    >>>>lawyers lips and then do it up just enough to marginally retain the
    >>>>axle. Go test ride the bike carefully. Then tell me that it is not
    >>>>very obvious that the QR is undone. I know, I've forgotten to do up
    >>>>the QR on occasions when setting off and I have never got more than a
    >>>>few yard before it is very obvious something is wrong.
    >>>
    >>>So what? Even you can't deny that this wheel loss actually happens.

    >>
    >>i'll deny it for you james. wheel loss CANNOT happen on a fork with
    >>lawyer lips. sorry to point out something so fundamentally obvious and
    >>painful for you, but reality has to slap you in the face some day.

    >
    >
    > It can, and I've seen it. It happened to my next-door neighbour's eleven
    > year old son. The bike had V brakes, quick release and lawyer lips - but
    > was so badly set up that he /still/ managed to lose the front wheel when
    > pulling a wheelie to impress school friends. How he managed to lose a
    > front wheel on a fat tyre bike with V brakes amazed me, but he did it.
    >
    > Result: broken elbow, broken jaw. He's given up on mountain bikes and now
    > rides BMX(!).
    >

    how is it being "badly set up" evidence of design flaw? a loose stem
    bolt has similar consequences - it that a design flaw too? the list of
    similar examples is long and very boring.
     
  12. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    jim beam wrote:
    > James Annan wrote:


    > > Of course, you know full well that the Velotech lab demonstrated front
    > > wheel slippage under disk braking loads (pictures have been referenced
    > > here and discussed in past threads). In fact, they did it a few years
    > > before I had any interest in the subject.
    > >
    > > James

    >
    > what exactly does that do to show that you didn't omit to do a pullout
    > force calculation? all i see is you grasping at straws and citing a
    > conveniently hard to check "source", without context or content.


    What do you mean "hard to check"? I've already given you the full URL,
    and you've given feeble excuses as to why you couldn't possibly look at
    or comment on it. You should really x-no-archive your posts, or change
    your handle, if you don't want your embarrassing past to stick to you.

    James
     
  13. Michael Press writes:

    >>> it's nylocked /and/ serrated, therefore it /is/ designed to resist
    >>> vibration.


    >> As recommended as two of the three ways to prevent vibration
    >> loosening in the Bolt Science website that JA uses as the basis for
    >> his vibration loosening theory. That bit always seems to be
    >> glossed over for some reason.


    > We know how to secure threaded fasteners against vibration. The
    > point is that it should never have been necessary.


    I think the term "vibration" is misplaced here. It is not "vibration
    loosening" in that sense, but one caused by large reversing loads like
    those on right hand BB cups, pedals, and QR nuts. These parts can
    experience loads that move the threaded part from side to side in its
    clearance (it not being a press fit) and thereby induce small
    rotations in the preferred direction, which is looser rather than
    tighter (as plumbers know, shit flows downhill).

    This would occur whether there is an elastomer in the QR nut or not.
    The elastic stop nut feature is there to prevent losing adjustment
    when the QR is open, typically to remove or install the wheel. It has
    nothing to do with preventing rotation from axle movement in the
    dropout under reversing loads.

    Jobst Brandt
     
  14. jim beam

    jim beam Guest

    Simon Brooke wrote:
    > in message <[email protected]>, jim beam
    > ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>Loosening of the quick release nut from brake forces and
    >>>rough terrain vibration. The quick release clamp is not
    >>>designed for these conditions.
    >>>

    >>
    >>it's nylocked and serrated, therefore it is designed to resist
    >>vibration.

    >
    >
    > Uhhhmmm... walk that by me again. Are you saying that all mountain bike
    > quick release skewers are nylocked? Or have I misunderstood you?
    >

    yes, all the myb skewers i've seen are nylocked [as well as serrated].
     
  15. jim beam

    jim beam Guest

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

    >
    >
    >>>Of course, you know full well that the Velotech lab demonstrated front
    >>>wheel slippage under disk braking loads (pictures have been referenced
    >>>here and discussed in past threads). In fact, they did it a few years
    >>>before I had any interest in the subject.
    >>>
    >>>James

    >>
    >>what exactly does that do to show that you didn't omit to do a pullout
    >>force calculation? all i see is you grasping at straws and citing a
    >>conveniently hard to check "source", without context or content.

    >
    >
    > What do you mean "hard to check"? I've already given you the full URL,
    > and you've given feeble excuses as to why you couldn't possibly look at
    > or comment on it. You should really x-no-archive your posts, or change
    > your handle, if you don't want your embarrassing past to stick to you.
    >
    > James
    >

    post it here. [he said, noting that annan, for the Nth time, won't be
    drawn on the subject of the fatal flaw in his argument, that of
    neglecting pullout force calculations.]
     
  16. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

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

    > >
    > >
    > >>>Of course, you know full well that the Velotech lab demonstrated front
    > >>>wheel slippage under disk braking loads (pictures have been referenced
    > >>>here and discussed in past threads). In fact, they did it a few years
    > >>>before I had any interest in the subject.
    > >>>
    > >>>James
    > >>
    > >>what exactly does that do to show that you didn't omit to do a pullout
    > >>force calculation? all i see is you grasping at straws and citing a
    > >>conveniently hard to check "source", without context or content.

    > >
    > >
    > > What do you mean "hard to check"? I've already given you the full URL,
    > > and you've given feeble excuses as to why you couldn't possibly look at
    > > or comment on it. You should really x-no-archive your posts, or change
    > > your handle, if you don't want your embarrassing past to stick to you.
    > >
    > > James
    > >

    > post it here.


    http://tinyurl.com/dydby

    James
     
  17. jim beam wrote:
    > G.T. wrote:
    >
    >> jim beam wrote:
    >>
    >>> G.T. wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> jim beam wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> [email protected] wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Benjamin Lewis writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> I am not questioning the direction of the load, what I _am_
    >>>>>>>>>> questioning is its magnitude in relation to the other loads
    >>>>>>>>>> present. To find the value of the ejection force and the value
    >>>>>>>>>> of the retaining forces we need to know the geometry of the whole
    >>>>>>>>>> bike and rider.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I don't see why. All that is required is what I stated, the ratio
    >>>>>>>>> of disk diameter to tire OD and the position of the caliper. The
    >>>>>>>>> fore that the caliper puts on the fork relative to the wheel is as
    >>>>>>>>> I stated, only caliper location is the matter at hand.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Except that there is a maximum force that be generated in this way,
    >>>>>>>> and to find the maximum we need to consider the factors I've
    >>>>>>>> mentioned.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Assuming a conventional upright bike, with wheelbase a little over
    >>>>>>>> 1 metre, the maximum braking effort is found when the back wheel
    >>>>>>>> lifts, at which point the retardation will be about 0.65g.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You don't think you can momentarily spike the braking force above
    >>>>>>> that without doing an endo?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Use your imagination. The rider is descending a bumpy trail, causing
    >>>>>> intermittent lift-off. When he lands, the wheel skids and he bounces
    >>>>>> again. Anyone who has some trail experience has heard and seen this
    >>>>>> effect. It does not involve and end-over.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> so jobst, on my ride this sunday, i descended three sections of
    >>>>> rocky trail that were so steep,
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Get back to us when you descend something for more than 30 seconds.
    >>>>
    >>>> Greg
    >>>>
    >>> eh? how does that effect grade or braking magnitude???

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Uhh, to loosen the QR you need to be braking a lot more than can be
    >> done on those wimpy Marin hills.
    >>
    >> Greg
    >>

    >
    > duration != magnitude.


    Ummm...no... magnitude generally refers to a force vector, whereas force
    and distance (duration in this case) contribute to work.

    Massive force with little duration will more likely end up in either an
    endo or a skid when braking....moderate to high force for a long
    duration may cause work on a QR, but I have yet to see or experience any
    proof of this.

    Also, going from one side of the fork to the other, with the exception
    of how the force acts on the fork bottom (comprssion vs tension), really
    only rotates the forces acting on the axel and drop-outs by a few
    degrees (around the centre of te axel). As I've seen drop out angles
    vary by a few degrees depending on manufacturer, I think that there
    would be more than the QR's (i.e. type, style and manufacturer of fork)
    involved in any ejection scenario.

    Personally, I'm more convinced, especially with all the Walmart
    incidents, that human error is the more likely culprit in ejections.

    Psycho Mike
     
  18. jim beam wrote:
    > a lot of
    > castings are typically are rated for tensile fatigue load at only at 30%
    > to 50% of their compressive fatigue load rating. hence, you put the tab
    > on the rear. very simple.


    Rather, very simplistic.

    Again, you're showing your propensity for considering one factor and
    ignoring all else. In real life, designers balance many factors to
    achieve a good design.

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  19. Alex Rodriguez wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    >
    >
    >>Funny, in all the time I've been riding with quick releases, it has been
    >>a recommendation in the owners manual (even with v-brakes / cantilever
    >>brakes) to check the QR's before each ride.
    >>Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if something is designed to be
    >>quickly removable, shouldn't it be checked periodically to ensure that
    >>when you don't want it to be quickly removed, it won't come out?

    >
    >
    > If it requires more than a quick visual inspection, it is crap.
    >
    >
    >>I don't know about you, but I'm going to continute to check my QR's,
    >>headset and any other component that are vital to my bike's components
    >>before I ride, just like I do a walk around on the car so I don't drive
    >>on a flat if some punk slashed my tire.

    >
    >
    > If your QR's or headset are coming loose on there own, there is something wrong
    > with those parts. You should consider replacing them with something decent
    > that works properly.
    > ---------------
    > Alex
    >
    >

    Alex,

    I have yet to have any of them loosen, slip or otherwise need service
    (other than routine maintenance like annual servicing). But still, I
    carry out the recommended checks as a matter of habit (perhaps a throw
    back to my pre-flights checks when I was flying).

    Psycho Mike
     
  20. [email protected] wrote:
    > Michael Halliwell wrote:
    >
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>>Anyways, I think that checking the front quick release before each
    >>>ride might be a good idea. In fact, I think I'll go check it right
    >>>now...
    >>>

    >>
    >>You mean, like most manufacturers recommend before each ride in thier
    >>owners manuals?
    >>
    >>What a novel concept!

    >
    >
    > Do you _seriously_ open and shut your front QR before every ride??


    I don't remove the wheel before each ride, but I do check the alignment
    of the tab and that there is proper tension to resist opening, both
    front and rear.

    Frank, are you sure that with this problem (that I've never personally
    experienced, seen or heard of locally) that you don't want to check your
    QR's before you get on the bike?

    Psycho Mike
     
Loading...
Loading...