M
Mike S.
Guest
"James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mike S. wrote:
> > . Further independent testing and examination
> >
> >>has verified- in a preliminary fashion at least- both the ejection force and the loosening
> >>of QRs.
> >>
> >
> > When was the last time a QR came undone spontaneously? Snagged on
trees,
> > bushes, bashed on rocks, yes. Loosen completely on its own? Hmmm...
don't
> > think so.
>
> I received this by email recently, from a shop owner who was setting up a bike for a customer:
>
> "Well, just in the parking lot, the disc will demonstrably begin to pull the wheel out of the drop
> out. A few on-off cycles of braking and the nut can be seen backing off, if you keep it up, the QR
> is loose enough to clear the lawyer tabs in just a minute of this action, mind you just in the
> parking lot."
>
> I guess that particular parking lot has more than its fair share of rocks and bushes to snag the
> lever on.
>
> Ben Cooper is another shop owner who has done similar tests and found a correctly fastened skewer
> loosening repeatedly under very light use. If you massively overtighten the skewer, as many MTBers
> have learnt by experience to do, you can reduce the likelihood of this occurring but there is no
> way of knowing in advance how tight is tight enough, nor how much this overtensioning increases
> the likelihood of snapping the skewer, another `operator error' that can have very serious
> consequences.
>
> James
>
Now, if I were to go to any of the shops here in San Diego, grab a bike off the rack, roll it out,
and test it, chances are I'll find that the QR probably isn't going to move. Just like people can
quote the Bible to say pretty well whatever they want, a few "tests" being quoted doesn't a
scientific paper make.
In the years that I've been riding discs, I have not one time, I say again, NOT ONE TIME, have had a
QR either come loose, or the wheel move in the dropouts. Am I extremely cautious? Nope. Am I riding
DH? No to that one too. Am I a competent to tighten a QR without supervision? I guess so.
I don't dispute that there's something going on, but it seems to me that the current setup is
adequate for the majority of riders. That there are a few failures out there doesn't surprise me.
Given a big enough statistical sample, there's going to be a failure in anything.
So, to answer Jobst here, yes I believe that the current setup is adequate. Is it perfect? God no.
Could the interface be better designed? Probably. Do I think it will be? Probably not any time soon.
So, all you that believe that there's an inherent problem in the design, what is the proposition for
fixing the situation? Remember that this design has to work with conventional wheels.
Mike
> Mike S. wrote:
> > . Further independent testing and examination
> >
> >>has verified- in a preliminary fashion at least- both the ejection force and the loosening
> >>of QRs.
> >>
> >
> > When was the last time a QR came undone spontaneously? Snagged on
trees,
> > bushes, bashed on rocks, yes. Loosen completely on its own? Hmmm...
don't
> > think so.
>
> I received this by email recently, from a shop owner who was setting up a bike for a customer:
>
> "Well, just in the parking lot, the disc will demonstrably begin to pull the wheel out of the drop
> out. A few on-off cycles of braking and the nut can be seen backing off, if you keep it up, the QR
> is loose enough to clear the lawyer tabs in just a minute of this action, mind you just in the
> parking lot."
>
> I guess that particular parking lot has more than its fair share of rocks and bushes to snag the
> lever on.
>
> Ben Cooper is another shop owner who has done similar tests and found a correctly fastened skewer
> loosening repeatedly under very light use. If you massively overtighten the skewer, as many MTBers
> have learnt by experience to do, you can reduce the likelihood of this occurring but there is no
> way of knowing in advance how tight is tight enough, nor how much this overtensioning increases
> the likelihood of snapping the skewer, another `operator error' that can have very serious
> consequences.
>
> James
>
Now, if I were to go to any of the shops here in San Diego, grab a bike off the rack, roll it out,
and test it, chances are I'll find that the QR probably isn't going to move. Just like people can
quote the Bible to say pretty well whatever they want, a few "tests" being quoted doesn't a
scientific paper make.
In the years that I've been riding discs, I have not one time, I say again, NOT ONE TIME, have had a
QR either come loose, or the wheel move in the dropouts. Am I extremely cautious? Nope. Am I riding
DH? No to that one too. Am I a competent to tighten a QR without supervision? I guess so.
I don't dispute that there's something going on, but it seems to me that the current setup is
adequate for the majority of riders. That there are a few failures out there doesn't surprise me.
Given a big enough statistical sample, there's going to be a failure in anything.
So, to answer Jobst here, yes I believe that the current setup is adequate. Is it perfect? God no.
Could the interface be better designed? Probably. Do I think it will be? Probably not any time soon.
So, all you that believe that there's an inherent problem in the design, what is the proposition for
fixing the situation? Remember that this design has to work with conventional wheels.
Mike