Tim McNamara <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected]
> (Spider) wrote:
>
> > Tim McNamara <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<
[email protected]>...
> > > In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Spider)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Solid hypotheses and theories will withstand pointed questions. In fact, pointed questions
> > > > can serve to bolster them. Those familiar with science understand this.
> > >
> > > Annan's hypothesis withstands such questions.
> >
> > Actually, it doesn't. It may fall on the basis of whether or not the QR unscrewing mechanism is
> > repeatable, and *under what conditions.*
>
> That part of the hypothesis is gaining support, as has been already discussed.
It's pretty faint support, at this time. I prefer to wait until the full experiment is detailed
fully before I call it "support."
> That's not surprising, since the dynamics of the unscrewing of the QR nut is consistent with
> well-known principles.
Unscrewing of threaded fasteners? Sure. Except that I don't read anything about unscrewing of
*knurled*, cam-tightened ones.
> (Not, I hasten to add, that they were particularly well-known to me before this discussion. I've
> been observing nuts and bolts coming loose for many years without knowing what caused it).
Same here. Vibrational loosening on various equipment around the farm was par for the course. Blue
Loctite solved a lot of those.
> > > The problem is that most of the "pointed questions" to date are not in fact questions but
> > > instead are ad hominem attacks.
> >
> > This, of course, is unadulterated B.S. Nowhere have I attacked James, I have just asked
> > questions where I see there to be holes or clarifications.
>
> You're personalizing my comments and misconstruing them.
[snip continued explanation]
Your putting my words in quote, so I'm assuming you're talking about
me. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw?
Again, this explanation is a red herring. It does not address a single one of my questions, nor does
it do anything to clarify the problem.
> > This is not a personal thing, but a desire to really see what's going on here. I do not know
> > yet how large a design compromise the vertical drop-out/rear-caliper disk brake set-up happens
> > to be.
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. We're talking about the front brake.
I meant to say "rear caliper placement" As in to the rear of the fork leg. My apologies for not
being clear.
> The standard placement for the rear disk brake does not create problems. As far as design
> compromise, all that has to be done is to move the caliper ahead of the fork leg, which will
> result in a retention force rather than an ejection force. End of problem. It would cost no more
> to make a fork with that mounting than the current design.
I agree. All well and good, except: what to do about all the forks already out there? James wants a
recall. Not going to happen without much more solid *evidence* (as opposed to force diagrams.)
> > > I suppose people don't like thinking they've been hoodwinked into spending a lot of money of a
> > > faulty product, and irrationally they attack the person who has pointd out the flaw instead of
> > > the manufacturer who failed to apply basic freshman-year engineering pronciples to the design.
> >
> > This is an interesting comment from a non-scientist. Tim, I am a research chemist, and
> > understand experimental science quite well.
>
> You're personalizing again.
No, you're generalizing again. But it's still a red herring. Since I have never attacked anyone,
explaining all this to me signifies what? Not one damned thing. I don't care about the other rubes
who make personal attacks against folks for having an idea. I am only concerned about how all the
numbers were arrived at. That's all.
> I'm also reasonably well-versed in science, experimental design, statistics, etc. from my psych
> graduate school days. My knowledge is rusty to be sure, as I don't use it on a daily basis. I read
> research reports frequently, but I don't do research myself.
Then you will understand that every single one of James anecdotes have absolutely no scientific
value as data points. Even his own. While Russ Pinder's injury was horrendous and tragic, we *do not
know* the initial conditions. Without that, it's pure guesswork.
> > I know what is meant by "statistically representative sample" and "controlled experiments." So
> > far, neither has been fully done in regards to this question.
>
> I agree that there have not been double-blind, randomized sample, with a control, etc. experiments
> done. They aren't necessary in this sort of problem.
The hell they're not. A random sample of QRs for testing, with no brand marks. Single blind is fine
here. From there, fork/hub/QR combos need to be exhaustively tested to see how and when they fail,
if they indeed DO fail.
But please, do tell how this assertion answers any of the questions I posed.
> > In any case, you may feel free to point out wherever I have attacked James personally because of
> > the hypothesis. Feel free to look carefully, but if I were you, I wouldn't waste more than an
> > hour or so trying to find something, because it's just not there. This line of logic is what's
> > known as a strawman argument.
>
> Umm, you're the one setting up a straw man in this case, by misinterpreting what I've written in a
> personal manner reflecting upon yourself.
You quoted my words, so I have to assume you mean me. And since you have answered not one of the
questions, but continued on in the same manner of defending the person, (James) I must assume you
are being personal.
> You say you have not engaged in personal attacks, and I have not accused you of such.
In your generalizations you most certainly have.
> > > The defensiveness and obtuseness has come from those people unwilling to perceive the
> > > situation for what it is.
> >
> > An ad hominem attack? Weren't you just saying something about that?
>
> You're personalizing again. Do we have that part clear, so that we can go on with a (hopefully)
> fruitful discussion?
Just stay away from characterizing the "anti" camp in any way - talk about the set-up and the
numbers, and stay away from attacking *anyone*, and we'll be fine.
Spider
