How To Transport A Bike



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Kevan Smith wrote:
> > That looks good, except I think that would put too much straing on the fork, because the bike
> > would be entirley supported by it.
>
> Why don't you think the forks can handle that? I thought the forks were built to support the
> entire bike.

He is probably confused. The forks would mount to the rack, the rear tire would ride on the ground.
Only a portion of the bicycle's weight would be supported by the forks.

-Buck
 
On Tue, 06 May 2003 16:47:40 GMT, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p
. c o m> from Road Runner - Texas wrote:

>"Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:p[email protected]...
>> Kevan Smith wrote:
>> > That looks good, except I think that would put too much straing on the fork, because the bike
>> > would be entirley supported by it.
>>
>> Why don't you think the forks can handle that? I thought the forks were built to support the
>> entire bike.
>
>
>He is probably confused. The forks would mount to the rack, the rear tire would ride on the ground.
>Only a portion of the bicycle's weight would be supported by the forks.

Yeah, and then an accident happens and the fork snaps in two. :(

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace Alright, you!! Imitate a WOUNDED SEAL
pleading for a PARKING SPACE!!
1:36:29 PM 6 May 2003
 
Kevan Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2003 16:47:40 GMT, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> from Road
> Runner - Texas wrote:
>
>> "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:p[email protected]...
>>> Kevan Smith wrote:
>>>> That looks good, except I think that would put too much straing on the fork, because the bike
>>>> would be entirley supported by it.
>>>
>>> Why don't you think the forks can handle that? I thought the forks were built to support the
>>> entire bike.
>>
>>
>> He is probably confused. The forks would mount to the rack, the rear tire would ride on the
>> ground. Only a portion of the bicycle's weight would be supported by the forks.
>
> Yeah, and then an accident happens and the fork snaps in two. :(

An accident is of course always an accident. However I don't see why the forks should snap in two
because they are mounted to this rack instead of mounted to a wheel. Same thing really.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.
 
"Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:GOTta.4751

> >>> Kevan Smith wrote:
> >>>> That looks good, except I think that would put too much straing on the fork, because the bike
> >>>> would be entirley supported by it.
> >>>
> >>> Why don't you think the forks can handle that? I thought the forks were built to support the
> >>> entire bike.
> >>
> >>
> >> He is probably confused. The forks would mount to the rack, the rear tire would ride on the
> >> ground. Only a portion of the bicycle's weight would be supported by the forks.
> >
> > Yeah, and then an accident happens and the fork snaps in two. :(
>
> An accident is of course always an accident. However I don't see why the forks should snap in two
> because they are mounted to this rack instead of mounted to a wheel. Same thing really.

Perre,

When I first joined into this thread, I didn't realize that Kevan was involved. If I had, I wouldn't
have bothered. Kevan has a history of arguing a topic to death despite his inability to see the
logic in the opposing views. You and I both know that a fork is plenty strong to support the weight
of a bike in much more taxing circumstances. We also both know that the fork mounts are the primary
support on the majority of bicycle racks for cars and has been for decades. It matters not the
direction of travel (roof or hatch mounted, forward facing; hitch mounted, side facing), the bikes
always arrive no worse for wear. It is simply the safest and strongest way to mount a bicycle.

Once Kevan has developed an idea about how something works (or doesn't), no manner of logic or
discussion is going to get it out of his head or change his mind. Just do a search on his name and
you will see some amazing discussions where *every* other poster opposed his view, yet he refused to
see the error of his ways.

Kevan has made it to many people's killfiles, mine included. I suggest that you try no more to
convince him that you are right. He has decided that it is too dangerous for the bike and will not
see otherwise. Just move on to a more productive conversation.

-Buck
 
On Tue, 06 May 2003 19:12:38 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> from Telia
Internet wrote:

>An accident is of course always an accident. However I don't see why the forks should snap in two
>because they are mounted to this rack instead of mounted to a wheel. Same thing really.

No. with the wheel on, the fork is cushioned and can rotate freely within its range of motion.
--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace All of life is a blur of
Republicans and meat!
4:19:30 PM 6 May 2003
 
On Tue, 06 May 2003 20:11:45 GMT, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p
. c o m> from Road Runner - Texas wrote:

>Once Kevan has developed an idea about how something works (or doesn't), no manner of logic or
>discussion is going to get it out of his head or change his mind. Just do a search on his name and
>you will see some amazing discussions where *every* other poster opposed his view, yet he refused
>to see the error of his ways.

Are you still ****** off that your BMI says you're a fatty?

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace A shapely CATHOLIC SCHOOLGIRL is FIDGETING
inside my costume..
4:21:30 PM 6 May 2003
 
Kevan Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2003 19:12:38 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> from Telia
> Internet wrote:
>
>> An accident is of course always an accident. However I don't see why the forks should snap in two
>> because they are mounted to this rack instead of mounted to a wheel. Same thing really.
>
> No. with the wheel on, the fork is cushioned and can rotate freely within its range of motion.

OK ;)

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.
 
Buck wrote:
> "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:GOTta.4751
>
>>>>> Kevan Smith wrote:
>>>>>> That looks good, except I think that would put too much straing on the fork, because the bike
>>>>>> would be entirley supported by it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you think the forks can handle that? I thought the forks were built to support the
>>>>> entire bike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He is probably confused. The forks would mount to the rack, the rear tire would ride on the
>>>> ground. Only a portion of the bicycle's weight would be supported by the forks.
>>>
>>> Yeah, and then an accident happens and the fork snaps in two. :(
>>
>> An accident is of course always an accident. However I don't see why the forks should snap in two
>> because they are mounted to this rack instead of mounted to a wheel. Same thing really.
>
>
> Perre,
>
> When I first joined into this thread, I didn't realize that Kevan was involved. If I had, I
> wouldn't have bothered. Kevan has a history of arguing a topic to death despite his inability to
> see the logic in the opposing views. You and I both know that a fork is plenty strong to support
> the weight of a bike in much more taxing circumstances. We also both know that the fork mounts are
> the primary support on the majority of bicycle racks for cars and has been for decades. It matters
> not the direction of travel (roof or hatch mounted, forward facing; hitch mounted, side facing),
> the bikes always arrive no worse for wear. It is simply the safest and strongest way to mount a
> bicycle.
>
> Once Kevan has developed an idea about how something works (or doesn't), no manner of logic or
> discussion is going to get it out of his head or change his mind. Just do a search on his name and
> you will see some amazing discussions where *every* other poster opposed his view, yet he refused
> to see the error of his ways.
>
> Kevan has made it to many people's killfiles, mine included. I suggest that you try no more to
> convince him that you are right. He has decided that it is too dangerous for the bike and will not
> see otherwise. Just move on to a more productive conversation.
>
> -Buck

;)
--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.