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.