Lawyers lips

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Callistus Valerius, Mar 11, 2005.

  1. "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >> Per m-gineering:
    >>>try lubricating the skewer mechanism!

    >
    > (Pete Cresswell) wrote:
    >> I've heard a similar concept when people say that plenty of grease makes
    >> for an
    >> effective alternative to LocTite.
    >> Seems counter-intuitive.
    >> I don't doubt it...just can't understand it...
    >> Can somebody explain?

    >
    > The skewer mechanism wants to translate the lever's motion in to a lateral
    > pull through the hub with its cam. Like other simple machines,
    > lubrication noticeably gives more of that pull for a given input. Try it!
    > Close your skewer as you normally do, and then again with lubricated cam
    > faces.


    In fact, I believe this should be a common maintenance routine, at least
    every time one lubes his chain, especially if one rides in the wet.

    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training
     


  2. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:

    > "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>>Per m-gineering:
    >>>
    >>>>try lubricating the skewer mechanism!

    >>
    >>(Pete Cresswell) wrote:
    >>
    >>>I've heard a similar concept when people say that plenty of grease makes
    >>>for an
    >>>effective alternative to LocTite.
    >>>Seems counter-intuitive.
    >>>I don't doubt it...just can't understand it...
    >>>Can somebody explain?

    >>
    >>The skewer mechanism wants to translate the lever's motion in to a lateral
    >>pull through the hub with its cam. Like other simple machines,
    >>lubrication noticeably gives more of that pull for a given input. Try it!
    >>Close your skewer as you normally do, and then again with lubricated cam
    >>faces.

    >
    >
    > In fact, I believe this should be a common maintenance routine, at least
    > every time one lubes his chain, especially if one rides in the wet.


    Should female cyclists have high friction, un-lubricated QR cams?

    --
    Tom Sherman - Earth (Illinois)
     
  3. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

    >>>> Per m-gineering:
    >>>>> try lubricating the skewer mechanism!


    >>> (Pete Cresswell) wrote:

    -snip-
    >>>> I don't doubt it...just can't understand it...
    >>>> Can somebody explain?


    >> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> The skewer mechanism wants to translate the lever's motion in to a
    >>> lateral pull through the hub with its cam. Like other simple
    >>> machines, lubrication noticeably gives more blah blah blah


    > Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
    >> In fact, I believe this should be a common maintenance routine, at
    >> least every time one lubes his chain, especially if one rides in the wet.


    Tom Sherman wrote:
    > Should female cyclists have high friction, un-lubricated QR cams?


    That very linguistic conundrum ( his, his/her, their, its)
    is addressed in today's Trib Magazine letters column.

    As Safire says, "When it sounds bad both ways, rephrase" .
    Good rule of thumb, that.

    --
    Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971
     
  4. Tim McNamara wrote:
    >
    > From: "(Pete Cresswell)" <[email protected]>
    >
    > > Don't know for sure how it got that way, but the only thing I can
    > > think of is vibration from extended time on the car's bike rack.

    >
    > Now, wait a minute. What about all those disk brake threads that
    > claim that a QR can't vibrate loose?


    Who has made that claim?

    > That a properly used skewer
    > cannot come loose?


    Another bogus claim.

    > If those guys are right, then obviously you two
    > are inept. Or, you're right and the other people making those claims
    > in those threads must be wrong.


    Nice strawman.

    > Nah, there couldn't possibly be any validity to Annan's claims.


    Sarcasm and the "I'm so much smarter than you rabble" is why James
    finds his audience sceptical and combative. That and the paucity of
    actual hard experimental data.

    As Pete says, the inital conditions were not recorded. It is
    *possible* that the QRs were not done up properly. As is the case with
    every other piece of anecdotal "evidence" presented thus far.

    You and he are on the same scientific footing as those who dismiss the
    hypothesis. You and he overlook the massive amount of anecdotal
    evidence that argues against the hypothesis.

    BTW, I do believe that I have read every posting on the subject, but
    feel free to link to the ones that somehow prove your point. There is
    a lot of postings that shine no light on the subject, and very few that
    have any real content.

    But I have seen conclusions drawn and evidence presented to fit the
    conclusions. Those in the know call that "junk science."

    E.P.
     
  5. Cam

    Cam Guest

    Tom Sherman wrote:
    > Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
    >
    > > "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > >>>Per m-gineering:
    > >>>
    > >>>>try lubricating the skewer mechanism!
    > >>
    > >>(Pete Cresswell) wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>I've heard a similar concept when people say that plenty of grease

    makes
    > >>>for an
    > >>>effective alternative to LocTite.
    > >>>Seems counter-intuitive.
    > >>>I don't doubt it...just can't understand it...
    > >>>Can somebody explain?
    > >>
    > >>The skewer mechanism wants to translate the lever's motion in to a

    lateral
    > >>pull through the hub with its cam. Like other simple machines,
    > >>lubrication noticeably gives more of that pull for a given input.

    Try it!
    > >>Close your skewer as you normally do, and then again with

    lubricated cam
    > >>faces.

    > >
    > >
    > > In fact, I believe this should be a common maintenance routine, at

    least
    > > every time one lubes his chain, especially if one rides in the wet.

    >
    > Should female cyclists have high friction, un-lubricated QR cams?
    >
    > --
    > Tom Sherman - Earth (Illinois)


    I can assure you that that is never a problem.

    Cam
     
  6. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:24:26 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
    <[email protected]> may have said:

    > I discovered on my Specialized road bike, when my rear wheel came loose,
    >that it didn't have any lawyers lips. I thought these were mandatory on
    >bikes.


    I have never seen anti-ejection lips on a rear dropout. There is no
    explicit legal requirement for lips (as opposed to other secondary
    axle retention methods) on the front, but many manufacturers use them.
    In the rear, the force imparted by the chain will take the wheel
    off-center, causing significant drag and bringing the bike to a halt
    or at least giving the rider ample warning of a loose QR. In the
    front, a loose skewer can lead to a fact plant without any warning
    symptoms...thus the requirement for a backup. Lips are easiest to
    implement in many designs, which is why they're seen so often.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  7. Tom Sherman wrote:
    > Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
    >
    >> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>> Per m-gineering:
    >>>>
    >>>>> try lubricating the skewer mechanism!
    >>>
    >>> (Pete Cresswell) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've heard a similar concept when people say that plenty of grease
    >>>> makes for an
    >>>> effective alternative to LocTite.
    >>>> Seems counter-intuitive.
    >>>> I don't doubt it...just can't understand it...
    >>>> Can somebody explain?
    >>>
    >>> The skewer mechanism wants to translate the lever's motion in to a
    >>> lateral pull through the hub with its cam. Like other simple
    >>> machines, lubrication noticeably gives more of that pull for a
    >>> given input. Try it! Close your skewer as you normally do, and then
    >>> again with lubricated cam faces.

    >>
    >>
    >> In fact, I believe this should be a common maintenance routine, at
    >> least every time one lubes his chain, especially if one rides in the
    >> wet.

    >
    > Should female cyclists have high friction, un-lubricated QR cams?


    Dang it... for the one time I don't write "his/her" I swear... ;)
    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training
     
  8. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:25:03 -0600, Werehatrack wrote:

    > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:24:26 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
    > <[email protected]> may have said:
    >
    >> I discovered on my Specialized road bike, when my rear wheel came loose,
    >>that it didn't have any lawyers lips. I thought these were mandatory on
    >>bikes.

    >
    > I have never seen anti-ejection lips on a rear dropout. There is no
    > explicit legal requirement for lips (as opposed to other secondary
    > axle retention methods) on the front, but many manufacturers use them.


    I doubt that there is a "legal requirement" for these things on the
    front, either. Instead, manufactures feel they have to use them or expose
    themselves to lawsuits.

    > In the rear, the force imparted by the chain will

    take the wheel
    > off-center, causing significant drag and bringing the bike to a halt or
    > at least giving the rider ample warning of a loose QR. In the front, a
    > loose skewer can lead to a fact plant without any warning
    > symptoms...thus the requirement for a backup.


    Nonsense. I submit that lawyer lips have resulted in more, not fewer
    problems. Since you have to unwind the QR each time you remove the wheel,
    the chances of a too-loose attachment the next time you put the wheel back
    on increases. It is also possible to clamp the QR down on the lips rather
    than the flat part of the fork, resulting in a loose wheel when you get on
    the bike and force the wheel into the proper position. The damn point
    of a QR (the Q stood for "quick") is lost if just releasing the lever
    does not release the wheel. Since you have to unscrew the QR to remove
    it, novice users tend to think you are supposed to use the QR lever as
    a wingnut and tighten it with the lever in the open position.

    The whole thing is a dumb idea caused by someone refusing to accept
    responsibility for his/her own carelessness when attaching a wheel.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
    _`\(,_ |
    (_)/ (_) |
     
  9. > or at least giving the rider ample warning of a loose QR. In the
    > front, a loose skewer can lead to a fact

    ^^^^
    If only this happened on rbt more often.... ;)

    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training
     
  10. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:39:11 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
    <[email protected]> may have said:

    >On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:25:03 -0600, Werehatrack wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:24:26 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
    >> <[email protected]> may have said:
    >>
    >>> I discovered on my Specialized road bike, when my rear wheel came loose,
    >>>that it didn't have any lawyers lips. I thought these were mandatory on
    >>>bikes.

    >>
    >> I have never seen anti-ejection lips on a rear dropout. There is no
    >> explicit legal requirement for lips (as opposed to other secondary
    >> axle retention methods) on the front, but many manufacturers use them.

    >
    >I doubt that there is a "legal requirement" for these things on the
    >front, either. Instead, manufactures feel they have to use them or expose
    >themselves to lawsuits.


    New bikes that use a QR must have a secondary retention method in
    order to meet the CPSC requirements for initial sale. There is no
    federal requirement that the secondary method be retained in place by
    the purchaser, although there might be state or local regs which
    prohibit the removal of safety devices...which I doubt would ever be
    enforced for good reason.

    >> In the rear, the force imparted by the chain will

    >take the wheel
    >> off-center, causing significant drag and bringing the bike to a halt or
    >> at least giving the rider ample warning of a loose QR. In the front, a
    >> loose skewer can lead to a fact plant without any warning
    >> symptoms...thus the requirement for a backup.

    >
    >Nonsense. I submit that lawyer lips have resulted in more, not fewer
    >problems.


    You have statistics to back this up?

    > Since you have to unwind the QR each time you remove the wheel,
    >the chances of a too-loose attachment the next time you put the wheel back
    >on increases.


    No more so than if you don't; it's very easy to determine if the QR is
    properly installed, and if it's not, then the fault is with the rider,
    not the device.

    > It is also possible to clamp the QR down on the lips rather
    >than the flat part of the fork, resulting in a loose wheel when you get on
    >the bike and force the wheel into the proper position.


    Still rider error.

    > The damn point
    >of a QR (the Q stood for "quick") is lost if just releasing the lever
    >does not release the wheel.


    The brakes don't count? It takes me all of ten seconds, tops, to
    wind/unwind the nut. I don't call that an egregious task.

    >Since you have to unscrew the QR to remove
    >it, novice users tend to think you are supposed to use the QR lever as
    >a wingnut and tighten it with the lever in the open position.


    And this would be alleviated by the lack of lawyer lips in what way?
    They'd still use it as a wingnut, but then the wheel would have
    nothing to keep it in place but luck.

    >The whole thing is a dumb idea caused by someone refusing to accept
    >responsibility for his/her own carelessness when attaching a wheel.


    If you don't like them, use a file...on *your* bike, and be glad that
    the manufacturer didn't decide to use one of the other methods.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  11. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 05:56:24 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
    <[email protected]> may have said:

    >> or at least giving the rider ample warning of a loose QR. In the
    >> front, a loose skewer can lead to a fact

    > ^^^^
    >If only this happened on rbt more often.... ;)


    Hehe, yeah.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  12. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:07:38 -0600, Werehatrack wrote:

    >>Nonsense. I submit that lawyer lips have resulted in more, not fewer
    >>problems.

    >
    > You have statistics to back this up?


    No, but I'd be interested in any, either way. Such as the % of QRs found
    to be used as wing nuts with/without LLs.

    >> Since you have to unwind the QR each time you remove the wheel,
    >>the chances of a too-loose attachment the next time you put the wheel
    >>back on increases.

    >
    > No more so than if you don't; it's very easy to determine if the QR is
    > properly installed, and if it's not, then the fault is with the rider,
    > not the device.


    But this same argument would suggest that if the QR is not properly
    installed, it's the rider's fault, not the design. However, this is how
    we got these things to begin with. A properly used QR is more than
    adequately secure, without lawyer lips.

    >>Since you have to unscrew the QR to remove it, novice users tend to
    >>think you are supposed to use the QR lever as a wingnut and tighten it
    >>with the lever in the open position.

    >
    > And this would be alleviated by the lack of lawyer lips in what way?
    > They'd still use it as a wingnut,


    Not necessarily. Once adequately tensioned, it's easy for the novice to
    remove the wheel and re-attach it properly without twisting. As he/she
    gets used to it, it becomes natural to use the tension adjustment
    properly. If, on the other hand, you have to unscrew it to remove, then
    the first time you put the wheel back on, you screw it down until it seems
    tight, and that "works", you forget what the guy at the shop told you and
    blithely give up most of the security that a QR provides.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but
    _`\(,_ | what canst thou say? -- George Fox.
    (_)/ (_) |
     
  13. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:57:36 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
    <[email protected]> may have said:

    >On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:07:38 -0600, Werehatrack wrote:
    >
    >>>Nonsense. I submit that lawyer lips have resulted in more, not fewer
    >>>problems.

    >>
    >> You have statistics to back this up?

    >
    >No, but I'd be interested in any, either way. Such as the % of QRs found
    >to be used as wing nuts with/without LLs.


    If it's of any value, I see a lot of misassembled bikes when I look
    over the stuff that's up for bid at the city auctions, and there are
    quite a few bikes there with QR wheels on Roadmaster-level lipless
    forks. Well over half, at least, are mistightened wingnut-style.
    This is not restricted to that area, though. I've seen bikes on the
    Rice U campus whose QR levers were obviously at the wrong limit of
    their travel.

    >>> Since you have to unwind the QR each time you remove the wheel,
    >>>the chances of a too-loose attachment the next time you put the wheel
    >>>back on increases.

    >>
    >> No more so than if you don't; it's very easy to determine if the QR is
    >> properly installed, and if it's not, then the fault is with the rider,
    >> not the device.

    >
    >But this same argument would suggest that if the QR is not properly
    >installed, it's the rider's fault, not the design. However, this is how
    >we got these things to begin with. A properly used QR is more than
    >adequately secure, without lawyer lips.


    Yes, it is, but the experience has been that too many bike buyers and
    riders don't understand, or won't take the time to find out, how to
    deal with the QR properly, despite how dead simple it really is.
    However, there's no way to make it impossible for such fools to buy,
    or get access to, a bike that has them.

    >>>Since you have to unscrew the QR to remove it, novice users tend to
    >>>think you are supposed to use the QR lever as a wingnut and tighten it
    >>>with the lever in the open position.

    >>
    >> And this would be alleviated by the lack of lawyer lips in what way?
    >> They'd still use it as a wingnut,

    >
    >Not necessarily. Once adequately tensioned, it's easy for the novice to
    >remove the wheel and re-attach it properly without twisting. As he/she
    >gets used to it, it becomes natural to use the tension adjustment
    >properly. If, on the other hand, you have to unscrew it to remove, then
    >the first time you put the wheel back on, you screw it down until it seems
    >tight, and that "works", you forget what the guy at the shop told you and
    >blithely give up most of the security that a QR provides.


    And from what I see, that may be one of the factors working, but I
    will offer another; more than one person may be fiddling with a bike,
    particularly when at least one of the persons with access to it is a
    youngster...and in that case, there is no certainty that the bike will
    still be correctly assembled when the owner comes back to it after
    having been away from it for twenty minutes. The QR is one of those
    good-news/bad-news innovations. The good news was that it made it
    much faster and easier to remove and securely reinstall the wheel,
    requiring no tools to do so. The bad news is that the proper method
    of operation of the fastener is not so obvious and intuitive that your
    average high school principal can figure it out. (I have a reason for
    that example.) As a result, the use of a QR on a wheel that is in the
    possession of somebody who doesn't employ it properly renders that
    wheel significantly less safe than if it was made less easily
    serviceable via the use of nuts and a solid axle. But, with the
    addition of the lips, if the intuitive-but-stupid wingnut attachment
    method is employed, the wheel will at least have a decent chance of
    remaining in place. It will probably loosen up (though not always;
    the lever is long enough to get the nut quite tight) and it may tear
    up the tabs of the fork, but at least the wheel is not likely to come
    out. It appears to me that this allowance-for-reality factor is what
    has driven the mandate for inclusion of the secondary retaining method
    on QR wheels. Since I know that some of my bikes will, on occasion,
    be ridden by visitors whose level of mechanical competence may not
    even approach that of a Congressional candidate, I leave the lips on
    the forks on my bikes. The lips don't offend me enough to want to
    risk having the bike get bent when some fool makes a Darwin Award
    candidate of himself.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  14. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Werehatrack wrote:

    > ...The QR is one of those
    > good-news/bad-news innovations. The good news was that it made it
    > much faster and easier to remove and securely reinstall the wheel,
    > requiring no tools to do so. The bad news is that the proper method
    > of operation of the fastener is not so obvious and intuitive that your
    > average high school principal can figure it out....


    Silly me. I thought it was ridiculous the first time I say a QR with
    "Open" and "Close" on the level. "Well, Duh! Of course that is how it
    works!"

    --
    Tom Sherman - Earth (Illinois)
     
  15. Tom Sherman wrote:
    > Werehatrack wrote:
    >
    > > ...The QR is one of those
    > > good-news/bad-news innovations. The good news was that it made it
    > > much faster and easier to remove and securely reinstall the wheel,
    > > requiring no tools to do so. The bad news is that the proper

    method
    > > of operation of the fastener is not so obvious and intuitive that

    your
    > > average high school principal can figure it out....

    >
    > Silly me. I thought it was ridiculous the first time I say a QR with
    > "Open" and "Close" on the level. "Well, Duh! Of course that is how it


    > works!"
    >


    Silly you, indeed! I once had to give a lesson on quick releases to a
    guy with a PhD. I saw his bike parked in a bike rack with the lever
    backwards.

    Actually, the PhD was in English, so I could see him not understanding
    simple mechanical things. OTOH, "Open" and "Closed" _should_ have
    posed no problem - or at least raised a question in his mind!
     
  16. Victor Kan

    Victor Kan Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Actually, the PhD was in English, so I could see him not understanding
    > simple mechanical things. OTOH, "Open" and "Closed" _should_ have
    > posed no problem - or at least raised a question in his mind!


    "Open" and "closed" are a poor choice of terms.

    It makes sense if you think of open/closed to mean loose/secure
    fastening, which may be obvious to someone whose goal is to loosen or
    secure their bicycle wheel.

    Open/closed can mean go/no-go, which may be obvious to someone whose
    goal on their bike is "to go", which is the opposite of what you'd want
    in this application.

    Maybe instead of lawyer lips, bikes should be the way they used to be
    and have QR skewers change their labels from open/closed to loose/secure
    (though the latter can be deceptive if the QR isn't adjusted properly).
    Or maybe have a skull and crossbones for the open position, and a
    smiley face for the closed position.

    --
    I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
    legitimate replies.
     
  17. Victor Kan wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > Actually, the PhD was in English, so I could see him not

    understanding
    > > simple mechanical things. OTOH, "Open" and "Closed" _should_ have
    > > posed no problem - or at least raised a question in his mind!

    >
    > "Open" and "closed" are a poor choice of terms.
    >
    > It makes sense if you think of open/closed to mean loose/secure
    > fastening, which may be obvious to someone whose goal is to loosen or


    > secure their bicycle wheel.
    >
    > Open/closed can mean go/no-go, which may be obvious to someone whose
    > goal on their bike is "to go", which is the opposite of what you'd

    want
    > in this application.
    >
    > Maybe instead of lawyer lips, bikes should be the way they used to be


    > and have QR skewers change their labels from open/closed to

    loose/secure
    > (though the latter can be deceptive if the QR isn't adjusted

    properly).
    > Or maybe have a skull and crossbones for the open position, and a
    > smiley face for the closed position.
    >


    What's needed is bigger QR levers. That way on one side, they could
    print "This should be facing outward if you are riding the bike!!" and
    on the other side "Don't ride with this side facing outward!! (See
    instruction manual.)"

    In English and Spanish, of course. Minimum 14 point type. And perhaps
    Braille.

    But I don't know where they'd put the Consent Form that we'll sign -
    and have notarized - before each and every ride. Any ideas?
     
  18. Jay Beattie

    Jay Beattie Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Victor Kan wrote:
    > > [email protected] wrote:
    > > > Actually, the PhD was in English, so I could see him not

    > understanding
    > > > simple mechanical things. OTOH, "Open" and "Closed"

    _should_ have
    > > > posed no problem - or at least raised a question in his

    mind!
    > >
    > > "Open" and "closed" are a poor choice of terms.
    > >
    > > It makes sense if you think of open/closed to mean

    loose/secure
    > > fastening, which may be obvious to someone whose goal is to

    loosen or
    >
    > > secure their bicycle wheel.
    > >
    > > Open/closed can mean go/no-go, which may be obvious to

    someone whose
    > > goal on their bike is "to go", which is the opposite of what

    you'd
    > want
    > > in this application.
    > >
    > > Maybe instead of lawyer lips, bikes should be the way they

    used to be
    >
    > > and have QR skewers change their labels from open/closed to

    > loose/secure
    > > (though the latter can be deceptive if the QR isn't adjusted

    > properly).
    > > Or maybe have a skull and crossbones for the open position,

    and a
    > > smiley face for the closed position.
    > >

    >
    > What's needed is bigger QR levers. That way on one side, they

    could
    > print "This should be facing outward if you are riding the

    bike!!" and
    > on the other side "Don't ride with this side facing outward!!

    (See
    > instruction manual.)"
    >
    > In English and Spanish, of course. Minimum 14 point type. And

    perhaps
    > Braille.
    >
    > But I don't know where they'd put the Consent Form that we'll

    sign -
    > and have notarized - before each and every ride. Any ideas?


    Frank, you are so old school. Warnings must use a discriptive
    picture (not a mere skull and crossbones) -- like a picture of
    someone going OTB with fracture marks through the arms and pain
    lightning bolts coming out of the head. Everything is now very
    dangerous, and that point needs to be brought home in
    excrutiating detail. -- Jay Beattie.
    >
     
  19. You know, they make "long-throw" QR skewers that work with Lawyers lips
    equipped forks nowadays. I have one on both my MTB and the rack that
    holds it in the bed of my truck.

    - -

    "May you have the winds at your back,
    And a really low gear for the hills!"

    Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

    Chris'Z Corner
    http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
     
  20. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:37:43 GMT, Victor Kan
    <[email protected]_UCEloopdrive.net> may have said:

    >Maybe instead of lawyer lips, bikes should be the way they used to be
    >and have QR skewers change their labels from open/closed to loose/secure
    >(though the latter can be deceptive if the QR isn't adjusted properly).
    > Or maybe have a skull and crossbones for the open position, and a
    >smiley face for the closed position.


    Labelling them in a single language may be a pitfall, but an iconic
    representation (with one showing the wheel mounted, and the other with
    the wheel out of the fork) is probably not going to be very clear in
    the tiny size that would fit on the lever. Personally, I prefer
    "Locked" and "Unlocked" as labels, but I'm not sure that this makes
    any more sense to J. Random Owner than any of the others that I've
    seen.

    Of course, by labelling them in only in English, manufacturers are
    implying (possibly correctly) that there are more clueless people in
    the US than elsewhere; the unspoken assumption being that if you don't
    speak English, you either know how to deal with the lever or you can
    figure it out. Given that bikes are a more serious form of
    transportation outside the US, that assumption may have some validity.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
Loading...
Loading...