Mildenhall today.

  • Thread starter dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
  • Start date



"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark South wrote:
>
> > Well, I could ask Cannondale but they won't tell. You can google for how
many
> > threads there have been in RBT about broken Cannondales. Like other US
> > manufacturers, they don't mind the odd product breaking and replacing it
under
> > warranty.
>
> But "the odd" standard fork break anyway. OTOH, if the mono design was
> intrinsically poor you'd have a major reliability problem and would
> drive yourself out of business replacing them for nothing. And you
> wouldn't do very well in competitions either.

I've granted that they can be made to work. I think I did that early on in the
thread. Why haven't they taken over? There are obvious advantages to them.

Is it really inconceivable that there may be disadvantages, or engineering
challenges to be overcome? Why will everybody only say things along the lines
of "Well, Cannondale are wonderful and they do them so it must be OK."

> > Pete, I find your tone mildly insulting. You are normally far more
> > concerned in a discussion with playing the ball.
>
> But there's plenty of evidence that they work okay,

OK, so explain to me why they work OK. Move the discussion on.

> and it appears to me
> that you're just writing it off apropos of being in a bad mood.

My mood is more querulous than anything. I find the appeals to absent authority
unsatisfying as answers to questions that I have raised.

But feel free to carry on playing the man if you prefer. I'm not going to do
the same to you.

> "I haven't seen any Halfways and don't know anyone with one!"

I've seen Halfways. In shops. The same places that have Giant recumbents that
haven't been sold.

> being taken as reasonable evidence that they're a commercial disaster

It's anecdotal evidence. Whether you consider it reasonable to base a
conclusion on it depends on whether there is more evidence to adduce.

> and have
> questionable design and construction is, I'd say, more than mildly
> insulting to both manufacturer and designer.

Now I'd be interested to know where I insulted Giant or Mike Burrows, or stated
the Halfway is of questionable construction.

Come now, it must be obvious to you that I'd rather have this discussion in a
civilised fashion.
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen
 
Mark South wrote:

> OK, so they work perfectly and are cost effective. Why don't all bikeshave
> them?

"Cost effective" needs context to be a useful term. What's cost
effective in a £1,000+ bike looking to optimise performance is very
different to what is cost effective in a £200 being built down to a price.

Beyond which you have the innate conservatism of the market,
characterised by just the sort of question you've just asked, which
becomes a circular argument.

> I'm not familiar with the vehicle in question and can't visualise why someone
> would build it with the wheels out of line.

It strikes me it's built the way it is as it enables the rear wheel to
attach directly to the main frame tube, rather than split the whole
assembly. So it's stronger both because of the oversize main tube being
stronger than typical chainstays and it's stronger because there's no
welding and joins in the middle of the bike. And that strength under
the load bearing area is a very useful thing in a freight bike.

And the wheels being out of line doesn't noticeably affect the handling,
so given a choice of stronger and simpler (simplicity will reduce
manufacture time and cost, as well as add strength from eliminating
joints) or traditional and inline, it takes the former.

> Well, Dahon say so, but they must sell them into different markets.

Meaning?

> Of course, you say that they're **** compared to a Brompton, so purely selling
> large numbers doesn't tell the whole story, right?

But that's really not the issue if the issue is actually "are monoblade
forks useful and proven in the Real World", and the basic folding design
of the Brompton is irrelevant there.

> No, it doesn't "smack" of anything. It's me saying that since you are beating
> on me for not agreeing with you, some evidence would be fun to see. Visible,
> under-the-nose evidence is easy to belive and nice to have. Since I don't see
> them and don't know anyone who has one, I'd love to hear from peope whodo see
> them and do know people who have them.

Well, a quick Google for reviews of Giant Halfways seems to suggest that
there really are people out there who not only own and use them but like
them as well.

> You're obviously a big fan of Cannondale. I'm not so convinced that what they
> say is gospel or that what they make is perfect.

Perfect, no, but the Cannondale owners I've come across seem happy with
them, and World Cup results really do say something about the quality of
the bikes used. The engine counts for a lot, of course, but put a
champion on a bike where the forks break regularly and they'll cease to
be a champion, and/or choose to ride on bikes where that happens.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Mark South wrote:

> Is it really inconceivable that there may be disadvantages, or engineering
> challenges to be overcome? Why will everybody only say things along the lines
> of "Well, Cannondale are wonderful and they do them so it must be OK."

That Cannondale are torch bearers in the commercial world for high
performance bicycle monoblade suspension forks hardly tells the story
that the basic engineering was worked out quite a time ago for
motorcycles. The issues aren't by any means all the same, but the
basics should be.

> OK, so explain to me why they work OK. Move the discussion on.

I'm less interested in the formulae than looking at examples and /seeing
them work in actuality/. I understand the technology of mechanical
watches much better than cesium clocks, but that doesn't prevent me from
realising that properly implemented a cesium clock actually tells the
right time!
Since you refuse to look at examples, coming up with pretty half baked
dismissals like a few world cup riders that regularly change their bikes
doesn't show the Lefty to be any use in the real world or you've never
met anyone with a Halfway, I don't see how the discussion will move on
from there. That you insist on "post JPEGs or retract!" as the primary
basis for any evidence, rather than bothering to actually look beyond
what you've already consciously seen, rather stifles things.

> My mood is more querulous than anything. I find the appeals to absent authority
> unsatisfying as answers to questions that I have raised.

What, like single sided supports being proven to work, on motorcycles
for years now and on bikes in more recent times?

> Come now, it must be obvious to you that I'd rather have this discussion in a
> civilised fashion.

Not actually readily apparent far as this thread goes, to be brutally
honest :-(

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
in message <[email protected]>, Mark South
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mark South wrote:
>>
>> > Durability arguments drawn from lightweight racing kit that is
>> > replaced at frequent intervals are bound to be fallacious.
>>
>> But I think you'll find far more Lefty equipped Cannondales in
>> recreational hands than in professional ones, and no reason to
>> suppose these are frequently replaced.
>
> Well, I could ask Cannondale but they won't tell.

Why don't you ask them and find out?

> You can google for how many
> threads there have been in RBT about broken Cannondales.

And if you read them you will find that most of them are debunking the
famous myth. Those that aren't about broken spokes or broken seatposts,
that is.

> Like other
> US manufacturers, they don't mind the odd product breaking and
> replacing it under warranty.

This is more complete bollocks. Cannondale do make some very light
frames. They very rarely break, although there's a great deal of urban
myth about this. But breakages of frames and failures of forks are
completely different and unrelated things, and I've never heard (even
urban legend) of a lefty failing.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker
 
in message <[email protected]>, Mark South
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> But "the odd" standard fork break anyway. OTOH, if the mono design
>> was intrinsically poor you'd have a major reliability problem and
>> would
>> drive yourself out of business replacing them for nothing. And you
>> wouldn't do very well in competitions either.
>
> I've granted that they can be made to work. I think I did that early
> on in the
> thread. Why haven't they taken over? There are obvious advantages to
> them.
>
> Is it really inconceivable that there may be disadvantages, or
> engineering
> challenges to be overcome? Why will everybody only say things along
> the lines of "Well, Cannondale are wonderful and they do them so it
> must be OK."

There is a disadvantage, a very severe one. They look strikingly
different, and the cycling market is incredibly conservative. Which
means you can't sell them, or at least not in large quantities, which
means the price remains high.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Wise man with foot in mouth use opportunity to clean toes.
;; the Worlock
 
in message <[email protected]>, Mark South
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mark South wrote:
>>
>> > All good points. But as I said below, you are using heavier
>> > members, only fewer of them. Do you win or not?
>>
>> Cannondale think they do with the Lefty. Since they don't sell bikes
>> by making them heavier or weaker, that sounds like if you throw
>> enough engineering at them they have the potential to be better.
>
> You sell bikes by marketing. No other conclusion can be drawn.

Yes, but you don't win race after race after race against the best
competition in the world by marketing.

>> > I may be naive but lining up the wheels seems to be pretty much
>> > essential to the operation of the bicycle.
>>
>> You're naive then, and I say that safe in the knowledge that my
>> freight bike has wheels that don't line up.
>
> So which direction does it prefer to turn?

Why on earth should it prefer to turn in either direction? My Cannondale
has no bias. Why should it have?

>> If they were heavier Cannondale wouldn't be using them, though that
>> is
>> with the caveat of excellent engineering. Which does cost money, but
>> then again so does Titanium and carbon fibre and it isn't like people
>> are complaining about those...
>
> Cannondale, like other US manufacturers, replace a lot of stuff under
> warranty. We've done that to death in the materials thread.

I think a big allegedly is required there. It's a common urban myth that
Cannondales break, but you never meet anyone (or hear first hand of
anyone) who has actually broken one in normal riding. Repeating
uninformed gossip does not advance a technical discussion.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> Why on earth should it prefer to turn in either direction? My Cannondale
> has no bias. Why should it have?

Not your 'Dale, my 8 Freight, with the out of line wheels.

But as Chris Juden pointed out in a reply to a letter of mine on
monopanniers a couple of "Cycle"s back, it's quite possible to have an
out of line bike which rides perfectly normally if the designer knows
what they're doing. Chris seems to be the main port of call for
technical queries to Cycle/CTC, and I believe he knows his stuff. If
Mark gets out of his "I'll just dismiss anything anyone says today" mood
he might even believe it too...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> My concept sketch for a mountain bike with front and rear monoblades
> is still here: <URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/tmp/gearbike.jpg>
> As you can see both blades are offset, and the wheels are on the
> centreline.

See also here:

<URL:
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/images/pix/Dave/big/bucher.jpg>

Stereo fork but the rear swing-arm is offset and the wheels in line

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
in message <[email protected]>, Mark South
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mark South wrote:
>> > "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >>in message <[email protected]>, Mark South
>> >>('[email protected]') wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>All good points. But as I said below, you are using heavier
>> >>>members, only fewer of them. Do you win or not?
>> >>
>> >>You win. Basic physics.
>> >
>> > Heh. I've written textbooks on advanced physics :)
>> >
>> >>The strength of tube increases with the square
>> >>of the diameter, the weight only a bit more than linearly.
>> >
>> > The bending resistance of the tube scales as the diameter^4 for
>> > fixed wall thickness.
>>
>> I could be wrong, but I suspect that most authors of advanced physics
>> textbooks would disagree with you (diameter^3 is what you want).
>
> <G> The readers now have three possibilities for the index: 2, 3 or
> 4. The BBC would conduct a readers' poll to determine which scaling
> law is most popular at this point.

Doesn't really matter, since we're considering a ratio which has an
(agreed to be) geometric element and an (agreed to be near) linear
element. If I'm right monoblades will always be about twice as strong
as conventional forks of the same weight; if James is right (and I
suspect he is) monoblades will be about four times as strong as
conventional forks of the same weight; and if you are right monoblades
will be about eight times as strong as conventional forks of the same
weight.

Whichever of us is right they're enough stronger (or, for the same
strength, lighter) to make a considerable difference.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
>in message <[email protected]>, Mark South
>> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Mark South wrote:
>
>>> > I may be naive but lining up the wheels seems to be pretty much
>>> > essential to the operation of the bicycle.
>>>
>>> You're naive then, and I say that safe in the knowledge that my
>>> freight bike has wheels that don't line up.
>>
>> So which direction does it prefer to turn?
>
>Why on earth should it prefer to turn in either direction? My Cannondale
>has no bias. Why should it have?

Unlike your Cannondale, Pete's Freight-8 has wheels that don't line up.
That's at least a plausible reason it _might_ prefer to turn one way.

On the other hand I've read that riding a sociable with only one person
sitting on it is not a problem, so quite major asymmetries might make less
difference than one might intuitively expect.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Jon Senior wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> Not only 'bents, as the 8 Freight demonstrates.
>
>But not uprights.

Do you mean "not racing uprights" or "not high speed uprights" or something
similar? (Do UCI rules require conventional two-sided supports for wheels?)

I'm not sure why this hasn't been done (Other than the
>London bike). I strongly suspect that at speed you'd start to notice the
>cornering issues and in a competition that might become an problem.

Why would an upright with an offset rear wheel suffer from high speed
cornering problems if a recumbent like the Ratcatcher doesn't?
(Assuming it doesn't - I haven't seen one cornering at speed, but I believe
it does - I suppose that could be the skill of the rider overcoming problems
that make it generally unusable though.)
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Mark South
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > "James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Mark South wrote:
> >> > "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> >>in message <[email protected]>, Mark South
> >> >>('[email protected]') wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>All good points. But as I said below, you are using heavier
> >> >>>members, only fewer of them. Do you win or not?
> >> >>
> >> >>You win. Basic physics.
> >> >
> >> > Heh. I've written textbooks on advanced physics :)
> >> >
> >> >>The strength of tube increases with the square
> >> >>of the diameter, the weight only a bit more than linearly.
> >> >
> >> > The bending resistance of the tube scales as the diameter^4 for
> >> > fixed wall thickness.
> >>
> >> I could be wrong, but I suspect that most authors of advanced physics
> >> textbooks would disagree with you (diameter^3 is what you want).

They should read engineering texts for stuff like this then.

> > <G> The readers now have three possibilities for the index: 2, 3 or
> > 4. The BBC would conduct a readers' poll to determine which scaling
> > law is most popular at this point.
>
> Doesn't really matter, since we're considering a ratio which has an
> (agreed to be) geometric element and an (agreed to be near) linear
> element. If I'm right monoblades will always be about twice as strong
> as conventional forks of the same weight; if James is right (and I
> suspect he is) monoblades will be about four times as strong as
> conventional forks of the same weight; and if you are right monoblades
> will be about eight times as strong as conventional forks of the same
> weight.

It's not linear. It's diameter^4.

> Whichever of us is right they're enough stronger (or, for the same
> strength, lighter) to make a considerable difference.

Agreed.
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark South wrote:

> > Come now, it must be obvious to you that I'd rather have this discussion in
a
> > civilised fashion.
>
> Not actually readily apparent far as this thread goes, to be brutally
> honest :-(

If you persist in caricaturing my questions that's your choice.
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen
 
"Mark South" <[email protected]> writes:

>"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Not actually readily apparent far as this thread goes, to be brutally
>> honest :-(

>If you persist in caricaturing my questions that's your choice.

Must be the weather or something.
Pete is currently upside down in the Tay so that should cool him off, can
I advise Mark a refreshing ride through Lac Leman? ;)

Roos
 
"Roos Eisma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark South" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Not actually readily apparent far as this thread goes, to be brutally
> >> honest :-(
>
> >If you persist in caricaturing my questions that's your choice.
>
> Must be the weather or something.

It's nice here.

> Pete is currently upside down in the Tay so that should cool him off, can
> I advise Mark a refreshing ride through Lac Leman? ;)

Even when you ask so nicely I'm not going to go jump in the lake :)

However, you remind me that the weather is perfect to think about the ride
*around* Leman sometime during the weekend. Now, I wonder if the maps are
underneath this multicoloured pile of Cat5 cables...?
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen
 
in message <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> My concept sketch for a mountain bike with front and rear monoblades
>> is still here:
>> <URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/tmp/gearbike.jpg> As you can
>> see both blades are offset, and the wheels are on the centreline.
>
> See also here:
>
> <URL:
>
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/images/pix/Dave/big/bucher.jpg>
>
> Stereo fork but the rear swing-arm is offset and the wheels in line

Now is that nice or is that nice?

What is it, and how many grandmothers does one have to push over cliffs
to get one?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> What, you mean like the monoblade on my consumer production mountain
> bike that I ride every week summer and winter? I repeat: it is very
> substantially stronger than a twin stansion fork of the same weight.

I can understand that a single thing might be stronger than two slimmer
ones, but what I don't understand is how the bit where the horizontal
hub meets the vertical blade could possibly be stronger when there's one
blade than two.

In the case of one, there's a lever trying its best to snap the tip off
the blade. In the case of two, there's no leverage, just something
pushing upwards against the entire vertical height of the blades.

So how do they make it work?

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140
 
Jon Senior wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]lid
> says...
>> I may be naive but lining up the wheels seems to be pretty much
>> essential to the operation of the bicycle.
>
> I achieved 48mph on a bike with a rear wheel that was slightly off
> centre and pointed right. It handled like a dream. You can get away
> with a hell of a lot more than you'd think!
>
> Jon

I used to have a folding bike about 30 years ago that I would ride with the
hinge loose. It was rideable with the front wheel up to about 4 or 5 inches
out from the centre without much difficulty. I think it was a Polish make.
--
Mark

1x1 wheel, 3x2 wheels & 1x3 wheels.
 
Mark South wrote:

>
> It's not linear. It's diameter^4.
>

Since I've already corrected this error it is odd that you are so
determined to repeat it.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
in message
<1gji3zs.1i06fqy1wpu528N%[email protected]>,
D.M. Procida ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What, you mean like the monoblade on my consumer production mountain
>> bike that I ride every week summer and winter? I repeat: it is very
>> substantially stronger than a twin stansion fork of the same weight.
>
> I can understand that a single thing might be stronger than two
> slimmer ones, but what I don't understand is how the bit where the
> horizontal hub meets the vertical blade could possibly be stronger
> when there's one blade than two.
>
> In the case of one, there's a lever trying its best to snap the tip
> off the blade.

Just like there is on all four wheels of your car. Quick! You need to go
out and weld extra struts down the outside of each wheel before they
snap off!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Here lies Tony Blair.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
How to avoid spending money at Mildenhall
Replies
23
Views
793
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
S
Mildenhall 300k
Replies
9
Views
253
UK and Europe
Tony Raven
T
W
So who is off to Mildenhall?
Replies
26
Views
472
UK and Europe
David Martin
D
W
Mildenhall
Replies
18
Views
841
UK and Europe
Pete Whelan
P
W
Mildenhall
Replies
0
Views
284
UK and Europe
wafflycat
W
Top Bottom Back