pros use tubular tires, not clinchers.



<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Phil Holman writes:
>
>>> How do tactics and strategy affect tire rolling resistance?
>
>> They don't, but tactics and strategy hugely overshadow tire rolling
>> resistance differences in mass start races.
>
> So why bring that up in this connection?

Because the rolling resistance difference between clichers and tubulars
is just didling in the noise. This thread is about the choice of
tubulars or clinchers for racing. I don't think rolling resistance is a
big enough factor to sway that choice, let alone some theoretical value
taken under test conditions that are nothing like actual road
conditions.

>
>> Also, the difference in rolling resistance measured under ideal
>> conditions does not necessarily translate to significant differences
>> under mass start road racing conditions. Has anyone run any tests on
>> anything other than a smooth roller?
>
> I think you don't understand rolling resistance. The losses are
> encountered by flexing the tread, tire casing, and tube, that are
> either elastomers directly or are bonded by ones. That flexing has
> hysteresis losses (does not return the same energy that was required
> to deform it). The rougher the surface the more tread deformation
> plays a role so the smooth drum is the standard by which tires are
> compared.

yada yada .....the fact that we let air out of our tires on chipseal
roads to go faster even though this increases rolling resistance; what
does this tell you? Rolling resistance is only one parameter to consider
when choosing the fastest wheel.

>
> Tread patterns cause tread squirm losses in addition to those from
> casing flex and these become worse with textured test surfaces, and
> higher inflation pressure. You can notice which tires in the RR
> curves at:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance-tubular.html
>
> have thicker tread with patterns because they cease getting better
> with increased inflation. This is even starker with MTB knobby tires,
> whose losses get worse with higher inflation pressure (even on a
> smooth surface) because individual knobs come under higher pressure
> and deform to barrel shapes.
>
> In order to compare rolling losses in tires, they must be run on
> smooth test surfaces. Other tests might be used to show other
> characteristics but the principal loss of interest is the one on a
> smooth surface that assesses losses internal to the tire. You would
> probably hear a howl of complaint if a rough gravelly drum were used
> because tread thickness of smooth tread would not even reveal the true
> character of the tire, quite aside from tires with thicker tread and
> tread patterns.
>

Very interesting. The next time I race on a smooth drum I'll take
notice. The measurement you talk about is a theoretical value taken
under conditions chosen for testing facility. Will I be able to finish
the race on the tire with the lowest RR? Is it the fastest on the road?

Phil H
 
> Diamond rims?
>
>> Probably the most expensive...
>
> If the rims are made from diamonds, no surprise that they are
> expensive.

Well, they are shiny, and their appearance changes depending upon the angle
you look at them (could be how the facets are designed). And it would
explain the price.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> > They are all carbon clinchers? No metal hoop? Don't think so but since
>> > I don't drink the Trek koolaide, not as 'informed' as you Mike.
>>
>> 100% carbon.
>
> Diamond rims?
>
>> Probably the most expensive...
>
> If the rims are made from diamonds, no surprise that they are
> expensive.
>
> I expect the referenced rims are actually of carbon fiber reinforced
> thermoset polymer matrix composite construction.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman
>
 
On 22 Feb 2006 02:32:04 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Michael Press writes:
>
>> We differ here. I still think that rim shape does not contribute to
>> pinch punctures; that the determining factor is butyl rubber tube
>> contrasted with latex rubber tube.
>
>We've been through this many times here. The edge of the tubular rim
>compresses the casing the same as with clinchers.

It just isn't the same. Look at the things. On one you've got a narrow sharp
edged ridge and on the other there's a radius.

> That there is is a
>greater or smaller void next to it has no bearing on the compression
>force and the sharpness of it. As I mentioned, it was while patching
>pinch flats in the old days when there were no other tires of worth
>other than Clement racing tires, the term snake bite was coined to
>bring attention to looking for the other hole adjacent to the
>principal one when there was no sign of a sharp penetration.

Yes, it is possible to pinch flat a tubular. But it's a hell of a lot tougher
than with a clincher. I ride the damn things into curbs and rocks and roots and
don't have to pump them up hard like a clincher.

>And, yes, latex stretches much farther than butyl rubber before
>failing, but as an inner tube it leaks like a sieve.
>
>Just the same, we had plenty of snake bites.
>
>>>> Side wall construction is the principal deciding factor in how
>>>> well a tire rolls over irregularities. Tread thickness also
>>>> contributes. Vittoria makes a 290 thread per inch clincher tire.
>>>> I have toyed with the idea of buying a pair to see how well they
>>>> ride.
>
>You can leave off the "over irregularities" the thickness of the
>casing, tread and tube are what cause rolling tire losses and casings
>can only be made thin if strong fibers are used... like silk. Somehow
>nylon never made a big hit in racing tires although it replaced silk
>for parachutes.
>
>>> I hope to win the lottery some day, too.
>
>>> In the debate here, the relative costs are somewhat exaggerated.
>>> Really good clinchers ain't cheap and good sew-ups are much if any
>>> more. The best are pricey, but so's everything else at that end of
>>> the bike ornament market.
>
>> Yes, I limp along on 127 TPI, 25 mm carbon slicks.
>
>Isn't that dangerous??? Oops, forgot to leave a space before the ?.

OMG! I'm riding slicks on the road too. Wonder if I'll die.

Ron
 
jim beam wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > RonSonic (who?) anonymously snipes:
> >
> >>Do you really think, knowing, as I'm sure you do, the distribution patterns of
> >>human intelligence that you are really smarter than the entire peloton, all of
> >>their mechanics, DSs, sponsors and reps.
> >
> >
> > If one believes the WAIS to be an accurate indicator, then the answer
> > is yes. In addition, most all of the aforementioned lack an education
> > in engineering mechanics, and as Jobst Brandt is fond of pointing out;
> > the level of engineering at many cycling related manufacturers is not
> > what it could be.
>
> "lack of education in engineering mechanics ... at many cycling related
> manufacturers is not what it could be"????????? you're not fooling!!!
> we have bike "engineering" experts on this forum that [incredibly] know
> nothing of fatigue, fracture, deformation, thread rolling, [etc.]
>

You finally bought a mirror????
 
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:32:04 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

> You can leave off the "over irregularities" the thickness of the
> casing, tread and tube are what cause rolling tire losses and casings
> can only be made thin if strong fibers are used... like silk. Somehow
> nylon never made a big hit in racing tires although it replaced silk
> for parachutes.

I do recall a nylon tubular tire that came out in the early '70s (my
racing days). From Japan, I think. Not bad, but it was a royal pain to
stretch so you could get it on the rim.

I believe some modern tubulars are also made of nylon, polyester, and
blends of all sorts of fibers. Strange to see, though, cotton casings as
often as you do, since cotton was always considered vastly inferior to
silk. No one raced on cotton tires in the early '70s. Now people pay big
bucks for them. I wonder what the uber-elite teams have to pay for silk
tires.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and
_`\(,_ | Excellence.
(_)/ (_) |
 
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Lou Holtman wrote:
> > ...
> > That makes sense. I would love to try tubulars, just for the fun of it,
but
> > the only thing that withholds me is the possibility to get stuck in the
> > middle of nowhere after 2 flats. That's the only showstopper for me.
This
> > doesn't apply for Pro riders in a race though. So I can understand they
> > prefer tubulars.
>
> Who is to say that only two (2) spare sew-up tires can be carried on a
> ride? Of course, this will require more than just a tiny under-saddle
> pack (or heaven forbid, a hydration bladder carrier with pockets), but
> that should not matter under non-racing conditions.

I draw the line by carrying two innertubes and a patch kit. That's all I
need, even for longer trips. In the seldom case of two flats I can patch a
tube on the road. And yes it all fits nicely in a relative small saddlebag.
I'm don't ride with a backpack/hydration bladder carrier on my roadbike; not
for carrying 3 liters of water and not for carrying 2-3-4(?) sew up tires. I
hate that and with clinchers I don't have to. YMMV.

Lou
 
In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 22 Feb 2006 02:32:04 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Michael Press writes:
> >
> >> We differ here. I still think that rim shape does not contribute to
> >> pinch punctures; that the determining factor is butyl rubber tube
> >> contrasted with latex rubber tube.
> >
> >We've been through this many times here. The edge of the tubular rim
> >compresses the casing the same as with clinchers.
>
> It just isn't the same. Look at the things. On one you've got a narrow sharp
> edged ridge and on the other there's a radius.
>
> > That there is is a
> >greater or smaller void next to it has no bearing on the compression
> >force and the sharpness of it. As I mentioned, it was while patching
> >pinch flats in the old days when there were no other tires of worth
> >other than Clement racing tires, the term snake bite was coined to
> >bring attention to looking for the other hole adjacent to the
> >principal one when there was no sign of a sharp penetration.
>
> Yes, it is possible to pinch flat a tubular. But it's a hell of a lot tougher
> than with a clincher. I ride the damn things into curbs and rocks and roots and
> don't have to pump them up hard like a clincher.

Few riders run latex rubber tubes in their clincher tires.
Few riders run butyl rubber tubes in their tubular tires.
Until we have hundreds of thousands of miles in the
alternate configurations, or definitive laboratory studies
this matter cannot progress.

--
Michael Press
 
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:45:30 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:


>Few riders run latex rubber tubes in their clincher tires.
>Few riders run butyl rubber tubes in their tubular tires.


??? I've used a lot of common road racing tires -- Continental
Sprinters, Michelins, Vitorria CX. Plus way back when I used to train
on tubulars used Clement Futuras. I thought these all have butyl
tubes. Do they actually have latex tubes?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 

> Few riders run latex rubber tubes in their clincher tires.
> Few riders run butyl rubber tubes in their tubular tires.


You are full of it :). Most of my tubular miles have been on butyl
tubed tubulars. (Most riding is training, not racing). I have had,
literally, countless "pich flats" with clinchers (say more than 2
dozen). I have never had a pinch flat on a tubular. Never. I examine
flats (I am something of a nerd in that respect). I have ridden over
100,000 miles in my life, half tubular, half clincher.

Sidewall failures--had plenty of them. Countless. Being caught out
with only a tube and not a spare carcass (tubular or clincher) is a
royal pain.

Of course, flatting does not happen all that frequently, but when it
does, it really stinks.

In that past 4 years, I have had really good luck with flats. But I am
riding under more controlled conditions now.

Anecdotally, I can say without a doubt that in *my experinece*
clinchers have been more prone to flatting than tubulars, based on my
experience. That is, using equivalent tyres in terms of general
quality.

> Until we have hundreds of thousands of miles in the
> alternate configurations, or definitive laboratory studies
> this matter cannot progress.

Well, I have the first part licked. My results are posted above. Why
are you so enamored with "laboratory tests" for something that is,
inherently, not a laboratory environment?
 
Lou Holtman wrote:

> That makes sense. I would love to try tubulars, just for the fun of it, but
> the only thing that withholds me is the possibility to get stuck in the
> middle of nowhere after 2 flats. That's the only showstopper for me. This
> doesn't apply for Pro riders in a race though. So I can understand they
> prefer tubulars.

I have ridden at least 3,000 miles per year for the last 13 years
exclusively on tubulars, and have never punctured two tires on the same
ride. I only carry one spare tire. Maybe I'm just lucky.
Tubulars are less likely to flat than clinchers. Firstly, you don't get
pinch flats. Secondly, most quality tubulars (excepting Continental)
are constructed with a latex tube and some type of puncture-resistant
belt under the tread. Both features help minimize puntures.
When you do puncture a tubular, often it is a pinhole slow leak. I have
found the TUFO sealant to be effective in sealing these leaks. One
could carry a 35g tube of TUFO sealant and the tiny valve tool as an
alternative to carrying a second extra tire.
 
"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> we have bike "engineering" experts on this forum that [incredibly] know
> nothing of fatigue, fracture, deformation, thread rolling, [etc.]

You're not bringing up again that nonsense about cut threads being a danger
in brake bolts, are you?
 
Mike Krueger wrote:
> Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> > That makes sense. I would love to try tubulars, just for the fun of it, but
> > the only thing that withholds me is the possibility to get stuck in the
> > middle of nowhere after 2 flats. That's the only showstopper for me. This
> > doesn't apply for Pro riders in a race though. So I can understand they
> > prefer tubulars.
>
> I have ridden at least 3,000 miles per year for the last 13 years
> exclusively on tubulars, and have never punctured two tires on the same
> ride. I only carry one spare tire. Maybe I'm just lucky.
> Tubulars are less likely to flat than clinchers. Firstly, you don't get
> pinch flats. Secondly, most quality tubulars (excepting Continental)
> are constructed with a latex tube and some type of puncture-resistant
> belt under the tread. Both features help minimize puntures.
> When you do puncture a tubular, often it is a pinhole slow leak. I have
> found the TUFO sealant to be effective in sealing these leaks. One
> could carry a 35g tube of TUFO sealant and the tiny valve tool as an
> alternative to carrying a second extra tire.
That is exactly what my brother did when he lived in NYC. Worked great.
He'd put the sealant in only if and when he needed it.
 
The last Conti Comp I opened (actually pinched due to underinflation)
had a butyl tube. Not sure about Michelin. I've seen Vittoria CX's use
latex of varying color (green, purple, natural and pink) and quality.
Was about to give up on Vittoria due to encountering many defects
around the valve stem but the latest batch (>2001) seem to be of higher
quality. Am now experimenting w/ Veloflex and Deda.

Greg Hall
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Feb 2006 02:32:04 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >Michael Press writes:
> > >
> > >> We differ here. I still think that rim shape does not contribute to
> > >> pinch punctures; that the determining factor is butyl rubber tube
> > >> contrasted with latex rubber tube.
> > >
> > >We've been through this many times here. The edge of the tubular rim
> > >compresses the casing the same as with clinchers.
> >
> > It just isn't the same. Look at the things. On one you've got a narrow sharp
> > edged ridge and on the other there's a radius.
> >
> > > That there is is a
> > >greater or smaller void next to it has no bearing on the compression
> > >force and the sharpness of it. As I mentioned, it was while patching
> > >pinch flats in the old days when there were no other tires of worth
> > >other than Clement racing tires, the term snake bite was coined to
> > >bring attention to looking for the other hole adjacent to the
> > >principal one when there was no sign of a sharp penetration.
> >
> > Yes, it is possible to pinch flat a tubular. But it's a hell of a lot tougher
> > than with a clincher. I ride the damn things into curbs and rocks and roots and
> > don't have to pump them up hard like a clincher.
>
> Few riders run latex rubber tubes in their clincher tires.
> Few riders run butyl rubber tubes in their tubular tires.
> Until we have hundreds of thousands of miles in the
> alternate configurations, or definitive laboratory studies
> this matter cannot progress.
>
> --
> Michael Press

There ya go again Michael. Most tubulars have butyl tubes. Vittoria and
one oher(Velo-somethin) have latex.
 
David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:32:04 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
>
> > You can leave off the "over irregularities" the thickness of the
> > casing, tread and tube are what cause rolling tire losses and casings
> > can only be made thin if strong fibers are used... like silk. Somehow
> > nylon never made a big hit in racing tires although it replaced silk
> > for parachutes.
>
> I do recall a nylon tubular tire that came out in the early '70s (my
> racing days). From Japan, I think. Not bad, but it was a royal pain to
> stretch so you could get it on the rim.
>
> I believe some modern tubulars are also made of nylon, polyester, and
> blends of all sorts of fibers. Strange to see, though, cotton casings as
> often as you do, since cotton was always considered vastly inferior to
> silk. No one raced on cotton tires in the early '70s. Now people pay big
> bucks for them. I wonder what the uber-elite teams have to pay for silk
> tires.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson
>
> __o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and
> _`\(,_ | Excellence.
> (_)/ (_) |

I think the only new manufacturer silk comes from Dugast. High
threadcount cotton feels great, BTW- Silk is nice and I wouldn't be
surprized if somebody still made silk track tubies.
 
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

>
> Provide a citation of rolling resistance tests performed by any of the
> referenced professional cyclists.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman

why? They don't select a tire type by rolling resistence. The
differences are teeny-tiny and most lost in the noise. BUT large
advantages in tubie use and I repeat them for you if you wish Tom.

I'll bet they don't know the efficiency of chain type either or energy
transmission from different shoes but if a shoe is more comfy or a
saddle, they are a gonna use it.
 
David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:32:04 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
>
>
>>You can leave off the "over irregularities" the thickness of the
>>casing, tread and tube are what cause rolling tire losses and casings
>>can only be made thin if strong fibers are used... like silk. Somehow
>>nylon never made a big hit in racing tires although it replaced silk
>>for parachutes.
>
>
> I do recall a nylon tubular tire that came out in the early '70s (my
> racing days). From Japan, I think. Not bad, but it was a royal pain to
> stretch so you could get it on the rim.

soyo, iirc.

>
> I believe some modern tubulars are also made of nylon, polyester, and
> blends of all sorts of fibers. Strange to see, though, cotton casings as
> often as you do, since cotton was always considered vastly inferior to
> silk. No one raced on cotton tires in the early '70s. Now people pay big
> bucks for them. I wonder what the uber-elite teams have to pay for silk
> tires.

indeed, that's an interesting observation.
 
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> bill ? wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > bill ? wrote:
> > > > I don't think it means much if you lump eveyone together in "what do
> > > > the pros use". Obviously, some people will use tubulars, others
> > > > clinchers. There is no "standard."
> > > >
> > > > The immutable facts are clear. Tubulars ride nicer and the wheels are
> > > > tougher.
> > >
> > > Define "nicer" in this context.
> > >
> > > Define "tougher" in this context. Provide citations of experimental
> > > evidence or a mathematical model using established methods to prove
> > > your contention.

What are you, my professor? You *********** know that tubular wheels
are strogner for a gven weight and quality of material due to the
sectional geometry of the rim. If you are so smart and experienced in
bike engineering, I should not have to tell you this. One more proof
that you are a stuffed shirt.
> > >
> > > > Clinchers allow a more compact emergency kit, and a fully
> > > > functional tyre after an on the road flat repair (tubulars cannot take
> > > > a hard corner after an on the road fix).
> > > >
> > > > Clincher riders who carry only a tube will eventually suffer a carcass
> > > > failure or sidewall blowout and have to walk home,...
> > >
> > > Citation or other proof? How is a carcass or sidewall failure
> > > inevitable with a clincher tire? Millions of clincher tires have been
> > > retired from tread wear without exhibiting the aforementioned failure
> > > modes.

I didn't say inevitable with a clicher. I said eventually. Can you
read? Go read it again!

> > >
> > > > while the guys with
> > > > tubulars will have a complete spare tyre, as will the guys that carry a
> > > > foldable. (I know this from painful experience).
> > >
> > > And when the tubular ride with one (1) spare suffers two (2) flats?

Shut up already. You are not reading this properly. I can say the same
about carrying only one spare fldable clincher carcass.

Your replies are moronic flame retorts, not well reasoned or thoughtful
replies.

> > >
> > > > Clinchers allow you to ride through trashy streets, get flats,
> > > > patch/replace the tubes over and over, and still get 2000 miles out of
> > > > the tyre. Tubulars, except for TUFO, do not allow this behavior. (TUFOS
> > > > can be made self-sealing and so will literally seal the hole the moment
> > > > you ride over a piece of glass).
> > > >
> > > > If you are racing the criterium in Hunting Park you aught to ride
> > > > clinchers or TUFOS rather than your $70 silks. Just in case.
> > > >
> > > > If you are in the habit of riding over whatever the road throws in
> > > > front of you, and/or believe Jobst when he says that "wiping tyres
> > > > makes no difference" then you probably aught to copy all the fred and
> > > > nancies and ride a set of deep-dish cosmic pizza wheels with michelin
> > > > marshmellow tyres and a couple spare tubes and foldies and those stupid
> > > > compressed air thingies instead of a real pump 8-0
> > > >
> > > > But if you are a cool dude, you will ride a real wheel with real tyres
> > > > and you might even look where you are going :)
> > >
> > > Now we get to the real truth of the post. Tubular riders are "superior"
> > > because they are part of the in clique that knows how to conform with
> > > the "proper" equipment, clothing, jargon and dismissive attitude
> > > towards others.

You are sduch a moron, Tom. If you had *read* my post, you would have
noticed that I did not in fact disparage clinchers. I stated clearly
that a person riding a clincher has practical options equivalent to the
tubular. I recognize that each system has its advantages. The fact that
you cannot take a friendly :) smile shows a lack of, well, *human*
intelligence and wit on your part.

> > >
> > No, the truth of the matter is that I know how to glue a tubular on
> > without getting all sticky, and you don't ;-)
> >
> > Seriously, you did not read my post. You reacted against it.
>
> How do you know what I read? Are you omniscient?

Dude, you are lost. Your response showed a lack of comprehension. You
may have looked, but you certainly didn't *read*.

>
> > If you understand structural engineering, then I do not need to explain
> > to you the issue of unbalanced sections.
>
> Explain further how this applies to bicycle tires.

Once again, you have not been paying attention! The use of tubular
tyres necessitates the use of tubular *rims* too. Clincher rims are
more fragile in nature due to their geometry.

>
> > Ride nicer.
>
> "Ride nicer" is an ungrammatical fragment.
>

So there we have it, you are a language fascist. Not surprising,
considering your socialsit rants in the past. If the world would only
wake up and do things the Tom Sherman way, we'd all be so much happier!
Go ahead, attack this fragment, too. It's easier than acutally paying
attention to the meaning of things.

> "Nicer" is a subjective criteria and a matter of preference, not
> "fact".

OK dude, that would be *criterion* not criteria, you moronic language
snob. You can go eat crow now.

Well, when it comes to riding, subjective criteria are just as
important as objective criteria.
>
> > Well, if you do not agree, then it is clear that you have
> > not spent any time on tubulars.
>
> Opinion presented as fact. Next!

Well, yes, true, except that it really is hard to believe that you have
much experience with them. Your attitude belies a lack of experience.
>
> > Sidewall punctures from outside sources happen eqqully to either type
> > of tyre, but pinch flats, anecdotally, never happen on tubulars. What I
> > said was that if you carry *only* a tube, then you are bound to be
> > caught out. As has happened to me. RTF post before responding.
>
> I read what was written; "Clincher riders who carry only a tube will
> eventually suffer a carcass failure or sidewall blowout and have to
> walk home..." This is utter nonsense, as it is POSSIBLE to ride a
> lifetime only carrying spare tubes and never having a sidewall or
> carcass on a clincher tire fail. The occurrence of sidewall and/or
> carcass failures prior to the tread wearing out on clincher tires is
> less than 100%, if you had not noticed.
>
> Think about what you are actually saying before posting, and especially
> flaming others.

Think about what I actually said in the 1st place, and reply
appropriately, and you know what, then there won't be any "flaming" as
you call it.

You are just not reading this very closely. If you had bothered to
read my post that started this ridiculous interaction, you would see
that in fact I was *neutral* regarding clincher/tubular with respect to
spares, merely pointing out that if one does not carry a spare carcass
(tubular or clincher), one is exposed to the sidewall hazard. I am
happy that you have never experienced a sidewall failure. In my
experience, you have been very lucky.
 
jtaylor wrote:
> "jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>we have bike "engineering" experts on this forum that [incredibly] know
>>nothing of fatigue, fracture, deformation, thread rolling, [etc.]
>
>
> You're not bringing up again that nonsense about cut threads being a danger
> in brake bolts, are you?
>
>
try not to get so personally wrapped up in demonstrating the failure of
your schooling there kiddo. if an anonymous jerk on the net can push
your buttons so bad that you lose all rationality, you need to start
worrying about that tenuous grip you have on the rest of your life.
 
"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>we have bike "engineering" experts on this forum that [incredibly] know
> >>nothing of fatigue, fracture, deformation, thread rolling, [etc.]
> >
> >
> > You're not bringing up again that nonsense about cut threads being a
danger
> > in brake bolts, are you?
> >
> >
> try not to get so personally wrapped up in demonstrating the failure of
> your schooling there kiddo. if an anonymous jerk on the net can push
> your buttons so bad that you lose all rationality, you need to start
> worrying about that tenuous grip you have on the rest of your life.

Previously you told us you "used to be a metallurgist".

Now you describe yourself as "...an anonymous jerk on the net..."

Tell us, was this lifestyle change of your own choosing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Re: pros use tubular tires, not clinchers. [Now off-topic]
Replies
2
Views
359
Cycling Equipment
bill
B
S
Re: Why do the pros use tubular tire when clinchers are faster?
Replies
6
Views
575
Cycling Equipment
[email protected]
S
B
Re: Why do the pros use tubular tire when clinchers are faster?
Replies
1
Views
348
Cycling Equipment
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Q
P
Re: Why do the pros use tubular tire when clinchers are faster?
Replies
5
Views
420
Cycling Equipment
[email protected]
C
C
Re: Why do the pros use tubular tire when clinchers are faster?
Replies
0
Views
353
Cycling Equipment
[email protected]
C
Top Bottom Back