If it were up to me, I would redesign the quick-release to make it idiot-proof, not the disc brake. But it looks like we'll have to settle for forward-facing dropouts.
Feel free to elaborate on how to idiotproof QRs.
We could use some sort of locking device that wouldn't engage until past a certain point.
A high-pitch helical gear with detents or an internal shelf that would "click" into place once the required tension is acquired. If it doesn't click into place, it immediately becomes totally loose again, making it obvious that the QR is in the open position.
That would be more idiot-proof than the current one. Has anyone else had ideas for a better QR?
If it were up to me, I would redesign the quick-release to make it idiot-proof, not the disc brake. But it looks like we'll have to settle for forward-facing dropouts.
Feel free to elaborate on how to idiotproof QRs.
We could use some sort of locking device that wouldn't engage until past a certain point.
A high-pitch helical gear with detents or an internal shelf that would "click" into place once the required tension is acquired. If it doesn't click into place, it immediately becomes totally loose again, making it obvious that the QR is in the open position.
That would be more idiot-proof than the current one. Has anyone else had ideas for a better QR?
-- Phil, Squid-in-Training
it's really not about the qr, it's about the axle/fork interface. those that don't like old style qr fixing can go for through axle fixing. and that's all there is to it!
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:17:58 -0400, "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> If it were up to me, I would redesign the quick-release to make it > idiot-proof, not the disc brake. But it looks like we'll have to > settle for forward-facing dropouts.
Feel free to elaborate on how to idiotproof QRs.
We could use some sort of locking device that wouldn't engage until past a certain point.
A high-pitch helical gear with detents or an internal shelf that would "click" into place once the required tension is acquired. If it doesn't click into place, it immediately becomes totally loose again, making it obvious that the QR is in the open position.
That would be more idiot-proof than the current one. Has anyone else had ideas for a better QR?
-- Phil, Squid-in-Training
it's really not about the qr, it's about the axle/fork interface. those that don't like old style qr fixing can go for through axle fixing. and that's all there is to it!
What about changing the serration pattern on the fork/skewer/hub? What if we had interlocking mechanisms, kinda like thicker serrations, with not a radial pattern, but a circumferential one instead? Sounds like the hub manufacturers can do a running change to locknuts. And skewers would benefit from a radial-to-circumferential change, too.
What about changing the serration pattern on the fork/skewer/hub? What if we had interlocking mechanisms, kinda like thicker serrations, with not a radial pattern, but a circumferential one instead? Sounds like the hub manufacturers can do a running change to locknuts. And skewers would benefit from a radial-to-circumferential change, too.
That would not resist fastener unscrewing. Part of the serrations' function is to resist unscrewing, and for that to work they must be radial.
I do like the "click for proper tension" idea. Kinda kills the user error angle.
What about changing the serration pattern on the fork/skewer/hub? What if we had interlocking mechanisms, kinda like thicker serrations, with not a radial pattern, but a circumferential one instead? Sounds like the hub manufacturers can do a running change to locknuts. And skewers would benefit from a radial-to-circumferential change, too.
That would not resist fastener unscrewing. Part of the serrations' function is to resist unscrewing, and for that to work they must be radial.
I do like the "click for proper tension" idea. Kinda kills the user error angle.
E.P.
Hmm... forgot about that. What about both types of serrations... radial towards the outside and circumferential on the inside?
