Quick-release redesign (kinda-sorta disc-brakey)

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:17:58 -0400, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
> <[email protected]> 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

 

[jim beam]

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:17:58 -0400, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
>><[email protected]> 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!

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

jim beam wrote:
> Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:17:58 -0400, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
>>> <[email protected]> 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.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[[email protected]]

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>
> 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.

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

[email protected] wrote:
> Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>>
>> 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?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[dvt]

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> Hmm... forgot about that. What about both types of serrations... radial
> towards the outside and circumferential on the inside?

Plain old teeth would be simpler, I think. Sorta like knurling.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu