Re: RH/L:H pedal threads

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 02:26:26 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Why are pedals threaded RH on the right side, and LH on the left side?

Because if the left pedal was RH thread, it would unscrew. This had
already been discovered by the time the 1908 Sears catalog was
published. (IIANM, there were a couple of guys named Wright who came
up with this as the solution to the "left pedal keeps falling out"
problem.)

> If
>the idea is to keep the pedals from working loose as you ride, I think
>they've got it backwards.

Try it and see. Build a left-drive fixie.

>The torque applied to the pedal shafts by the
>bearing friction, in the existing system, tends to loosen them. But that
>friction is so low compared to the tightness of a properly installed pedal
>that I don't think you could unscrew a pedal by spinning it.
>
>What am I missing?

The reason for the loosening. It's not torque on the shaft, it's
orbital motion in the thread interface. The shaft doesn't unscrew due
to torque from pedal rotation, it walks out due to the side force on
the shaft as it rotates.

Car lug nuts stopped needing left hand threads on the left side of the
vehicle when the conical-face lug nut was perfected, but Chrysler
(with it's conservative belt-and-suspenders approach to engineering)
continued to use it all the way up into the '70s, as I recall. Their
justification was that if the left nuts weren't fully tight, the LH
threads would tend to keep the nuts from coming off as readily.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:21:48 GMT, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>Car lug nuts stopped needing left hand threads on the left side of the
>vehicle when the conical-face lug nut was perfected, but Chrysler
>(with it's conservative belt-and-suspenders approach to engineering)
^^^^
[snip]

Dear Werehatrack,

Normally I resist the urge, but . . .

An excellent spot for a conservative belt-and-suspenders
approach to the normally unpunctuated possessive pronoun!

C'arl Fogel

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:32:38 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:21:48 GMT, Werehatrack
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Car lug nuts stopped needing left hand threads on the left side of the
>>vehicle when the conical-face lug nut was perfected, but Chrysler
>>(with it's conservative belt-and-suspenders approach to engineering)
> ^^^^
>[snip]
>
>Dear Werehatrack,
>
>Normally I resist the urge, but . . .
>
>An excellent spot for a conservative belt-and-suspenders
>approach to the normally unpunctuated possessive pronoun!

When my XMIL adamantly stated that there was no sentence that could be
cosntructed in the English language which demonstrated the use of
"its" in a possessive manner, I said "Your statement shows that you
are unfamiliar with the problem faced by spell-checker programmers who
must devise a way for a piece of code to determine which of it's its
are to be used for comparison in a block of text." (Apostrophicated
possessive intentional.) She was flummoxed; apparently, in 40 years
of teaching, no one had even managed to show that the rule *could*
have an exception. (I generally adhere to the common usage, but I
would prefer regularization of the language by adoption of a different
rule; the contraction of "it is" should only be used where it will not
produce an ambiguity about the possible presence of the possessive of
"it", and "it's" should then become the possessive form.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Ted]

Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:32:38 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:21:48 GMT, Werehatrack
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>Car lug nuts stopped needing left hand threads on the left side of the
> >>vehicle when the conical-face lug nut was perfected, but Chrysler
> >>(with it's conservative belt-and-suspenders approach to engineering)
> > ^^^^
> >[snip]
> >
> >Dear Werehatrack,
> >
> >Normally I resist the urge, but . . .
> >
> >An excellent spot for a conservative belt-and-suspenders
> >approach to the normally unpunctuated possessive pronoun!
>
> When my XMIL adamantly stated that there was no sentence that could be
> cosntructed in the English language which demonstrated the use of
> "its" in a possessive manner, I said "Your statement shows that you
> are unfamiliar with the problem faced by spell-checker programmers who
> must devise a way for a piece of code to determine which of it's its
> are to be used for comparison in a block of text." (Apostrophicated
> possessive intentional.) She was flummoxed; apparently, in 40 years
> of teaching, no one had even managed to show that the rule *could*
> have an exception. (I generally adhere to the common usage, but I
> would prefer regularization of the language by adoption of a different
> rule; the contraction of "it is" should only be used where it will not
> produce an ambiguity about the possible presence of the possessive of
> "it", and "it's" should then become the possessive form.)


Your sentence fails to demonstrate a possessive use of "it's" because it
becomes nonsensical if you replace "it's" with "it is". The sentence
would be more clear if you use the correct form without the apostrophe,
and place the second "its" in quotes to show that the word refers to
instances of the word "it", as in:
"Your statement shows that you unfamiliar with the problem faced by
spell-checker programmers who must devise a way for a piece of code to
determine which of its "its" [or its "it's"] are to be used for
comparison in a block of text."

I agree that there is a lot of confusion about whether to use "it's" or
"its" and I am mildly distressed to see college-educated journalists
make the error, as well as many high-school graduates, and even
elementary school grads, all of whom have failed to grasp the difference.

If you wish to use "it's" as the possessive form, be aware that you have
dared to contradict standard form. Furthermore, you will be confusing
those whose use "tire's" when they meant to say "tires". Or "tyres".

Sigh.

--
Ted Bennett
Portland, OR

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:32:19 GMT, Ted <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If you wish to use "it's" as the possessive form, be aware that you have
>dared to contradict standard form. Furthermore, you will be confusing
>those whose use "tire's" when they meant to say "tires". Or "tyres".

The grocer's apostrophication of a plural is both outside of accepted
usage *and* every bit as irregular as the nonapostrophication of the
possessive "its"; the apostrophication of the possessive is at least
in conformance with the accepted pattern of the language rather than a
deviation from it. As such, the apostrophe in a possessive "it's"
conforms to the pattern of the language by breaking from accepted
usage, while the other breaks from both pattern *and* usage.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:41:36 GMT, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:32:19 GMT, Ted <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>If you wish to use "it's" as the possessive form, be aware that you have
>>dared to contradict standard form. Furthermore, you will be confusing
>>those whose use "tire's" when they meant to say "tires". Or "tyres".
>
>The grocer's apostrophication of a plural is both outside of accepted
>usage *and* every bit as irregular as the nonapostrophication of the
>possessive "its"; the apostrophication of the possessive is at least
>in conformance with the accepted pattern of the language rather than a
>deviation from it. As such, the apostrophe in a possessive "it's"
>conforms to the pattern of the language by breaking from accepted
>usage, while the other breaks from both pattern *and* usage.

Dear Werehatrack,

Er, sorry, but personal pronouns do not use apostrophes to
form the possessive case in English--his, her, hers, our,
ours, my, mine, your, yours, their, theirs, its.

When used with a personal pronoun, the apostrophe's f'r
contractions (missin' letters), as in I'll, I'd, I've,
they're, they'd, they'll, he's, he'd, he'll, she's, she'd,
she'll, we're, we'd, we'll, you're, you'd, you'll, it's,
it'd, it'll.

Debate arises occasionally concerning the regional his'n,
but 'tain't really a possessive apostrophe--'tis just a folk
contraction of "his one" to "his'n".

Curiously, while "his'n" is rigidly apostrophized, the
similar "yourn" and "ourn" never use the contractive
apostrophe. The reason is that the latter two look familiar
to our eyes, but "hisn" looks awful without an apostrophe
because it simply isn't English orthography. (Brutal
misogyny may account for the lack of an authentic "her'n".)

There are also the purely phonetic folk spellings, such as
in "kinda-sorta" for "kind of-sort of" and the amusing
"should of" and "would of" for "should've" and "would've."

The last example reminds us that apostrophes are purely
punctuational--the words sound the same when read aloud.
'Sblood, Shakespeare was perfectly happy with "Ille" for
"I'll".

Carl F'ogel

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:35:57 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>Er, sorry, but personal pronouns do not use apostrophes to
>form the possessive case in English--his, her, hers, our,
>ours, my, mine, your, yours, their, theirs, its.

With the exception of his, the rest of the s-forms could be
regularized, but it's a moot point; the inertia is too great.

>Curiously, while "his'n" is rigidly apostrophized, the
>similar "yourn" and "ourn" never use the contractive
>apostrophe.

This is not exactly something that has been heavily documented TTBOMK,
and I've seen your'n used. An then there's "all y'alls", the
collective second person plural possessive form which just pops the
breakers on some pedants' circuits by its mere mention.

>The reason is that the latter two look familiar
>to our eyes, but "hisn" looks awful without an apostrophe
>because it simply isn't English orthography. (Brutal
>misogyny may account for the lack of an authentic "her'n".)

More likely "hers" is just easier to say.

>There are also the purely phonetic folk spellings, such as
>in "kinda-sorta" for "kind of-sort of" and the amusing
>"should of" and "would of" for "should've" and "would've."

And the even more colloquial "shoulda" and "woulda".

>The last example reminds us that apostrophes are purely
>punctuational--the words sound the same when read aloud.
>'Sblood, Shakespeare was perfectly happy with "Ille" for
>"I'll".

Middle English was an unruly language; it didn't just borrow from
other tongues, it followed them home, waited 'til the lights were out,
broke in, rifled their closets and hauled off anything of value. It
had few rules because it respected none.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:35:57 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>Er, sorry, but personal pronouns do not use apostrophes to
>form the possessive case in English

"It" is only technically a *personal* pronoun; this may account for
much of the tendency to add the tick. It's actually an impersonal
pronoun.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Ted" wrote: (clip) Furthermore, you will be confusing those whose use
"tire's" when they meant to say "tires". Or "tyres".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or the Smiths, who live in a house with a carved redwood sign on the front
which reads, "The Smith's." To be charitable, I assume they mean, "The
Smith's (house.)" If you banned the apostrophe from the font of the
redwood sign engravers, it would do less harm than good.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:29:18 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Ted" wrote: (clip) Furthermore, you will be confusing those whose use
>"tire's" when they meant to say "tires". Or "tyres".
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Or the Smiths, who live in a house with a carved redwood sign on the front
>which reads, "The Smith's." To be charitable, I assume they mean, "The
>Smith's (house.)" If you banned the apostrophe from the font of the
>redwood sign engravers, it would do less harm than good.

If we could just get the apostrophe removed from the set of letters
and symbols supplied with those ugly roadside box signs, it would make
them slightly more tolerable. The grand prize for idiocy with those,
however, goes to the people who use an inverted exclamation point in
place of a letter I (not L, the other one shaped like that) when they
haven't run out of the letter. The ones who dot a capital I. To me,
that's worse than apostrophication of a plural. And then there are
the ones who come up with the incredible gems where they combine those
two atrocities with homonym errors. I've seen such signs in my
travels, and I've considered carrying a camera to preserve the record
of the sightings.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Werehatrack]

On 9 Apr 2005 20:56:39 -0700, "Earls61" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Werehatrack wrote:
>>
>> Try it and see. Build a left-drive fixie.
>
>Ask Sheldon!
>
>http://sheldonbrown.org/gunnar/index.html

I was advising doing it with a regular set of cranks flipped to the
wrong sides. As a demonstration of the pitfall, I doubt that it would
take long to fail.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Peter]

Werehatrack wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 02:26:26 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Why are pedals threaded RH on the right side, and LH on the left side?
>
>
> Because if the left pedal was RH thread, it would unscrew. This had
> already been discovered by the time the 1908 Sears catalog was
> published. (IIANM, there were a couple of guys named Wright who came
> up with this as the solution to the "left pedal keeps falling out"
> problem.)
>
>
>>If
>>the idea is to keep the pedals from working loose as you ride, I think
>>they've got it backwards.
>
>
> Try it and see. Build a left-drive fixie.

I did the experiment quite a few years ago, although not with a
fixed-gear bike. To convert our tandem to a kid-back arrangement I took
a regular children's crank with the bottom bracket clamped to the rear
seat tube. The chainring was on the left side so it would be connected
by chain to the timing chainring on the front crank.

The pedals were definitely prone to coming loose but applying plenty of
torque did eventually get them tight enough to stay. Of course our
daughter wasn't applying all that much force to the pedals at that age.

> The reason for the loosening. It's not torque on the shaft, it's
> orbital motion in the thread interface. The shaft doesn't unscrew due
> to torque from pedal rotation, it walks out due to the side force on
> the shaft as it rotates.

Agreed.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Werehatrack" wrote: (clip) I've seen such signs in my travels, and I've
considered carrying a camera to preserve the record of the sightings.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have an album of such pictures. My favorite is a sign stenciled on the
wall above a row of garbage cans at our local high school. It reads,
"School trash only. Others will be prosecuted."