On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:37:47 -0800, "G.T." <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:40:08 -0800, "G.T." <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:41:08 -0800, "G.T." <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:49:57 -0800, "G.T." <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 3:02 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > On Feb 12, 2:27 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> > On Feb 11, 7:54 pm, Gary Young <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> This is a variant of the
>>>>>>>>> >> >> my-uncle-was-a-smoker-and-he-lived-until-95
>>>>>>>>> >> >> argument.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> > Except for the small details that smoking will most definitely
>>>>>>>>> >> > cause
>>>>>>>>> >> > some harm, and, so far, disk brakes have caused none due to
>>>>>>>>> >> > the
>>>>>>>>> >> > ejection force being present.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> None? You're sure about that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> Greg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > The answer to both questions is in the part you trimmed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "(Qualifier: if some harm has occurred, it certainly hasn't been
>>>>>>>>> distinguished from user error.)"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now you're omniscient?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Strawman.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you've got any, and I mean ANY, credible data that any of the
>>>>>>>> incidents involving wheel ejection have been proven as disk-brake
>>>>>>>> caused, go ahead and cite it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's sad that you and jb are such untrusting fools.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Missy's QR popped. She had definitely tightened it before the ride
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>>was doing some goofy stuff. The Skareb had the lawyer lips intact.
>>>>>>>[The]
>>>>>>>XT skewer [was] really tight."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"QR WAS done up - I had checked it at the top and had not stopped,
>>>>>>>crashed
>>>>>>>or clipped anything that may have undone it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Greg,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the rest of us fools, trusting or otherwise, could you add the
>>>>>> missing citation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is, who is saying that someone else's QR "popped"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where can we find it--a web page, a magazine, a newspaper?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The first can be found by searching "missy giove wheel ejection" on
>>>>>Google
>>>>>and the other is on someone's site who y'all don't trust.
>>>>>
>>>>>Greg
>>>>
>>>> Dear Greg,
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be common courtesy to just provide the links?
>>>
>>>See below.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your Google suggestion provides 42 places to look:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?as_q=m...as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
>>>>
>>>> See how easy it is?
>>>>
>>>> Why make it hard for people who are interested to look at whatever
>>>> you're talking about? It gives the impression that whatever you're
>>>> citing can't stand examination, which is scarcely your intent.
>>>
>>>Because I don't believe that you, jb, or EP are interested or you would
>>>have
>>>found references to wheel ejections in the past.
>>>
>>>Greg
>>
>> Dear Greg,
>>
>> I'm asking where I can find what you quoted, which shows interest on
>> my part.
>>
>
>Ok, my bad. When I searched just a little while ago this recounting was at
>the top of the Google results:
>
>http://www.bikebiz.com/Missy-Gioves-QR-pops-open-
>
>Greg
Dear Greg,
Now there's something to look at.
Sorry, but it's not very credible as it stands.
"Missy's QR popped. She had definitely tightened it before the ride as
she was doing some goofy stuff."
Does that mean that the speaker thinks that Missy must have tightened
it because she was doing some goofy stuff and he assumes that she
would have "definitely tightened" it?
Or does it mean that he saw her tighten it before she went riding and
began doing goofy stuff? Who watches another rider slapping a wheel
into the fork? It's possible, but strange.
"The Skareb had the lawyer lips intact. [The] XT skewer [was] really
tight. I'd actually mentioned your story to Rick when we were leaving
the office."
How does he know how tight Missy's skewer was if she was the one who
tightened it?
You may not like such questions, but they're the ones that any lawyer
or expert trying to reconstruct an accident would ask. Whatever Jobst
may think about the principles, here's his timely comment in another
current thread on plaintiffs and accident reconstruction:
"I would like to have seen the bicycle [another bike, not Missy's]
right after the incident. It has been my experience that
reconstruction of what occurred is often easier than first
indications. That has been so, in every case in which I was called to
testify. That is to say, the event did not occur as plaintiff
described."
In these anecdotes mentioned in this thread, people insist that they
had just definitely checked a really tight quick release because
they'd been reading that the QR might pop open unexpectedly--and sure
enough, the QR that had no previous history of popping open obligingly
pops open on the ride.
Isn't it odd that there's no history of Missy's QR popping open while
she did "goofy stuff" in redwood forest rides with two friends, one of
whom just read an article about QR's popping open?
Maybe Missy's QR had been popping open all the time, but she just
never mentioned it to friends? It could be, but it would be odd that
she never mentioned such startling behavior.
Maybe Missy had never previously ridden so goofily? It could be, but
it seems unlikely that a world-class downhill rider suddenly exceeded
all her previous efforts on a casual ride.
Or maybe the other usual (and less flattering) explanations apply? "On
Any Sunday" cruelly shows Malcom Smith, arguably that era's greatest
desert racer, attacking the Widowmaker hill-climb on his Husqvarna
with the cameras rolling and huge audience, only to sputter to an
embarrassing stop because he forgot to turn his fuel tap on.
Of course, there may be a more detailed article somewhere about
Missy's QR that would lay the obvious questions to rest.
And this story and every other story mentioned in this thread could be
perfectly true and accurate.
But the strange pattern of QR's that pop open as soon as someone hears
they might do so raises reasonable doubts.
So does the rest of the article that you quoted, which doesn't even
mention the possibility that the QR might just not have been tightened
as claimed afterward:
"On One's Brant Richards is not convinced the 'Missy incident' is the
Annan theory found in the field."
"'We don't know how Missy's QR popped open. She could have caught it
trailside on something. It might well have been tight, but might not
have been locked over centre.'"
"'It could have been incorrectly installed, with the clamping surface
not sitting properly in the dropout, and have settled loose, then
flopped open.'"
"'The problem now is people are now suspecting an Annan-type QR/disc
problem, not the fact that something else - several other things -
could have happened!'"
"'We have a rear disc mount on our singlespeed jump frames, and the
relationship of the disc and dropout slot means that certain riders
have noticed the wheel being moved backwards by the force of the disc
brake due to the forces involved. This is only when the wheel is
clamped in place by a chaintug - a device to stop the wheel moving
forwards - which spreads the clamping force over a large area. Use of
just a good old track nut usually stops this in its tracks.'"
"'I therefore don't discount the fact that the physics and my
experience show that a wheel can be shifted in the dropout under
braking load. But I do discount that a correctly installed QR of a
correct over-centre-clamp type lock won't come undone unless it's
disturbed on the trail.'"
"And Richards has a cheap solution:"
"'Surely something as simple as zip tieing the QR in a closed position
would stop all this. It's the bicycle equivalent of the axle nut split
pin.'"
http://www.bikebiz.com/Missy-Gioves-QR-pops-open-
For anyone unfamiliar with axle nut split pins, front and rear
motorcycle axles often (if not invariably) come with a hole drilled
sideways through the threads and use a turret nut that allows a large
cotter pin to be inserted and prevent the nut from unscrewing.
The cotter pins rarely survive the first wheel removal, and the empty
holes usually plug up with mud and even tiny rock fragments on trials
machines.
As for the notion that racers (and sincere amateurs) are somehow above
simple mistakes, remember that during major surgery a nurse is
required to count the instruments and sponges because experience (and
x-rays) show that extraordinarily well-trained and dedicated surgeons
keep leaving things inside patients.
And despite this precaution, instruments and sponges still keep
turning up inside patients.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel