Re: x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal



Greg Tomlinson writes:

>>> Wouldn't it be common courtesy to just provide the links?


>>> 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.


>> Better yet, be nice enough for those who cut and paste to put that
>> into a one-liner:


>> http://tinyurl.com/ywpb3w


> I'm not clicking on that.


Get some virus protection for you calculator. If that site had
anything but the long URL shown above, a reasonable security
application would trap it. You could try Norton just for starters.

Jobst Brandt
 
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.

If you keep refusing to tell us where your jammed-together quotes come
from (it now seems that they're from two separate sources), what do
you think other readers will conclude about your evidence?

Do them a favor, even if you're reluctant to answer me, and let them
know where they can find whatever you're quoting from.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
G

G.T.

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Greg Tomlinson writes:
>
>>>> Wouldn't it be common courtesy to just provide the links?

>
>>>> 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.

>
>>> Better yet, be nice enough for those who cut and paste to put that
>>> into a one-liner:

>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ywpb3w

>
>> I'm not clicking on that.

>
> Get some virus protection for you calculator. If that site had
> anything but the long URL shown above, a reasonable security
> application would trap it. You could try Norton just for starters.
>


Viruses don't worry me.

Being redirected to disgusting sites like the old goatse.cx site does.

Greg
 
G

G.T.

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[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]om> 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
 
On Feb 12, 8:12 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > As far as I know, the 1969 street Honda CB750 was the first widely
> > produced disk brake motorcycle. It had a leading caliper:

>
> >http://www.worldmotorcycles.com/

>
> > Leading calipers still appeared in 1978:

>
> >http://www.dropbears.com/c/classicmemories/images/mcm/mcmech7801.jpg

....
>
> accepted. the point is, there's a specific reason to go to the "dark
> side", and you've identified it.


A bigger point is: See, it IS possible to design such a thing to
successfully resist tensile fatigue stresses! Just as I said.

Now, once again, jim, care to guess the awesome magnitude of the
weight penalty? What would you say - as much as 20 grams? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:35:17 -0800, "G.T." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> Greg Tomlinson writes:
>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it be common courtesy to just provide the links?

>>
>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>> Better yet, be nice enough for those who cut and paste to put that
>>>> into a one-liner:

>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/ywpb3w

>>
>>> I'm not clicking on that.

>>
>> Get some virus protection for you calculator. If that site had
>> anything but the long URL shown above, a reasonable security
>> application would trap it. You could try Norton just for starters.
>>

>
>Viruses don't worry me.
>
>Being redirected to disgusting sites like the old goatse.cx site does.
>
>Greg


Dear Greg,

You're worried that Jobst Brandt is trying to redirect you to a
disgusting site by posting a link in a public post on RBT?

Can you give us any example of such disgusting redirections appearing
without warning from well-known, regular posters in the last 92,000+
archived RBT posts?

If there are such posters, it would be a good thing for you to point
them out to the rest of us.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
G

G.T.

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:35:17 -0800, "G.T." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> Greg Tomlinson writes:
>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't it be common courtesy to just provide the links?
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>> Better yet, be nice enough for those who cut and paste to put that
>>>>> into a one-liner:
>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/ywpb3w
>>>
>>>> I'm not clicking on that.
>>>
>>> Get some virus protection for you calculator. If that site had
>>> anything but the long URL shown above, a reasonable security
>>> application would trap it. You could try Norton just for starters.
>>>

>>
>>Viruses don't worry me.
>>
>>Being redirected to disgusting sites like the old goatse.cx site does.
>>
>>Greg

>
> Dear Greg,
>
> You're worried that Jobst Brandt is trying to redirect you to a
> disgusting site by posting a link in a public post on RBT?


Hey, I know deep inside he's got a twisted sense of humor.

>
> Can you give us any example of such disgusting redirections appearing
> without warning from well-known, regular posters in the last 92,000+
> archived RBT posts?
>


I don't recall it ever being posted here but I do know that a person who has
posted to r.b.t. in the past has posted goatse.cx in other bicycle
newsgroups.

> If there are such posters, it would be a good thing for you to point
> them out to the rest of us.
>


Why spoil the fun?

Greg "my last name isn't Tomlinson, it's" Thomas
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Causer wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:06:08 -0800, jim beam wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> If you have all of these conditions then the margin for error
> >>>>> in securing the QR is pretty close to zero.
> >>>> but that applies to many aspects of the bike, not just a disk
> >>>> brake. non-disk bikes are completely dependent on brakes being
> >>>> correctly set up, cables clamped properly, etc. handlebars
> >>>> [friction] clamped properly, saddles, crank bolts, even front
> >>>> q.r.'s.
> >>> Of those you have listed there is just one that the end user will
> >>> touch
> >> so, we should only have federally licensed bike techs be allowed
> >> to work on bikes!!!

> >
> > Now *there* is a lovely example of a straw man! jim, that was just
> > elegant.

>
> no tim, it's illustration of absurdity by irony. jeepers.


LOL. A rose by any other name...
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> straws are not flotation devices. even for drowning "engineering
> >> professors".

> >
> > How about drowning metallurgists?

>
> read: "twisted psychologists". you must be writing a thesis since
> you have no technical argument in this debate - merely tests for
> logical incongruity.


You're a funny guy, jim. It is fortunate that the technical argument is
a very simple on in this case, eh?
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 3:02 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:11[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.


Define "credible." As far as I can tell, you consider no report
credible that contradicts your theory.
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> >>> -snip-
> >>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> And that effect would presumably not be mitigated even by
> >>>>>>> putting the caliper at 9 o'clock.
> >>> Ben C wrote:
> >>>>> Do you go along with this, jim? Or do you see the reason that
> >>>>> this is wrong?
> >>> jim beam wrote:
> >>>> put the caliper in front? no. how many more times? no. basic
> >>>> materials properties vs. fatigue environment. i'm not going to
> >>>> repeat it all yet again.
> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hmm, how about a better idea altogether-- a caliper acting
> >>>>>>> directly on the rim?

>
> >> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Caliper in front acting on the rim? Cheap bikes with caliper brakes
> >>> which were never fully tightened to the fork, or which were bashed
> >>> when the bars spun around, have brake bolt failures regularly,
> >>> snapped or simply detached when the nut fell off. Probably more
> >>> often than disc ejection. The world is filled with real problems.

>
> > Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> If the caliper brake is at the top and acting on the rim, the
> >> direction of the ejection force is close to horizontally backwards.
> >> So nothing to worry about in terms of wheel ejection.
> >> But I wonder if putting the caliper behind the fork would reduce
> >> brake bolt failures? That way the bolts and mounting points would be
> >> in compressive rather than tensile fatigue.

>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In 40 years of riding bikes I've never seen a broken pivot bolt on a
> > front brake. That of course doesn't mean it hasn't happened, just that
> > I've never seen it. I don't recall any reports of this in the
> > newsgroups, either, but that could be inaccurate as well. Carl could
> > probably use his prodigious Googling skills and find us some photos of
> > failed pivot bolts.
> > There is a discussion about pivot bolts here:
> > http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-007/000.html

>
> > Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The rear bolt is already in the compressive position, behind the seat
> >> stays. I wonder if they fail less often... plenty of other reasons
> >> though like the simple fact that the front brake applies much more
> >> force.
> >> Easier just to beef up the bolt a bit though than try to squeeze the
> >> calipers in where there is no space for them.

>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > ISTR time triallists mounting the front brake behind the fork crown for
> > supposed aerodynamic benefit.

>
> They are exclusively on the low end of the spectrum [Huffy Savannah,
> etc], usually after repeated bashing against the down tube from
> spinning the fork around. More common is a front sidepull mounting nut
> or front lock/adjusting nuts simply falling off. Look at a few 'drunk
> driver' bikes on the street.
>
> My [admittedly oblique] point was only that plenty of other basically
> sound systems already fail in higher frequency than disc ejection with
> liberal applications of sloppy prep and rider neglect.


The difference is between neglect and design fault.
Caliper brakes designs are sound. Rear mounted disc
caliper is unsound design.

> The first instance of ejection (Amman's) was with a fork sans lips and
> at an unusually canted angle - just about where a disc wheel might go if
> nothing else held it in . . .


How do you know that is the first instance of wheel
ejection.

--
Michael Press
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:47:04 -0600, Tim McNamara
> >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>, jim
> >>>>>>>>>>> beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tim, do you ride disk?
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's already been answered.
> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Tim,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What was the answer?
> >>>>>>>>> Sigh. I do not own a disk brake bike. First, because I
> >>>>>>>>> regard it as needless weight and complexity. Rim brakes
> >>>>>>>>> work fine. Second, because there is a design flaw
> >>>>>>>> are you an engineer? what qualifies you to make that
> >>>>>>>> definitive statement?
> >>>>>>> The design flaw is evident, jim old pal. There's an ejection
> >>>>>>> force on the front wheel. It's a design flaw. Simple as
> >>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>> you have a fundamental problem with engineering concepts - we
> >>>>>> come back to this sort of thing time and time again,
> >>>>>> regardless of subject. [i find it hard to comprehend what
> >>>>>> would keep you stuck in a place of ignorance like this.]
> >>>>> LOL. Disagreeing with you = place of ignorance?
> >>>> no tim, inability to grasp basic concepts is a place of
> >>>> ignorance.
> >>> Yes, jim, it is. That's your problem in these and other threads.
> >>> You fail to grasp the basic concepts. Like designs that
> >>> unnecessarily endanger the safety of users under normal
> >>> circumstances are flawed designs.
> >> so, did your engineering degree arrive in the mail?

> >
> > LOL! The same day yours did.

>
> i don't have an engineering degree - i have a metallurgy degree. and
> it wasn't mail order.
>
> >
> >>>>> Sorry, your long history of clutching the wrong end of the
> >>>>> stick doesn't inspire me to decide that you're right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> in any case, this is simply action and reaction. ultra basic.
> >>>>> Dat's what-a I been sayin'. It's a reaction in the wrong
> >>>>> direction.
> >>>> still don't get it - if x is greater than y, y is not greater
> >>>> than x. see point above.
> >>> Your inability to do simple math apparently prevents you from
> >>> understanding that y can be greater than x.
> >> except that x is greater than y....

> >
> > ... except for when it isn't.

>
> does 6 = 9?


LOL. There you go again, treating your assumptions as though they are
reality.

> >>> Funny that you continue to ignore the fact that the industry
> >>> appears to have decided that Annan was right all along and has
> >>> changed the design of dropouts to reduce or eliminate the
> >>> problem.
> >> so why hasn't the industry redesigned brake cable clamping
> >> designs? front mounted rim brake calipers, etc.?

> >
> > You're just raving wildly now. I have front mounted rim brake
> > calipers on all 5 of my bikes and both of my wife's. They are not
> > exactly a new invention.

>
> deliberate stupidity. and you know it.


Ummm, what? Who's deliberate stupidity? Yours? The people who make
caliper brakes?

> > As for brake cable clam designs, what would you change it to?
> > That's hard to visualize. Whereas it's easy to visualize changing
> > fork designs to eliminate the unnecessary ejection force resulting
> > from disk brakes.

>
> deliberate stupidity - the point is that you're bleating about disk
> calipers and calling for redesign when there's no failures, yet cable
> clamps, which are highly risky, seem to escape your radar. a bizarre
> incongruity.


Now you really are grasping at straws (and straw men) as you feel the
waves passing over your face.

> >> no tim, it's marketing - something on which you seem to have a
> >> strongly negative opinion no less. simply give the punters what
> >> they think they want. it costs no more, so why not? if the
> >> punters wanted flotation devices and started bleating about them,
> >> guess what would come attached to every new bike?

> >
> > Eh, marketing is a constant. It just has to be sifted to find
> > something approximating the truth. My negative opinion about
> > marketing comes about from marketers taking over bike design. But
> > whaddya gonna do? That's been the case since bikes became consumer
> > goods.
> >
> > Why would I be opposed to companies providing an actual better
> > product without a cost increase? I think that's a good
> > development.

>
> based on this and other threads, you wouldn't know good design if it
> slapped you in the face with a halibut.


ROTFL! <visions of the fish slapping dance>

The simple truth, jim, which you have been fending off for years is that
there is no necessity to have a design that results in an ejection force
on the front wheel. It can be readily remedied and- since it appears
that several manufacturers have made adjustments in their design to
result in a safer product- it has been. You've spent all this time and
effort trying to disparage and defeat and even humiliate- how many posts
in this thread alone?- and yet your position is still one of senseless
denial.
 
A

A Muzi

Guest
-snip-
> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The first instance of ejection (Amman's) was with a fork sans lips and
>> at an unusually canted angle - just about where a disc wheel might go if
>> nothing else held it in . . .


Michael Press wrote:
> How do you know that is the first instance of wheel
> ejection.


You're right, I agree that was poorly phrased.
How about 'the disc fork ejection first discussed on rbt' ?
It was an odd angle compared to most disc forks. Slim, too.

p.s. - Jobst makes a good point about hub brakes (disc, drum whatever)
on undersized/lightweight fork blades or stays. The occasional tinkerer
discovers this with great surprise.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
J

jim beam

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> -snip-
>>>>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And that effect would presumably not be mitigated even by
>>>>>>>>> putting the caliper at 9 o'clock.
>>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you go along with this, jim? Or do you see the reason that
>>>>>>> this is wrong?
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> put the caliper in front? no. how many more times? no. basic
>>>>>> materials properties vs. fatigue environment. i'm not going to
>>>>>> repeat it all yet again.
>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hmm, how about a better idea altogether-- a caliper acting
>>>>>>>>> directly on the rim?
>>>> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Caliper in front acting on the rim? Cheap bikes with caliper brakes
>>>>> which were never fully tightened to the fork, or which were bashed
>>>>> when the bars spun around, have brake bolt failures regularly,
>>>>> snapped or simply detached when the nut fell off. Probably more
>>>>> often than disc ejection. The world is filled with real problems.
>>> Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> If the caliper brake is at the top and acting on the rim, the
>>>> direction of the ejection force is close to horizontally backwards.
>>>> So nothing to worry about in terms of wheel ejection.
>>>> But I wonder if putting the caliper behind the fork would reduce
>>>> brake bolt failures? That way the bolts and mounting points would be
>>>> in compressive rather than tensile fatigue.

>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In 40 years of riding bikes I've never seen a broken pivot bolt on a
>>> front brake. That of course doesn't mean it hasn't happened, just that
>>> I've never seen it. I don't recall any reports of this in the
>>> newsgroups, either, but that could be inaccurate as well. Carl could
>>> probably use his prodigious Googling skills and find us some photos of
>>> failed pivot bolts.
>>> There is a discussion about pivot bolts here:
>>> http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-007/000.html
>>> Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The rear bolt is already in the compressive position, behind the seat
>>>> stays. I wonder if they fail less often... plenty of other reasons
>>>> though like the simple fact that the front brake applies much more
>>>> force.
>>>> Easier just to beef up the bolt a bit though than try to squeeze the
>>>> calipers in where there is no space for them.

>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> ISTR time triallists mounting the front brake behind the fork crown for
>>> supposed aerodynamic benefit.

>> They are exclusively on the low end of the spectrum [Huffy Savannah,
>> etc], usually after repeated bashing against the down tube from
>> spinning the fork around. More common is a front sidepull mounting nut
>> or front lock/adjusting nuts simply falling off. Look at a few 'drunk
>> driver' bikes on the street.
>>
>> My [admittedly oblique] point was only that plenty of other basically
>> sound systems already fail in higher frequency than disc ejection with
>> liberal applications of sloppy prep and rider neglect.

>
> The difference is between neglect and design fault.
> Caliper brakes designs are sound. Rear mounted disc
> caliper is unsound design.


why? redesign the caliper so it doesn't foul the fork. then it'll fit
ok. and it won't drop out if the bolt loosens.

>
>> The first instance of ejection (Amman's) was with a fork sans lips and
>> at an unusually canted angle - just about where a disc wheel might go if
>> nothing else held it in . . .

>
> How do you know that is the first instance of wheel
> ejection.
>
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:27:57 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:19:17 -0600, Tim McNamara
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >In 40 years of riding bikes I've never seen a broken pivot bolt
> >> >on a front brake. That of course doesn't mean it hasn't
> >> >happened, just that I've never seen it. I don't recall any
> >> >reports of this in the newsgroups, either, but that could be
> >> >inaccurate as well. Carl could probably use his prodigious
> >> >Googling skills and find us some photos of failed pivot bolts.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Dear Tim,
> >>
> >> No need to Google--the picture that you click on to see the
> >> bicycle component failure museum shows a broken front brake pivot
> >> bolt:
> >>
> >> http://materials.open.ac.uk/mem/mem_ccf2.htm

> >
> >Thanks! I can't to the larger version of the photos for some
> >reason. In the small version it almost looks like it was sawed.
> >Nice wear pattern on the brake shoes, too.
> >
> >> Interestingly, it only broke because of poor maintenance:
> >>
> >> "This front brake assembly broke off under braking and severely
> >> injured the cyclist. Poor maintenance had allowed the brake bolt
> >> to loosen and allow the assembly to 'chatter' when braking
> >> imposing cyclic loads instead of steady stress on the fastening
> >> bolt."
> >>
> >> In 40 years of riding, have you ever seen a disk brake eject a
> >> front wheel?

> >
> >Yes, I tested it on a couple of bikes with disk brakes to verify the
> >existence of the ejection force (which I didn't believe at the time.
> > It seemed like fearmongering and handwaving to me. Oops.). Of
> >course, I did leave the QR undone at the time...

>
> Dear Tim,
>
> The pictures expand in Explorer 6, so possibly it's a Mac problem.


Other pictures on other pages of that site work correctly on my browser,
just not that page. Odd.

> It leaves a bad impression to say that yes, you've seen a disk brake
> eject a front wheel . . .
>
> And then add that it was only when the quick release was left undone.
>
> Maybe a :) would have helped?


I thought it was clear that the purpose of the experiment was to
verify the existence of the ejection force, not to test the issue of
retention. I frankly didn't believe that any manufacturer would be
unwise enough to let a design with a flaw like that out of the prototype
stage, even if only for liability risk management. I was astonished
when the axle pushed out to the lawyer lips.

Since the problem is so easily rectified with one of several simple
design changes, there is no reason to apologize for the design and
defend it to the hilt like jim has done. Just fix it.
 
J

jim beam

Guest
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> straws are not flotation devices. even for drowning "engineering
>>>> professors".
>>> How about drowning metallurgists?

>> read: "twisted psychologists". you must be writing a thesis since
>> you have no technical argument in this debate - merely tests for
>> logical incongruity.

>
> You're a funny guy, jim. It is fortunate that the technical argument is
> a very simple on in this case, eh?


the tech is sound - but you don't get it. or at least, you make out
like you don't. but i understand now - this is no exercise in "tech",
this is your new research thesis:

"mcnamara. t. - the limits of human gullibility as defined by logical
incongruity."

it's a fine study tim. think you'd have more fun on an astrology forum
though.
 
J

jim beam

Guest
Tim McNamara wrote:
<snip ****>

> The simple truth, jim, which you have been fending off for years is that
> there is no necessity to have a design that results in an ejection force
> on the front wheel. It can be readily remedied and- since it appears
> that several manufacturers have made adjustments in their design to
> result in a safer product- it has been. You've spent all this time and
> effort trying to disparage and defeat and even humiliate- how many posts
> in this thread alone?- and yet your position is still one of senseless
> denial.


oh the irony. it would be funny if you understood it.
 
J

jim beam

Guest
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:27:57 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:19:17 -0600, Tim McNamara
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> In 40 years of riding bikes I've never seen a broken pivot bolt
>>>>> on a front brake. That of course doesn't mean it hasn't
>>>>> happened, just that I've never seen it. I don't recall any
>>>>> reports of this in the newsgroups, either, but that could be
>>>>> inaccurate as well. Carl could probably use his prodigious
>>>>> Googling skills and find us some photos of failed pivot bolts.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Dear Tim,
>>>>
>>>> No need to Google--the picture that you click on to see the
>>>> bicycle component failure museum shows a broken front brake pivot
>>>> bolt:
>>>>
>>>> http://materials.open.ac.uk/mem/mem_ccf2.htm
>>> Thanks! I can't to the larger version of the photos for some
>>> reason. In the small version it almost looks like it was sawed.
>>> Nice wear pattern on the brake shoes, too.
>>>
>>>> Interestingly, it only broke because of poor maintenance:
>>>>
>>>> "This front brake assembly broke off under braking and severely
>>>> injured the cyclist. Poor maintenance had allowed the brake bolt
>>>> to loosen and allow the assembly to 'chatter' when braking
>>>> imposing cyclic loads instead of steady stress on the fastening
>>>> bolt."
>>>>
>>>> In 40 years of riding, have you ever seen a disk brake eject a
>>>> front wheel?
>>> Yes, I tested it on a couple of bikes with disk brakes to verify the
>>> existence of the ejection force (which I didn't believe at the time.
>>> It seemed like fearmongering and handwaving to me. Oops.). Of
>>> course, I did leave the QR undone at the time...

>> Dear Tim,
>>
>> The pictures expand in Explorer 6, so possibly it's a Mac problem.

>
> Other pictures on other pages of that site work correctly on my browser,
> just not that page. Odd.
>
>> It leaves a bad impression to say that yes, you've seen a disk brake
>> eject a front wheel . . .
>>
>> And then add that it was only when the quick release was left undone.
>>
>> Maybe a :) would have helped?

>
> I thought it was clear that the purpose of the experiment was to
> verify the existence of the ejection force, not to test the issue of
> retention.


and therein lies the cognitive brick wall. if you can't test retention,
you only have one side of the equation, and that's worthless.

> I frankly didn't believe that any manufacturer would be
> unwise enough to let a design with a flaw like that out of the prototype
> stage, even if only for liability risk management. I was astonished
> when the axle pushed out to the lawyer lips.


belief based engineering. how quaint.

>
> Since the problem is so easily rectified with one of several simple
> design changes, there is no reason to apologize for the design and
> defend it to the hilt like jim has done. Just fix it.


i'm not defending it, i'm merely pointing out the teensy weensy little
inconvenient factoids like no verifiable cases of ejection and retention
force exceeding ejection force by a considerable margin. you know, just
like bridges support load and planes fly in the face of potential
destruction. what's next, build a bridge to support 50x max load? 500x
max load? where do we stop?
 
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:37:47 -0800, "G.T." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:p[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
 
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:05:05 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

>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."


[snip]

Woe is me! I thought that I included the link to Jobst's post, but I
didn't. Here it is:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/af73416d9e457b72

CF