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]>,
> >>>>>>> [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.
> >>> 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.
> > 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> >>> 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.
> > 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.
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.
> 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.