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

[Tim McNamara]

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.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2007-02-12, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
> >> 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.?
>
> I think front mounted calipers is overkill, and has the drawback of
> putting the mountings in tensile fatigue as you've explained.

And yet it is done successfully on other vehicles, so that is a
surmountable problem and a straw man raised by jim.

> But moving the dropout angle forwards and the caliper upwards a bit,
> as some designs already do-- wouldn't that solve the theoretical
> and/or real problems?

It could. Look at motorcycle disk brakes, which often place the caliper
up tight against the fork leg. The caliper ends up nearly at the top of
the disk. The vector of the reaction force from braking would be in a
much more benign direction. Placing the caliper in from of the fork
would result in the reaction force driving the axle into the dropout and
eliminating the ejection force altogether.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Ben C? writes:
>
> > But moving the dropout angle forwards and the caliper upwards a
> > bit, as some designs already do-- wouldn't that solve the
> > theoretical and/or real problems?
>
> While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
> dropouts were angled at about 30° up/rearward.

I don't grok why that would be.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, jim beam <[email protected]>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>> If you don't repeat it again, hopefully it will be because you
> >>>>> finally realize that castings can be, and are, used in
> >>>>> situations where they successfully fight tensile fatigue! Many,
> >>>>> many examples have been given, of course. So far, to no effect
> >>>>> - but we keep hoping!
> >>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> idiot.
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> Oops, Frank won. Thread over.
> >> I missed the Nazi reference. It's 'idiot' now?
> >
> > In this case the invocation of Godwin's Law isn't necessary. When
> > jim runs out of steam against Frank, he resorts to calling him an
> > "idiot." At that point the thread is over (usually more than
> > over).
> >
> > Poor jim. It must be tough to be so right when the rest of the
> > world is so wrong.
>
> you know, for a psychologist, you have a pretty twisted view of
> reality.

LOL!

 

[G.T.]

"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

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>> Not, it's not. It's an anecdote. The plural of anecdote != data.
> >>
> >> amazing. but i guess:
> >> 1. that's why you're not an engineer.
> >> 2. that's why you're susceptible to the emissions of cranks and nut-jobs.
> >
> > No, or I'd be agreeing with you.
>
> if you /were/ an engineer, you /would/ be agreeing with me!

Except the *real* engineers in the newsgroup *aren't* agreeing with you.
Hmmm.

 

[[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?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On Feb 11, 8:55 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 8:37 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > >> <snip underinformed opinion>
> >
> > >> 1. there are no reported accidents that can be definitely
> > >> distinguished from user error.
> >
> > > Exactly. Tim like to throw bombs around about these reported
> > > incidents, but never once has anyone proven that it was actually
> > > the forces in question vs. user error.
> >
> > So because it hasn't been proven yet you guys are 100% certain that
> > it's been user error?
>
> Strawman.

No, it looks like just a poorly formed question.

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of
an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man
argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute
that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful
rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but
it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual
argument has not been refuted." Given the question mark at the end of
Greg's post, I think it is reasonable to give him the benefit of the
doubt. Were it a sentence, then I would agree that it is a straw man.

However, you do appear to simply disregard any evidence that contradicts
your theory. That may not be an accurate assessment of your thinking
process but it is the impression I get from reading your posts. Your
logic- and jim's- looks like this to me:

A. It has been postulated that disk brake can cause wheel ejection.
B. Uncertainty can be cast upon the evidence that A is true.
C. Therefore A is false.

That may or may not be what you intend. On my screen, that's how it
reads.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> straws are not flotation devices. even for drowning "engineering
> professors".

How about drowning metallurgists?

 

[[email protected]]

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.

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?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Tim McNamara]

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.

 

[A Muzi]

>>> -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 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 . . .

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[jim beam]

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?

>
>>> 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.

>
> 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.

>
>> 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.

 

[G.T.]

<[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

 

[jim beam]

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.

 

[jim beam]

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.

 

[[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?

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.

Cheers,

Carl FOgel

 

[[email protected]]

Carl Fogel 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

Jobst Brandt

 

[G.T.]

<[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

 

[G.T.]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Carl Fogel 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.

Greg