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:
> >
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Feb 14, 3:48 am, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On 2007-02-14, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> But third (and perhaps easiest to understand) is that the
> >>>>> specific thing jim beam warns about - front mounting of disk
> >>>>> brakes - has been employed on multi-hundred-pound motorcycles
> >>>>> for many decades. The direct tensile stresses that come from
> >>>>> such mounting are small, and very easily accommodated. If they
> >>>>> were not, NHTSA and CPSC would have told you about it in the
> >>>>> recall documents for those motorcycles.
> >>>> Noone's disputed that a front caliper is possible, but
> >>>> motorbikes are not bicycles.
> >>> True. They're much more massive, travel at much higher speeds,
> >>> and impose much higher forces on their caliper attachements.
> >>>
> >>>> All the relative pros and cons are different, which makes it a
> >>>> different optimization problem and we should not be surprised if
> >>>> it has a different solution. Lots of motorbikes do have rear
> >>>> calipers anyway.
> >>> Do you know of any motorcycle with a rear caliper and a quick
> >>> release front axle? I don't believe they exist. Every
> >>> motorcycle I've owned or seen had a through-axle. Thus, the
> >>> hazard imposed by a rear caliper was removed by other means.
> >> conversely, why aren't /all/ motorcycles front caliper? idiot.
> >
> > Who's the idiot, jim? Frank? Or you with your obstinate denial of
> > reality? If he's an idiot, you're a pathetic muppet.
> >
> > Through axles. No QRs. Ejection force not an issue.
>
> but you can already buy one. that's not a "design change"!!!
I can already buy one what? A motorcycle with a front-mounted disk
brake? Yup. Not actually interested, though. A bicycle with a front
mounted disk brake? Nope.
A bicycle with a rear mounted brake and a through axle? Yup. But
you're wrong- that *was* a design change since it came after the designs
we are talking about as flawed! Although it was made for other reasons-
through axles were made to provide a larger diameter axle to resist fork
twist and uneven travel.
> >>>>> So yes, there's a grain of metallurgical truth in what j.b.
> >>>>> says.
> >>>>> But the design proclamations he derives from it are nonsense.
> >>>>> He's making a mountain out of a molehill for reasons of his
> >>>>> own.
> >>>> The point is that wheel ejection is a molehill of similar
> >>>> proportions.
> >>> If you want to prove the front-mount-fatigue issue is of similar
> >>> importance to the bike wheel ejection issue, it should be easy
> >>> for you to do so. Just post here the tales of motorcycles losing
> >>> their front mount calipers due to fatigue. Carl has posted
> >>> several examples of candidate motorcycles to check. If you find
> >>> enough such tales, I'll believe the hazards are similar.
> >> post front wheel ejections where it's proven not to be user error!
> >> idiot.
> >
> > Post wheel ejections where it's proven to be user error! Muppet.
>
> oh, wait, circular argument based on supposition. surely not part of
> the research thesis is it?
>
> [p.s. don't let lack of ejection data get in the way of that one
> tim.]
Or the lack of tensile failures? LOL! C'mon, jim, you can do better.
Or can you?
> >>> My claim is that the fatigue hazard is entirely jim beam's
> >>> invention.
> >> i invented inferior fatigue properties for castings??? you don't
> >> even know what a casting is! idiot.
> >>
> >>> You have an opportunity to prove me wrong.
> >> no, you do that on your own. idiot.
> >
> > ROTFL! jim, do you get spittle all over your keyboard when you are
> > posting this drivel?
>
> eh? krygowski proves he knows nothing about castings and can't think
> through a simple stress sense scenario correctly? but pointing that
> out is drivel? get a grip on yourself man.
LOL! Here you are, ranting and raving and calling people "idiots" and
the like. And you're counseling others to get a grip? Priceless!
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Feb 14, 3:48 am, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On 2007-02-14, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> But third (and perhaps easiest to understand) is that the
> >>>>> specific thing jim beam warns about - front mounting of disk
> >>>>> brakes - has been employed on multi-hundred-pound motorcycles
> >>>>> for many decades. The direct tensile stresses that come from
> >>>>> such mounting are small, and very easily accommodated. If they
> >>>>> were not, NHTSA and CPSC would have told you about it in the
> >>>>> recall documents for those motorcycles.
> >>>> Noone's disputed that a front caliper is possible, but
> >>>> motorbikes are not bicycles.
> >>> True. They're much more massive, travel at much higher speeds,
> >>> and impose much higher forces on their caliper attachements.
> >>>
> >>>> All the relative pros and cons are different, which makes it a
> >>>> different optimization problem and we should not be surprised if
> >>>> it has a different solution. Lots of motorbikes do have rear
> >>>> calipers anyway.
> >>> Do you know of any motorcycle with a rear caliper and a quick
> >>> release front axle? I don't believe they exist. Every
> >>> motorcycle I've owned or seen had a through-axle. Thus, the
> >>> hazard imposed by a rear caliper was removed by other means.
> >> conversely, why aren't /all/ motorcycles front caliper? idiot.
> >
> > Who's the idiot, jim? Frank? Or you with your obstinate denial of
> > reality? If he's an idiot, you're a pathetic muppet.
> >
> > Through axles. No QRs. Ejection force not an issue.
>
> but you can already buy one. that's not a "design change"!!!
I can already buy one what? A motorcycle with a front-mounted disk
brake? Yup. Not actually interested, though. A bicycle with a front
mounted disk brake? Nope.
A bicycle with a rear mounted brake and a through axle? Yup. But
you're wrong- that *was* a design change since it came after the designs
we are talking about as flawed! Although it was made for other reasons-
through axles were made to provide a larger diameter axle to resist fork
twist and uneven travel.
> >>>>> So yes, there's a grain of metallurgical truth in what j.b.
> >>>>> says.
> >>>>> But the design proclamations he derives from it are nonsense.
> >>>>> He's making a mountain out of a molehill for reasons of his
> >>>>> own.
> >>>> The point is that wheel ejection is a molehill of similar
> >>>> proportions.
> >>> If you want to prove the front-mount-fatigue issue is of similar
> >>> importance to the bike wheel ejection issue, it should be easy
> >>> for you to do so. Just post here the tales of motorcycles losing
> >>> their front mount calipers due to fatigue. Carl has posted
> >>> several examples of candidate motorcycles to check. If you find
> >>> enough such tales, I'll believe the hazards are similar.
> >> post front wheel ejections where it's proven not to be user error!
> >> idiot.
> >
> > Post wheel ejections where it's proven to be user error! Muppet.
>
> oh, wait, circular argument based on supposition. surely not part of
> the research thesis is it?
>
> [p.s. don't let lack of ejection data get in the way of that one
> tim.]
Or the lack of tensile failures? LOL! C'mon, jim, you can do better.
Or can you?
> >>> My claim is that the fatigue hazard is entirely jim beam's
> >>> invention.
> >> i invented inferior fatigue properties for castings??? you don't
> >> even know what a casting is! idiot.
> >>
> >>> You have an opportunity to prove me wrong.
> >> no, you do that on your own. idiot.
> >
> > ROTFL! jim, do you get spittle all over your keyboard when you are
> > posting this drivel?
>
> eh? krygowski proves he knows nothing about castings and can't think
> through a simple stress sense scenario correctly? but pointing that
> out is drivel? get a grip on yourself man.
LOL! Here you are, ranting and raving and calling people "idiots" and
the like. And you're counseling others to get a grip? Priceless!