[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
>
> Dear R.F. and Rick,
>
> Nope, I still suspect that the quick-release facing the wrong way would survive just fine on
> ordinary commuting.
While it might (I am granting you this), I would not risk my safety on such a beast. And I actually
know a small amount about the subject. Someone who doesn't know anything would be in blissful
ignorance until the wheel(s) came off.
> I see very little brush on paved roads, shoulder or otherwise. Of course, elsewhere you may need a
> machete to pedal down the asphalt road to the little red school house, so I'm open to correction.
In Corvallis, Oregon, some of the streets have shrubs that grow right up to the fog line. While I
never ran into the shrubberies for any reason, I could see it happening.
> As to correct pressure or tightness, nope again--no cheap semantic tricks (I have them available
> in a handsome selection if needed.)
I do believe you are seizing on a particular word to try and salvage your "good enough" argument.
Let me just state that while I do believe that it might be "tight enough" to get out of the store,
it might not stand up to much riding. Or it might. But that doesn't say anything about the rest of
the bike. And for commuting, when there are cars around, equipment failure could have dire
consequences.
> I honestly think that you'll get a wide variety of expert opinions here about "correct" tightness
> for almost any threaded object.
And a QR has a range larger than most, it would seem. Whether or not you grasp onto this straw in a
"gotcha" fashion or not, I would suggest that a mis-applied QR lever is symbolic of the build
quality of the rest of the bicycle. This does not even take into account the materials used.
> Browse around a bit on some manufacturers' wheel sites, for example, and you'll get values for
> spokes ranging from 120 to 350 pounds of tension recommended for spokes on a particular rim model.
And the various bolts on a bike usually have some sort of recommended torque range applied to them.
Jobst has said on numerous occasions that the rim is the limiting factor in spoke tension. Some rims
may actually take more tension than others. It seem pretty self-consistent to me.
But I would never recommend that someone take their life into their hands on a commute with a
bicycle that may or may not be assembled adequately. Saving $50 dollars seems really stupid.
> Right now, there's a thread about the retaining nut on fixed-gear axles that is provoking the
> usual range of proper torque suggestions, right down to omitting it entirely.
What do you expect on a .tech ng? That doesn't render my argument moot.
> Practically speaking, however, a quick-release skewer has to be awfully loose or awfully tight to
> either fall out or snap while cruising two miles to class and two miles back.
If Dr. Annan's self-unscrewing web link is to be believed (and I think it should), then if it's too
loose to start, it could become dangerously too loose over time, just due to vibration.
But I really *am* speak practically. This is a commuter, something that you want to be safe and
reliable. I cannot, in good conscience, recommend a *Mart bike after some of the shoddy
product/assembly I've seen. I just *do not believe* that these bikes even rate "good enough."
> Remember, we're human here and tend to be hard to please---a common failing among those of us with
> delusions of mechanical adequacy is that our friends should either a) tighten their damn [fill in
> the blank] properly, or b) not tighten their [fill in the blank] so damn tight.
My bike friends seem to know how to read torque specs, so there is rarely a discussion. Those that
"wing it", well, they ought to know the consequences of either extreme. The beginners I steer to
Zinn's books on maintenance. (Torque specs in the appendices, IIRC.)
Again, this is merely grasping at straws - *I* make no religion of fasteners and their application.
> If we voice our indisputably correct opinions on proper assembly often enough, eventually our
> exasperated friends remark that Jesus Christ couldn't tighten an axle to suit us, and we take the
> hint, stop complaining, and live in hopes that their foolish methods will lead to minor but
> embarrassing injuries, preferably in front of us.
Ad absurdum arguments aside, I couldn't, in good conscience, steer anyone I call a "friend" to the
*Mart bikes. I suspect that they could be "good enough" in some limited circumstances, but
commuting, no matter what the distance, would be better served by a bike that is assembled properly,
made with quality materials, and can hold adjustments even through use and abuse. Actually taking
the bike on a real trail, with dirt and rocks and roots, dips and logs and all that? That really
rules out any of the bikes one might find at a *Mart. In the end, my argument comes down to the
aphorism "penny wise, pound foolish."
Sincerely,
R.F. Jones
