The one thing that couldn't go wrong, did go wrong.

[Blair P. Houghton]

Rick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> Dennis P. Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:14:27 GMT in rec.bicycles.tech, Blair P.
>> >Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You say it's easy, why don't you pony up and indemnify the
>> >> process against any sort of mechanical error for the $20k
>> >> or so this frame is really worth to me.
>> >>
>> >oh, bullpucky. no frame is worth that much, and you're just
>> >obsessive. PLONK.
>>
>> I work about 100 feet from a guy who paid $3 million for
>> a baseball he never hit himself.
>
>There are only two reasons one pays $3M for a baseball:
>
> 1) bragging rights
> 2) they think they can sell it for more in the future
>
>Neither of these apply to your bike frame. Realistically, your frame
>is worth hundreds, not thousands. No one will pay for your sentiment,
>no insurance will indemnify for it either.

Only two reasons. You don't understand the economics of
irrational actors nearly as much as you think. Get a copy
of Greg Mankiw's treatise on it and study up.

>> Conversely, in the right context, no frame is worth the
>> price of postage.
>
>Wrong. I shipped a frame/fork to Colorado (from California) at the
>beginning of the summer. $16. The frame was certainly worth more than
>$16.

I don't want that frame. You'd have to pay the postage
to ship it to me.

--Blair
"In the right context, he repeated..."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Rick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> StaceyJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> >
>> >---snipping Blair's concerns---
>> >
>> >Ok. Simple solution. Ditch the Neuvations. Look for a pair of NOS 7
>> >speed freehubs (E-bay has tons). These will be 126mm spacing. Have a
>>
>> Some will. Not many mention 126mm in the ads, and those
>> that do aren't NOS, they're recycled. And 36 spokes...
>
>And what is the problem with 36 spokes? Or older hubs? I have a

We're going aero here. Older hubs would be fine. But I want
to use the spokes and rim from this Neuvation I now have.

24 hole rim ==> constraint = 24-hole hub.

Hard to find those in NOS.

But if I could, I would.

>> It'd be nice to keep the Neuvation rim and spokes (they're
>> all aero) and find a compatible hub. But how many 24-spoke,
>> 126-mm hubs are there?
>
>What's the obsession with those rims and spokes?

It's not an obsession. It's an economization and a desire
to try them out. If I could trade them straight up for something
similar, I might.

>And 24 spokes is a recipe for problems at some point.
>PLONK, and then the wheel has a major wobble and you are
>consigned to carrying the bike home.

That could happen with any spoke count.

And I'm using the 20-spoke front wheel I got.

--Blair
"Maybe I need alloy dubs..."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

<[email protected]> wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>> Or I could tell you to take your bad attitude about a simple
>> problem and shove it up your ass. But then I'd have a bad
>> attitude about a simple problem. But then it'd be your fault.
>>
>> So shove it up your ass.
>>
>> --Blair
>> "Thanks for the moral authority."
>
>Let's see. I, and several others, some with volumes of experience,

Appeal to popularity; argumentum ad verecundiam;

>offered you some advice that follows accepted practices; advice you

post hoc ergo propter hoc;

>asked for to start out with. You didn't know what to do in the first

false cause*;

* (i asked for advice, got some in an area i did not want
to pursue, asked for different advice, and some people
persisted in giving the advice in the area i had rejected;
others began berating me for rejecting it, though i'd done
nothing antisocial in the process of rejecting it, simply
stating that i preferred a different solution)

>place. You didn't know how the DO's were attached to the frame, you

nit;

*(care to define weld and braze without reference to melted
metal?)

>thought the Campy DO's were "hardened", and you seemed to think that

false presumption*;

(they are hardened by forging)

>the posters would suggest a risky procedure (given a sound frame). You

true enough*;

* (what's riskier; bending a frame or getting an axle that fit?)

>bragged about being able to curl 70lbs with each hand, yet seemed to
>have problems getting the stays spread a quarter of an inch to put that
>wheel in there.

failure to pay attention*;

* (i bragged about curling 70 lbs with each hand in order to
show that i'm not kidding when i say the frame is stiffer than
i expected it to be)

>You ordered that rear wheel without aparently knowing
>about spacing issues,

failure to pay attention*;

* (i admitted in the original post that i had somehow
measured my rear dropout spacing wrong mm before i even
started looking at buying a new rear wheel)

>and then went wandering through the parts dept.
>looking for axles, spacers, cogs that would solve your problem, instead
>of doing as Jobst Brandt said, which would have taken maybe 15 minutes,

argumentum ad verecundiam;

>or taken the frame to a pro shop for a (possibly more accurate)
>alignment with the "tip tools" that I supplied a "picture story" link
>to, since you didn't seem to have any familiarity with the subject at
>hand.

false presumption*;

* (if i'm not willing to bend the stays, am i willing to bend
the dropouts even more?)

>The problem, and the "bad attitude" is that you, even apparently
>lacking *any* knowledge about cold setting or DO alignment, didn't hear
>what you wanted to hear.

I said that I didn't want to hear that the first time
someone said "bend the frame." And I said it politely.

Others apparently didn't hear what they wanted to hear
from me. They insisted I bend the frame, rather than
using their massive experience to suggest the rest of the
possible solutions. Someone got testy, and I responded
in kind. Welcome to the Internet. Is that your ass on
the floor? No, don't get up; I'll hand it back to you.

>Got any more clever comebacks?

You mean besides a whole stack of annotations of your fallacious
reasoning?

>Riding that bike yet? --TP

Been riding it the whole time. The old rear wheel wasn't
broken. The old front wheel just had a spoke-hole rivet
sliding around on one spoke. The only degradation in my
riding experience is that I can't fit the sending ring
for my Avocet 30 computer onto the funky non-round front
hub without doing some creative zip-tying.

But I'm in the market for a computer anyway, so when I get
into a bike-part buying mood again (got a couple of other
priorities at the moment) I'll probably solve that.

Without your help, I'd bet.

--Blair
"I'd pay off that bet win or lose
if you'd promise not to make me
laugh this hard ever again."

 

[Neal]

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>> StaceyJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>> >
>>> >---snipping Blair's concerns---
>>> >
>>> >Ok. Simple solution. Ditch the Neuvations. Look for a pair of NOS 7
>>> >speed freehubs (E-bay has tons). These will be 126mm spacing. Have a
>>>
>>> Some will. Not many mention 126mm in the ads, and those
>>> that do aren't NOS, they're recycled. And 36 spokes...
>>
>>And what is the problem with 36 spokes? Or older hubs? I have a
>
> We're going aero here. Older hubs would be fine. But I want
> to use the spokes and rim from this Neuvation I now have.
>
> 24 hole rim ==> constraint = 24-hole hub.
>
> Hard to find those in NOS.
>
> But if I could, I would.
>
>>> It'd be nice to keep the Neuvation rim and spokes (they're
>>> all aero) and find a compatible hub. But how many 24-spoke,
>>> 126-mm hubs are there?
>>
>>What's the obsession with those rims and spokes?
>
> It's not an obsession. It's an economization and a desire
> to try them out. If I could trade them straight up for something
> similar, I might.
>
>>And 24 spokes is a recipe for problems at some point.
>>PLONK, and then the wheel has a major wobble and you are
>>consigned to carrying the bike home.
>
> That could happen with any spoke count.
>
> And I'm using the 20-spoke front wheel I got.
>
> --Blair
> "Maybe I need alloy dubs..."


When I upgraded my older bike I had to get new wheels. These wheels are low
spoke count and fairly light. I have to say that I did not notice that much of
a difference while riding compared to my 25 year old 36 spoke wheels. You may
find that solving your wheel problem may end up not being worth it. By the way,
when I spread the stays on my bike it only took five minutes with a wood working
spreader clamp. It's only about 3/16 of an inch.

Neal

 

[Jim Adney]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 05:44:05 GMT Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jim Adney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>If you care to stop by sometime, I have a supply of Campy 1010s,
>>1010As, and 1010Bs which I'll let you take a file to. None of them are
>>hardened. Not the verticals, either.
>
>You saying forging doesn't harden steel?

That's correct.

Forging certainly improves other properties, but it doesn't harden.

The proof is in the finished object. If you take a file to a hardened
piece of steel it will not dig in but will just slide across the
surface. If you take a file to a dropout the file will readily dig in.

This is a fairly standard test, and a lot of machinists will keep a
small file in their pocket just to test material they're about to work
with.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney [email protected]
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

 

[[email protected]]

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> >> That part is hardened, and was made by Campagnolo,
> >> while the stays are not.
> >
> >And you're wrong about the method of construction. The forged dropouts
> >are forged in one piece. They are brazed into the frame. There is
> >normally no welding involved. And they are not hardened.
>
> You saying forging doesn't harden steel?
>
> --Blair
> "News to the steel."

Forging doesn't harden steel. Or, more specifically, as it's usually
done, forging doesn't harden steel to any practical degree.

Others have described the common "file test" for steel parts. Steels
that are hardened to any practical degree won't be easily cut by a
file. Try a good file on your dropouts. My bet is a file will readily
cut into them.

I've heard of dropouts that had (IIRC) stainless steel faces brazed on
to the surfaces that the QR clamps, but this is a fancy-pants custom
frame builder's tiny detail trick. I suppose Holdsworth _could_ have
done this, but I doubt it.

So, again: And you're wrong about the method of construction. The
forged dropouts are forged in one piece. They are brazed into the
frame. There is normally no welding involved. And they are not
hardened.

But again, what you do with your bike is up to you.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[dustoyevsky]

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

(snip snip snip)

> Without your help, I'd bet.

> --Blair
> "I'd pay off that bet win or lose
> if you'd promise not to make me
> laugh this hard ever again."

I'm hearing the sound of one hand clapping. So to speak. Don't fall off
that bike and hurt yourself, OK?
--D-y

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 05:44:05 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Jim Adney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>If you care to stop by sometime, I have a supply of Campy 1010s,
>>>1010As, and 1010Bs which I'll let you take a file to. None of them are
>>>hardened. Not the verticals, either.
>>
>>You saying forging doesn't harden steel?
>>
>> "Mr. Miura! Mr. Miura!"
>
>Heat treating after forging hardens steel. Forging toughens steel.

Not the biggest semantic difference ever.

http://www.metal-mart.com/Dictionary/dictlist.htm

HARDNESS

Degree to which a metal will resist cutting, abrasion,
penetration, bending and stretching.

TOUGHNESS

Property of resisting fracture or distortion.


--Blair
"****ling, pettifogery, q.v...."

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 23 Aug 2005 20:10:37 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Try a good file on your dropouts.

Nooooooooo! My bike is priceless and I can't risk that.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[RonSonic]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:02:40 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 05:44:05 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Jim Adney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>If you care to stop by sometime, I have a supply of Campy 1010s,
>>>>1010As, and 1010Bs which I'll let you take a file to. None of them are
>>>>hardened. Not the verticals, either.
>>>
>>>You saying forging doesn't harden steel?
>>>
>>> "Mr. Miura! Mr. Miura!"
>>
>>Heat treating after forging hardens steel. Forging toughens steel.
>
>Not the biggest semantic difference ever.
>
>http://www.metal-mart.com/Dictionary/dictlist.htm
>
> HARDNESS
>
> Degree to which a metal will resist cutting, abrasion,
> penetration, bending and stretching.
>
> TOUGHNESS
>
> Property of resisting fracture or distortion.

Those, Sir, are very different things. Especially in this context. Note how
useful "toughness" might be when it becomes necessary to reset the rear of a
bike frame - we don't want it to crack or break or weaken and we want it to keep
the set that we give it. IOW, exactly the characteristics of toughness. OTOH, we
do want to bend this thing into its new shape and "hardness," as you've defined
it, would interfere with this program.

Now I don't care if you use these words sloppily as being synonyms. But if you
are going to be sloppy AND pedantic about it, then I shall sic Carl Fogel upon
you and you will regret.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:28:50 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>If he produced a design that was rugged, light and economical to produce (the
>>holy trinity of bike engineering) and found that while freewheeling there was a
>>small and benign runout, why would he change it.
>
>It's not small.
>
>We're talking 2 mm of wobble.

It's a bicycle, not a Swiss freeking watch.

>That looks like it's either "something wrong" or a
>deliberate insertion of eccentricity.
>
>>The aesthetic pleasure of such perfection will be trumped immediately by the
>>reliable, light, cheap triumvirate.
>
>I need science, here, not portmanteau economics.

What science? This is engineering. The purpose of an engineer is to do what any
damn fool could do, but at a fifth the cost and with half the material and a
third the time.

Nobody cares about your damn wobble, not me, Maillard, Regina or nobody.

Now if the cogs wobbled under drive then somebody might care. We'd call it
runout and note that it affects the action of the drivetrain. It only wobbles
when you stop pedaling. So quit freewheeling and do like Sheldon says and keep
pedaling. There that'll solve it.

Ron

 

[what does THIS button do?!]

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> TOUGHNESS
>
> Property of resisting lies or distortion.
>
>
> --Blair
> "****ling, pettiforgery, q.v...."

don't listen to these poeple. They know nothing. they couldn't even
tell me where to get an orange 700x23 kevlar tire.

Take up unicycling. Much more rewarding.

..max
i'm wearing one right now.

 

[41]

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> >If he produced a design that was rugged, light and economical to produce (the
> >holy trinity of bike engineering) and found that while freewheeling there was a
> >small and benign runout, why would he change it.
>
> It's not small.
>
> We're talking 2 mm of wobble.

> I need science, here,

Yes, that is correct. The terminology you are looking for is "of no
significance".t

 

[Jay Beattie]

"RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:28:50 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>If he produced a design that was rugged, light and economical
to produce (the
> >>holy trinity of bike engineering) and found that while
freewheeling there was a
> >>small and benign runout, why would he change it.
> >
> >It's not small.
> >
> >We're talking 2 mm of wobble.
>
> It's a bicycle, not a Swiss freeking watch.
>
> >That looks like it's either "something wrong" or a
> >deliberate insertion of eccentricity.
> >
> >>The aesthetic pleasure of such perfection will be trumped
immediately by the
> >>reliable, light, cheap triumvirate.
> >
> >I need science, here, not portmanteau economics.
>
> What science? This is engineering. The purpose of an engineer
is to do what any
> damn fool could do, but at a fifth the cost and with half the
material and a
> third the time.
>
> Nobody cares about your damn wobble, not me, Maillard, Regina
or nobody.

I care! And so do the people in my freewheel wobble support
group. We're at www.reginaextra.com and we meet on the internet
every third week. Feel free to join us as we attempt to heal our
emotional scars. We also have a "tool recovery" group for those
people who were traumatized by having to buy ten different
remover tools and large wrenches. -- Pawl Maillard, PhD.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> Nobody cares about your damn wobble, not me, Maillard, Regina or
>> nobody.

> I care! And so do the people in my freewheel wobble support
> group. We're at www.reginaextra.com and we meet on the internet
> every third week. Feel free to join us as we attempt to heal our
> emotional scars.

Damn. That's the night my bottom bracket removal support group meets.
(Bunch of people -- guys, mostly -- with scraped knuckles.)

Rats.

 

[dvt]

>>>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:14:27 GMT in rec.bicycles.tech, Blair P.
>>>>Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>You say it's easy, why don't you pony up and indemnify the
>>>>>process against any sort of mechanical error for the $20k
>>>>>or so this frame is really worth to me.

> Rick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Wrong. I shipped a frame/fork to Colorado (from California) at the
>>beginning of the summer. $16. The frame was certainly worth more than
>>$16.

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> I don't want that frame. You'd have to pay the postage
> to ship it to me.

Common sense says I should stay out of this, but can you explain this
apparent contradiction? Your frame is worth $20k, but someone else's
frame is not worth $16? What if his frame were exactly the same as yours?

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[[email protected]]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2005 20:10:37 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Try a good file on your dropouts.
>
> Nooooooooo! My bike is priceless and I can't risk that.
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

Dear John,

Harden yourself.

Take stern measures.

If I'll do it, then anyone can.

Three bad quips seems brazen--no, make that four.

Carl Fogel

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 23 Aug 2005 20:10:37 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Try a good file on your dropouts.
>
>Nooooooooo! My bike is priceless and I can't risk that.

You go back to 1984 and buy a custom-fit Holdsworth, then
put 40,000 miles on it.

Then I'll trust you to bend it.

--Blair
"But you're not touching mine."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>Now I don't care if you use these words sloppily as being synonyms. But if you
>are going to be sloppy AND pedantic about it, then I shall sic Carl Fogel upon
>you and you will regret.

Does he bring a dancing bear?

--Blair
"Because the entertainment value of
this is wearing off."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

41 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >If he produced a design that was rugged, light and economical to produce (the
>> >holy trinity of bike engineering) and found that while freewheeling
>there was a
>> >small and benign runout, why would he change it.
>>
>> It's not small.
>>
>> We're talking 2 mm of wobble.
>
>> I need science, here,
>
>Yes, that is correct. The terminology you are looking for is "of no
>significance".t

It's of significance when it shouldn't be there. Why is
there 2 mm of wobble in something that nobody in his right
mind would have inserted 2 mm of wobble into? Why is it
expected to be a standard feature?

--Blair
"Do you have a horn on your racing bike?"