This just in

Dave said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/vuelta05/index.php?id=vuelta052/2_14g

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Everyone must be looking at a differetn picture from all of the
different comments. Its the Vuelta, Stage 2. The crank is a Dura Ace.
Team is Discovery Channel. They use Dura Ace cranks. The crank
appears to be several feet from the bike on the right side of the road
by the white line. Not hanging from the chainstays.

Quoted message said:

I'm with Russell on this. The reason you don't see a shadow is because
the sun is directly overhead...look at the shadow under the bike and
rider.

How do you explain the obscured right chainstay? And the partially
obscured cassette, hub, and spokes?

The right crank is stuck in the back wheel. No telling if it sheared or
just came loose, but there's no way that crank is laying on the other
side of the road.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Quoted message said:

Well from what I see the spindle broke odd because the chainwheel and
right crank are hanging on the chain which its held by the front
derailleur. I don't know what sort of cranks these are but the
spindle is out of the BB attached to the right crank.

What event is this?

Jobst Brandt

Jobst: It's a Shimano Dura-Ace crank, #7800. Installation instructions found
here-
http://bike.shimano.com/media/cycling/techdocs/en/bikecomponents/FC/SI-1F30H_v2_m56577569830572764.pdf

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Quoted message said:

There is no shadow because the sun is to the right upper corner of the
picture. The right crank has the edge of the chainring facing into the
sun. And the side of the bottom bracket tube is facing the sun. The
edge of chainrings do not have e nough area to cast a shadow you can see
from many feet away. The side of the bottom bracket tube casts a
shadow but it is hidden from view by the solid Dura Ace chainrings and
the fact the chainring is many feet away.

The right crankarm assemb ly is resting on the ground. Look at the
angle it is propped up. This is the angle you get when the bottom
bracket tube that sticks out the back of the right crankarm is resting
on the ground and the bottom of the big chainring is resting on the
ground. Look at the angle of the right crankarm. Its tilted back
because it is resting on the end of the bottom bracket tube that is
permanently welded/glued to the back of the right crankarm.

An elegant and detailed rationalization of what is clearly wrong. The
first visual clue that shouts out at you is that the scaling of the
crank is all wrong for what you describe: if it were that far from the
bicycle, it would be much smaller.

If you wanted, you could measure the wheel height and compare with the
chainwheel height: I get 1.5" (front) vs 0.5", or a 9" diameter. That's
just right.

Then comes the absolute proof: the chainwheel obscures the cluster.
Furthermore, if you look closely at the shadow, you can see the shadow
of the crank tangled in the shadow of the rear wheel, just a little
right of the shadow of the saddle.

Using the same scaling method as for the chainwheel size, you can also
determine that it was not the spindle that broke, but in fact the left
arm. This is confirmed by its sharp edge, which leaves the round form
that should be there incomplete.

This is not the only problem on this POS. Look closely and you will see
that the left seatstay is broken, just above the dropout. In fact it
appears that the chainwheel has sliced through a spoke or two, or at
least is in the wheel. How else could it obscure the cluster?
o

Andrew F Martin said:

You are correct - It is not on the ground. The telling point is that
if you zoom in, the left side of the chainring is in a shadow (the
bike. You can plainly see that the bike is many feet from the white
line and there is nothing else to cast a shadow.

Additionally:

-- The chainrings occlude the right seat stay.

-- The shadow of the wheel falls across the chainrings; the crank is
obviously trapped in the spokes, some of which may be broken.
(There's not quite enough detail to be sure of this one way or the
other.)

-- The apparent crank arm lengths for the two arms are about equal
in the photo, and both appear to be close to being in a plane
perpendicular to the view axis.

-- There are artifacts in the shadow of the bike which can't be
explained without the right crank being in there.

-- If the crank was on the ground, the *pedal* would still cast a
visible shadow, and it doesn't, nor does the fairly thick arm. That's
just not dismissible by the sun's angle; there would be a shadow for
an artifact as thick as the arm, and it would extend between the
visible contact points of the assmebly with the ground if, in fact,
the crank was on the ground...which it isn't.

The crank's tangled in the wheel. You would be able to see the right
seat stay if it wasn't.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:38:23 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack said:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:23:41 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>doooohhh!!
>>
>>Wonder if it broke or just came off.
>>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/vuelta05/index.php?id=vuelta052/2_14g
>
>I've told Julian countless times: "You don't grease the tapers" ;-)

No tapers on a DA.

[swing and a miss]

Go for the hit batter. Talk about greased tapers being the devil to
catch, particularly if they get into the water.

Ah, got it: So you're saying that the tapers are made of pig iron.

New cranks:

Spindle is permanently attached to the drive side crank and secured to
the non-drive by pinch bolt. Once the pinch bolt slips the axel will
slide out the drive side.

http://bike.shimano.com/media/cycling/techdocs/en/bikecomponents/FC/SI-1F30H_v2_m56577569830572764.pdf

-n

StaceyJ said:

I'm surprised shimano hasn't specified some sort of star fangled
nut/top (side?) cap assembly to avoid liability from this sort of
mistake (ie, the crank cannot pull completely off if the pinch bolts
aren't sufficiently tight).

Hell, just drill and tap a hole into the spindle and put on a crank bolt
with a sufficiently large washer, and you get that effect. What shape is
the end of the spindle that the left crank fits over? If you also give
that some flats (say, four or so), then the total failure of the pinch
bolts would simply result in some excessive play situation.

Jasper

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack said:

I disagree. The scaling is consistent with the crank assembly being
tangled in the chain on the right side of the bike.

If the crankarm is tangled on the right chainstay, then the pedals
would be about the same distance from the camera. The rider holding
his left foot up is the same distance from the camera as the right
chainstay area. Yet the right pedal is clearly smaller in the picture.
Indicating it is on the right side of the road many feet further from
the camera than the bike and rider and left pedal.

No it's not. If anything the right pedal is larger.

Look, there's a simple way of seeing that we're right and you're wrong:
the crank/chainwheels is obscuring the right seatstay, ergo it is in front
of the right seatstay, whereas the left seatstay and in front of it (you
can just see a bit of crank peaking out from under the left seatstay.
Therefore the crank is stuck right through the wheel, incidentally.

Jasper

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

doooohhh!!

Wonder if it broke or just came off.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/vuelta05/index.php?id=vuelta052/2_14g

He's holding up the bike to support himself while failing
to remove the pedal from the cleat. If it were a bike that
I had not paid for I would have heaved silly little
gimcrack over the guard rail, then sat on the ground to
remove the pedal.

--
Michael Press

Llatikcuf said:

New cranks:

Spindle is permanently attached to the drive side crank and secured to
the non-drive by pinch bolt. Once the pinch bolt slips the axel will
slide out the drive side.

http://bike.shimano.com/media/cycling/techd ocs/en/bikecomponents/FC/SI-1F30H_v2_m56577569830572764.pdf

Yes, but as you can see and as I explained in my previous post, the
left arm broke. As did the left seatstay.

"StaceyJ" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1126203017.574015.301390
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised shimano hasn't specified some sort of star fangled
nut/top (side?) cap assembly to avoid liability from this sort of
mistake (ie, the crank cannot pull completely off if the pinch bolts
aren't sufficiently tight).

They do. At least, my Deore LX has one, and every tool I've seen for this
style crank/BB comes with one end for the bearings and one side for the
preload cap.

See http://tinyurl.com/9lh5z for Shimano's service diagram for the FC-7800,
the crank that failed in this pic.

See also: http://www.parktool.com/products/detail.asp?cat=25&item=BBT-9#

Hank Wirtz <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"StaceyJ" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:1126203017.574015.301390 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised shimano hasn't specified some sort of star fangled
nut/top (side?) cap assembly to avoid liability from this sort of
mistake (ie, the crank cannot pull completely off if the pinch bolts
aren't sufficiently tight).

They do. At least, my Deore LX has one, and every tool I've seen for
this style crank/BB comes with one end for the bearings and one side
for the preload cap.

See http://tinyurl.com/9lh5z for Shimano's service diagram for the
FC-7800, the crank that failed in this pic.

See also:
http://www.parktool.com/products/detail.asp?cat=25&item=BBT-9#

I forgot to add that the cap was probably removed after the pinch bolts
were tightened by way of weight weeniness.

41 said:

Yes, but as you can see and as I explained in my previous post, the
left arm broke. As did the left seatstay.

So you say, but I don't buy it. Using scaling is a red herring, since the
ruider is farther away from the camera than the right crank, and the
rounded bit, if anything, is still there -- you just can't clearly see it
because of the angle. The seatstay does look off, though, you're right
about that. Snapped and then bent inwards, I'd say.

You know, just *one* more photo of this from a different angle would make
our lives SO much easier.

Jasper

Quoted message said:

Peter Chisholm said:

doooohhh!!

Quoted message said:

Wonder if it broke or just came off.

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/vuelta05/index.php?id=vuelta052/2_14g

Well from what I see the spindle broke odd because the chainwheel and
right crank are hanging on the chain which its held by the front
derailleur. I don't know what sort of cranks these are but the
spindle is out of the BB attached to the right crank.

What event is this?

Jobst Brandt

Veulta and these are the two piece DA crank, and if the left arm comes
off, as I think it did, the crank and BB spindle can slide to the
right, maybe why there is no 'stub' showing in the left BB cup.

Werehatrack said:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:23:41 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

doooohhh!!

Wonder if it broke or just came off.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/vuelta05/index.php?id=vuelta052/2_14g

I've told Julian countless times: "You don't grease the tapers" ;-)

No tapers on a DA.

geeezzz, even I knew that was a joke. Looking at the pic again, looks
like the right side crank came out and wrapped itself around the right
side, in front of the right stay...bad wrenching, me thinks, let's ask
shimano!! well maybe not.