Parking Break - What are your thoughts on this?

[Stan Shankman]

Greetings guys,

I took the kickstand off of my bike. I found that I never used it because I
always lock my bike to a post or bike-rack anyway. And if I did use it, I
was always at some risk that my bike would get knocked over. I always think
a bike looks better without a kickstand anyway. But, when parking, it is
often times a hassle getting a bike situated so it won't flop to one side or
the other. Think about it. When was the last time your bike fell over? I'm
betting that no matter how careful you are, that at one time or another -
Crash! Your bike has hit the ground! (Bummer.) And that ninety-nine out of a
hundred times, it has done so because both wheels are free and it's just
darn hard to make it stable. So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
break?

My thought is that the ordinary front and rear calipers (one or the other,
or both) should be manufactured (or retrofitted) with some kind of lever
that when activated, would squeeze the brake pads against the wheels. This
same thing could also be accomplished by simply rigging up a normal
handlebar break-lever with some kind of "holder" - but so doing would keep
the break cable under constant tension. So I like the first idea better.

Obviously a parking break wouldn't be appropriate for all bikes. But hey,
for your average ride-around-town bike it seems like a good idea to me.

So, what do you guys think? Good idea, or bad? And if it is a good idea, why
have the manufacturers not already done it?

- Stan Shankman

[Bill]

They have already done it. It's called the Flickstand or something like
that.
"Stan Shankman" > wrote in message
i.com...
> Greetings guys,
>
> I took the kickstand off of my bike. I found that I never used it because
I
> always lock my bike to a post or bike-rack anyway. And if I did use it, I
> was always at some risk that my bike would get knocked over. I always
think
> a bike looks better without a kickstand anyway. But, when parking, it is
> often times a hassle getting a bike situated so it won't flop to one side
or
> the other. Think about it. When was the last time your bike fell over? I'm
> betting that no matter how careful you are, that at one time or another -
> Crash! Your bike has hit the ground! (Bummer.) And that ninety-nine out of
a
> hundred times, it has done so because both wheels are free and it's just
> darn hard to make it stable. So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
> break?
>
> My thought is that the ordinary front and rear calipers (one or the other,
> or both) should be manufactured (or retrofitted) with some kind of lever
> that when activated, would squeeze the brake pads against the wheels. This
> same thing could also be accomplished by simply rigging up a normal
> handlebar break-lever with some kind of "holder" - but so doing would keep
> the break cable under constant tension. So I like the first idea better.
>
> Obviously a parking break wouldn't be appropriate for all bikes. But hey,
> for your average ride-around-town bike it seems like a good idea to me.
>
> So, what do you guys think? Good idea, or bad? And if it is a good idea,
why
> have the manufacturers not already done it?
>
> - Stan Shankman
>
>

[Sorni]

"Stan Shankman" > wrote in message
i.com...
> Greetings guys,
>
> I took the kickstand off of my bike. I found that I never used it because
I
> always lock my bike to a post or bike-rack anyway. And if I did use it, I
> was always at some risk that my bike would get knocked over. I always
think
> a bike looks better without a kickstand anyway. But, when parking, it is
> often times a hassle getting a bike situated so it won't flop to one side
or
> the other. Think about it. When was the last time your bike fell over? I'm
> betting that no matter how careful you are, that at one time or another -
> Crash! Your bike has hit the ground! (Bummer.) And that ninety-nine out of
a
> hundred times, it has done so because both wheels are free and it's just
> darn hard to make it stable. So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
> break?
>
> My thought is that the ordinary front and rear calipers (one or the other,
> or both) should be manufactured (or retrofitted) with some kind of lever
> that when activated, would squeeze the brake pads against the wheels. This
> same thing could also be accomplished by simply rigging up a normal
> handlebar break-lever with some kind of "holder" - but so doing would keep
> the break cable under constant tension. So I like the first idea better.
>
> Obviously a parking break wouldn't be appropriate for all bikes. But hey,
> for your average ride-around-town bike it seems like a good idea to me.
>
> So, what do you guys think? Good idea, or bad? And if it is a good idea,
why
> have the manufacturers not already done it?

Ummm.... So how does this parking brake stop the bike from falling over?!?

Bill "apples 'n oranges" S.

[Review Boy]

I have used a Flickstand. It works well. I don't know whether it is
still on the market.

"Bill" > wrote in message
. net...
> They have already done it. It's called the Flickstand or something like
> that.
> "Stan Shankman" > wrote in message

[Werehatrack]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:47:48 -0500, "Stan Shankman"
> may have said:

>...So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
>break?

You want a parking brake? If you're using the kind of rear brake that
allows it, bungee the cable to the seat. Voila! Similar for the
front, over the handlebars to the top tube. Or use a pair of bedroll
straps to clamp the brake levers.

I think you'll find that it's less useful than you expect, though.
Parking brakes on cars only work because the cars can't fall over. No
matter how you clamp the wheels, they're still round, and there's
still just two of them; the bike can still fall over. It *might*
help, some of the time, to keep the bike from sliding down the pole
that it's locked to, but I'd bet that there will be a lot of times
when it will not make much of a difference.


--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Peter]

Bill wrote:

> They have already done it. It's called the Flickstand or something like
> that.

The Flickstand is a bit different since its main function is to keep the
front wheel straight rather than to prevent the wheel from turning. Both
methods do make it much more secure to lean your bike up against trees,
poles, buildings, etc., but the Flickstand is limited in the types of bike
frames with which it will work and also won't work with fenders. Since the
extra security is especially important when carrying touring loads, the
incompatibility with fenders is a definite problem.

A bike parking brake is trivially easy to implement yourself. I have used
two styles: 1) a rubberband that I keep wrapped around the handlebar and
that is pulled around the brake lever when parked; and 2) a little piece of
wood on a string tied to the brake-lever mount and inserted at the top of
the lever to keep the lever from releasing the brake. A friend uses a
third method - a velcro strap he keeps around his seatpost and wraps around
the brake lever & handlebar when stopped; works the same as my rubberband
but is more durable.

> "Stan Shankman" > wrote in message
> i.com...

>>I always lock my bike to a post or bike-rack anyway. And if I did use it, I
>>was always at some risk that my bike would get knocked over. I always
>
> think
>
>>a bike looks better without a kickstand anyway. But, when parking, it is
>>often times a hassle getting a bike situated so it won't flop to one side
>
> or
>
>>the other. Think about it. When was the last time your bike fell over? I'm
>>betting that no matter how careful you are, that at one time or another -
>>Crash! Your bike has hit the ground! (Bummer.) And that ninety-nine out of
>
> a
>
>>hundred times, it has done so because both wheels are free and it's just
>>darn hard to make it stable. So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
>>break?
>>
>>My thought is that the ordinary front and rear calipers (one or the other,
>>or both) should be manufactured (or retrofitted) with some kind of lever
>>that when activated, would squeeze the brake pads against the wheels.

[Chalo]

"Stan Shankman" > wrote:

> My thought is that the ordinary front and rear calipers (one or the other,
> or both) should be manufactured (or retrofitted) with some kind of lever
> that when activated, would squeeze the brake pads against the wheels. This
> same thing could also be accomplished by simply rigging up a normal
> handlebar break-lever with some kind of "holder" - but so doing would keep
> the break cable under constant tension. So I like the first idea better.
>
> So, what do you guys think? Good idea, or bad? And if it is a good idea, why
> have the manufacturers not already done it?

BMX/freestyle brake levers (e.g. Dia Compe Tech 77) sometimes had a
"locking button" which worked to accomplish what you describe. You
pull in the lever, push in the locking button, and release the lever,
which puts the locking button in a bind. To disengage, you squeeze
the lever firmly to free the locking button and it pops out.

It really works, both as a parking aid and as rudimentary protection
against rideaway theft.

Chalo Colina

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

"Sorni" > wrote in message
...
> "Stan Shankman" > wrote in message
> i.com...
> > Greetings guys,
> >
> > I took the kickstand off of my bike. I found that I never used it
because
> I
> > always lock my bike to a post or bike-rack anyway. And if I did use it,
I
> > was always at some risk that my bike would get knocked over. I always
> think
> > a bike looks better without a kickstand anyway. But, when parking, it is
> > often times a hassle getting a bike situated so it won't flop to one
side
> or
> > the other. Think about it. When was the last time your bike fell over?
I'm
> > betting that no matter how careful you are, that at one time or
another -
> > Crash! Your bike has hit the ground! (Bummer.) And that ninety-nine out
of
> a
> > hundred times, it has done so because both wheels are free and it's just
> > darn hard to make it stable. So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
> > break?
> >
> > My thought is that the ordinary front and rear calipers (one or the
other,
> > or both) should be manufactured (or retrofitted) with some kind of lever
> > that when activated, would squeeze the brake pads against the wheels.
This
> > same thing could also be accomplished by simply rigging up a normal
> > handlebar break-lever with some kind of "holder" - but so doing would
keep
> > the break cable under constant tension. So I like the first idea better.
> >
> > Obviously a parking break wouldn't be appropriate for all bikes. But
hey,
> > for your average ride-around-town bike it seems like a good idea to me.
> >
> > So, what do you guys think? Good idea, or bad? And if it is a good idea,
> why
> > have the manufacturers not already done it?
>
> Ummm.... So how does this parking brake stop the bike from falling
over?!?
>
> Bill "apples 'n oranges" S.
>
>
>

The parking brake would make two friction points, and the object being
leaned upon would be the third. Physics states that you need at least three
points of frictional contact to be stable. If the wheels are free, you only
have stability in two of the three axes.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[Marten Hoffmann]

schreef ...
> "Stan Shankman" > wrote:
>
> > My thought is that the ordinary front and rear calipers (one or the other,
> > or both) should be manufactured (or retrofitted) with some kind of lever
> > that when activated, would squeeze the brake pads against the wheels. This
> > same thing could also be accomplished by simply rigging up a normal
> > handlebar break-lever with some kind of "holder" - but so doing would keep
> > the break cable under constant tension. So I like the first idea better.
> >
> > So, what do you guys think? Good idea, or bad? And if it is a good idea, why
> > have the manufacturers not already done it?
>
> BMX/freestyle brake levers (e.g. Dia Compe Tech 77) sometimes had a
> "locking button" which worked to accomplish what you describe. You
> pull in the lever, push in the locking button, and release the lever,
> which puts the locking button in a bind. To disengage, you squeeze
> the lever firmly to free the locking button and it pops out.
>
> It really works, both as a parking aid and as rudimentary protection
> against rideaway theft.

IIRC Blackburn used to make a small wedge with a tiny cord that you
could put around your brake cable (this is a l-o-o-o-ng time ago). You
applied the brake, put the wedge between lever and lever body and voilà,
your parking brake is ready.

--
Regards,
Marten

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

"Werehatrack" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:04:24 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training" >
> may have said:
>
> >The parking brake would make two friction points, and the object being
> >leaned upon would be the third. Physics states that you need at least
three
> >points of frictional contact to be stable. If the wheels are free, you
only
> >have stability in two of the three axes.
>
> If the method of securing the bike to the fixed object admits no means
> of slippage, the other two points will remain fixed anyway.
> Immobilizing the wheels only makes a difference if the lock is loose
> and there's room for motion, which, now that I think about it, used to
> be distressingly often. These days, I generally lock in places where
> it's not an issue, so such a feature wouldn't do me much good.
> Although, now that I think about it, since I lock through the rear
> wheel in any event, only the front would need to be immobilized, and
> running the cable through it so that the cable passed behind one fork
> tube and in front of the other would stop the motion there, so I guess
> I can get the effect without any additional stuff at all.

Yes... I believe the original poster was referring to a situation in which
he would lock only the top tube, as I usually do. My bike is junky enough.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:47:48 -0500, Stan Shankman >
wrote:
> I took the kickstand off of my bike. I found that I never used it because
> always lock my bike to a post or bike-rack anyway. And if I did use it, I
> was always at some risk that my bike would get knocked over. I always a
> bike looks better without a kickstand anyway. But, when parking, it is

Additionally, I always fear that a kickstand will
come down while riding, or catch on something; so
I have avoided them. I have no need for them. My
mountain bike spends enough time scraping the ground
that I don't mind laying it down; and my road bike
stays still when I lean it against something so
that the saddle is the point of contact, and if on
a hill, the handlebar will stop the bike.

> often times a hassle getting a bike situated so it won't flop to one side
> the other. Think about it. When was the last time your bike fell over?

Never. I am very careful. If I think it might fall,
I carefully lay it down before it does, and let it
stay like that.

> betting that no matter how careful you are, that at one time or another -
> Crash! Your bike has hit the ground! (Bummer.) And that ninety-nine out

Nope.

> darn hard to make it stable. So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
> break?

<grammar nazi> Parking _brake_. </grammar nazi>

> My thought is that the ordinary front and rear calipers (one or the or
> both) should be manufactured (or retrofitted) with some kind of lever
> that when activated, would squeeze the brake pads against the wheels.

My 105s have a lever to open them just enough to
remove the wheel. I could adjust my brakes with
that lever open, I guess, then close it to lock
them. I may have trouble removing/installing a
wheel whose tire is inflated, though.

> same thing could also be accomplished by simply rigging up a normal
> handlebar break-lever with some kind of "holder" - but so doing would

An elastic band would work.

> keep
> the break cable under constant tension. So I like the first idea better.

A proper sized elastic band, I bet, would be just
enough to hold the wheel without stretching the
cable.

How about carrying a shim that you can stick between
the brake pad an the rim? That would work.

Or, you could carry a small spring clamp, and either
clamp the caliper closed, or just clamp it on to the
wheel near the seat stay or chain stay, which would
prevent the wheel from rolling.

> Obviously a parking break wouldn't be appropriate for all bikes. But hey,
> for your average ride-around-town bike it seems like a good idea to me.

I have never wanted for one, but maybe one of my ideas
will work for you. Different people, different needs.

> So, what do you guys think? Good idea, or bad? And if it is a good idea,
> why have the manufacturers not already done it?

I can't imagine that there's enough demand. I've
never heard of the idea until now.

> - Stan Shankman
--
Rick Onanian

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

I don't leave my bike outside overnight, so I'm not as worried. But my
wheels are actually pretty valuable, lol. 7-speed cassette, Shimano
old-school hubs, stainless spokes (some of them are bladed), double-wall
rims, Conti tires...

Maybe I'll start locking them up.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
"Werehatrack" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:21:43 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training" >
> may have said:
>
> >Yes... I believe the original poster was referring to a situation in
which
> >he would lock only the top tube, as I usually do. My bike is junky
enough.
>
> Heh. Yeah, well, if you use skewered wheels, the wheels will still
> vanish around here, even if it's a steel Wal-mart-quality wheel with
> bent spokes, rusty brake-eaten rims, and a tire that's worn to the
> cords. (This happened to a guy here recently; he couldn't believe
> that somebody would steal a rim *that* bad.)
>
> I've got a Pacific in the back yard that came to me for free because
> its front wheel was stolen...and the prior owner discovered that he
> could buy a used bike cheaper than he could buy a replacement wheel.
> It looks like a real beater, but that didn't keep the wheel from
> getting snagged.
>
>
> --
> My email address is antispammed;
> pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
> Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
> it's also possible that I'm busy.
>

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:12:52 GMT, Werehatrack >
wrote:
> I've got a Pacific in the back yard that came to me for free because
> its front wheel was stolen...and the prior owner discovered that he
> could buy a used bike cheaper than he could buy a replacement wheel.

In New England, a Benny's store will likely sell
you a wheel for $15. Benny's is like an old fashioned
hardware store that sells other stuff too, such as
cheap Huffy/Kent bikes.

The wheel you get for $15 is a cheezy Huffy wheel,
for sure, and you need to be sure that you're getting
the proper width and front/rear (the guys there don't
know anything about this stuff), and you'll probably
need to true it.

That all said, it's still a great option for a
beater bike.

http://www.hellobennys.com/
--
Rick Onanian

[Chris Zacho The Wheelman]

Been done, many times. Not incorporated into the lever to my knowledge,
but as an after market item that attaches to the housing somehow when
not in use (I made my own once out of a beautiful piece of ebony).

The Idea rarely get's anybody rich though. Most cyclists find they can
do the same thing much cheaper with a small pebble or piece of wood
lying on the ground where they park.

May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!
Chris

Chris'Z Corner
"The Website for the Common Bicyclist":
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

[John Albergo]

Peter wrote:

>
> The Flickstand is a bit different since its main function is to keep
> the front wheel straight rather than to prevent the wheel from
> turning. Both methods do make it much more secure to lean your bike
> up against trees, poles, buildings, etc., but the Flickstand is
> limited in the types of bike frames with which it will work and also
> won't work with fenders. Since the extra security is especially
> important when carrying touring loads, the incompatibility with
> fenders is a definite problem.

My old Flickstand did both. It kept the fork from turning. And in
order to engage it the front wheel had to "catch" and push into the
gizmo. Not a "parking brake" but enough to keep the bike from rolling
in many situations. It worked amazingly well. Alas by the time I got
my current bike the flickstand was history. Victim of changing frame
designs.

Eventually my ride developed a substitute. A heavily indexed headset
will give the bike surprising stability when leaned against a pole, etc.
While waiting for a shuttle I could lean the seat against a pole, hang
my backpack and helmet from the brake hood, throw my gloves into the
helmet and the front wheel stayed dead centered and the bike steady.
Today I replaced my headset. Maybe not such a good idea :-D Well, at
least I now have lots of other tricks to try on Monday.

>
>
> A bike parking brake is trivially easy to implement yourself. I have
> used two styles: 1) a rubberband that I keep wrapped around the
> handlebar and that is pulled around the brake lever when parked; and
> 2) a little piece of wood on a string tied to the brake-lever mount
> and inserted at the top of the lever to keep the lever from releasing
> the brake. A friend uses a third method - a velcro strap he keeps
> around his seatpost and wraps around the brake lever & handlebar when
> stopped; works the same as my rubberband but is more durable.
>
>

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Rick Onanian > wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:47:48 -0500, Stan Shankman >
> wrote:

> > darn hard to make it stable. So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
> > break?
>
> <grammar nazi> Parking _brake_. </grammar nazi>

<usage nazi> That was a spelling error, not a grammar error </usage nazi>


--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[[email protected]]

Stan Shankman > wrote:

: I took the kickstand off of my bike. I found that I never used it because I
: always lock my bike to a post or bike-rack anyway. And if I did use it, I
: was always at some risk that my bike would get knocked over. I always think
: a bike looks better without a kickstand anyway. But, when parking, it is
: often times a hassle getting a bike situated so it won't flop to one side or
: the other. Think about it. When was the last time your bike fell over? I'm
: betting that no matter how careful you are, that at one time or another -
: Crash! Your bike has hit the ground! (Bummer.) And that ninety-nine out of a
: hundred times, it has done so because both wheels are free and it's just
: darn hard to make it stable. So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
: break?

Parking brakes are common on recumbent trikes. A trike won't fall
over without human effort, but it can roll ahead or backwards.
Could be a sad occurence on a slope but also can be annoying when
you sit into the trike. Therefore many people just put an elastic
band around the brake lever. Some models have a dedicated parking
brake (eg. a rim brake that is operated by a friction shifter
lever) while some trikers think they need no parking brake at all.

For an upright bike, I can see a parking brake could be convenient
for stabilizing the bike. When I lean my bike against trees etc
for locking, sometimes the front wheel turns and the bike starts
to roll, etc. But the brake should be quite a bit less of an
inconvenience than the original problem - you need to engage the
parking brake most of the times but the bike moving without the
brake usually isn't that big a problem, as you can probably catch
it before it goes anywhere... Also upright bikes won't roll too
far on their own :-)

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[Rick Onanian]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:27:36 -0700, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>> <grammar nazi> Parking _brake_. </grammar nazi>
>
> <usage nazi> That was a spelling error, not a grammar error </usage nazi>

No, he spelled break right; he used the wrong word.

Not really grammar, but definately not spelling.

--
Rick Onanian

[Mark Hickey]

wrote:

>Parking brakes are common on recumbent trikes. A trike won't fall
>over without human effort, but it can roll ahead or backwards.

I was waiting to meet a riding buddy the other morning, just off a six
lane road in Tempe, Arizona. I was looping casually around a parking
lot just watching the town wake up (we ride VERY early in the morning
to avoid the heat here).

Suddenly I notice a red pickup truck parked at a 45 degree angle,
facing the wrong way across the two right lanes going the other way.
No one anywhere near it.

Hmmmmm.

I notice that it's lined up with the gas pumps in the gas station
directly behind it. Heh. I wait for the inevitable as cars dodge
around it (luckily it was now daylight and traffic was still light).

A young guy walks out of the convenience store portion of the gas
station with his morning coffee - looks right, left, right, left, then
WAY left and sees his truck sitting in the middle of the road. He
sprints over to it and backs back into the gas station and turns
around and leaves the other way.

Bet he never gets gas without setting the parking brake again...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Benjamin Lewis]

Rick Onanian wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:27:36 -0700, Ryan Cousineau >
> wrote:
>>> <grammar nazi> Parking _brake_. </grammar nazi>
>>
>> <usage nazi> That was a spelling error, not a grammar error </usage
>> nazi>
>
> No, he spelled break right; he used the wrong word.
>
> Not really grammar, but definately not spelling.

Diction.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Amoebit:
Amoeba/rabbit cross; it can multiply and divide at the same time.

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:25:46 -0700, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
> The term for such an error ("He couldn't find the _dim_ in the _dime_
> light") is "usage error", because a perfectly cromulent word is being
> misused.

Thank you, "usage error" was the term for which I
was searching.

> This sort of error, like malapropisms, must be nipped in the butt,

Err...well...umm...you made a slight error, there...

The colloquialism (sp?) is "nipped in the bud",
from cutting/pruning a plant growth at the bud to
stop that piece from growing.

I once left a voice mail for my boss telling him that
I would stay out of work because I was beginning to
get sick and that I wanted to nip it in the butt. My
mother happened to overhear, and corrected me. I was
a bit embarassed to show up at work the next day...

I really need to switch to a real newsreader like Tin,
instead of this silly integrated one in Opera. Then I
can filter my messages through a spell checker...so I
would know how to spell colloquialism.

--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 04:46:08 GMT, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bet he never gets gas without setting the parking brake again...

I never park mine without setting the brake.

Tip for anybody without a limited-slip differential
in a pickup truck: The lightweight rear, combined
with a standard differential, can result in your
truck rolling away with a single tire skidding VERY
easily.

ALWAYS set the parking brake on pickup trucks
without limited-slip differential. If you park on
a steep hill, or a slippery surface (snowy/icy),
put it in 4wd (if equipped) and set the parking
brake before exiting the truck, as well as turning
the wheel towards a curb (if applicable). Without
4wd, use wheel chocks.

Yes, it will stay in 4wd with the truck turned off;
and the mechanical connection to the rear wheels,
combined with the parking brake, means you will
always have at least 3 wheels keeping the vehicle
stopped.

Trucks equipped with limited slip differentials
are slightly better off, because both rear wheels
are encouraged to turn in the SAME direction, but
the light weight in the rear of the truck still
means little traction.

I once parked my truck in 2wd on a snowy grade,
got out, and it started rolling down (just one
rear wheel sliding). I immediately jumped in,
stopped it, started the engine, put in in 4wd,
turned it off, set the brake, and was better.

I'm always scared to let others drive my truck
only for that reason...nobody I know sets the
parking brake, in any vehicle.

> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame
--
Rick Onanian

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Rick Onanian > wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:25:46 -0700, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
> > The term for such an error ("He couldn't find the _dim_ in the _dime_
> > light") is "usage error", because a perfectly cromulent word is being
> > misused.
>
> Thank you, "usage error" was the term for which I
> was searching.
>
> > This sort of error, like malapropisms, must be nipped in the butt,
>
> Err...well...umm...you made a slight error, there...
>
> The colloquialism (sp?) is "nipped in the bud",
> from cutting/pruning a plant growth at the bud to
> stop that piece from growing.

Yes. And what kind of error was that? It was a malapropism.

Interesting etymology to "malapropism." It comes from a character in a
Restoration comedy, Mrs. Malaprop, who makes these sorts of errors
(substituting similar-sounding words for the correct one):

http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2000/07/070700_malaprop.jhtml

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Sorni]

"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote in message
...

> Interesting etymology to "malapropism." It comes from a character in a
> Restoration comedy, Mrs. Malaprop, who makes these sorts of errors
> (substituting similar-sounding words for the correct one)

So in (almost) modern terms, there should be both "Dr. Irwin Coreyisms" and
"Norm Crosbyisms"?

Bill "not old enough to get my own references, of course" S.

[Sheldon Brown]

Ryan Cousineau reported

>>Interesting etymology to "malapropism." It comes from a character in a
>>Restoration comedy, Mrs. Malaprop, who makes these sorts of errors
>>(substituting similar-sounding words for the correct one)

Sorni wrote:

> So in (almost) modern terms, there should be both "Dr. Irwin Coreyisms" and
> "Norm Crosbyisms"?

Sorta, except that "Malaprop" is a made up name from "mal apropos", so
the character's name itself _means_ "inappropriate."

Other characters in the play also have names that describe aspects of
their characters.

Sheldon "Etymologists _Don't_ Study Bugs" Brown
+-----------------------------------------+
| Man invented language to satisfy his |
| deep need to complain. -- Lily Tomlin |
+-----------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

[Sorni]

"Sheldon Brown" > wrote in message
...
> Ryan Cousineau reported
>
> >>Interesting etymology to "malapropism." It comes from a character in a
> >>Restoration comedy, Mrs. Malaprop, who makes these sorts of errors
> >>(substituting similar-sounding words for the correct one)
>
> Sorni wrote:
>
> > So in (almost) modern terms, there should be both "Dr. Irwin Coreyisms"
and
> > "Norm Crosbyisms"?
>
> Sorta, except that "Malaprop" is a made up name from "mal apropos", so
> the character's name itself _means_ "inappropriate."

Yeah, like, who didn't know THAT?

Bill "sheepishly skulking away now" S.

(Irwin Corey comes from the Latin "irc orie", meaning...I got nothin'.)

[[email protected]]

Rick Onanian > wrote:
: On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 04:46:08 GMT, Mark Hickey > wrote:
:> Bet he never gets gas without setting the parking brake again...

: I never park mine without setting the brake.

: Tip for anybody without a limited-slip differential
: in a pickup truck: The lightweight rear, combined
: with a standard differential, can result in your
: truck rolling away with a single tire skidding VERY
: easily.

Would that mean a parking brake on one wheel of a trike is not
enough either?

: I'm always scared to let others drive my truck
: only for that reason...nobody I know sets the
: parking brake, in any vehicle.

Well I don't always use it either, if the surface is very flat,
the engine on normal cars is a brake enough. And I can set my
trike so that it rolls into a safe place (or a solid object) if it
wants to...

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[Rick Onanian]

On 22 Aug 2003 13:48:35 GMT, >
wrote:
> Would that mean a parking brake on one wheel of a trike is not
> enough either?

I'm not familiar with trike technology; is there
a differential? If so, can you spin one wheel and
the other spins the opposite direction, or can
you spin one without the other? Or do both wheels
ratchet (like a single rear bicycle wheel)?

> : only for that reason...nobody I know sets the
> : parking brake, in any vehicle.
>
> Well I don't always use it either, if the surface is very flat,
> the engine on normal cars is a brake enough. And I can set my
> trike so that it rolls into a safe place (or a solid object) if it
> wants to...

I was speaking of automatic transmission vehicles,
but the issue is the same for manual.

Anyway, when you park without setting the brake,
and the car rolls that half inch or so that it
does while it settles, that's play in the CV
joints (if equipped) and/or U-joint in the
driveshaft (also if so equipped). When it stops
against the engine or auto-transmission's park
lock, it stresses and wears the aforementioned
joint; however, it's a very minor amount of
wear. Still, setting the brake saves that wear
(and of course, wears the parking brake system
instead).

It's important to aim your steering so that the
vehicle will roll somewhere safe in the event
that it does roll, whether it's a pedal powered
trike or a V8 powered pickup; it should be done
whether or not you set the brake.
--
Rick Onanian

[Ted Bennett]

In article >,
Rick Onanian > wrote:

> On 22 Aug 2003 13:48:35 GMT, >
> wrote:
> > Would that mean a parking brake on one wheel of a trike is not
> > enough either?
>
> I'm not familiar with trike technology; is there
> a differential? If so, can you spin one wheel and
> the other spins the opposite direction, or can
> you spin one without the other? Or do both wheels
> ratchet (like a single rear bicycle wheel)?

He is talking about a tadpoke trike, in which there are two steered
wheels in front and a single driven rear wheel. You are thinking of a
delta with two rear wheels, which is the poorer solution. A delta has
poor directional stability, especially when braking, because of weight
transfer to the front. Deltas have either one driven wheel or a
differential; both have serious drawbacks.

--
Ted Bennett
Portland OR

[Ken Freeland]

Find a large " zip tie " or tie wrap cut the large end off. Squeeze
front or rear brake(your choice).insert tie into gap of lever, nice
snug fit, bike will not move with brake clamped. Keep "brake lock"
with your gear. Ken

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:47:48 -0500, "Stan Shankman"
> wrote:

>Greetings guys,
>
>I took the kickstand off of my bike. I found that I never used it because I
>always lock my bike to a post or bike-rack anyway. And if I did use it, I
>was always at some risk that my bike would get knocked over. I always think
>a bike looks better without a kickstand anyway. But, when parking, it is
>often times a hassle getting a bike situated so it won't flop to one side or
>the other. Think about it. When was the last time your bike fell over? I'm
>betting that no matter how careful you are, that at one time or another -
>Crash! Your bike has hit the ground! (Bummer.) And that ninety-nine out of a
>hundred times, it has done so because both wheels are free and it's just
>darn hard to make it stable. So wouldn't it make sense to have a parking
>break?
>
>My thought is that the ordinary front and rear calipers (one or the other,
>or both) should be manufactured (or retrofitted) with some kind of lever
>that when activated, would squeeze the brake pads against the wheels. This
>same thing could also be accomplished by simply rigging up a normal
>handlebar break-lever with some kind of "holder" - but so doing would keep
>the break cable under constant tension. So I like the first idea better.
>
>Obviously a parking break wouldn't be appropriate for all bikes. But hey,
>for your average ride-around-town bike it seems like a good idea to me.
>
>So, what do you guys think? Good idea, or bad? And if it is a good idea, why
>have the manufacturers not already done it?
>
>- Stan Shankman
>

[[email protected]]

Rick Onanian > wrote:
: On 22 Aug 2003 13:48:35 GMT, >
: wrote:
:> Would that mean a parking brake on one wheel of a trike is not
:> enough either?

: I'm not familiar with trike technology; is there
: a differential? If so, can you spin one wheel and
: the other spins the opposite direction, or can
: you spin one without the other? Or do both wheels
: ratchet (like a single rear bicycle wheel)?

Well, since we are talking recumbents, there are a multitude of
choices. Two wheels in front or back, drive in front or back,
steering in front or back, all independent choices - sort of - of
each other. If your drive is in the same end as the two wheels, I
think the drive can be in both wheels or just one wheel. Wheels
without drive just spin freely to any direction. I gather it would
be perfectly possible to build a differential for a trike, but too
complex and expensive for the vast majority of builders.

I could be partly mistaken, of course, I'm most familiar with the
tadpole (two wheels front) configuration, with front steering and
drive in the back wheel. A popular design for good reasons...

I think most trikes use the parking brake in just one wheel. On
the kind of tadpole I mentioned, it could be just one of the front
wheels or the rear wheel. A rear wheel brake is not very usable
except for parking and maybe as a drag brake for long descents.

: I was speaking of automatic transmission vehicles,
: but the issue is the same for manual.

: Anyway, when you park without setting the brake,
: and the car rolls that half inch or so that it
: does while it settles, that's play in the CV
: joints (if equipped) and/or U-joint in the
: driveshaft (also if so equipped). When it stops
: against the engine or auto-transmission's park
: lock, it stresses and wears the aforementioned
: joint; however, it's a very minor amount of
: wear. Still, setting the brake saves that wear
: (and of course, wears the parking brake system
: instead).

: It's important to aim your steering so that the
: vehicle will roll somewhere safe in the event
: that it does roll, whether it's a pedal powered
: trike or a V8 powered pickup; it should be done
: whether or not you set the brake.

Is engine braking bad in general, not just when stopping/parking?
Like you are coming to red lights ahead, and not braking, not
applying any gas either, but the drive is still connected so the
engine does the braking?

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:00:00 -0400,
> wrote:
> Is engine braking bad in general, not just when stopping/parking?
> Like you are coming to red lights ahead, and not braking, not
> applying any gas either, but the drive is still connected so the
> engine does the braking?

If you're talking about an automatic transmission
and leaving it in (D)rive, then it's no different
than adding your brake pedal, except of course
for the rate at which you will scrub speed.

No problems that I know of with engine braking,
except that you are wearing the components involved
more than you otherwise would. Those components,
while designed to be capable of braking that way,
are generally not designed to do it all the time.

That said, I did it a lot for a long time, and
never destroyed the components I thought would
die. The engine did die, but I think that was
from using a compact car to tow another compact
car...it just wasn't made for that much towing.

Okay, that, and the abuse I otherwise always did
put on it. ;) But I really did expect the auto
transmission, the torque converter, or the CV
joints to go on that car, and they continue to
this day, long after the engine was replaced.

--
Rick Onanian