BB and pedal thread direction - WHY?

[Mike Beauchamp]

Heyo,

I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction such that
forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?

If a pedal seized somehow (or a shoelace got wrapped around the spindle -
happened to me) then the pedal pops off. If something goes wrong in the BB,
and it seizes or something, then it unthreads itself with pedalling.

I'd assume that these threads would be opposite, so the pedaling direction
would keep everything tight?

Like most bike traditions, I'm hoping there's an interesting story involved
in this?

Or maybe it's that way, so if something bad does happen in the bearings,
your pedalling won't tighten them so much that you can't get them apart
again?

--
Mike Beauchamp
http://www.therevox.com - custom electro-theremins and stuff.
http://www.mikebeauchamp.com - mike's personal site.

[Ronald]

> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
such that
> forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?

Because when nothing goes wrong the cups and pedals could loosen in
normal use. The bearings invert the direction of the force, so when
you pedle in a clockwise motion the bearings change the direction of
this force to a counterclockwise force. Thereby it's best to have the
cups loosen in the same direction as you pedle.



"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message
...
> Heyo,
>
> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
such that
> forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?
>
> If a pedal seized somehow (or a shoelace got wrapped around the
spindle -
> happened to me) then the pedal pops off. If something goes wrong in
the BB,
> and it seizes or something, then it unthreads itself with pedalling.
>
> I'd assume that these threads would be opposite, so the pedaling
direction
> would keep everything tight?
>
> Like most bike traditions, I'm hoping there's an interesting story
involved
> in this?
>
> Or maybe it's that way, so if something bad does happen in the
bearings,
> your pedalling won't tighten them so much that you can't get them
apart
> again?
>
> --
> Mike Beauchamp
> http://www.therevox.com - custom electro-theremins and stuff.
> http://www.mikebeauchamp.com - mike's personal site.
>
>
>

[Ronald]

> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
such that
> forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?

Because when nothing goes wrong the cups and pedals could loosen in
normal use. The bearings invert the direction of the force, so when
you pedle in a clockwise motion the bearings change the direction of
this force to a counterclockwise force. Thereby it's best to have the
cups loosen in the same direction as you pedle.



"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message
...
> Heyo,
>
> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
such that
> forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?
>
> If a pedal seized somehow (or a shoelace got wrapped around the
spindle -
> happened to me) then the pedal pops off. If something goes wrong in
the BB,
> and it seizes or something, then it unthreads itself with pedalling.
>
> I'd assume that these threads would be opposite, so the pedaling
direction
> would keep everything tight?
>
> Like most bike traditions, I'm hoping there's an interesting story
involved
> in this?
>
> Or maybe it's that way, so if something bad does happen in the
bearings,
> your pedalling won't tighten them so much that you can't get them
apart
> again?
>
> --
> Mike Beauchamp
> http://www.therevox.com - custom electro-theremins and stuff.
> http://www.mikebeauchamp.com - mike's personal site.
>
>
>

[Ron Hardin]

Ronald wrote:
>
> > I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction such that
> > forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?
>
> Because when nothing goes wrong the cups and pedals could loosen in
> normal use. The bearings invert the direction of the force, so when
> you pedle in a clockwise motion the bearings change the direction of
> this force to a counterclockwise force. Thereby it's best to have the
> cups loosen in the same direction as you pedle.

Bearings don't reverse anything.

What happens is that the radius of the thing that screws in is necessarily less
than the radius of the thing it screws into. So if it loosens slightly, one rolls
around inside the other, and since the circumferences don't match, the one comes out
slightly ahead of the other each revolution. The threading is selected so that
this rolling retightens the arrangement. Bearings aren't even involved.
--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[Ron Hardin]

Ronald wrote:
>
> > I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction such that
> > forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?
>
> Because when nothing goes wrong the cups and pedals could loosen in
> normal use. The bearings invert the direction of the force, so when
> you pedle in a clockwise motion the bearings change the direction of
> this force to a counterclockwise force. Thereby it's best to have the
> cups loosen in the same direction as you pedle.

Bearings don't reverse anything.

What happens is that the radius of the thing that screws in is necessarily less
than the radius of the thing it screws into. So if it loosens slightly, one rolls
around inside the other, and since the circumferences don't match, the one comes out
slightly ahead of the other each revolution. The threading is selected so that
this rolling retightens the arrangement. Bearings aren't even involved.
--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[Ronald]

> Bearings don't reverse anything.
>
> What happens is that the radius of the thing that screws in is
necessarily less
> than the radius of the thing it screws into. So if it loosens
slightly, one rolls
> around inside the other, and since the circumferences don't match,
the one comes out
> slightly ahead of the other each revolution. The threading is
selected so that
> this rolling retightens the arrangement. Bearings aren't even
involved.

After reading a bit more about it i believe you're right. Don't
remember where i picked up the bearing theory but it sounded
plausable. It was easy to memorize because two touching wheels turn in
opposite direction so spindle touching bearing touching cup would have
the cup turning in the same direction as the spindle if it was the
same shape. But because the bearing is touching the inside of the cup
instead of the outside it would turn in the opposite direction.


"Ron Hardin" > wrote in message
...
> Ronald wrote:
> >
> > > I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
such that
> > > forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?
> >
> > Because when nothing goes wrong the cups and pedals could loosen
in
> > normal use. The bearings invert the direction of the force, so
when
> > you pedle in a clockwise motion the bearings change the direction
of
> > this force to a counterclockwise force. Thereby it's best to have
the
> > cups loosen in the same direction as you pedle.
>
> Bearings don't reverse anything.
>
> What happens is that the radius of the thing that screws in is
necessarily less
> than the radius of the thing it screws into. So if it loosens
slightly, one rolls
> around inside the other, and since the circumferences don't match,
the one comes out
> slightly ahead of the other each revolution. The threading is
selected so that
> this rolling retightens the arrangement. Bearings aren't even
involved.
> --
> Ron Hardin
>
>
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[Ronald]

> Bearings don't reverse anything.
>
> What happens is that the radius of the thing that screws in is
necessarily less
> than the radius of the thing it screws into. So if it loosens
slightly, one rolls
> around inside the other, and since the circumferences don't match,
the one comes out
> slightly ahead of the other each revolution. The threading is
selected so that
> this rolling retightens the arrangement. Bearings aren't even
involved.

After reading a bit more about it i believe you're right. Don't
remember where i picked up the bearing theory but it sounded
plausable. It was easy to memorize because two touching wheels turn in
opposite direction so spindle touching bearing touching cup would have
the cup turning in the same direction as the spindle if it was the
same shape. But because the bearing is touching the inside of the cup
instead of the outside it would turn in the opposite direction.


"Ron Hardin" > wrote in message
...
> Ronald wrote:
> >
> > > I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
such that
> > > forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?
> >
> > Because when nothing goes wrong the cups and pedals could loosen
in
> > normal use. The bearings invert the direction of the force, so
when
> > you pedle in a clockwise motion the bearings change the direction
of
> > this force to a counterclockwise force. Thereby it's best to have
the
> > cups loosen in the same direction as you pedle.
>
> Bearings don't reverse anything.
>
> What happens is that the radius of the thing that screws in is
necessarily less
> than the radius of the thing it screws into. So if it loosens
slightly, one rolls
> around inside the other, and since the circumferences don't match,
the one comes out
> slightly ahead of the other each revolution. The threading is
selected so that
> this rolling retightens the arrangement. Bearings aren't even
involved.
> --
> Ron Hardin
>
>
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[jim beam]

Ronald wrote:
>>Bearings don't reverse anything.
>>
>>What happens is that the radius of the thing that screws in is
>
> necessarily less
>
>>than the radius of the thing it screws into. So if it loosens
>
> slightly, one rolls
>
>>around inside the other, and since the circumferences don't match,
>
> the one comes out
>
>>slightly ahead of the other each revolution. The threading is
>
> selected so that
>
>>this rolling retightens the arrangement. Bearings aren't even
>
> involved.
>
> After reading a bit more about it i believe you're right. Don't
> remember where i picked up the bearing theory but it sounded
> plausable.

<snip>

what, mis-information on r.b.t??? horror!!!

[jim beam]

Ronald wrote:
>>Bearings don't reverse anything.
>>
>>What happens is that the radius of the thing that screws in is
>
> necessarily less
>
>>than the radius of the thing it screws into. So if it loosens
>
> slightly, one rolls
>
>>around inside the other, and since the circumferences don't match,
>
> the one comes out
>
>>slightly ahead of the other each revolution. The threading is
>
> selected so that
>
>>this rolling retightens the arrangement. Bearings aren't even
>
> involved.
>
> After reading a bit more about it i believe you're right. Don't
> remember where i picked up the bearing theory but it sounded
> plausable.

<snip>

what, mis-information on r.b.t??? horror!!!

[[email protected]]

Ronald who? writes anonymously as he probably should with such tales:

>> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
>> such that forward pedaling direction would be loosening them?

> Because when nothing goes wrong the cups and pedals could loosen in
> normal use. The bearings invert the direction of the force, so when
> you pedal in a clockwise motion the bearings change the direction of
> this force to a counterclockwise force. Thereby it's best to have
> the cups loosen in the same direction as you pedal.

Wow! Pleas explain how "bearings invert" rotational forces and how
this tends to unscrew these components. I suppose you have missed all
the old wive's tales that have been posted here on this subject.

Unscrewing occurs from precession, something that can be modeled
manually by rotating the forefinger of one hand in a circle formed by
thumb and forefinger of the other hand. As the finger rolls around
the "O" in one direction, it turns in the opposite direction. This is
how rotating loads cause even press fitted components to precess.

Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered shoulder
on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly, lug nuts had
left hand threads on the right side before the conical lug nut was
introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller bearings, or
their seizing up and the likes.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Ronald who? writes anonymously as he probably should with such tales:

>> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
>> such that forward pedaling direction would be loosening them?

> Because when nothing goes wrong the cups and pedals could loosen in
> normal use. The bearings invert the direction of the force, so when
> you pedal in a clockwise motion the bearings change the direction of
> this force to a counterclockwise force. Thereby it's best to have
> the cups loosen in the same direction as you pedal.

Wow! Pleas explain how "bearings invert" rotational forces and how
this tends to unscrew these components. I suppose you have missed all
the old wive's tales that have been posted here on this subject.

Unscrewing occurs from precession, something that can be modeled
manually by rotating the forefinger of one hand in a circle formed by
thumb and forefinger of the other hand. As the finger rolls around
the "O" in one direction, it turns in the opposite direction. This is
how rotating loads cause even press fitted components to precess.

Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered shoulder
on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly, lug nuts had
left hand threads on the right side before the conical lug nut was
introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller bearings, or
their seizing up and the likes.

Jobst Brandt

[Phil Brown]

Look up precession.
Phil Brown

[Phil Brown]

Look up precession.
Phil Brown

[Andrew Webster]

"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message >...
> Heyo,
>
> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction such that
> forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?
>
> If a pedal seized somehow (or a shoelace got wrapped around the spindle -
> happened to me) then the pedal pops off. If something goes wrong in the BB,
> and it seizes or something, then it unthreads itself with pedalling.
>
> I'd assume that these threads would be opposite, so the pedaling direction
> would keep everything tight?
>
> Like most bike traditions, I'm hoping there's an interesting story involved
> in this?
>
> Or maybe it's that way, so if something bad does happen in the bearings,
> your pedalling won't tighten them so much that you can't get them apart
> again?

The pedalling action DOES tend to tighten the pedal, but not due to
bearing drag which, as you observe, applies a force in the wrong
direction. It is beceause the pedal spindle is supported at only one
end so, as you pedal the applied force tends to make the pedal precess
around its axis, applying a tightening force as it does do.

See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_p.html as search for pedal, or
search in rbt for "preccession pedal" as this topic comes up fairly
regularly.

Andrew Webster

[Andrew Webster]

"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message >...
> Heyo,
>
> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction such that
> forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?
>
> If a pedal seized somehow (or a shoelace got wrapped around the spindle -
> happened to me) then the pedal pops off. If something goes wrong in the BB,
> and it seizes or something, then it unthreads itself with pedalling.
>
> I'd assume that these threads would be opposite, so the pedaling direction
> would keep everything tight?
>
> Like most bike traditions, I'm hoping there's an interesting story involved
> in this?
>
> Or maybe it's that way, so if something bad does happen in the bearings,
> your pedalling won't tighten them so much that you can't get them apart
> again?

The pedalling action DOES tend to tighten the pedal, but not due to
bearing drag which, as you observe, applies a force in the wrong
direction. It is beceause the pedal spindle is supported at only one
end so, as you pedal the applied force tends to make the pedal precess
around its axis, applying a tightening force as it does do.

See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_p.html as search for pedal, or
search in rbt for "preccession pedal" as this topic comes up fairly
regularly.

Andrew Webster

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...

>Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered shoulder
>on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly, lug nuts had
>left hand threads on the right side before the conical lug nut was
>introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller bearings, or
>their seizing up and the likes.

this is such a simple fix. I wonder why it isn't done.
--------------
Alex

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...

>Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered shoulder
>on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly, lug nuts had
>left hand threads on the right side before the conical lug nut was
>introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller bearings, or
>their seizing up and the likes.

this is such a simple fix. I wonder why it isn't done.
--------------
Alex

[[email protected]]

Andrew Webster writes:

>> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
>> such that forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?

>> If a pedal seized somehow (or a shoelace got wrapped around the
>> spindle - happened to me) then the pedal pops off. If something
>> goes wrong in the BB, and it seizes or something, then it unthreads
>> itself with pedalling.

>> I'd assume that these threads would be opposite, so the pedaling
>> direction would keep everything tight?

>> Like most bike traditions, I'm hoping there's an interesting story
>> involved in this?

>> Or maybe it's that way, so if something bad does happen in the
>> bearings, your pedalling won't tighten them so much that you can't
>> get them apart again?

> The pedalling action DOES tend to tighten the pedal, but not due to
> bearing drag which, as you observe, applies a force in the wrong
> direction. It is beceause the pedal spindle is supported at only
> one end so, as you pedal the applied force tends to make the pedal
> precess around its axis, applying a tightening force as it does do.

That the pedal is an overhung load is not the reason for precession.
That would occur even better if the load were not outboard.

> See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_p.html as search for pedal, or
> search in rbt for "preccession pedal" as this topic comes up fairly
> regularly.

================================================== ====================
Subject: 8i.9 Left hand threads
From: Jobst Brandt >
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:14:11 PST

Left hand threads are used mainly in two places on bicycles, on the
left pedal and right bottom bracket (BB) bearing cup, and for the same
reason, that is not to prevent unscrewing if the bearing were to
seize, forcing it to unscrew. The more insidious force is that of
precession, in which a circular object rolling in a circular ring in
one direction turns in the opposite direction. This effect is what
causes such assemblies to unscrew under a rotating load.

The rotating load on a pedal arises form the downward force of the
foot on a spindle that rotates with the crank. The predominantly
downward force effectively rotates about the pedal spindle. What may
be less evident is that even tightly fitting parts have relative
clearance due to their elasticity, metals not being rigid materials as
is evident from steel springs. Under load, micro deformations, enough
to cause motion, occur in such joints. This can be seen from wear
marks on the faces of cranks where pedal spindles seat.

Precession of right side BB cups is less obvious because the rotating
load is only partial. The largest load being chain tension that
together with the moderately large downward force on the right crank
and the smaller upward force from pushing down on th left crank make
up 3/4 of a fully rotating load. That is why some right BB cups have
used right hand threads and why some with left hand threads loosen.
The left BB cup has no significant rotating load and does not unscrew.

Precession forces are large enough that no manner of thread locking
glues, short of welding, will arrest them. Mechanical fretting, the
micro-motion of tightly fitting parts moving against one another, is
the mechanism of this problem. Elastic motions in these joints cause
visible fretting rouge, red iron oxide, on the shoulder of the BB cup
on the face of the pedal spindle.

No left hand thread would be required on left pedals if the automotive
solution were used. Before the advent of conical lug nuts, left hand
threads were used on left side wheels. A conical face solved this
problem on wheels as it could on pedal spindles for bicycles.

However, unscrewing is not the main problem for pedals, but rather
crank failure caused by fretting erosion of the pedal eye. This wear
initiates cracks that can cause sudden and unsuspected pedal
separation when the eye of the crank breaks. This occurs equally with
right and left cranks and is the more important reason for using a
conical spindle face and crank socket. The method has been tested.

---------------------



Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Andrew Webster writes:

>> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction
>> such that forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?

>> If a pedal seized somehow (or a shoelace got wrapped around the
>> spindle - happened to me) then the pedal pops off. If something
>> goes wrong in the BB, and it seizes or something, then it unthreads
>> itself with pedalling.

>> I'd assume that these threads would be opposite, so the pedaling
>> direction would keep everything tight?

>> Like most bike traditions, I'm hoping there's an interesting story
>> involved in this?

>> Or maybe it's that way, so if something bad does happen in the
>> bearings, your pedalling won't tighten them so much that you can't
>> get them apart again?

> The pedalling action DOES tend to tighten the pedal, but not due to
> bearing drag which, as you observe, applies a force in the wrong
> direction. It is beceause the pedal spindle is supported at only
> one end so, as you pedal the applied force tends to make the pedal
> precess around its axis, applying a tightening force as it does do.

That the pedal is an overhung load is not the reason for precession.
That would occur even better if the load were not outboard.

> See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_p.html as search for pedal, or
> search in rbt for "preccession pedal" as this topic comes up fairly
> regularly.

================================================== ====================
Subject: 8i.9 Left hand threads
From: Jobst Brandt >
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:14:11 PST

Left hand threads are used mainly in two places on bicycles, on the
left pedal and right bottom bracket (BB) bearing cup, and for the same
reason, that is not to prevent unscrewing if the bearing were to
seize, forcing it to unscrew. The more insidious force is that of
precession, in which a circular object rolling in a circular ring in
one direction turns in the opposite direction. This effect is what
causes such assemblies to unscrew under a rotating load.

The rotating load on a pedal arises form the downward force of the
foot on a spindle that rotates with the crank. The predominantly
downward force effectively rotates about the pedal spindle. What may
be less evident is that even tightly fitting parts have relative
clearance due to their elasticity, metals not being rigid materials as
is evident from steel springs. Under load, micro deformations, enough
to cause motion, occur in such joints. This can be seen from wear
marks on the faces of cranks where pedal spindles seat.

Precession of right side BB cups is less obvious because the rotating
load is only partial. The largest load being chain tension that
together with the moderately large downward force on the right crank
and the smaller upward force from pushing down on th left crank make
up 3/4 of a fully rotating load. That is why some right BB cups have
used right hand threads and why some with left hand threads loosen.
The left BB cup has no significant rotating load and does not unscrew.

Precession forces are large enough that no manner of thread locking
glues, short of welding, will arrest them. Mechanical fretting, the
micro-motion of tightly fitting parts moving against one another, is
the mechanism of this problem. Elastic motions in these joints cause
visible fretting rouge, red iron oxide, on the shoulder of the BB cup
on the face of the pedal spindle.

No left hand thread would be required on left pedals if the automotive
solution were used. Before the advent of conical lug nuts, left hand
threads were used on left side wheels. A conical face solved this
problem on wheels as it could on pedal spindles for bicycles.

However, unscrewing is not the main problem for pedals, but rather
crank failure caused by fretting erosion of the pedal eye. This wear
initiates cracks that can cause sudden and unsuspected pedal
separation when the eye of the crank breaks. This occurs equally with
right and left cranks and is the more important reason for using a
conical spindle face and crank socket. The method has been tested.

---------------------



Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Alex Rodriguez writes:

>> Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered
>> shoulder on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly,
>> lug nuts had left hand threads on the right side before the conical
>> lug nut was introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller
>> bearings, or their seizing up and the likes.

> this is such a simple fix. I wonder why it isn't done.

From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake problem.
No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem. I pursued
it mainly because I broke so many cranks and was concerned for my
safety. I didn't care whether there was a left hand thread or not.
My cranks still have a left hand thread on the left but they no longer
break off every 10,000 miles or less.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Alex Rodriguez writes:

>> Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered
>> shoulder on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly,
>> lug nuts had left hand threads on the right side before the conical
>> lug nut was introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller
>> bearings, or their seizing up and the likes.

> this is such a simple fix. I wonder why it isn't done.

From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake problem.
No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem. I pursued
it mainly because I broke so many cranks and was concerned for my
safety. I didn't care whether there was a left hand thread or not.
My cranks still have a left hand thread on the left but they no longer
break off every 10,000 miles or less.

Jobst Brandt

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
wrote:

> Alex Rodriguez writes:
>
> >> Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered
> >> shoulder on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly,
> >> lug nuts had left hand threads on the right side before the conical
> >> lug nut was introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller
> >> bearings, or their seizing up and the likes.
>
> > this is such a simple fix. I wonder why it isn't done.
>
> From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
> partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake problem.
> No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.

And of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out and try to foist a
new standard on pedals when they have one that has existed for what,
maybe 100 years in some form now?

Pedals are one of the most standardized fittings on a bike. There are
only two common standards: 9/16" and 1/2" (the latter is used on
one-piece cranks, which means mainly cheap bikes, kids' bikes, and BMX
bikes). According to Sheldon's pages, only two other standards have ever
even been tried: a 14mm French size, now rare, and Shimano's Dyna Drive
oversized thread, obsolete but you can still find the adapters so these
cranks can take 9/16" pedals.

So manufacturers have the choice of selling pedals which will fit almost
every bicycle ever made, or selling the public on a new standard which
would be semi-compatible at best (I can envision a stopgap using a
tapered shoulder, but that also came with a converter washer allowing
the pedal to be used on conventional cranks).

And of course, the pedal makers would have to get the crank makers to
join in.

ISIS drive, driven by what amounts to a commercial imperative for crank
and BB makers (couldn't use Shimano's spline-drive system, but the
freeriders were breaking cranks like crazy), still had an uphill battle.
It's established now, but will probably be superseded by the trend
towards integrated two-piece BB/crank designs.

The thing about standards is there's so many to choose from,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
wrote:

> Alex Rodriguez writes:
>
> >> Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered
> >> shoulder on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly,
> >> lug nuts had left hand threads on the right side before the conical
> >> lug nut was introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller
> >> bearings, or their seizing up and the likes.
>
> > this is such a simple fix. I wonder why it isn't done.
>
> From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
> partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake problem.
> No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.

And of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out and try to foist a
new standard on pedals when they have one that has existed for what,
maybe 100 years in some form now?

Pedals are one of the most standardized fittings on a bike. There are
only two common standards: 9/16" and 1/2" (the latter is used on
one-piece cranks, which means mainly cheap bikes, kids' bikes, and BMX
bikes). According to Sheldon's pages, only two other standards have ever
even been tried: a 14mm French size, now rare, and Shimano's Dyna Drive
oversized thread, obsolete but you can still find the adapters so these
cranks can take 9/16" pedals.

So manufacturers have the choice of selling pedals which will fit almost
every bicycle ever made, or selling the public on a new standard which
would be semi-compatible at best (I can envision a stopgap using a
tapered shoulder, but that also came with a converter washer allowing
the pedal to be used on conventional cranks).

And of course, the pedal makers would have to get the crank makers to
join in.

ISIS drive, driven by what amounts to a commercial imperative for crank
and BB makers (couldn't use Shimano's spline-drive system, but the
freeriders were breaking cranks like crazy), still had an uphill battle.
It's established now, but will probably be superseded by the trend
towards integrated two-piece BB/crank designs.

The thing about standards is there's so many to choose from,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[gwhite]

Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> > From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
> > partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake problem.
> > No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.
>
> And of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out and try to foist a
> new standard on pedals when they have one that has existed for what,
> maybe 100 years in some form now?

I agree with you, I don't see any "problem" with left-handed threading
on the left pedal. The collet/cone may allow a right-handed threaded
left pedal to be installed, and still not unscrew, but so what? Just
taking away a _specific_ requirement doesn't mean it should be
replaced by some other arbitrary style. Colleting it and simply
leaving the left-handed threads would be fine too. Moreover, if the
whole colleted crank arm thing came to be, but the threading was left
alone, after-market cones (split cones?) would allow people to keep
using the existing huge stock of pedals.

The collet is the right thing to do because the cranks can break in
the current design. On the other hand, changing the threading is
jerking around. I'm willing to pay for the collet and two oppositely
threaded spindles. Besides, it's not PC, unless your Mark Hickey, to
pick on the leftees. What makes them any worse than the rightees?
Maybe leftees should have their day too! Really, who gives a crap
about the threads as long as you can screw your pedals in and they
don't come loose? I'm not bi, but I can screw either way.

[gwhite]

Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> > From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
> > partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake problem.
> > No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.
>
> And of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out and try to foist a
> new standard on pedals when they have one that has existed for what,
> maybe 100 years in some form now?

I agree with you, I don't see any "problem" with left-handed threading
on the left pedal. The collet/cone may allow a right-handed threaded
left pedal to be installed, and still not unscrew, but so what? Just
taking away a _specific_ requirement doesn't mean it should be
replaced by some other arbitrary style. Colleting it and simply
leaving the left-handed threads would be fine too. Moreover, if the
whole colleted crank arm thing came to be, but the threading was left
alone, after-market cones (split cones?) would allow people to keep
using the existing huge stock of pedals.

The collet is the right thing to do because the cranks can break in
the current design. On the other hand, changing the threading is
jerking around. I'm willing to pay for the collet and two oppositely
threaded spindles. Besides, it's not PC, unless your Mark Hickey, to
pick on the leftees. What makes them any worse than the rightees?
Maybe leftees should have their day too! Really, who gives a crap
about the threads as long as you can screw your pedals in and they
don't come loose? I'm not bi, but I can screw either way.

[G.T.]

"gwhite" > wrote in message
om...
> Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> > > From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
> > > partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake problem.
> > > No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.
> >
> > And of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out and try to foist a
> > new standard on pedals when they have one that has existed for what,
> > maybe 100 years in some form now?
>
> I agree with you, I don't see any "problem" with left-handed threading
> on the left pedal.

Well, I'm one for consistency.

Greg

[G.T.]

"gwhite" > wrote in message
om...
> Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> > > From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
> > > partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake problem.
> > > No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.
> >
> > And of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out and try to foist a
> > new standard on pedals when they have one that has existed for what,
> > maybe 100 years in some form now?
>
> I agree with you, I don't see any "problem" with left-handed threading
> on the left pedal.

Well, I'm one for consistency.

Greg

[[email protected]]

George White writes:

>>> From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
>>> partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake
>>> problem. No one wants to be the first to admit there is a
>>> problem.

>> And of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out and try to
>> foist a new standard on pedals when they have one that has existed
>> for what, maybe 100 years in some form now?

> I agree with you, I don't see any "problem" with left-handed
> threading on the left pedal. The collet/cone may allow a
> right-handed threaded left pedal to be installed, and still not
> unscrew, but so what? Just taking away a _specific_ requirement
> doesn't mean it should be replaced by some other arbitrary style.
> Colleting it and simply leaving the left-handed threads would be
> fine too. Moreover, if the whole colleted crank arm thing came to
> be, but the threading was left alone, after-market cones (split
> cones?) would allow people to keep using the existing huge stock of
> pedals.

No one can offer a collet for existing pedals because the thread
relief on those spindles are undefined. The width and diameter of
that feature (the cylindrical part between shoulder and thread) must
fit snugly into a collet. THat is why this takes a drastic departure
of a new pedal standard like that of Shimano, that I believe also was
a response to the crank failure problem but didn't address the basic
fretting problem and left hand thread.

> The collet is the right thing to do because the cranks can break in
> the current design. On the other hand, changing the threading is
> jerking around. I'm willing to pay for the collet and two
> oppositely threaded spindles.

The difference is that manufacturers would not need to have left hand
thread tooling and could make one kind of pedal spindle that would
work as well on tandems that presently use left cranks on the right
with right hand thread and the converse. Tandem folks can speak for
that problem.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

George White writes:

>>> From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
>>> partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake
>>> problem. No one wants to be the first to admit there is a
>>> problem.

>> And of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out and try to
>> foist a new standard on pedals when they have one that has existed
>> for what, maybe 100 years in some form now?

> I agree with you, I don't see any "problem" with left-handed
> threading on the left pedal. The collet/cone may allow a
> right-handed threaded left pedal to be installed, and still not
> unscrew, but so what? Just taking away a _specific_ requirement
> doesn't mean it should be replaced by some other arbitrary style.
> Colleting it and simply leaving the left-handed threads would be
> fine too. Moreover, if the whole colleted crank arm thing came to
> be, but the threading was left alone, after-market cones (split
> cones?) would allow people to keep using the existing huge stock of
> pedals.

No one can offer a collet for existing pedals because the thread
relief on those spindles are undefined. The width and diameter of
that feature (the cylindrical part between shoulder and thread) must
fit snugly into a collet. THat is why this takes a drastic departure
of a new pedal standard like that of Shimano, that I believe also was
a response to the crank failure problem but didn't address the basic
fretting problem and left hand thread.

> The collet is the right thing to do because the cranks can break in
> the current design. On the other hand, changing the threading is
> jerking around. I'm willing to pay for the collet and two
> oppositely threaded spindles.

The difference is that manufacturers would not need to have left hand
thread tooling and could make one kind of pedal spindle that would
work as well on tandems that presently use left cranks on the right
with right hand thread and the converse. Tandem folks can speak for
that problem.

Jobst Brandt

[Konstantin Shemyak]

In article >,
wrote:
[skip]
> Subject: 8i.9 Left hand threads
> From: Jobst Brandt >
> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:14:11 PST
>
> Left hand threads are used mainly in two places on bicycles, on the
> left pedal and right bottom bracket (BB) bearing cup, and for the same
> reason, that is not to prevent unscrewing if the bearing were to
> seize, forcing it to unscrew. The more insidious force is that of
> precession, in which a circular object rolling in a circular ring in
> one direction turns in the opposite direction. This effect is what
> causes such assemblies to unscrew under a rotating load.
[skip]

Thanks for this explanation.

Here is another one:

When the toe clips were invented, cases when the pedal bearing
suddenly locked led to terrible traumas. The threads on the
pedals were done in such a way that the pedal with locked bearing
would unscrew out from the crank, presumably saving the
clipped foot.

Sounds suspicious that a foot can turn away the pedal (when a
rider is not expecting to do it, at least); also, I can not
imagine "sudden locking of a bearing". Your word on this?

Konstantin.

[[email protected]]

Konstantin Shemyak writes:

>> Left hand threads are used mainly in two places on bicycles, on the
>> left pedal and right bottom bracket (BB) bearing cup, and for the
>> same reason, that is not to prevent unscrewing if the bearing were
>> to seize, forcing it to unscrew. The more insidious force is that
>> of precession, in which a circular object rolling in a circular
>> ring in one direction turns in the opposite direction. This effect
>> is what causes such assemblies to unscrew under a rotating load.

> Thanks for this explanation.

> Here is another one:

> When the toe clips were invented, cases when the pedal bearing
> suddenly locked led to terrible traumas. The threads on the pedals
> were done in such a way that the pedal with locked bearing would
> unscrew out from the crank, presumably saving the clipped foot.

> Sounds suspicious that a foot can turn away the pedal (when a rider
> is not expecting to do it, at least); also, I can not imagine
> "sudden locking of a bearing". Your word on this?

This is an old wive's tale with no merit whatsoever since the torque a
foot will exert on a pedal is not enough to begin loosening the thread
while much less than that would cause ankle injury. Besides, try to
imagine what would make a pedal thread suddenly lock?

Don't repeat such tales, even in jest or as a straw man for
discussion. Every repetition reinforces belief in unbelievable
things... see religions if you don't think so. That is, for all
others except mine.

Jobst Brandt

[David Damerell]

> wrote:
>From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
>partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake problem.
>No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.

You could try suggesting it to Highpath Engineering, who already make
fresh holes in cranks in order to shorten them. They might also be up to
making aftermarket pedal spindles for common pedal types...
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!

[[email protected]]

David Damerell writes:

>> From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
>> partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake
>> problem. No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.

> You could try suggesting it to Highpath Engineering, who already
> make fresh holes in cranks in order to shorten them. They might also
> be up to making aftermarket pedal spindles for common pedal types...

You might forward the essential parts of this discussion on this
wreck.bike thread to them since you seem to know something about this
company. I don't.

Jobst Brandt

[David L. Johnson]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:58:41 -0400, Mike Beauchamp wrote:

> Heyo,
>
> I've always wondered.. why are the pedal and BB thread direction such that
> forward pedalling direction would be loosening them?

No, that is not right. Pedaling action works to tighten them.

>
> If a pedal seized somehow (or a shoelace got wrapped around the spindle
> - happened to me) then the pedal pops off.

That has happened? A pedal popped off because of a shoelace? Unlikely.
Pedals rarely loosen any more. The Wright brothers introduced the
left-hand thread on the left pedal because, before that, the left pedal
as always unscrewing. But seized bearings locked tight enough to break
the pedal loose would, more easily, break your ankle. Much more likely
such pedal failure would result in pedal parts being spewed out.

> I'd assume that these threads would be opposite, so the pedaling
> direction would keep everything tight?

Your assumption is incorrect. Because the pedals roll on races which have
different diameters, yet turn around their own centers, forward pedaling
produces a tendency for the spindle to twist in the opposite direction.

> Or maybe it's that way, so if something bad does happen in the bearings,
> your pedalling won't tighten them so much that you can't get them apart
> again?

No, in fact often this does happen. Try to take pedals off of an old bike
with many miles on it.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and
_`\(,_ | Excellence.
(_)/ (_) |

[David Damerell]

> wrote:
>David Damerell writes:
[conical pedal threads]
>>You could try suggesting it to Highpath Engineering, who already
>>make fresh holes in cranks in order to shorten them. They might also
>>be up to making aftermarket pedal spindles for common pedal types...
>You might forward the essential parts of this discussion on this
>wreck.bike thread to them since you seem to know something about this
>company. I don't.

I will mention it to them next time I speak to them, and report back here
if they seem at all amenable. It's a thin chance, but it can't hurt to
ask, I suppose.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!

[[email protected]]

David Damerell writes:

>> From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
>> partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake
>> problem. No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.

> You could try suggesting it to Highpath Engineering, who already
> make fresh holes in cranks in order to shorten them. They might also
> be up to making aftermarket pedal spindles for common pedal types...

> David Damerell > Distortion Field!

So how come mail to your address resutls in:

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>
(reason: 550 Blacklisted site `[64.142.19.5]' [Irritated])

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:15:56 GMT,
wrote:

>David Damerell writes:
>[i]
>>> From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
>>> partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake
>>> problem. No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.
>
>> You could try suggesting it to Highpath Engineering, who already
>> make fresh holes in cranks in order to shorten them. They might also
>> be up to making aftermarket pedal spindles for common pedal types...
>
>> David Damerell > Distortion Field!
>
>So how come mail to your address resutls in:
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>
> (reason: 550 Blacklisted site `[64.142.19.5]' )
>
>Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

Here's a site where you can enter the ISP portion of a mail address
and see if it's on a domain name server black list (dnsbl):

http://openrbl.org/

You'll get thrilling details like this for entering
"chiark.greenend.org.uk" in ithe DNSBL option:

Lookup 193.201.200.170 (chiark.greenend.org.uk) in 21+11 Zones
AS: 193.201.200.0/23 AS25108 ? RADB/RIPE ??
Net 193/8 EU-ZZ-193 ? Amsterdam, North Holland
Results: Positive=1, Negative=31 (2004-05-05 19:39:06 UTC)
BLARS/block.blars.org: INET 127.1.0.17
Negative 31: @COUNTRY @DYNAMIC @ISP @SPAM AHBL AUDNSBL BOGONS BONDED
BOPM CBL DRBL DSBL FIVETEN INTERSIL JIPPGMA LNSG NJABL NOMORE ORDB
PSBL PSS RFC_IPWH SBL SORBS SPAMBAG SPAMCOP SPAMRBL SPAMSITE SPEWS
UCEPROT WPBL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hints for 193.201.200.170: (external, use BACK or ALT-LEFT when done)
Track "chiark.greenend.org.uk" at [Whois & Abuse|SpamCop*]
Search "193.201.200.170" at [Google|SpamCop*|SenderBase]
[MAPS|Schlund]
CHECK: Nominate Relay-Test at: [ORDB] [Add Comment]

David's ISP seems to be blacklisted. You can pursue the details on the
BLARS page: http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html

Sometimes this sort of thing reflects mail-blocking tricks employed by
the ISP itself so that its users receive less spam.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:15:56 GMT,
wrote:

>David Damerell writes:
>[i]
>>> From my discussions with manufacturers I get the impression it is
>>> partly NIH (not invented here) and partly like the disc brake
>>> problem. No one wants to be the first to admit there is a problem.
>
>> You could try suggesting it to Highpath Engineering, who already
>> make fresh holes in cranks in order to shorten them. They might also
>> be up to making aftermarket pedal spindles for common pedal types...
>
>> David Damerell > Distortion Field!
>
>So how come mail to your address resutls in:
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>
> (reason: 550 Blacklisted site `[64.142.19.5]' )
>
>Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

Sorry, but it looks as if I posted an unfinished reply to your
question about the blacklist message that you received.

The improved version went on to explain that the blacklist 550 message
is a reply that originates with the system that was supposed to
receive the email, but has rejected it because whoever sent the
original is blacklisted as far as the receiver is concerned--which is
amusing when the receiver itself is blacklisted elsewhere.

David's system has blacklisted , but
appears itself on more public blacklists. The eventual result is
everyone bouncing their complaints and apologies off each other's
anti-spam blacklists.

Carl Fogel

[David Reuteler]

wrote:
> David's system has blacklisted , but
> appears itself on more public blacklists. The eventual result is
> everyone bouncing their complaints and apologies off each other's
> anti-spam blacklists.

it isn't stanfordalumni.org that's the problem, but 64.142.19.5 which
resolves to b.mail.sonic.net. sonic.net is an isp based in santa rosa,
california. b.mail.sonic.net is an smtp server (i'd guess one in a pool
that jobst used or for some reason that his smtp server routes through)
but it doesn't appear to currently be an open relay (maybe it was fixed
or the alleged spammer was legimitely authenticated).

isis% telnet b.mail.sonic.net 25
Trying 64.142.19.5...
Connected to b.mail.sonic.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mail.sonic.net ESMTP Ready on Wed, 5 May 2004 16:28:52 -0700 [b.mail]
MAIL From:
250 2.1.0 ... Sender ok
RCPT To:
550 5.7.1 ... Relaying denied. Proper authentication required.
quit
221 2.0.0 b.mail.sonic.net closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
isis%

if you goto openrbl.org and punch in 64.142.19.5 the complaint is from the
AUDNSBL (Aussie spam black-list). track that to them and you get a specific
entry from april 5, 2004.

Reason for entry : Reynolds Multiple Spam Traps
Type of address : 3 - network

(ie, more than this one machine)

and here's (just fyi, most of you should be typing N now) the offending spam.
and you'll note if you search for sonic that the relay did in fact take
the mail from yahoo and pass it to the not taking any **** australians.
if sonic.net really is your isp pass 'em this url and tell them to get
their machines off the aussie spam black-list:

http://dnsbl.net.au/lookup/?64.142.19.5

From Mon Apr 5 13:31:05 2004
Received: from mx3.reynolds.net.au (mail.reynolds.net.au [203.56.255.6])
by titus.reynolds.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i355V5O16711
for >; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:05 +0800
Received: (from root@localhost)
by mx3.reynolds.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i355V5H01764
for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:05 +0800
Received: from mx1.reynolds.net.au (tiberius.reynolds.net.au [203.56.255.5])
by mx3.reynolds.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i355V3g01690
for >; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
Received: (from root@localhost)
by mx1.reynolds.net.au (8.12.8/8.12.8) id i355V3FD030369
for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
Received: from titus.reynolds.net.au (titus.reynolds.net.au [203.56.255.12])
by mx1.reynolds.net.au (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i355V3EB030286
for >; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
Received: (from root@localhost)
by titus.reynolds.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i355V3S16680
for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
From: root >
Message-Id: >
To:
Subject: RESAFURS - - 20040405130424-15361
X-AntiVirus: Reynolds Virus Scan OK. http://reynolds.net.au/policies/viruses/
X-ReynoldsPurgeDate: 1081143064

Return-Path: >
Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5])
by mx1.reynolds.net.au (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3554E4s031558
for >; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:04:16 +0800
Received: from mx1.mail.yahoo.com (adsl-64-142-66-211.sonic.net [64.142.66.211])
by b.mail.sonic.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i354aVYR017322;
Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:04:05 -0700
Message-Id: >
To: >, >, >,
>, >,
>, >
From: "Todd Parker" >
Subject: Silvia Is Married But Lonely
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:04:08 00200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
Anti-Virus: X-RAV-AntiVirus: This message has been scanned for viruses on %Pxy
Sensitivity: Personal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
X-AntiVirus: Reynolds Virus Scan OK. http://reynolds.net.au/policies/viruses/
X-ReynoldsPurgeDate: 1081141457
X-LOTEblock: PASSED 0 seems to be English
X-HTMLblock: FAILED 1 seems to be HTML only
X-QSFSblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be QSFS score 44
X-RDNSblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be RDNS
X-NURLblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be NURL
X-SCBLblock: FAILED 1 seems to be listed on bl.spamcop.com
X-SFCSblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be SFCS
X-B64Eblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be Base 64 only
X-T1BLblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be listed on t1.dnsbl.net.au
X-WSOTblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be using spammer obfuscation
X-RHSLblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be on any RHS lists
X-SPFQblock: PASSED 0 seems to have not failed SPF tests
X-DNMMblock: FAILED 1 seems to have failed Domain Names Mis Match tests
X-MBFHblock: PASSED 0 seems to have passed (may be forged) tests
X-KMSIblock: PASSED 0 seems to have passed Key Message Spam Indicator tests

<html>
<head>
<title>type</title>
</head>

<body>
<p>Elvira is just one of those girls who is looking for sex with no commitm=
ents.<br>
Why?<br>
Cause she is married and has a family. But Craig is not giving her the plea=
sure she deserves.<br>
She has a web cam and flirts with other guys giving them free shows. Is she=
the best girl in the world or what?<br>
Hundreds of thousands of wives around the world list themselves on our site=
to meet guys like you who just want to have fun.<br>
<a href=3D"http://not.industry.l.comes.support.cattcleskdrive.com/wives/">M=
eet girls online right now</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The leopard does not change his spots.. The sleepy fox catches no chicke=
ns.. There's no use in flogging a dead horse.. To scare a bird is not the w=
ay to catch it..What do you expect from a pig, but a grunt?.</p>
<p>When a fox hears a rabbit screaming it comes running, but not to help.. =
While the cats away the mice play..You can lead a horse to water, but you c=
an't make him drink.. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear..<br>
</p>
<p><a href=3D"http://weeks.similar.thought.food.above.yousks.com/go/2.html"=
>if you don't want anymore go here. </a><br>
</p>
<p>A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.. A rolling stone gathers n=
o moss..After the storm comes the calm.. All aren't hunters that blow the h=
orn.. </p>
</body>
</html>
--
david reuteler

[[email protected]]

On 05 May 2004 23:46:48 GMT, David Reuteler > wrote:

wrote:
>> David's system has blacklisted , but
>> appears itself on more public blacklists. The eventual result is
>> everyone bouncing their complaints and apologies off each other's
>> anti-spam blacklists.
>
>it isn't stanfordalumni.org that's the problem, but 64.142.19.5 which
>resolves to b.mail.sonic.net. sonic.net is an isp based in santa rosa,
>california. b.mail.sonic.net is an smtp server (i'd guess one in a pool
>that jobst used or for some reason that his smtp server routes through)
>but it doesn't appear to currently be an open relay (maybe it was fixed
>or the alleged spammer was legimitely authenticated).
>
>isis% telnet b.mail.sonic.net 25
>Trying 64.142.19.5...
>Connected to b.mail.sonic.net.
>Escape character is '^]'.
>220 mail.sonic.net ESMTP Ready on Wed, 5 May 2004 16:28:52 -0700 [b.mail]
>MAIL From:
>250 2.1.0 ... Sender ok
>RCPT To:
>550 5.7.1 ... Relaying denied. Proper authentication required.
>quit
>221 2.0.0 b.mail.sonic.net closing connection
>Connection closed by foreign host.
>isis%
>
>if you goto openrbl.org and punch in 64.142.19.5 the complaint is from the
>AUDNSBL (Aussie spam black-list). track that to them and you get a specific
>entry from april 5, 2004.
>
>Reason for entry : Reynolds Multiple Spam Traps
>Type of address : 3 - network
>
>(ie, more than this one machine)
>
>and here's (just fyi, most of you should be typing N now) the offending spam.
>and you'll note if you search for sonic that the relay did in fact take
>the mail from yahoo and pass it to the not taking any **** australians.
>if sonic.net really is your isp pass 'em this url and tell them to get
>their machines off the aussie spam black-list:
>
>http://dnsbl.net.au/lookup/?64.142.19.5
>
>From Mon Apr 5 13:31:05 2004
>Received: from mx3.reynolds.net.au (mail.reynolds.net.au [203.56.255.6])
> by titus.reynolds.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i355V5O16711
> for >; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:05 +0800
>Received: (from root@localhost)
> by mx3.reynolds.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i355V5H01764
> for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:05 +0800
>Received: from mx1.reynolds.net.au (tiberius.reynolds.net.au [203.56.255.5])
> by mx3.reynolds.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i355V3g01690
> for >; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
>Received: (from root@localhost)
> by mx1.reynolds.net.au (8.12.8/8.12.8) id i355V3FD030369
> for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
>Received: from titus.reynolds.net.au (titus.reynolds.net.au [203.56.255.12])
> by mx1.reynolds.net.au (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i355V3EB030286
> for >; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
>Received: (from root@localhost)
> by titus.reynolds.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i355V3S16680
> for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
>Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:31:03 +0800
>From: root >
>Message-Id: >
>To:
>Subject: RESAFURS - - 20040405130424-15361
>X-AntiVirus: Reynolds Virus Scan OK. http://reynolds.net.au/policies/viruses/
>X-ReynoldsPurgeDate: 1081143064
>
>Return-Path: >
>Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5])
> by mx1.reynolds.net.au (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3554E4s031558
> for >; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:04:16 +0800
>Received: from mx1.mail.yahoo.com (adsl-64-142-66-211.sonic.net [64.142.66.211])
> by b.mail.sonic.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i354aVYR017322;
> Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:04:05 -0700
>Message-Id: >
>To: >, >, >,
> >, >,
> >, >
>From: "Todd Parker" >
>Subject: Silvia Is Married But Lonely
>Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:04:08 00200
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Priority: 1
>X-MSMail-Priority: High
>Anti-Virus: X-RAV-AntiVirus: This message has been scanned for viruses on %Pxy
>Sensitivity: Personal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
>X-AntiVirus: Reynolds Virus Scan OK. http://reynolds.net.au/policies/viruses/
>X-ReynoldsPurgeDate: 1081141457
>X-LOTEblock: PASSED 0 seems to be English
>X-HTMLblock: FAILED 1 seems to be HTML only
>X-QSFSblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be QSFS score 44
>X-RDNSblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be RDNS
>X-NURLblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be NURL
>X-SCBLblock: FAILED 1 seems to be listed on bl.spamcop.com
>X-SFCSblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be SFCS
>X-B64Eblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be Base 64 only
>X-T1BLblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be listed on t1.dnsbl.net.au
>X-WSOTblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be using spammer obfuscation
>X-RHSLblock: PASSED 0 seems to not be on any RHS lists
>X-SPFQblock: PASSED 0 seems to have not failed SPF tests
>X-DNMMblock: FAILED 1 seems to have failed Domain Names Mis Match tests
>X-MBFHblock: PASSED 0 seems to have passed (may be forged) tests
>X-KMSIblock: PASSED 0 seems to have passed Key Message Spam Indicator tests
>
><html>
><head>
><title>type</title>
></head>
>
><body>
><p>Elvira is just one of those girls who is looking for sex with no commitm=
>ents.<br>
>Why?<br>
>Cause she is married and has a family. But Craig is not giving her the plea=
>sure she deserves.<br>
>She has a web cam and flirts with other guys giving them free shows. Is she=
> the best girl in the world or what?<br>
>Hundreds of thousands of wives around the world list themselves on our site=
> to meet guys like you who just want to have fun.<br>
><a href=3D"http://not.industry.l.comes.support.cattcleskdrive.com/wives/">M=
>eet girls online right now</a></p>
><p>&nbsp;</p>
><p>The leopard does not change his spots.. The sleepy fox catches no chicke=
>ns.. There's no use in flogging a dead horse.. To scare a bird is not the w=
>ay to catch it..What do you expect from a pig, but a grunt?.</p>
><p>When a fox hears a rabbit screaming it comes running, but not to help.. =
>While the cats away the mice play..You can lead a horse to water, but you c=
>an't make him drink.. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear..<br>
></p>
><p><a href=3D"http://weeks.similar.thought.food.above.yousks.com/go/2.html"=
>>if you don't want anymore go here. </a><br>
></p>
><p>A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.. A rolling stone gathers n=
>o moss..After the storm comes the calm.. All aren't hunters that blow the h=
>orn.. </p>
></body>
></html>

Dear David,

I expect that your detailed tracing is accuratel, but effectively, the
chiark site blacklisted Jobst (and others) by blacklisting the
intermediate systems. Such folk are often not even aware that they're
rejecting email, any more than they're aware that their email is in
turn being blacklisted.

This blacklisting (and other well-meant anti-spam efforts) are often
the cause of the angry posts that we see here about so-and-so has
ignored all my attempts to resolve this situation by email--so-and-so
doesn't even know that his system was rejecting the email.

Carl Fogel

[David Reuteler]

wrote:
> I expect that your detailed tracing is accuratel, but effectively, the
> chiark site blacklisted Jobst (and others) by blacklisting the
> intermediate systems.

the distinction is noteworthy because all jobst has to do for his email to
succeed is change his outbound smtp server since it is not his site that
has been blacklisted.

> Such folk are often not even aware that they're
> rejecting email, any more than they're aware that their email is in
> turn being blacklisted.
>
> This blacklisting (and other well-meant anti-spam efforts) are often
> the cause of the angry posts that we see here about so-and-so has
> ignored all my attempts to resolve this situation by email--so-and-so
> doesn't even know that his system was rejecting the email.

let me help resolve all your disputes (i have low hourly rates billable via
paypal, 1 hour minimum).
--
david reuteler

[David Damerell]

> wrote:
>David Damerell writes:[i]
>>David Damerell > Distortion Field!
>So how come mail to your address resutls in:
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>
> (reason: 550 Blacklisted site `[64.142.19.5]' )

2004-04-05 06:10:38 BST: dbreasons: site 64.142.19.5 black {Sent mail to
bait address }
2004-04-05 06:10:39 BST: dbreasons: site 64.142.19.5 black {Sent mail to
bait address }

About a month ago that same machine, through which your mail comes, sent spam
to a bait address; an address that is advertised (probably on the Web)
with accompanying text that will make it clear to a human being that it
should not be sent mail.

Irritatingly, I receive a list of addresses from which mail has been
rejected daily, but with the tide of Windows mail client worms it is no
longer practical to review it carefully.

If you are willing to try again, I believe I have now arranged that mail
from the address you used will be accepted irrespective of the originating
system.
--
David Damerell > flcl?

[A Muzi]

David Damerell wrote:

> > wrote:
>
>>David Damerell writes:
>>[i]
>>>David Damerell > Distortion Field!
>>
>>So how come mail to your address resutls in:
>> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>
>> (reason: 550 Blacklisted site `[64.142.19.5]' )
>
>
> 2004-04-05 06:10:38 BST: dbreasons: site 64.142.19.5 black {Sent mail to
> bait address }
> 2004-04-05 06:10:39 BST: dbreasons: site 64.142.19.5 black {Sent mail to
> bait address }
>
> About a month ago that same machine, through which your mail comes, sent spam
> to a bait address; an address that is advertised (probably on the Web)
> with accompanying text that will make it clear to a human being that it
> should not be sent mail.
>
> Irritatingly, I receive a list of addresses from which mail has been
> rejected daily, but with the tide of Windows mail client worms it is no
> longer practical to review it carefully.
>
> If you are willing to try again, I believe I have now arranged that mail
> from the address you used will be accepted irrespective of the originating
> system.

Dave, I tried to send you a note just now but I got a
message saying that 'mail could not be sent'.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[David Damerell]

A Muzi > wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
[Of mail blocking]
>Dave, I tried to send you a note just now but I got a
>message saying that 'mail could not be sent'.

It looks like this was a delay report, since I got the mail message...
although this is stretching the limits of topic rather. :-)
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!

[Adam Rush]

> Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered shoulder
> on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly, lug nuts had
> left hand threads on the right side before the conical lug nut was
> introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller bearings, or
> their seizing up and the likes.

Does anybody have photos which might help explain this?

[Ted Bennett]

(Adam Rush) wrote:

> > Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered shoulder
> > on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly, lug nuts had
> > left hand threads on the right side before the conical lug nut was
> > introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller bearings, or
> > their seizing up and the likes.
>
> Does anybody have photos which might help explain this?

No, but you could look at a car. Widely available.

--
Ted Bennett
Portland OR

[David Damerell]

Adam Rush > wrote:
>Jobst Brandt:
>>Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered shoulder
>>on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars.
>Does anybody have photos which might help explain this?

Jobst has sent me a photograph which makes it clear. If he is willing, I
will make it available on the Web. Jobst?
--
David Damerell > flcl?

[[email protected]]

David Damerell > writes:

>>> Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered shoulder
>>> on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars.

>> Does anybody have photos which might help explain this?

> Jobst has sent me a photograph which makes it clear. If he is
> willing, I will make it available on the Web. Jobst?

Sure, if it helps visualize the problem of doing this.

Jobst Brandt

[David Damerell]

> wrote:
>David Damerell > writes:
[Conical tapers on pedal shafts]
>>Jobst has sent me a photograph which makes it clear. If he is
>>willing, I will make it available on the Web. Jobst?
>Sure, if it helps visualize the problem of doing this.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/bikes/brandt-cranks.jpg

This is not a small image file, because I am too lazy to shrink it.
--
David Damerell > flcl?

[Adam Rush]

> > > Pedals wouldn't need left hand treads if they had a tapered shoulder
> > > on their shafts similar to lug nuts on cars. Formerly, lug nuts had
> > > left hand threads on the right side before the conical lug nut was
> > > introduced. This has nothing to do with ball or roller bearings, or
> > > their seizing up and the likes.
> > Does anybody have photos which might help explain this?
> No, but you could look at a car. Widely available.

How would you react if you came back to the parking lot to find a
strange man looking into your wheel well?