Disk brakes and wheel ejection - Manitou's answer?

[Mark McMaster]

There have been several recent discussions regarding wheel
ejection forces caused by front disk brakes. In the
discussions, several possible design changes have been
suggested to mitigate the potential for wheel ejection. One
of the suggested changes was to re-orient the dropout axle
slot to face forward, so the slot would be perpendicular to
the wheel ejection force. Manitou, a prominent maker of
disk brake compatible suspension forks, appears to have done
just that.

In the May and June editions of "Mountain Bike Action"
magazine there is an advertisement by Manitou for their new
fork, the 2005 Nixon Platinum. The photograph of the fork
shows that the axle slot is oriented at an angle of about 45
degrees forward of the steering axis, which is just about at
the same angle as the line between the disk brake and the
axle. With a typical mountain bike head angle of about 70
degrees, the axle slot on this fork would be at angle of
about 65 degrees forward from the vertical.

It is unlikely that Manitou will admit that the new drop-out
design is in response to disk brake safety issues posed by
their previous designs, but I can't see what other reason
there could be for this new design.

Mark McMaster

[daveornee]

Mark McMaster wrote:
> There have been several recent discussions regarding wheel ejection
> forces caused by front disk brakes. In the discussions, several possible
> design changes have been suggested to mitigate the potential for wheel
> ejection. One of the suggested changes was to re-orient the dropout axle
> slot to face forward, so the slot would be perpendicular to the wheel
> ejection force. Manitou, a prominent maker of disk brake compatible
> suspension forks, appears to have done just that.
> In the May and June editions of "Mountain Bike Action" magazine there
> is an advertisement by Manitou for their new fork, the 2005 Nixon
> Platinum. The photograph of the fork shows that the axle slot is
> oriented at an angle of about 45 degrees forward of the steering axis,
> which is just about at the same angle as the line between the disk
> brake and the axle. With a typical mountain bike head angle of about 70
> degrees, the axle slot on this fork would be at angle of about 65
> degrees forward from the vertical.
> It is unlikely that Manitou will admit that the new drop-out design is
> in response to disk brake safety issues posed by their previous designs,
> but I can't see what other reason there could be for this new design.
> Mark McMaster


Sturdy fork design with huge " lawyer lips" and a strong well secured Q
will also help. I suspect we will see others who want to follow th
trend towards disc brakes to make similar design changes. It will als
be interesting to see if the industry will adopt a wider spacing t
provide for a front wheel that has better spoke support angles


-

[jim beam]

why do people want to wail & beat their breasts over mere conjecture,
yet have absolutely _no_ interest in confronting fact?

my own posting showing _zero_ evidence of any slippage over a
considerable period of use elicited only one response; that of carl
fogel wondering why no one had bothered to comment in view of previous
500# threads on the same subject!!!

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=PErbc.45543%24UD3.38107%40newssvr25.news.p rodigy.com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Djim%2Bbeam%2Bcarl%2Bfogel%2Bfork%2Bgr oup:rec.bicycles.tech%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26scoring%3Dr%26selm%3DPErbc.45543%2524UD3.38107 %2540newssvr25.news.prodigy.com%26rnum%3D5

carl, if you're reading this, perhaps you have some thoughts on the
perversity of human nature.

jb


Mark McMaster wrote:
> There have been several recent discussions regarding wheel ejection
> forces caused by front disk brakes. In the discussions, several
> possible design changes have been suggested to mitigate the potential
> for wheel ejection. One of the suggested changes was to re-orient the
> dropout axle slot to face forward, so the slot would be perpendicular to
> the wheel ejection force. Manitou, a prominent maker of disk brake
> compatible suspension forks, appears to have done just that.
>
> In the May and June editions of "Mountain Bike Action" magazine there is
> an advertisement by Manitou for their new fork, the 2005 Nixon
> Platinum. The photograph of the fork shows that the axle slot is
> oriented at an angle of about 45 degrees forward of the steering axis,
> which is just about at the same angle as the line between the disk brake
> and the axle. With a typical mountain bike head angle of about 70
> degrees, the axle slot on this fork would be at angle of about 65
> degrees forward from the vertical.
>
> It is unlikely that Manitou will admit that the new drop-out design is
> in response to disk brake safety issues posed by their previous designs,
> but I can't see what other reason there could be for this new design.
>
> Mark McMaster
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 09 May 2004 04:42:29 GMT, jim beam > wrote:

>why do people want to wail & beat their breasts over mere conjecture,
>yet have absolutely _no_ interest in confronting fact?
>
>my own posting showing _zero_ evidence of any slippage over a
>considerable period of use elicited only one response; that of carl
>fogel wondering why no one had bothered to comment in view of previous
>500# threads on the same subject!!!
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=PErbc.45543%24UD3.38107%40newssvr25.news.p rodigy.com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Djim%2Bbeam%2Bcarl%2Bfogel%2Bfork%2Bgr oup:rec.bicycles.tech%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26scoring%3Dr%26selm%3DPErbc.45543%2524UD3.38107 %2540newssvr25.news.prodigy.com%26rnum%3D5
>
>carl, if you're reading this, perhaps you have some thoughts on the
>perversity of human nature.
>
>jb
>
>
>Mark McMaster wrote:
>> There have been several recent discussions regarding wheel ejection
>> forces caused by front disk brakes. In the discussions, several
>> possible design changes have been suggested to mitigate the potential
>> for wheel ejection. One of the suggested changes was to re-orient the
>> dropout axle slot to face forward, so the slot would be perpendicular to
>> the wheel ejection force. Manitou, a prominent maker of disk brake
>> compatible suspension forks, appears to have done just that.
>>
>> In the May and June editions of "Mountain Bike Action" magazine there is
>> an advertisement by Manitou for their new fork, the 2005 Nixon
>> Platinum. The photograph of the fork shows that the axle slot is
>> oriented at an angle of about 45 degrees forward of the steering axis,
>> which is just about at the same angle as the line between the disk brake
>> and the axle. With a typical mountain bike head angle of about 70
>> degrees, the axle slot on this fork would be at angle of about 65
>> degrees forward from the vertical.
>>
>> It is unlikely that Manitou will admit that the new drop-out design is
>> in response to disk brake safety issues posed by their previous designs,
>> but I can't see what other reason there could be for this new design.
>>
>> Mark McMaster
>>
>>

Dear Jim,

My thoughts on human nature are too perverse for publication.

Here are those two pictures that you took of your disk-brake and fork.
Judging by the tooth-marks of the quick-reelase washers in the front
axle slot, no ejection force was great enough to even begin to drag
the teeth out of position:

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/Img_3199.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/Img_3196.jpg

If I followed your theory in that thread, the flaw in the notion that
the disk brake would lever a quick-release and its wheel out of a fork
was that most calculations failed to consider the tremendously greater
resistance provided when normal serrated washers bite even a tiny bit
into the fork.

Here's the tinyurl version of your post:

http://tinyurl.com/yutgy

or

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=PErbc.45543%24UD3.38107%40newssvr25.news.prod igy.com

If anyone has pictures of disk-brake forks that show marks of such
serrated washers being dragged out of position, I'd be glad to host
them.

Some people who posted in the ejection thread indicated that they were
going to mark quick-releases and watch for movement, so if they have
pictures of whatever happened, I can host them, too.

Carl Fogel

[Mark McMaster]

jim beam wrote:
> why do people want to wail & beat their breasts over mere conjecture,
> yet have absolutely _no_ interest in confronting fact?

What is conjecture and what is fact? That current (front)
disk brake designs generate very large forces tending to
pull the axle out of the dropout? Anyone who can construct
a free body diagram or conduct a simple experiment can see
that these forces exist. That Manitou has redesigned the
dropouts on their latest fork in a way which reduces the
chances that the disk brake forces pull the wheel out? The
photographic evidence of their redesign is in national
publications. While no explanation is given for the design
change, I doubt that it was for ease of use, as it will be
more difficult to insert a wheel into these forward facing
dropouts than fir traditional vertical dropouts. (Note:
Manitou probably knows better than many about the forces
exerted on dropouts, after having endured a costly product
recall of their Mach 5 forks due to the breakage of
improperly designed and manufactured dropouts.)

>
> my own posting showing _zero_ evidence of any slippage over a
> considerable period of use elicited only one response; that of carl
> fogel wondering why no one had bothered to comment in view of previous
> 500# threads on the same subject!!!
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=PErbc.45543%24UD3.38107%40newssvr25.news.. prodigy.com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Djim%2Bbeam%2Bcarl%2Bfogel%2Bfork%2Bgr oup:rec.bicycles.tech%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26scoring%3Dr%26selm%3DPErbc.45543%2524UD3.38107 %2540newssvr25.news.prodigy.com%26rnum%3D5

Here is where the larger conjecture lay. You seem to
contend that just because you have not seen evidence of
wheel pull-out in a sample of one (and not a particularly
well controlled sample at that), that it can't exist with
any combination of axle/dropout/skewer. How do you account
for others who have experienced dropout axle movement with
disk brake equipped bikes? There have been several reports
in the press about occurrences of axle slippage with quick
release brakes. For example, Lennerd Zinn (frame builder,
technical editor, and author of several books on bicycle
repair and maintenance) reports having seen this phenomenon
on several bikes:

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/5432.0.html

Here is an account of Missy Giove (professional mountain
bike racer and former world champion) having her front quick
release inexplicably loosen up on a disk brake equipped bike.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t25255-15-1.html

There have been several others that have been in the
national press as well. It is difficult to chalk these
occurrences up simply to improper usage of quick releases
skewers - if anyone should know how to tighten a quick
release, you would expect at least Zinn should (and his
experiences with axle slippage appears to be repeatable).

Of course, I am not asserting that there will be axle
slippage with all (front) disk brakes equipped wheel, or
even the majority of them. But it can not be denied that
the potential exists for slippage or ejection with some
axle/dropout/skewer combinations, and that skewer tightness
becomes far more critical with the current disk brake
mounting design.

The present configuration of vertical dropout and disk brake
caliper mounted behind the fork leg is a poor design, or at
least much less than ideal. I don't think that this
particular design was consciously thought out, it simply
metamorphosed by the addition of disk brakes to traditional
bicycles. It can only be seen as a sign of good engineering
if Manitou or other fork manufacturers choose to further
evolve their fork/dropout designs to mitigate the increased
possibility of wheel ejection with disk brakes. (Note:
there is a reference in the Zinn/Velonews web page cited
about Kelly Bicycles also redesigning the dropouts of their
disk brake forks, orienting the dropout slots to face forward.)


Mark McMaster

[Doug Taylor]

Mark McMaster > wrote:

>The present configuration of vertical dropout and disk brake
>caliper mounted behind the fork leg is a poor design, or at
>least much less than ideal. I don't think that this
>particular design was consciously thought out, it simply
>metamorphosed by the addition of disk brakes to traditional
>bicycles. It can only be seen as a sign of good engineering
>if Manitou or other fork manufacturers choose to further
>evolve their fork/dropout designs to mitigate the increased
>possibility of wheel ejection with disk brakes.

I doubt that anybody here argues this point. Surely, let good
engineering, design and technology evolve and make bicycles better and
safer for all.

The issue discussed ad nauseam in this n.g. over the past year or two
was whether or not the sky was falling and whether a REVOLUTION was
required. The answer is that is was NOT. As Zinn says, although the
issue is real, it is "perhaps overstated in bicycle chat rooms." The
CPSC was advised and decided not to pursue it. No flood of injuries
or lawsuits have appeared. The number of injuries which have appeared
- assuming they were actually caused by this problem - are miniscule
as compared to the number of disc brake equipped bicycles in use. A
good QR that is inspected frequently solves the problem. Eventually,
design and engineering will evolve and there will be no problem.

End of Story.
--dt

[Ex Disc User]

"Doug Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Mark McMaster > wrote:
>
> >The present configuration of vertical dropout and disk brake
> >caliper mounted behind the fork leg is a poor design, or at
> >least much less than ideal. I don't think that this
> >particular design was consciously thought out, it simply
> >metamorphosed by the addition of disk brakes to traditional
> >bicycles. It can only be seen as a sign of good engineering
> >if Manitou or other fork manufacturers choose to further
> >evolve their fork/dropout designs to mitigate the increased
> >possibility of wheel ejection with disk brakes.
>
> I doubt that anybody here argues this point. Surely, let good
> engineering, design and technology evolve and make bicycles better and
> safer for all.
>
> The issue discussed ad nauseam in this n.g. over the past year or two
> was whether or not the sky was falling and whether a REVOLUTION was
> required. The answer is that is was NOT. As Zinn says, although the
> issue is real, it is "perhaps overstated in bicycle chat rooms." The
> CPSC was advised and decided not to pursue it. No flood of injuries
> or lawsuits have appeared.

Lawsuits take some time to prepare and then even longer to process and may
well be setled complete with gagging order. Just because you haven't heard
about them don't assume they're not happening. They are !!

> The number of injuries which have appeared
> - assuming they were actually caused by this problem - are miniscule
> as compared to the number of disc brake equipped bicycles in use. A
> good QR that is inspected frequently solves the problem.

Nope - it may mitigate the problem it doesn't solve it

> Eventually,
> design and engineering will evolve and there will be no problem.

Ah yes - at last you're talking real sense. The revolution is happening -
albeit rather an evolution - but without all the talk "perhaps overstated
in bicycle chat rooms." there'd be no evolution and the danger of the
poor design would continue.

Or maybe it's the very real fear of the lawsuits...............

Or maybe the fear follows the knowledge

Who knows - at least the change is starting though.

An ex disc user

[Doug Taylor]

(Ex Disc User) wrote:

>> good QR that is inspected frequently solves the problem.
>
>Nope - it may mitigate the problem it doesn't solve it

If "solve" means that the wheel does not eject under braking force,
then a good QR that is inspected frequently absolutely solves the
problem. At least for me, Leonard Zinn, Carl Fogel and the vast
majority of countless other cyclists using discs.

>An ex disc user

"Most likely you'll go your way and I'll go mine" - Robert Zimmerman

--dt

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:41:48 -0400, Doug Taylor
> wrote:

(Ex Disc User) wrote:
>
>>> good QR that is inspected frequently solves the problem.
>>
>>Nope - it may mitigate the problem it doesn't solve it
>
>If "solve" means that the wheel does not eject under braking force,
>then a good QR that is inspected frequently absolutely solves the
>problem. At least for me, Leonard Zinn, Carl Fogel and the vast
>majority of countless other cyclists using discs.
>
>>An ex disc user
>
>"Most likely you'll go your way and I'll go mine" - Robert Zimmerman
>
>--dt

Dear Doug,

Alas, I remain agnostic about it all (and cannot imagine my opinion
counting for much--I ride on pavement and use rim brakes).

From what I've read, a trailing arm disk brake does indeed produce a
force that would tend to eject an unsecured front wheel, but something
seems to keep the vast majority of front wheels in place.

Jim Beam has suggested that the calculations of the ejection forces
have overlooked the massive frictional resistance of typical serrated
axle washers that actually dent the surface of the fork. His pictures
show the tiny dents from the serrated washers, which seem to have
remained frimly in place instead of dragging grooves through the metal
of the fork.

If all that it takes to resist a trailing disk brake is a firmly
clamped quick-release and serrated washers, then the problem and its
solution are about the same as preventing wheel nuts from coming loose
on car wheels by using conical instead of flat lug nuts.

So far, no one has posted a follow-up about marking their front axles,

Carl Fogel

[Jonesy]

wrote in message >...
>
> If anyone has pictures of disk-brake forks that show marks of such
> serrated washers being dragged out of position, I'd be glad to host
> them.

Both of my forks have discrete indentations where the knurling of the
steel QR faces and axle nut faces have bitten into the soft aluminum
dropout faces. No tearing or drag marks at all.

> Some people who posted in the ejection thread indicated that they were
> going to mark quick-releases and watch for movement, so if they have
> pictures of whatever happened, I can host them, too.

Unfortunately my camera does not do well in macro mode, so the
pictures are disappointingly unclear. The QR/DO interface has been
doped with yellow fingernail polish, and I inspect the interface twice
per ride - before I go, and after I'm done. I have zero cracking of
the material at the interface, which leads me to believe that there is
no movement. If there comes a time that I must change a tube, I will
remove and reapply the polish. But so far, I have been lucky WRT
flats.

The QRs are not done up "stupid-tight", I go just beyond 90 degrees
with the lever (93-96, IMO), and close the thing down with my palm.
It leaves a mark on my palm, which quickly goes away. I close up my
rear QRs the same way. And have done it exactly this way for as long
as I've been riding QR-equipped bikes. Never had a hassle with
bearings - could be luck, I guess.

There's your early-season report.
--
R.F. Jones

[Jay Beattie]

"Ex Disc User" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

> > The issue discussed ad nauseam in this n.g. over the past
year or two
> > was whether or not the sky was falling and whether a
REVOLUTION was
> > required. The answer is that is was NOT. As Zinn says,
although the
> > issue is real, it is "perhaps overstated in bicycle chat
rooms." The
> > CPSC was advised and decided not to pursue it. No flood of
injuries
> > or lawsuits have appeared.
>
> Lawsuits take some time to prepare and then even longer to
process and may
> well be setled complete with gagging order. Just because you
haven't heard
> about them don't assume they're not happening. They are !!

They are? How do you know? I represent several large
manufacturers in Oregon and have not seen a disk brake case --
either as a claim or a filed lawsuit. Perhaps there is a problem
that needs to be addressed, but it is not one that has resulted
in a lot of claims, or any claims as far as I know. One possible
reason for the lack of claims is that the ejection forces do not
materialize on soft ground due to traction losses or that the
rider is ejected by the braking forces in any event. Remember
that there are no seatbelts on bikes and that riders are often go
OTB regardless of whether something breaks. -- Jay Beattie.

[[email protected]]

Carl Fogel writes:

> From what I've read, a trailing arm disk brake does indeed produce a
> force that would tend to eject an unsecured front wheel, but something
> seems to keep the vast majority of front wheels in place.

Can't we just get along with the "majority" without the hyperbole of
"vast" or "overwhelming". I'm overwhelmed by these words that merely
mean "most".

> So far, no one has posted a follow-up about marking their front axles,

My front axles don't even have knurling on their lock nuts, being
ancient Campagnolo Record hubs from the 1960's... as in:

http://tinyurl.com/2gbsj

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:24:49 GMT,
wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>> From what I've read, a trailing arm disk brake does indeed produce a
>> force that would tend to eject an unsecured front wheel, but something
>> seems to keep the vast majority of front wheels in place.
>
>Can't we just get along with the "majority" without the hyperbole of
>"vast" or "overwhelming". I'm overwhelmed by these words that merely
>mean "most".
>
>> So far, no one has posted a follow-up about marking their front axles,
>
>My front axles don't even have knurling on their lock nuts, being
>ancient Campagnolo Record hubs from the 1960's... as in:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2gbsj
>
>Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

A bare majority is 51%.

A vast majority in the case of non-ejected wheels appears to be
something like 99.999%.

The overwhelming majority of us can follow this idea.

A tiny minority quibbles.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

Carl Fogel writes:

>>> From what I've read, a trailing arm disk brake does indeed produce a
>>> force that would tend to eject an unsecured front wheel, but something
>>> seems to keep the vast majority of front wheels in place.

>> Can't we just get along with the "majority" without the hyperbole of
>> "vast" or "overwhelming". I'm overwhelmed by these words that merely
>> mean "most".

>>> So far, no one has posted a follow-up about marking their front axles,

>> My front axles don't even have knurling on their lock nuts, being
>> ancient Campagnolo Record hubs from the 1960's... as in:

>> http://tinyurl.com/2gbsj

> A bare majority is 51%.

I don't see where I mentioned bare. Is this a colored herring?

> A vast majority in the case of non-ejected wheels appears to be
> something like 99.999%.

Appears to be? Well what then is "most"? You might observe that
neither vast nor overwhelming are much used in English except to sound
impressive when making an argument that something is wide spread, in
the absence of supporting evidence. It's a red flag for the observant
reader.

> The overwhelming majority of us can follow this idea.

> A tiny minority quibbles.

Don't use majority unless you mean that. Overwhelming majority is
just another flourish of enhanced speech.

Jobst Brandt

[Evan Evans]

How is a bike stopped by a disc brake any different than a bike
stopped by a rim brake?? they both have to generate the same force.
Both bikes stop in the same amount of time. What a load of $^^^T&*(*(.

[S. Anderson]

"Evan Evans" > wrote in message
om...
> How is a bike stopped by a disc brake any different than a bike
> stopped by a rim brake?? they both have to generate the same force.
> Both bikes stop in the same amount of time. What a load of $^^^T&*(*(.

Ummm..to be blunt..you're incorrect. You're a latecomer to this argument so
you should google this up and see the background. Once you understand both
sides of the argument, THEN you can come back and say it's a load of
$^^^T&*(*(.

Scott..

[[email protected]]

On 11 May 2004 12:40:21 -0700, (Evan Evans)
wrote:

>How is a bike stopped by a disc brake any different than a bike
>stopped by a rim brake?? they both have to generate the same force.
>Both bikes stop in the same amount of time. What a load of $^^^T&*(*(.

Dear Evan,

It's not a matter of braking power or stopping distance, but of how
the different leverage of the brake arm on the wheel shoves the axle.

Briefly, a front caliper brake applied to the disk or to a rim forces
the axle up into the fork, but a rear caliper brake produces an
ejection force.

A normal, old-fashioned front-wheel rim brake is just barely in front
of the fork and as far as possible from the axle. It has very little
leverage and stuffs the axle feebly up into the fork.

A disk brake, on the other hand, is much closer to the axle and is
offset much further from the fork, giving it considerably more
leverage. If it's a rear (or trailing) design, a considerable ejection
force is produced by normal braking. (Converting it to a front or
leading disk brake would turn it into a considerable retention force.)

The overwhelming majority of disk brake users have not noticed their
front wheels popping out. Wheels that have popped out may well have
been lost because the quick-release skewers were defective or not
properly tightened.

A reasonably clear pro-ejection explanation with diagrams and
calculations of the forces can be found at:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/index.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/bt7e

However, Jim Beam has suggested that these calculations are fatally
flawed because they do not include the tremendous resistance of
serrated axle washers (or knurled skewer faces or whatever we decide
to call them) biting into the fork metal:

http://tinyurl.com/yutgy

or

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=PErbc.45543%24UD3.38107%40newssvr25.news.prod igy.com

I hosted some pictures of his disk-brake fork that show the clear
imprint of the serrations, but no sign of braking forces dragging the
skewers across the bare metal:

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/Img_3199.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/Img_3196.jpg

The recent 500+ post disk-brake-ejection thread can still be browsed
through google groups:

http://tinyurl.com/2263x

or

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2792415317d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=20&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=2004&selm=405aed81%240%2423537%2444c9b20d%40news3.asahi-net.or.jp

Again, it's nothing to do with stopping distance, just how likely a
behind-the-fork disk-brake is to eject an axle.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 19:07:26 GMT,
wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>>>> From what I've read, a trailing arm disk brake does indeed produce a
>>>> force that would tend to eject an unsecured front wheel, but something
>>>> seems to keep the vast majority of front wheels in place.
>
>>> Can't we just get along with the "majority" without the hyperbole of
>>> "vast" or "overwhelming". I'm overwhelmed by these words that merely
>>> mean "most".
>
>>>> So far, no one has posted a follow-up about marking their front axles,
>
>>> My front axles don't even have knurling on their lock nuts, being
>>> ancient Campagnolo Record hubs from the 1960's... as in:
>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2gbsj
>
>> A bare majority is 51%.
>
>I don't see where I mentioned bare. Is this a colored herring?
>
>> A vast majority in the case of non-ejected wheels appears to be
>> something like 99.999%.
>
>Appears to be? Well what then is "most"? You might observe that
>neither vast nor overwhelming are much used in English except to sound
>impressive when making an argument that something is wide spread, in
>the absence of supporting evidence. It's a red flag for the observant
>reader.
>
>> The overwhelming majority of us can follow this idea.
>
>> A tiny minority quibbles.
>
>Don't use majority unless you mean that. Overwhelming majority is
>just another flourish of enhanced speech.
>
>Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

Ah, the familiar overwhelming dodge and bluster.

Enjoy!

Carl Fogel

[Jose Rizal]

:

> However, Jim Beam has suggested that these calculations are fatally
> flawed because they do not include the tremendous resistance of
> serrated axle washers (or knurled skewer faces or whatever we decide
> to call them) biting into the fork metal:

You've misunderstood the implication of JB's proclamation, who has at
best also misunderstood the calculations.

The ejection force calculation, although based on a simplified system
than actual, is reasonable. The resistance that the dropout/skewer
knobs present to counter the ejection force is IRRELEVANT to the
calculation of the ejection force.

What one can question is the ability of the dropout/skewer knob
interface to withstand the ejection force; this is where the knobs
biting into the dropout faces make a difference.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:33:33 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:

:
>
>> However, Jim Beam has suggested that these calculations are fatally
>> flawed because they do not include the tremendous resistance of
>> serrated axle washers (or knurled skewer faces or whatever we decide
>> to call them) biting into the fork metal:
>
>You've misunderstood the implication of JB's proclamation, who has at
>best also misunderstood the calculations.
>
>The ejection force calculation, although based on a simplified system
>than actual, is reasonable. The resistance that the dropout/skewer
>knobs present to counter the ejection force is IRRELEVANT to the
>calculation of the ejection force.
>
>What one can question is the ability of the dropout/skewer knob
>interface to withstand the ejection force; this is where the knobs
>biting into the dropout faces make a difference.

Dear Jose,

I'm sorry, but I don't see the misunderstanding.

The diagram and calculations of the ejection force do seem to be
correct, as far as they go, but they are fatally flawed as an argument
that the front wheel is in danger of being ejected if serrated
washers biting into fork metal provide far more resistance than the
ejection force can overcome.

The diagram and its calculations use an ISO quick-release resistance
from 1996 that I assume are presented in good faith, but which may
well not include serrated washers.

So far, no one has mentioned any pictures of forks showing marks of
serrated washers being forced out by the ejection force, gouging tiny
grooves in the fork metal as they're ejected.

Jim Beam pointed out a force or friction that was generally overlooked
and that seems to explain why front wheels aren't ejecting left and
right as the incomplete diagram would lead us to expect.

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any rebuttal to Jim's point
about properly closed serrated fasteners offering far too much
resistance for the calculated ejection force to overcome.

Carl Fogel

[Jay Beattie]

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:33:33 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:
>
> :
> >
> >> However, Jim Beam has suggested that these calculations are
fatally
> >> flawed because they do not include the tremendous resistance
of
> >> serrated axle washers (or knurled skewer faces or whatever
we decide
> >> to call them) biting into the fork metal:
> >
> >You've misunderstood the implication of JB's proclamation, who
has at
> >best also misunderstood the calculations.
> >
> >The ejection force calculation, although based on a simplified
system
> >than actual, is reasonable. The resistance that the
dropout/skewer
> >knobs present to counter the ejection force is IRRELEVANT to
the
> >calculation of the ejection force.
> >
> >What one can question is the ability of the dropout/skewer
knob
> >interface to withstand the ejection force; this is where the
knobs
> >biting into the dropout faces make a difference.
>
> Dear Jose,
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't see the misunderstanding.
>
> The diagram and calculations of the ejection force do seem to
be
> correct, as far as they go, but they are fatally flawed as an
argument
> that the front wheel is in danger of being ejected if serrated
> washers biting into fork metal provide far more resistance than
the
> ejection force can overcome.
>
> The diagram and its calculations use an ISO quick-release
resistance
> from 1996 that I assume are presented in good faith, but which
may
> well not include serrated washers.
>
> So far, no one has mentioned any pictures of forks showing
marks of
> serrated washers being forced out by the ejection force,
gouging tiny
> grooves in the fork metal as they're ejected.
>
> Jim Beam pointed out a force or friction that was generally
overlooked
> and that seems to explain why front wheels aren't ejecting left
and
> right as the incomplete diagram would lead us to expect.
>
> I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any rebuttal to Jim's
point
> about properly closed serrated fasteners offering far too much
> resistance for the calculated ejection force to overcome.

I am no engineer, and do not play one on T.V., but doesn't the
ejection force depend on the weight of the rider and the friction
or drag between the tire and ground. It seems to me like you
would slide the front tire in dirt long before you generated
enough force to eject the wheel -- especially in the case of a
light weight rider. -- Jay Beattie.

[S. Anderson]

"Jay Beattie" > wrote in message
...
> I am no engineer, and do not play one on T.V., but doesn't the
> ejection force depend on the weight of the rider and the friction
> or drag between the tire and ground. It seems to me like you
> would slide the front tire in dirt long before you generated
> enough force to eject the wheel -- especially in the case of a
> light weight rider. -- Jay Beattie.

I believe that there are not a lot of wheel ejections going on. I've never
personally seen or heard of one. However, the design IS flawed. Would you
accept a product that had a 1% chance of seriously inuring you in normal
usage? 10%? 0.01%?? As I've said before, the design will get fixed when a
new product revision is necessary for other reasons (new models for
instance..) or if the cost of defending lawsuits exceeds the cost of
revising the current fork. As much as we'd like everything to be 100%
perfect, the fact is a cost/benefit analysis is done on anything that gets
designed.

Cheers,

Scott..

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie writes:

> Doesn't the ejection force depend on the weight of the rider and the
> friction or drag between the tire and ground. It seems to me like
> you would slide the front tire in dirt long before you generated
> enough force to eject the wheel -- especially in the case of a light
> weight rider.

Not directly, because the weight of the rider presses down on the axle
and the reaction force of the brake lifts up proportionally to the
braking force up to the point of skidding the wheel, which on pavement
is the end-over point. So for most average riders, the harshness of
braking over loose and solid embedded rocks can cause forces greater
than steady state braking on smooth pavement.

Your point is that the force for steady state is very closely the
weight on the front wheel minus that load times the disc to tire
diameter ratio and it is tangent to the disc at the brake pad location
is correct. That force is in most conventional disc brakes is almost
straight UP the fork blade.

As was arrived upon the last time this was discussed here, placing the
caliper in front of the fork blade gets rid of the whole problem and
does so better and more completely than any of the other suggested
modifications.

Jobst Brandt

[Jose Rizal]

:

> The diagram and calculations of the ejection force do seem to be
> correct, as far as they go, but they are fatally flawed as an argument
> that the front wheel is in danger of being ejected if serrated
> washers biting into fork metal provide far more resistance than the
> ejection force can overcome.

The derivation of the ejection force through calculations based on a
force diagram is not flawed (even though it's based on a simplified
system). The force exists when disc braking.

The implication of the ejection force calculation, that this force tries
to push the axle out of the dropouts is also not flawed. Whether the
axle is or isn't ejected when using serrated QR knobs is irrelevant to
the existence of this force.

What is flawed is JB's argument that the calculations for the ejection
force is "flawed" because of the increased resistance that serrated QR
knobs present when biting into the dropouts. This latter can affect
whether or not the axle is in fact ejected, but it has no relevance nor
relationship to the fact that an ejection force exists upon disc
braking, which tries to push the axle out of the dropouts. This
ejection force exists exclusively because of the positioning of the disc
brake calipers in current forks.

> Jim Beam pointed out a force or friction that was generally overlooked
> and that seems to explain why front wheels aren't ejecting left and
> right as the incomplete diagram would lead us to expect.

This is only one factor among several which may be responsible for
preventing the axle from being ejected; I don't think this has been
ignored in general.

> I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any rebuttal to Jim's point
> about properly closed serrated fasteners offering far too much
> resistance for the calculated ejection force to overcome.

You've missed the many, many posts about the proposed mechanism which
can supposedly loosen tightened threaded fasteners through vibration.
This theory is also flawed in the case of QRs, but you can Google these
yourself.

[Doug Taylor]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:24:49 GMT,
wrote:

>Can't we just get along with the "majority" without the hyperbole of
>"vast" or "overwhelming". I'm overwhelmed by these words that merely
>mean "most".

In that case, why not refer to the minuscule, negligible, or trifling
minority of front wheels which in fact have been ejected using disc
brakes?

[jim beam]

S. Anderson wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I am no engineer, and do not play one on T.V., but doesn't the
>>ejection force depend on the weight of the rider and the friction
>>or drag between the tire and ground. It seems to me like you
>>would slide the front tire in dirt long before you generated
>>enough force to eject the wheel -- especially in the case of a
>>light weight rider. -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
> I believe that there are not a lot of wheel ejections going on. I've never
> personally seen or heard of one. However, the design IS flawed. Would you
> accept a product that had a 1% chance of seriously inuring you in normal
> usage? 10%? 0.01%?? As I've said before, the design will get fixed when a
> new product revision is necessary for other reasons (new models for
> instance..) or if the cost of defending lawsuits exceeds the cost of
> revising the current fork. As much as we'd like everything to be 100%
> perfect, the fact is a cost/benefit analysis is done on anything that gets
> designed.

it's no more "flawed" than left side lug nuts on cars having right
handed threads, when large commercial vehicles [correctly] have left
handed threads on the left side of the vehicle! the point is, if
there's no failure, what's to fix?

the "fix" of putting the caliper on the front of the fork substantially
increases material failure risk because the cast alloys used for forks
have inferior fatigue properties in tension [front of fork] vs.
compression [rear of fork].

[Andrew Lee]

"jim beam" > wrote:

> the "fix" of putting the caliper on the front of the fork substantially
> increases material failure risk because the cast alloys used for forks
> have inferior fatigue properties in tension [front of fork] vs.
> compression [rear of fork].

I don't understand why this should be a problem if designed well.
Cantilever mounts have mounted in front of suspension forks since the
beginning.

[S. Anderson]

"jim beam" > wrote in message
. com...

> it's no more "flawed" than left side lug nuts on cars having right
> handed threads, when large commercial vehicles [correctly] have left
> handed threads on the left side of the vehicle! the point is, if
> there's no failure, what's to fix?

That's substantially my belief. What degree of failure is acceptable? No
design is 100% perfect and I think the usual disk and caliper arrangement
is, for the most part, perfectly acceptable. However, manufacturers may
decide (as Manitou apparently has..) that a minor mod will correct this
"defect" and everyone is happy. Let's face it, if 1 in 2 people were
face-planting due to this problem, the lawsuits would immediately put a stop
to it.

> the "fix" of putting the caliper on the front of the fork substantially
> increases material failure risk because the cast alloys used for forks
> have inferior fatigue properties in tension [front of fork] vs.
> compression [rear of fork].

The horizontal dropout slot is also a fix, or a straight-thru axle.
Motorcycles have used front mounted calipers for years. I believe the
reason they moved to rear-mount was to do with steering feel, although it
may also have the secondary benefit, as you point out, of improving the
material performance.

Cheers,

Scott..

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:54:52 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:

:
>
>> The diagram and calculations of the ejection force do seem to be
>> correct, as far as they go, but they are fatally flawed as an argument
>> that the front wheel is in danger of being ejected if serrated
>> washers biting into fork metal provide far more resistance than the
>> ejection force can overcome.
>
>The derivation of the ejection force through calculations based on a
>force diagram is not flawed (even though it's based on a simplified
>system). The force exists when disc braking.
>
>The implication of the ejection force calculation, that this force tries
>to push the axle out of the dropouts is also not flawed. Whether the
>axle is or isn't ejected when using serrated QR knobs is irrelevant to
>the existence of this force.
>
>What is flawed is JB's argument that the calculations for the ejection
>force is "flawed" because of the increased resistance that serrated QR
>knobs present when biting into the dropouts. This latter can affect
>whether or not the axle is in fact ejected, but it has no relevance nor
>relationship to the fact that an ejection force exists upon disc
>braking, which tries to push the axle out of the dropouts. This
>ejection force exists exclusively because of the positioning of the disc
>brake calipers in current forks.
>
>> Jim Beam pointed out a force or friction that was generally overlooked
>> and that seems to explain why front wheels aren't ejecting left and
>> right as the incomplete diagram would lead us to expect.
>
>This is only one factor among several which may be responsible for
>preventing the axle from being ejected; I don't think this has been
>ignored in general.
>
>> I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any rebuttal to Jim's point
>> about properly closed serrated fasteners offering far too much
>> resistance for the calculated ejection force to overcome.
>
>You've missed the many, many posts about the proposed mechanism which
>can supposedly loosen tightened threaded fasteners through vibration.
>This theory is also flawed in the case of QRs, but you can Google these
>yourself.

Dear Jose,

The posts that I saw about vibration working quick release skewers
loose struck me as possible, but still unconvincing theories. Such
action seems likely to leave clear evidence of serrated fittings
chewing up fork legs as they work free and are levered out by the
ejection force, but I don't know of any pictures or descriptions of
such damage.

Do you see any signs of such damage in Jim Beam's pictures? Maybe I
missed some sign of wear or incipient ejection, so it would be a good
thing if anyone were to examine the pictures closely with an eye
toward spotting something that's been overlooked.

Did someone else mention the serrated fastener point earlier in the
thread? If so, I missed it, but it struck me as new when Jim Beam
mentioned it.

If he was the first to bring it up, then I think that it was ignored
in general. Are serrated fasteners mentioned on that web page with the
diagram of the ejection forces where it talks about how many newtons
of resistance can be expected from a quick release?

Could you take a moment to explain which "theory is also flawed in the
case of QRs" and why? Your last paragraph seems to say that vibration
loosening is the flawed theory, but I'm not sure that I'm reading it
the way that you meant it.

If you have any pictures showing forks with marks of quick-release
skewers being forced out, I'd be glad to host them or at least see a
link to them. Or any pictures of quick-release skewers chewing up
forks as they twist. Or any pictures showing quick-release skewers
properly closed, marked with paint, and then rotating.

Carl Fogel

[Evan Evans]

Ok , I see the error in my thinking. Im wrong. :) BUT!

[S. Anderson]

"Evan Evans" > wrote in message
om...
> Ok , I see the error in my thinking. Im wrong. :) BUT!

Heehee..ok, NOW you can say it's a load! ;-) Welcome to the debate.

Cheers,

Scott..

[jim beam]

sure, but two things:

1. they also have a shear component as well as tension - the material
performs better in that loading mode.
2. check the math - their load is substantially less than the disk
mount. [the closer to the axle, the greater the leverage & therefore load.]

Andrew Lee wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote:
>
>
>>the "fix" of putting the caliper on the front of the fork substantially
>>increases material failure risk because the cast alloys used for forks
>>have inferior fatigue properties in tension [front of fork] vs.
>>compression [rear of fork].
>
>
> I don't understand why this should be a problem if designed well.
> Cantilever mounts have mounted in front of suspension forks since the
> beginning.
>
>

[jim beam]

S. Anderson wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>
>>it's no more "flawed" than left side lug nuts on cars having right
>>handed threads, when large commercial vehicles [correctly] have left
>>handed threads on the left side of the vehicle! the point is, if
>>there's no failure, what's to fix?
>
>
> That's substantially my belief. What degree of failure is acceptable? No
> design is 100% perfect and I think the usual disk and caliper arrangement
> is, for the most part, perfectly acceptable. However, manufacturers may
> decide (as Manitou apparently has..) that a minor mod will correct this
> "defect" and everyone is happy. Let's face it, if 1 in 2 people were
> face-planting due to this problem, the lawsuits would immediately put a stop
> to it.

we can be sure of that!

>
>
>>the "fix" of putting the caliper on the front of the fork substantially
>>increases material failure risk because the cast alloys used for forks
>>have inferior fatigue properties in tension [front of fork] vs.
>>compression [rear of fork].
>
>
> The horizontal dropout slot is also a fix, or a straight-thru axle.

this is true, but i have to say, i'm averse to straight-thru's because
it's a much bigger pita fixing a flat with one of those compared to a
normal q/r.

> Motorcycles have used front mounted calipers for years. I believe the
> reason they moved to rear-mount was to do with steering feel, although it
> may also have the secondary benefit, as you point out, of improving the
> material performance.

"feel" /may/ be a factor, but i seriously doubt it's a measurable
difference. the bending moment, at the same point, is the same whether
it be tension or compression. it's only the material fatigue
performance that is measurable from what i can see. and we /are/
talking mass produced castings here.

[Jose Rizal]

:

> The posts that I saw about vibration working quick release skewers
> loose struck me as possible, but still unconvincing theories. Such
> action seems likely to leave clear evidence of serrated fittings
> chewing up fork legs as they work free and are levered out by the
> ejection force, but I don't know of any pictures or descriptions of
> such damage.

Hence it's a "flawed" hypothesis, but only if you knew beforehand that
the QR was "sufficiently" tight. The difficulty in relying solely on
seeing damage on dropout faces is that you cannot definitively state
that it's the result of a properly tightened QR working loose through
cyclic loading, OR if it's the result of an improperly tightened QR to
start with. You need to look for more than damaged dropout faces, you
also need to look at results of a systematic investigation.

> Do you see any signs of such damage in Jim Beam's pictures? Maybe I
> missed some sign of wear or incipient ejection, so it would be a good
> thing if anyone were to examine the pictures closely with an eye
> toward spotting something that's been overlooked.

His isn't the only fork in evidence. I have several which do not
exhibit any signs of axle movement, despite hundreds of kms of use with
disc brakes.

> Did someone else mention the serrated fastener point earlier in the
> thread? If so, I missed it, but it struck me as new when Jim Beam
> mentioned it.

It's been discussed much earlier, even before JB the persona's existence
in this newsgroup.

> If he was the first to bring it up, then I think that it was ignored
> in general.

I think that has more to do with JB being ignored in general.

> Are serrated fasteners mentioned on that web page with the
> diagram of the ejection forces where it talks about how many newtons
> of resistance can be expected from a quick release?

It is implied when it mentions Shimano quick releases, most models of
which I believe have serrated QR knobs.

> Could you take a moment to explain which "theory is also flawed in the
> case of QRs" and why? Your last paragraph seems to say that vibration
> loosening is the flawed theory,

That is correct. Some insist that vibration and loading of the axle,
together with twisting of the fork dropouts, when using disc brakes
result in the QR loosening. This does not consider the fact that the QR
knobs and skewer do not form a rigid structure even when tightened,
because the knobs aren't rigidly attached to the skewer. Google the
"anniversary" round of posts in the last couple of months.

> If you have any pictures showing forks with marks of quick-release
> skewers being forced out, I'd be glad to host them or at least see a
> link to them. Or any pictures of quick-release skewers chewing up
> forks as they twist. Or any pictures showing quick-release skewers
> properly closed, marked with paint, and then rotating.

I don't, and don't expect to have any.

[Gary Young]

"S. Anderson" > wrote in message >...
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > it's no more "flawed" than left side lug nuts on cars having right
> > handed threads, when large commercial vehicles [correctly] have left
> > handed threads on the left side of the vehicle! the point is, if
> > there's no failure, what's to fix?
>
> That's substantially my belief. What degree of failure is acceptable? No
> design is 100% perfect and I think the usual disk and caliper arrangement
> is, for the most part, perfectly acceptable. However, manufacturers may
> decide (as Manitou apparently has..) that a minor mod will correct this
> "defect" and everyone is happy. Let's face it, if 1 in 2 people were
> face-planting due to this problem, the lawsuits would immediately put a stop
> to it.
>
No one here is suggesting that 1 in 2 people are face planting.

I think arguments about the presence or absence of lawsuits are of
dubious value here. There are any number of reasons why we haven't
seen lawsuits, e.g., (1) there have been injuries, but too minor to
warrant a lawyer's attention (although I think James Annan's paralyzed
friend has consulted a lawyer), (2) there have been severe injuries,
but few riders or plaintiffs' lawyers read rec.bicycles.tech, or, of
course, (3) there have been no injuries at all.

If lawsuits are so effective in putting an immediate stop to bad
products, then why did it take years for people to discover the
Ford/Firestone problem? Why did bicycle manufacturers sell cranks with
failure-prone vanity grooves for decades?

For well over a decade, there have been people suggesting that SSRI's
(a class of antidepressant that includes Prozac) have tended to cause
suicidal behavior. And for well over a decade, the drug manufacturers
and many doctors have said those people are cranks. Recent revelations
seem to suggest that the drug industry's own research supports the
claim (though that is still subject to debate).

Here again, no responsible person is suggesting that 1 in 2 people who
take Prozac commits suicide. But if in fact seriously depressed people
who take Prozac commit suicide more often than equally seriously
depressed people receiving some other treatment, then shouldn't
something be done about it? At the very least, warnings to doctors to
watch out for the problem?

That's one thing I don't understand about the debate here. Given the
fact that responsible people acknowledge that the current design is
less than ideal, to say the least, shouldn't riders who use disc
brakes be warned that there are more reasons than usual to check one's
quick releases? (I'm not saying that's an adequate response to the
problem, only a bare minimum.) Has the industry done that? -- I don't
think so. Why not? I suspect the reason is that the industry feels
such a warning would lead to pressure for an immediate recall or for a
redesigned fork.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 14:05:12 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:

:
>
>> The posts that I saw about vibration working quick release skewers
>> loose struck me as possible, but still unconvincing theories. Such
>> action seems likely to leave clear evidence of serrated fittings
>> chewing up fork legs as they work free and are levered out by the
>> ejection force, but I don't know of any pictures or descriptions of
>> such damage.
>
>Hence it's a "flawed" hypothesis, but only if you knew beforehand that
>the QR was "sufficiently" tight. The difficulty in relying solely on
>seeing damage on dropout faces is that you cannot definitively state
>that it's the result of a properly tightened QR working loose through
>cyclic loading, OR if it's the result of an improperly tightened QR to
>start with. You need to look for more than damaged dropout faces, you
>also need to look at results of a systematic investigation.
>
>> Do you see any signs of such damage in Jim Beam's pictures? Maybe I
>> missed some sign of wear or incipient ejection, so it would be a good
>> thing if anyone were to examine the pictures closely with an eye
>> toward spotting something that's been overlooked.
>
>His isn't the only fork in evidence. I have several which do not
>exhibit any signs of axle movement, despite hundreds of kms of use with
>disc brakes.
>
>> Did someone else mention the serrated fastener point earlier in the
>> thread? If so, I missed it, but it struck me as new when Jim Beam
>> mentioned it.
>
>It's been discussed much earlier, even before JB the persona's existence
>in this newsgroup.
>
>> If he was the first to bring it up, then I think that it was ignored
>> in general.
>
>I think that has more to do with JB being ignored in general.
>
>> Are serrated fasteners mentioned on that web page with the
>> diagram of the ejection forces where it talks about how many newtons
>> of resistance can be expected from a quick release?
>
>It is implied when it mentions Shimano quick releases, most models of
>which I believe have serrated QR knobs.
>
>> Could you take a moment to explain which "theory is also flawed in the
>> case of QRs" and why? Your last paragraph seems to say that vibration
>> loosening is the flawed theory,
>
>That is correct. Some insist that vibration and loading of the axle,
>together with twisting of the fork dropouts, when using disc brakes
>result in the QR loosening. This does not consider the fact that the QR
>knobs and skewer do not form a rigid structure even when tightened,
>because the knobs aren't rigidly attached to the skewer. Google the
>"anniversary" round of posts in the last couple of months.
>
>> If you have any pictures showing forks with marks of quick-release
>> skewers being forced out, I'd be glad to host them or at least see a
>> link to them. Or any pictures of quick-release skewers chewing up
>> forks as they twist. Or any pictures showing quick-release skewers
>> properly closed, marked with paint, and then rotating.
>
>I don't, and don't expect to have any.


Dear Jose,

What other forks are "in evidence" ?

Carl Fogel

[Jonesy]

wrote in message >...
> Carl Fogel writes:
>
> > From what I've read, a trailing arm disk brake does indeed produce a
> > force that would tend to eject an unsecured front wheel, but something
> > seems to keep the vast majority of front wheels in place.
>
> Can't we just get along with the "majority" without the hyperbole of
> "vast" or "overwhelming". I'm overwhelmed by these words that merely
> mean "most".

Except that "most" does not adequately describe the magnitude of the
majority. You call "vast" hyperbole - fine. So, if you were to
suggest some word to modify "majority" to illustrate some large, yet
unknown, proportion, what would that word be?

The exact figure is unknown, and the incidence of ejection seems to be
rare, from anecdotal evidence. So, what adjective passes muster of
accurately describing the condition, without extending to hyperbole?
"Most" is too broad. Majority can describe any quantity over 50%, up
to but not including 100%.

It's easy to criticize, but much harder to come up with a real
solution. In this case, a word that accurately reflects the enormous,
immense, huge, gargantuan, elephantine, vast, overwhelming proportion
of non-events to events.

> > So far, no one has posted a follow-up about marking their front axles,
>
> My front axles don't even have knurling on their lock nuts, being
> ancient Campagnolo Record hubs from the 1960's... as in:

Good thing you're not using disk brakes then, hmmm?

Not that I expect any response, anyway. What is the world coming to?
Having been a victim of Fogellian Hyperbole(tm), here I am, appearing
to defend his use of the language.

:shakes head:
--
R.F. Jones

[S. Anderson]

"Gary Young" > wrote in message >
> No one here is suggesting that 1 in 2 people are face planting.

That was an extreme example used for effect. Nobody would believe this to
be true.

> If lawsuits are so effective in putting an immediate stop to bad
> products, then why did it take years for people to discover the
> Ford/Firestone problem? Why did bicycle manufacturers sell cranks with
> failure-prone vanity grooves for decades?

The Ford/Firestone problem was not unique to Firestone. In fact, there is
widespread ignorance and panic about that problem. They actually allowed
replacement tires to be used that had a higher rate of tread delamination
than the Firestones they were replacing! Firestone's failure rate was quite
typical in the industry. The government did nothing other than make an
example out of one company. Would you suggest that government regulation of
every design issue in society is the correct path?? Nothing is perfect in
society. Everything has a risk and reward factor. My god, just driving a
car is horrendously dangerous! But we accept that risk. I, for one, would
accept the very smal risk that disk brake ejection poses. If there are
issues taht are epidemic in nature, sure I can see the government
investigating. But I wouldn't expect them to do a structural analysis of
every part that gets designed. In the US, if you have something that is not
functioning within the parameters it was designed for and you get hurt, you
sue for compensation.

> That's one thing I don't understand about the debate here. Given the
> fact that responsible people acknowledge that the current design is
> less than ideal, to say the least, shouldn't riders who use disc
> brakes be warned that there are more reasons than usual to check one's
> quick releases? (I'm not saying that's an adequate response to the
> problem, only a bare minimum.) Has the industry done that? -- I don't
> think so. Why not? I suspect the reason is that the industry feels
> such a warning would lead to pressure for an immediate recall or for a
> redesigned fork.

Every manual warns you to check your quick release for tightness before
every ride. But yes, you're probably correct.. These companies are in
business, and unless they're willing to admit something and take a beating
while their competitors get a free pass, you're not likely to find anyone
volunteering. Perfect world? Yeah, they design it perfectly, cheaply, for
everyone. But this is reality.

Cheers,

Scott..

[S. Anderson]

"jim beam" > wrote in message
. com...
> this is true, but i have to say, i'm averse to straight-thru's because
> it's a much bigger pita fixing a flat with one of those compared to a
> normal q/r.

Perfect example..you are quite willing to accept the risk of the wheel being
ejected to have the freedom to remove the wheel more quickly and easily.
It's not always possible to design for both and it's nice to have the
choice. Personally, I'm with you.


> "feel" /may/ be a factor, but i seriously doubt it's a measurable
> difference. the bending moment, at the same point, is the same whether
> it be tension or compression. it's only the material fatigue
> performance that is measurable from what i can see. and we /are/
> talking mass produced castings here.

I think it was a case of locating the mass of the caliper closer to the
steering axis to provide lighter steering with more feedback. Personally, I
can't comment on whether this is true or not. It's outside of my detection
abilities.

Cheers,

Scott..

[Alan Hoyle]

On 12 May 2004 08:39:18 -0700, Gary Young wrote:
> I think arguments about the presence or absence of lawsuits are of
> dubious value here. There are any number of reasons why we haven't
> seen lawsuits, e.g., (1) there have been injuries, but too minor to
> warrant a lawyer's attention (although I think James Annan's paralyzed
> friend has consulted a lawyer), (2) there have been severe injuries,
> but few riders or plaintiffs' lawyers read rec.bicycles.tech, or, of
> course, (3) there have been no injuries at all.

or (4) the lawyers of plaintif's anticipate the argument "user error
in the installation of the QR skewer is what caused the problem" and
are afraid this will be convincing, at least for a preponderance of
the evidence. Therefore, they convince their clients not to sue.

-a

--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...

>it's no more "flawed" than left side lug nuts on cars having right
>handed threads, when large commercial vehicles [correctly] have left
>handed threads on the left side of the vehicle! the point is, if
>there's no failure, what's to fix?

The tapered seat makes the left threading unecessary.

--------------
Alex

[ex disc user]

Alan Hoyle wrote:

> On 12 May 2004 08:39:18 -0700, Gary Young wrote:
> > I think arguments about the presence or absence of lawsuits are of
> > dubious value here. There are any number of reasons why we haven't
> > seen lawsuits, e.g., (1) there have been injuries, but too minor to
> > warrant a lawyer's attention (although I think James Annan's paralyzed
> > friend has consulted a lawyer), (2) there have been severe injuries,
> > but few riders or plaintiffs' lawyers read rec.bicycles.tech, or, of
> > course,

It's strange that there was extensive web coverage and limited print
coverage of the issue in the UK but coverage in the US was extremely
limited (velonews being the only one I'm aware of other than usenet). I
hate to be one to run off conspiracy theories but....... manufacturer
pressure?

> > (3) there have been no injuries at all.

I think James has details of between 5 and 10 - some of which are
pursueing legal action but that's second hand. There were certainly a
number discussed on the forums of the major UK mtb websites.

> or (4) the lawyers of plaintif's anticipate the argument "user error
> in the installation of the QR skewer is what caused the problem" and
> are afraid this will be convincing, at least for a preponderance of
> the evidence. Therefore, they convince their clients not to sue.

Might be a point except that lawyers lips were originally introduced as a
response to sucessful lawsuits where QR's weren't done up properly. So
""user error in the installation of the QR skewer" is unlikely to deter a
decent lawyer in the US.

The real issue of course is that Quick Releases are notoriously easy to
use incorrectly, even careful riders seem to report - when they're
insuficiently tightened (whether it's operator error or poor QR's that
come undone doesn't matter) they can come undone and when they do if a
disc is involved there's a chance that if the brake is applied the front
wheel will come out (a possibility that need not exist but for a poor
design). As discs filter down onto supermarket bikes this is going to
happen more and more and then we'll see the (relative) flood of legal
cases start.

Of course the redesign of forks as discussed would sort it all out and
riders will be able to brake to a stop instead of braking to go over the
bars. It's a case of when not if (the redesign). Lets just hope there's
not too many serious injuries before it happens across the board.
Meanwhile, if you're using discs and qr's keep checking them and hope that
it's not you. It almost certainly won't be but that's only an *almost*
certainly.

e.d.u.

[S. Anderson]

"ex disc user" > wrote in message
...
> It's strange that there was extensive web coverage and limited print
> coverage of the issue in the UK but coverage in the US was extremely
> limited (velonews being the only one I'm aware of other than usenet). I
> hate to be one to run off conspiracy theories but....... manufacturer
> pressure?

No, I suspect nobody gives a dang. No offense to the cycling community here
in N.A. (I'm one of you!!) but cycling ranks just below water polo in
popularity.

> The real issue of course is that Quick Releases are notoriously easy to
> use incorrectly, even careful riders seem to report - when they're
> insuficiently tightened (whether it's operator error or poor QR's that
> come undone doesn't matter) they can come undone and when they do if a
> disc is involved there's a chance that if the brake is applied the front
> wheel will come out (a possibility that need not exist but for a poor
> design).

I've never seen a properly done up QR come undone. Ever. I've worked on
bikes and cycled for close to 20 years. User error is absolutely a factor.
Once again, the operation is outlined in every owner's manual. Strangely,
guns can kill the unsuspecting operator but we don't seem to be calling for
guns that don't discharge bullets when you pull the trigger.

> As discs filter down onto supermarket bikes this is going to
> happen more and more and then we'll see the (relative) flood of legal
> cases start.

I'd agree with this statement. However, based on their execution of the
braking system, I don't think injuries will be any impetus to improve their
design of QR's! ;-)

> Of course the redesign of forks as discussed would sort it all out and
> riders will be able to brake to a stop instead of braking to go over the
> bars. It's a case of when not if (the redesign).
> Lets just hope there's
> not too many serious injuries before it happens across the board.
> Meanwhile, if you're using discs and qr's keep checking them and hope that
> it's not you. It almost certainly won't be but that's only an *almost*
> certainly.
>
> e.d.u.

Yup, I'd agree. They'll eventually get around to it. Unfortunate, but
reality.

Cheers,

Scott..

[Jose Rizal]

:

> Dear Jose,
>
> What other forks are "in evidence" ?

Mine. I have three which have disc brakes. There are many testimonials
from others here who haven't had issues with QRs loosening, but mine are
the only ones I'm standing behind (in more ways than one) for my
argument.

[Chalo]

daveornee > wrote:
>
> It will also
> be interesting to see if the industry will adopt a wider spacing to
> provide for a front wheel that has better spoke support angles.

Disc-brake-specific systems (those with large diameter through-axles)
already use 110mm and 120mm spacing. I imagine the only reason 100mm
spacing is used on slotted dropout disc systems is to provide
interchangeability with conventional parts.

Chalo

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:18:46 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:

:
>
>> Dear Jose,
>>
>> What other forks are "in evidence" ?
>
>Mine. I have three which have disc brakes. There are many testimonials
>from others here who haven't had issues with QRs loosening, but mine are
>the only ones I'm standing behind (in more ways than one) for my
>argument.

Dear Jose,

I searched in google groups, but I can't seem to find your brakes "in
evidence" in the 500+ post thread where Jim Beam posted about serrated
fasteners. Was your post in that thread or months or years earlier?

Carl Fogel

[Gary Young]

"S. Anderson" > wrote in message >...
> "Gary Young" > wrote in message >
> > No one here is suggesting that 1 in 2 people are face planting.
>
> That was an extreme example used for effect. Nobody would believe this to
> be true.
>
> > If lawsuits are so effective in putting an immediate stop to bad
> > products, then why did it take years for people to discover the
> > Ford/Firestone problem? Why did bicycle manufacturers sell cranks with
> > failure-prone vanity grooves for decades?
>
> The Ford/Firestone problem was not unique to Firestone. In fact, there is
> widespread ignorance and panic about that problem. They actually allowed
> replacement tires to be used that had a higher rate of tread delamination
> than the Firestones they were replacing! Firestone's failure rate was quite
> typical in the industry. The government did nothing other than make an
> example out of one company.

So what you're saying is that the presence of lawsuits doesn't mean
that the product at issue is actually flawed? I don't see how that
detracts from my statement that the presence or absence of lawsuits is
not terribly informative about a product's merits.

Would you suggest that government regulation of
> every design issue in society is the correct path??

If you mean government pre-approval of every design, then no, I
wouldn't suggest that and I don't know how you could think I might. If
by government regulation you mean safety regulations and tort suits
for bad designs, then we already have that.

Nothing is perfect in
> society. Everything has a risk and reward factor. My god, just driving a
> car is horrendously dangerous! But we accept that risk.

I'm thinking of opening an automotive brake repair place. I'll make
money hand over fist because I'll tell people I've fixed their brakes,
when really I'll be playing poker in the back room. When my injured
customers sue me, I'll use the "My god, just driving a car is
horrendously dangerous" defense.

No doubt once in a while I'd get a truly hysterical customer: "It's
the brake! The brake is a safety system! How can you tell me it's
acceptable for a safety system to be unsafe?" "Look, if you'd read
more rec.bicycles.tech you'd understand," I'd say. "Now wheel yourself
out of here before I call the cops."

I, for one, would
> accept the very smal risk that disk brake ejection poses.

How lovely for you. What about the people who don't read
rec.bicycles.tech and don't even know about the problem? How is it
that they've accepted the risk? Are you accepting the risk for them?

If there are
> issues taht are epidemic in nature, sure I can see the government
> investigating. But I wouldn't expect them to do a structural analysis of
> every part that gets designed. In the US, if you have something that is not
> functioning within the parameters it was designed for and you get hurt, you
> sue for compensation.

There's nothing unreasonable about expecting a badly designed product
to be pulled from the market or remedied. Expecting manufacturers or
the government to fix designs shown by good evidence to be boneheaded
doesn't commit anyone to your straw-man proposition that all products
must undergo pre-approval.

>
> > That's one thing I don't understand about the debate here. Given the
> > fact that responsible people acknowledge that the current design is
> > less than ideal, to say the least, shouldn't riders who use disc
> > brakes be warned that there are more reasons than usual to check one's
> > quick releases? (I'm not saying that's an adequate response to the
> > problem, only a bare minimum.) Has the industry done that? -- I don't
> > think so. Why not? I suspect the reason is that the industry feels
> > such a warning would lead to pressure for an immediate recall or for a
> > redesigned fork.
>
> Every manual warns you to check your quick release for tightness before
> every ride. But yes, you're probably correct.. These companies are in
> business, and unless they're willing to admit something and take a beating
> while their competitors get a free pass, you're not likely to find anyone
> volunteering. Perfect world? Yeah, they design it perfectly, cheaply, for
> everyone. But this is reality.
>
If I read those warnings without knowing about this specific problem,
I would probably think to myself, "I've been using quick releases for
decades. I don't have to be instructed in their use." On the other
hand, if the manual said that there was an added danger with disc
brakes, I would probably be more careful. Do the manuals give that
kind of specific warning? Do the manuals talk about how using certain
quick releases (such as those with aluminum faces, less clamping force
or no serrations) may make the danger even greater?

Perfect world vs. reality? Nonsense. Fixing the problem would be very
simple from a technical standpoint.

[Jose Rizal]

:

> I searched in google groups, but I can't seem to find your brakes "in
> evidence" in the 500+ post thread where Jim Beam posted about serrated
> fasteners. Was your post in that thread or months or years earlier?

Might be easier if you just Google my name.

[[email protected]]

Robert F. Jones writes:

>>> From what I've read, a trailing arm disk brake does indeed produce
>>> a force that would tend to eject an unsecured front wheel, but
>>> something seems to keep the vast majority of front wheels in
>>> place.

>> Can't we just get along with the "majority" without the hyperbole
>> of "vast" or "overwhelming". I'm overwhelmed by these words that
>> merely mean "most".

> Except that "most" does not adequately describe the magnitude of the
> majority. You call "vast" hyperbole - fine. So, if you were to
> suggest some word to modify "majority" to illustrate some large, yet
> unknown, proportion, what would that word be?

> The exact figure is unknown, and the incidence of ejection seems to
> be rare, from anecdotal evidence. So, what adjective passes muster
> of accurately describing the condition, without extending to
> hyperbole? "Most" is too broad. Majority can describe any quantity
> over 50%, up to but not including 100%.

You may believe that is "too broad" but it is accurate and to the
point. Only because people have used "overwhelming majority" so
often, they believe it is essential to make their point, just as
people whose "very" with most adjectives. To say "What effect will
this have on comprehension of the subject?" is also passe to most
people, having adopted the form "What impact will this have on
comprehension of the subject?" I suspect this came about partly
because people can't decide whether effect or affect is the right
form, just as they can't decide whether it is who or whom. We don't
teach no English grammar in school no more!

> It's easy to criticize, but much harder to come up with a real
> solution. In this case, a word that accurately reflects the enormous,
> immense, huge, gargantuan, elephantine, vast, overwhelming proportion
> of non-events to events.

I have come up with a solution and that is to mount the caliper ahead
of the fork stanchion. That gets rid of not only the ejection force
but the force reversal on the axle, the effect that can loosen QR's if
they are not brutally tight.

>>> So far, no one has posted a follow-up about marking their front
>>> axles,

>> My front axles don't even have knurling on their lock nuts, being
>> ancient Campagnolo Record hubs from the 1960's... as in:

> Good thing you're not using disk brakes then, hmmm?

I don't need no steenkin discs. Discs on road bicycles require a
heavier fork, the torsional loads at the dropout being greater than
those at the fork crown where the fork tube cross sections are several
times as large as at the dropout. Few people ever think about why
that is so but the problem is there.

> Not that I expect any response, anyway. What is the world coming to?
> Having been a victim of Fogellian Hyperbole(TM), here I am, appearing
> to defend his use of the language.

> :shakes head:

Why do you suppose you won't get a response?

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Scott Anderson writes:

>> this is true, but I have to say, I'm averse to straight-thru's
>> because it's a much bigger pita fixing a flat with one of those
>> compared to a normal q/r.

> Perfect example..you are quite willing to accept the risk of the
> wheel being ejected to have the freedom to remove the wheel more
> quickly and easily. It's not always possible to design for both and
> it's nice to have the choice. Personally, I'm with you.

In this case it is possible and by placing the caliper ahead of the
fork stanchion the problem is completely solved to the limit. In
fact, if there is no lift off from the ground, such a wheel would not
disengage even if the QR were open and there were no retention ridges.

>> "feel" /may/ be a factor, but I seriously doubt it's a measurable
>> difference. The bending moment, at the same point, is the same
>> whether it be tension or compression. It's only the material
>> fatigue performance that is measurable from what I can see. And we
>> /are/ talking mass produced castings here.

> I think it was a case of locating the mass of the caliper closer to
> the steering axis to provide lighter steering with more feedback.
> Personally, I can't comment on whether this is true or not. It's
> outside of my detection abilities.

Oh hogwash. At that radius the rotational moment of inertia is
imperceptible compared to that of the wheel that is at least 4x
farther off axis. I'm amazed at what straws apologists will grasp to
support their point of view.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 02:51:48 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:

:
>
>> I searched in google groups, but I can't seem to find your brakes "in
>> evidence" in the 500+ post thread where Jim Beam posted about serrated
>> fasteners. Was your post in that thread or months or years earlier?
>
>Might be easier if you just Google my name.

Dear Jose,

How does broadening the search to look for every post you've ever
written lead me to a specific post, assuming that there was one?

Carl Fogel

[jim beam]

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>>it's no more "flawed" than left side lug nuts on cars having right
>>handed threads, when large commercial vehicles [correctly] have left
>>handed threads on the left side of the vehicle! the point is, if
>>there's no failure, what's to fix?
>
>
> The tapered seat makes the left threading unecessary.

are you just parroting a jobstism said or do you know that to be fact?
why don't big rigs just go to tapered seats and right hand threads all
round? and is there /any/ possibility that tapered seats have more to
do with centering than anything else?

come on alex, think for yourself.

[Mark South]

> wrote in message
...
> Robert F. Jones writes:

> > It's easy to criticize, but much harder to come up with a real
> > solution. In this case, a word that accurately reflects the enormous,
> > immense, huge, gargantuan, elephantine, vast, overwhelming proportion
> > of non-events to events.
>
> I have come up with a solution and that is to mount the caliper ahead
> of the fork stanchion. That gets rid of not only the ejection force
> but the force reversal on the axle, the effect that can loosen QR's if
> they are not brutally tight.

Motorcycles originally had the disk caliper palaced forward of the stanchion,
but they later evolved to placing it to the rear of the stanchion in order to
reduce the moment of inertia about the steering axis. This requirement
apparently came about because of shimmy problems attributed to the change from
drums to disks with front mounted calipers.

Would you expect forward-mounted calipers to pose a similar problem for
bicyclists?

> I don't need no steenkin discs. Discs on road bicycles require a
> heavier fork, the torsional loads at the dropout being greater than
> those at the fork crown where the fork tube cross sections are several
> times as large as at the dropout. Few people ever think about why
> that is so but the problem is there.

The danger is assuming that a solution that has good tradeoffs in one
application is therefore the best across the board.
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>

[Evan Evans]

Ok well the only real solution to this problem is to add the little
safty clips to the hub like the cheep schwinns used. Problem solved.

[S. Anderson]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Oh hogwash. At that radius the rotational moment of inertia is
> imperceptible compared to that of the wheel that is at least 4x
> farther off axis. I'm amazed at what straws apologists will grasp to
> support their point of view.

Don't put words in my mouth Jobst. That is the setiment of the motorcycle
designers who to a man put the caliper on the back of the fork and that's
their reasoning, not mine. I've stated all along the design is flawed and
I'm hardly an apologist for the industry or group that feels the current
design is perfect.

Scott..

[Jose Rizal]

:


>
> How does broadening the search to look for every post you've ever
> written lead me to a specific post, assuming that there was one?

I'm not sure what you are after here, but whatever it is, it's your
undertaking, not mine.

[Jonesy]

wrote in message >...
> Robert F. Jones writes:
>
> >> Can't we just get along with the "majority" without the hyperbole
> >> of "vast" or "overwhelming". I'm overwhelmed by these words that
> >> merely mean "most".
>
> > Except that "most" does not adequately describe the magnitude of the
> > majority. You call "vast" hyperbole - fine. So, if you were to
> > suggest some word to modify "majority" to illustrate some large, yet
> > unknown, proportion, what would that word be?
>
> > The exact figure is unknown, and the incidence of ejection seems to
> > be rare, from anecdotal evidence. So, what adjective passes muster
> > of accurately describing the condition, without extending to
> > hyperbole? "Most" is too broad. Majority can describe any quantity
> > over 50%, up to but not including 100%.
>
> You may believe that is "too broad" but it is accurate and to the
> point.

Accuracy and precision are not the same thing. "Majority" and "most"
are indeed accurate. They do not convey the disparity between events
and non events. Most airline flights do not result in fiery crashes
and large loss of life. Most trips on a bicycle do not result in
being run over by a large motor vehicle, or losing a front wheel and
becoming paralyzed for life.

> Only because people have used "overwhelming majority" so
> often, they believe it is essential to make their point, just as
> people whose "very" with most adjectives.

To chastize Mr. Fogel for using an apt modifier to describe the
UNKNOWN, LARGE magnitude of disparity between events and non-event is
nitpickery to the nth degree. If the quanity were known, then a
precise modifer could be used. Of course, your opinion on the subject
could be subtext for your objection. By complaining about descriptive
words that are closing in more precisely on the ratio of non-events to
events, the problem could appear to be worse than it actually is.

The irony of you questioning an English teacher on the use of language
has not passed unnoticed, however.

[red herring snipped]

> > It's easy to criticize, but much harder to come up with a real
> > solution. In this case, a word that accurately reflects the enormous,
> > immense, huge, gargantuan, elephantine, vast, overwhelming proportion
> > of non-events to events.
>
> I have come up with a solution... [snip deliberate red herring]

You proposed disk-brake solution is well-known to most readers of this
forum. No need for petty semantics tricks.

You complained about Mr. Fogel's use of language, and yet do not have
a solution beyond pedantic reiteration of vague words that convey an
idea of majority, but no real idea of how large the majority is. I
deem your use of "most" and "majority" as unsuitably vague and
potentially misleading.


> >>> So far, no one has posted a follow-up about marking their front
> >>> axles,
>
> >> My front axles don't even have knurling on their lock nuts, being
> >> ancient Campagnolo Record hubs from the 1960's... as in:
>
> > Good thing you're not using disk brakes then, hmmm?
>
> I don't need no steenkin discs.

So, I suppose that means nobody might actually want to use them for
any reason? You wouldn't want to say that, and I am not proposing to
erect that strawman. Your reasons for not wanting them on a road bike
are great. What does that have to do with the price of fish in
Manila? I would say that the vast, overwhelming majority of disk
applications are for bicycles intended for off-road use.

> > Not that I expect any response, anyway. What is the world coming to?
> > Having been a victim of Fogellian Hyperbole(TM), here I am, appearing
> > to defend his use of the language.
>
> > :shakes head:
>
> Why do you suppose you won't get a response?

You have the habits of a drive-by replier. Shoot in a pithy comment,
then speed off.

I am pleasantly surprised.
--
Jonesy

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:42:48 +0200, "Mark South"
> wrote:

[snip]

>
>Motorcycles originally had the disk caliper palaced forward of the stanchion,
>but they later evolved to placing it to the rear of the stanchion in order to
>reduce the moment of inertia about the steering axis. This requirement
>apparently came about because of shimmy problems attributed to the change from
>drums to disks with front mounted calipers.
>

[snip]

Dear Mark,

The shimmy problem that you mention sounds like a reasonable
explanation for the rear caliper on normal motorcycles, but of course
shimmy wouldn't matter on snail-like trials machines. They evolved
disk brakes later than other machines and still stubbornly place the
caliper in front.

Since delicate handling matters more than anything in trials, it's
likely that putting the caliper in front achieves better handling at
ultra-low-speed speeds than putting it in the back.

Here's a picture of a typical trials disk brake in last week's
Scottish Six Days Trial, showing its three-armed round bash guard
obscuring most of its front caliper:

http://www.ssdt.org/Thursday/IMG_4080.jpg

He's probably moving at a brisk 6 mph.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 07:54:23 -0400, "S. Anderson"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>>
>> Oh hogwash. At that radius the rotational moment of inertia is
>> imperceptible compared to that of the wheel that is at least 4x
>> farther off axis. I'm amazed at what straws apologists will grasp to
>> support their point of view.
>
>Don't put words in my mouth Jobst. That is the setiment of the motorcycle
>designers who to a man put the caliper on the back of the fork and that's
>their reasoning, not mine. I've stated all along the design is flawed and
>I'm hardly an apologist for the industry or group that feels the current
>design is perfect.
>
>Scott..
>

Dear Scott,

While you're right that street motorcycles hang their calipers off the
back, trials machines stick it on the front. The extraordinarily low
speed trials machines seem to handle better with that arrangement.

Here's a gallery of pictures from last week's Scottish Six Days Trial
showing the leading calipers and crawling-speed terrain:

http://www.ssdt.org/monday/IMG_3822.jpg

Above walking speeds, rear calipers seem to provide such better
handling that it's worth the awkward position (motorycle mechanics
prefer easier-to-get-at front calipers.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 15:05:45 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:

:
>
>
>>
>> How does broadening the search to look for every post you've ever
>> written lead me to a specific post, assuming that there was one?
>
>I'm not sure what you are after here, but whatever it is, it's your
>undertaking, not mine.

Dear Jose,

I was just trying to see if there was any substance behind your
original obnoxious post. So far, you've come up empty again and again.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

Mark South writes:

>>> It's easy to criticize, but much harder to come up with a real
>>> solution. In this case, a word that accurately reflects the
>>> enormous, immense, huge, gargantuan, elephantine, vast,
>>> overwhelming proportion of non-events to events.

>> I have come up with a solution and that is to mount the caliper
>> ahead of the fork stanchion. That gets rid of not only the
>> ejection force but the force reversal on the axle, the effect that
>> can loosen QR's if they are not brutally tight.

> Motorcycles originally had the disk caliper placed forward of the
> stanchion, but they later evolved to placing it to the rear of the
> stanchion in order to reduce the moment of inertia about the
> steering axis. This requirement apparently came about because of
> shimmy problems attributed to the change from drums to disks with
> front mounted calipers.

> Would you expect forward-mounted calipers to pose a similar problem
> for bicyclists?

I don't know what moved motorcycle discs to the rear of the fork but I
can imagine that fashion had an effect. The caliper is less
obtrusive, almost hidden from the face of the motorcycle when behind
the fork. Since wheel attachment on motorcycles is not manually
closed and often opened to release the wheel, there is little reason
to not put the caliper wherever it is most convenient and best
appearing. I don't believe the shimmy connection. Motorcycles have
shimmied for a long time and Harleys, in particular were noted in the
days of yore to "sunfish" flipping at low frequency from side to side.

>> I don't need no steenkin discs. Discs on road bicycles require a
>> heavier fork, the torsional loads at the dropout being greater than
>> those at the fork crown where the fork tube cross sections are
>> several times as large as at the dropout. Few people ever think
>> about why that is so but the problem is there.

> The danger is assuming that a solution that has good tradeoffs in one
> application is therefore the best across the board.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Please clarify.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Scott Anderson writes:

>> Oh hogwash. At that radius the rotational moment of inertia is
>> imperceptible compared to that of the wheel that is at least 4x
>> farther off axis. I'm amazed at what straws apologists will grasp
>> to support their point of view.

> Don't put words in my mouth Jobst. That is the setiment of the
> motorcycle designers who to a man put the caliper on the back of the
> fork and that's their reasoning, not mine. I've stated all along
> the design is flawed and I'm hardly an apologist for the industry or
> group that feels the current design is perfect.

Well don't repeat things you disagree with and that play into urban
legends. Where, other than scuttlebutt, is the front end stability
documented?

Jobst Brandt

[Jose Rizal]

:

> >I'm not sure what you are after here, but whatever it is, it's your
> >undertaking, not mine.
>
> I was just trying to see if there was any substance behind your
> original obnoxious post. So far, you've come up empty again and again.

Ah, so the insults finally come, in the absence of any intelligent input
from your befuddled mind.

If by my "original obnoxious post" you mean the one pointing out the
errors in your parroting of other people's posts, then yes, I've done
that.

If by "coming up empty again and again" you mean I'm disinclined to help
you spend hours rummaging through archived posts because you've badly
missed many of the issues that have already been discussed "again and
again", then yes, I did that.

Seeing as how you haven't contributed anything from your own analyses to
this issue, it's quite rich of you to accuse anyone of coming up "empty
again and again". And no, hosting other people's pictures don't nearly
qualify.

[Mark South]

> wrote in message
...
> Mark South writes:
>
> >>> It's easy to criticize, but much harder to come up with a real
> >>> solution. In this case, a word that accurately reflects the
> >>> enormous, immense, huge, gargantuan, elephantine, vast,
> >>> overwhelming proportion of non-events to events.
>
> >> I have come up with a solution and that is to mount the caliper
> >> ahead of the fork stanchion. That gets rid of not only the
> >> ejection force but the force reversal on the axle, the effect that
> >> can loosen QR's if they are not brutally tight.
>
> > Motorcycles originally had the disk caliper placed forward of the
> > stanchion, but they later evolved to placing it to the rear of the
> > stanchion in order to reduce the moment of inertia about the
> > steering axis. This requirement apparently came about because of
> > shimmy problems attributed to the change from drums to disks with
> > front mounted calipers.
>
> > Would you expect forward-mounted calipers to pose a similar problem
> > for bicyclists?
>
> I don't know what moved motorcycle discs to the rear of the fork but I
> can imagine that fashion had an effect. The caliper is less
> obtrusive, almost hidden from the face of the motorcycle when behind
> the fork. Since wheel attachment on motorcycles is not manually
> closed and often opened to release the wheel, there is little reason
> to not put the caliper wherever it is most convenient and best
> appearing. I don't believe the shimmy connection. Motorcycles have
> shimmied for a long time and Harleys, in particular were noted in the
> days of yore to "sunfish" flipping at low frequency from side to side.

Hence my *very* careful insertion of the word "attributed".

> >> I don't need no steenkin discs. Discs on road bicycles require a
> >> heavier fork, the torsional loads at the dropout being greater than
> >> those at the fork crown where the fork tube cross sections are
> >> several times as large as at the dropout. Few people ever think
> >> about why that is so but the problem is there.
>
> > The danger is assuming that a solution that has good tradeoffs in one
> > application is therefore the best across the board.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by that. Please clarify.

It goes like this: rims brakes have problems for extreme offroad use in mud.
(So I am told. They've never failed me, but I'm not a hardcore MTBer.)
Therefore disks were introduced as a solution. The tradeoff of using brakes
that are more complex, heavy, require fork modifications and dished front wheels
et etc was seen as worthwhile in order to achieve better brake functon, which is
(after all) one of the fundamental control dimensions of a bicycle.

Therefore disks are the latest thing. Therefore they are put on all kinds of
other bikes. Therefore eventually all bikes will have to have disks, even those
for which the tradeoff works in the opposite direction, and where rim brakes
would be a superior solution - for example where they function just as well but
are lighter and simpler. That's the extension from "best in one application" to
"best across the board".

Now I know that you know all this, because you're an engineer. I know that
marketroids (a) can't understand the chain of reasoning, and (b) wouldn't care
anyway. So I suppose all the persiflage above is a gloss on your version of
"Disks? We don't need no steenkin' disks!"
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:59:51 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:

:
>
>> >I'm not sure what you are after here, but whatever it is, it's your
>> >undertaking, not mine.
>>
>> I was just trying to see if there was any substance behind your
>> original obnoxious post. So far, you've come up empty again and again.
>
>Ah, so the insults finally come, in the absence of any intelligent input
>from your befuddled mind.
>
>If by my "original obnoxious post" you mean the one pointing out the
>errors in your parroting of other people's posts, then yes, I've done
>that.
>
>If by "coming up empty again and again" you mean I'm disinclined to help
>you spend hours rummaging through archived posts because you've badly
>missed many of the issues that have already been discussed "again and
>again", then yes, I did that.
>
>Seeing as how you haven't contributed anything from your own analyses to
>this issue, it's quite rich of you to accuse anyone of coming up "empty
>again and again". And no, hosting other people's pictures don't nearly
>qualify.
>

Dear Jose,

Empty again and again.

And yet again.

I do indeed parrot other people's posts as clearly as I can to
summarize a situation. I'm happy to host pictures for anyone. I don't
sneer that everyone else has overlooked what was supposedly said
earlier, but somehow can't be found. I try to give credit when someone
else has been the first to raise a specific point, such as Jim Beam
pointing out the widely overlooked resistance of serrated fasteners.

You]ve promised that there will never be any pictures from you.

You've implied a precedence and claimed that your forks were in
evidence, but when asked where your posts could be found, you haven't
come up with anything.

If you begin by sneering that people should have read what you wrote,
you ought to be able to tell them where it is.

If you think that it would take hours to find what you wrote, why
suggest that other people should remember it?

My posts included links to the diagram of forces, to the pictures of
Jim Beam's forks, and to posts in the thread in question.

If Jose Rizal can't tell us where to find his evidence, his arguments,
and his posts, but insists that we shouldn't have ignored him, what
else can we call him but obnoxious?

I'd still be pleased to see a link to whatever you did say. It might
well have been interesting. But your posts so far here seem to assume
that the whole world knows what you said somewhere else, but can't
quite remember what or where it was.

Good luck,

Carl Fogel

[Doug Taylor]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:59:51 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:

>Seeing as how you haven't contributed anything from your own analyses to
>this issue, it's quite rich of you to accuse anyone of coming up "empty
>again and again".

Actually, he caught you telling a bald faced lie and you keep digging
a deeper hole and won't drop it.

Get a clue.

[Jose Rizal]

Doug Taylor:

> On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:59:51 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:
>
> >Seeing as how you haven't contributed anything from your own analyses to
> >this issue, it's quite rich of you to accuse anyone of coming up "empty
> >again and again".
>
> Actually, he caught you telling a bald faced lie and you keep digging
> a deeper hole and won't drop it.

Huh? Do you even know what you're talking about?

> Get a clue.

How apt for you.

[[email protected]]

Mark South writes:

> It goes like this: rims brakes have problems for extreme offroad use
> in mud. (So I am told. They've never failed me, but I'm not a
> hard core MTBer.) Therefore disks were introduced as a solution.
> The tradeoff of using brakes that are more complex, heavy, require
> fork modifications and dished front wheels et etc was seen as
> worthwhile in order to achieve better brake function, which is (after
> all) one of the fundamental control dimensions of a bicycle.

I think discs are well suited for the mucky dirt market and even for
other off-road and suspension bicycles where the weight of the bicycle
has already been compromised for special functions. For the road,
bicycles are still designed for light weight so the addition of a disc
and caliper, torque bearing fork ends and hydraulic reservoirs all
constitute additional weight and complexity over the side pull rim
brake. STI is already a compromise of weight considerations and
complexity.

> Therefore disks are the latest thing. Therefore they are put on all
> kinds of other bikes. Therefore eventually all bikes will have to
> have disks, even those for which the tradeoff works in the opposite
> direction, and where rim brakes would be a superior solution - for
> example where they function just as well but are lighter and
> simpler. That's the extension from "best in one application" to
> "best across the board".

The bicycle market, being driven by fashion, has brought us all sorts
of odd designs, most of which are justified by "spin doctors" that
make them sound useful and reasonable. Take, for instance, saddles
with clefts of all sorts and wheels with paired spokes ala Lovelace
(pat. 1890) aka Rolf. On our local parade route (Foothill Expy),
the latest fads are immediately on display in large numbers.

> Now I know that you know all this, because you're an engineer. I
> know that marketroids (a) can't understand the chain of reasoning,
> and (b) wouldn't care anyway. So I suppose all the persiflage above
> is a gloss on your version of "Disks? We don't need no steenkin'
> disks!"

I hope that those who enjoy bicycling and reliable, useful equipment
don't fall for that approach and continue to demand functional
equipment. I am glad that I can still fully equip myself in
reasonable parts and clothing.

Jobst Brandt

[Jose Rizal]

:


> Dear Jose,
>
> Empty again and again.
>
> And yet again.

Well, perhaps if you say it again and again and again, it might become
true.

I doubt it, though.

> I do indeed parrot other people's posts as clearly as I can to
> summarize a situation. <snip>

Indeed. You also resurrect old threads that have been bashed to death,
and somehow make it appear as if these are your fresh insight. Then
when you are shown to have missed aspects of the discussion and are
unabel to find it on your own, you whine about it. You are perfectly
entitled to do these things, but don't let your ineptness in searches
allow you to reach baseless conclusions.

> You]ve promised that there will never be any pictures from you.

Really? You have a comprehension problem as well. Just point out where
it is I've stated that, or did you mistake it with this reply: "I don't
and don't expect to have any". This means I don't expect to have any
pictures of gouged dropouts due to the loosening mechanism some have
proposed. What I expect and what the outcome of my fork monitoring is
may be two different things. How you translated that to 'never have any
pictures" is beyond me. The confusion is all in your head, not mine.

> You've implied a precedence

A precedence on what? Comprehension skills failing you again?

> and claimed that your forks were in
> evidence, but when asked where your posts could be found, you haven't
> come up with anything.

That, again, is due to your inability to find it, nothing to do with
questions as to its existence.

> If you begin by sneering that people should have read what you wrote,
> you ought to be able to tell them where it is.

Sigh.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=jose+rizal+marked+group:rec.bicycles.tech&hl=en&lr=&group=rec.bicycles.tech&selm=LpK7c.3638%24HP.694%40newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net&rnum=1

and

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=jose+rizal+mark+group:rec.bicycles.tech&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.bicycles.tech&selm=ZFK7c.3666%24HP.862%40newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net&rnum=3

> If you think that it would take hours to find what you wrote, why
> suggest that other people should remember it?

If you accuse someone of lying, why do you expect any help from same?
If you want to play Archive Master, don't expect anyone else to do the
work for you. But hey, I've been generous, so consider the above a
gift.

> My posts included links to the diagram of forces, to the pictures of
> Jim Beam's forks, and to posts in the thread in question.

You want a medal?

> If Jose Rizal can't tell us where to find his evidence, his arguments,
> and his posts, but insists that we shouldn't have ignored him, what
> else can we call him but obnoxious?

Just who do you think you're addressing with this? Okay, I'll play
along:
If Carl Fogel can't do a basic Google search, but instead whine and rant
like an ignored child, and insist that others help him, then go on the
offensive when help is not forthcoming, what else can we call him but
senile?

> I'd still be pleased to see a link to whatever you did say. It might
> well have been interesting. But your posts so far here seem to assume
> that the whole world knows what you said somewhere else, but can't
> quite remember what or where it was.

Well, never displease the Great Carl Fogel, lest you be subjected to a
childish challenge... but bear in mind that not everyone is as inclined
as your puppet Doug Taylor.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 04:28:23 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:

:
>
>
>> Dear Jose,
>>
>> Empty again and again.
>>
>> And yet again.
>
>Well, perhaps if you say it again and again and again, it might become
>true.
>
>I doubt it, though.
>
>> I do indeed parrot other people's posts as clearly as I can to
>> summarize a situation. <snip>
>
>Indeed. You also resurrect old threads that have been bashed to death,
>and somehow make it appear as if these are your fresh insight. Then
>when you are shown to have missed aspects of the discussion and are
>unabel to find it on your own, you whine about it. You are perfectly
>entitled to do these things, but don't let your ineptness in searches
>allow you to reach baseless conclusions.
>
>> You]ve promised that there will never be any pictures from you.
>
>Really? You have a comprehension problem as well. Just point out where
>it is I've stated that, or did you mistake it with this reply: "I don't
>and don't expect to have any". This means I don't expect to have any
>pictures of gouged dropouts due to the loosening mechanism some have
>proposed. What I expect and what the outcome of my fork monitoring is
>may be two different things. How you translated that to 'never have any
>pictures" is beyond me. The confusion is all in your head, not mine.
>
>> You've implied a precedence
>
>A precedence on what? Comprehension skills failing you again?
>
>> and claimed that your forks were in
>> evidence, but when asked where your posts could be found, you haven't
>> come up with anything.
>
>That, again, is due to your inability to find it, nothing to do with
>questions as to its existence.
>
>> If you begin by sneering that people should have read what you wrote,
>> you ought to be able to tell them where it is.
>
>Sigh.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=jose+rizal+marked+group:rec.bicycles.tech&hl=en&lr=&group=rec.bicycles.tech&selm=LpK7c.3638%24HP.694%40newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net&rnum=1
>
>and
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=jose+rizal+mark+group:rec.bicycles.tech&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.bicycles.tech&selm=ZFK7c.3666%24HP.862%40newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net&rnum=3
>
>> If you think that it would take hours to find what you wrote, why
>> suggest that other people should remember it?
>
>If you accuse someone of lying, why do you expect any help from same?
>If you want to play Archive Master, don't expect anyone else to do the
>work for you. But hey, I've been generous, so consider the above a
>gift.
>
>> My posts included links to the diagram of forces, to the pictures of
>> Jim Beam's forks, and to posts in the thread in question.
>
>You want a medal?
>
>> If Jose Rizal can't tell us where to find his evidence, his arguments,
>> and his posts, but insists that we shouldn't have ignored him, what
>> else can we call him but obnoxious?
>
>Just who do you think you're addressing with this? Okay, I'll play
>along:
>If Carl Fogel can't do a basic Google search, but instead whine and rant
>like an ignored child, and insist that others help him, then go on the
>offensive when help is not forthcoming, what else can we call him but
>senile?
>
>> I'd still be pleased to see a link to whatever you did say. It might
>> well have been interesting. But your posts so far here seem to assume
>> that the whole world knows what you said somewhere else, but can't
>> quite remember what or where it was.
>
>Well, never displease the Great Carl Fogel, lest you be subjected to a
>childish challenge... but bear in mind that not everyone is as inclined
>as your puppet Doug Taylor.

Dear Jose,

You're right and I'm wrong. You did post in the thread in question,
the one with 500+ posts.

The first one says:

"2. No movement so far on my own skewer which is marked against the
fork and has done about 425 offroad kms since being marked, with many
instances of hard front disc braking."

The second one says

"Already doing this, with no sign of movement (yet?) and approaching
the 450 offroad km mark."

Your links show you couldn't find the posts by googling for your name
alone, as you told me to do.

You ended up googling within google groups for "jose+rizal+marked" for
the first one and for "jose+rizal+mark" for the second. Why would I
google for "mark" when I was asking about serrations?

As for the rest, I think that you're wrong and I'm right about your
attitude, implications of precedence, and being obnoxious--the last
comment could rest on your last reply alone, but some of it stems from
writing half-clear, arrogant, insulting comments and then complaining
that everyone has misunderstood you.

Look how many questions it took to get an answer with substance from
you.

And consider that your opening post in this thread seemed intended to
make enemies of people inclined to agree with you about the ejection
matter.

In any case, has there been any movement in your marked skewers in the
last seven weeks? I expect that anyone who's following the thread
would be interested in that, plus the kilometers.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:42:38 -0400, Doug Taylor
> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:59:51 GMT, Jose Rizal > wrote:
>
>>Seeing as how you haven't contributed anything from your own analyses to
>>this issue, it's quite rich of you to accuse anyone of coming up "empty
>>again and again".
>
>Actually, he caught you telling a bald faced lie and you keep digging
>a deeper hole and won't drop it.
>
>Get a clue.

Dear Doug,

No, Jose wasn't lying. He did finally come up with links to his posts
in the huge thread in question.

And if anyone wasn't dropping it, it was me. I doubt that I handled it
very well, but I was exasperated--patience wasn't getting any answers.
Blame me for misleading you.

What I expect bothered you was the same thing that bothered me. Jose's
posts were obnoxious, arrogant, and so unclear that it was some time
before I realized that he actually agrees with Jim Beam to the extent
that they both believe that properly closed quick release skewers do
not show signs of ejection from trailing disk brakes.

Unfortunately, anyone who begins obnoxiously and then repeatedly
dodges plain requests for where to find his own posts after he cites
them as evidence and says that they're easy to find will end up in an
unenviable position.

And so will people like me who lose patience.

Jose did come up empty repeatedly, as far as I can see, but he finally
did post links to the posts that he mentioned. Judging by the search
criteria in his links, they weren't nearly as easy to find as he
claimed. And I still can't see what prompted his initial snarling
post, other than a visceral dislike for anyone who mentions Jim Beam's
comments.

Again, sorry that I led you into this.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Doug Taylor]

wrote:

>Again, sorry that I led you into this.

Alas, I must take responsibility for my own actions. He sounded
obnoxious so I dropped a dime. My bad for not paying attention to the
content of the tread. We'll get over it; we're all hardened flame
warriors here.
--dt

[Jose Rizal]

:

> What I expect bothered you was the same thing that bothered me. Jose's
> posts were obnoxious, arrogant, and so unclear that it was some time
> before I realized that he actually agrees with Jim Beam to the extent
> that they both believe that properly closed quick release skewers do
> not show signs of ejection from trailing disk brakes.
>
> Unfortunately, anyone who begins obnoxiously and then repeatedly
> dodges plain requests for where to find his own posts after he cites
> them as evidence and says that they're easy to find will end up in an
> unenviable position.

It's paradoxical that you accuse me of arrogance and obnoxiousness, when
you exhibit it so clearly with the above reply. Even after admitting
that the error was on your part, you still insist that the fault is not
yours. How arrogant of you to assume that the lack of clarity of my
posts has nothing to do with your inability to comprehend them, choosing
instead to believe that your reading skills are infallible.

How ignorant of you to assume that the economy of words in my posts
equate to obnoxiousness, when you so clearly defined your basis for this
judgement as reliant upon my supplying you with the links you so dearly
coveted. The links have been supplied, and yet it's still not your
fault.

And how disingenuous of you to view your inability to dig up previous
posts as my "dodging plain requests" to find them; you have a problem in
accepting your own flaws, and your choice in blaming others for your
failings do nothing to your credibility.

> Jose did come up empty repeatedly, as far as I can see, but he finally
> did post links to the posts that he mentioned.

Yes, still grasping at insults to the end, trying unsuccessfully to
justify your tantrum. Be graceful Carl, show us what you've learned in
your many years of life.

> Judging by the search
> criteria in his links, they weren't nearly as easy to find as he
> claimed.

A simpleton could have found those links; you would jave known this if
only you thought a bit more about the appropriate search words. Since
you are so devoted to summarizing archived posts, I suggest you become
more proficient in this skill.

> And I still can't see what prompted his initial snarling
> post, other than a visceral dislike for anyone who mentions Jim Beam's
> comments.

Snarling? You have a strange way of viewing the world. But then it
doesn't surprise me that you exaggerate reality, purely because you
still are trying to justify your tantrum.

[Jose Rizal]

:

> Your links show you couldn't find the posts by googling for your name
> alone, as you told me to do.
>
> You ended up googling within google groups for "jose+rizal+marked" for
> the first one and for "jose+rizal+mark" for the second. Why would I
> google for "mark" when I was asking about serrations?

Carl, I can't believe that you can look at those posts and tell me that
you cannot come up with simple words related to the issue with which you
could couple to my name and come up with the same posts. Are you really
asserting that the words fork, dropout/s, disc, brake, loosening, QR and
many, many more, coupled with my name, and dated within the last three
months would not have brought out those two posts? Say it ain't so.

I used the words mark and marked because I knew I used those words in my
post.

> As for the rest, I think that you're wrong and I'm right about your
> attitude,

How do you know my initial attitude? You've inferred it and erred
badly.

> implications of precedence,

I've asked you before to state where this occurred, and you provided no
answer; tell me again about "dodging".

> and being obnoxious--

Look back on the thread, and see which one threw the first insult, Carl.
Here's a hint: one of us did it, and it wasn't me.

> the last
> comment could rest on your last reply alone,

The operative word being "reply". In reply to your insulting post,
Carl.

> but some of it stems from
> writing half-clear,

You were free to query the specific parts which you did not understand.

> arrogant, insulting comments and then complaining
> that everyone has misunderstood you.

Not everyone Carl, just you. And Doug Taylor, of course.

> Look how many questions it took to get an answer with substance from
> you.

I see, and obviously you assume that others have an obligation to fill
in the gaps in your data collection which stemmed from _your_ _own_
desire and undertaking of summarizing archived posts, and do the work
for you when you failed in your archive search. That's quite a
distinctive approach, I must say.

> And consider that your opening post in this thread seemed intended to
> make enemies of people inclined to agree with you about the ejection
> matter.

Another subjective judgement. But hey, we're all entitled to these.

And the answer to your last query is no, there has not been any movement
in the marked QR knobs on my monitored fork. There has only been an
additional 90kms or so added to it since my last post on the issue, this
being in only one of several bikes I ride.

[Doug Taylor]

Jose Rizal > wrote:

>> arrogant, insulting comments and then complaining
>> that everyone has misunderstood you.
>
>Not everyone Carl, just you. And Doug Taylor, of course.

Actually, I didn't misunderstand you. I just got bored wading through
your voluminous whiny posts, figured you were an obnoxious moron,
stopped reading, and fired away. So I got it wrong. Sometimes context
precedes content.

--dt

[dvt]

wrote:
> I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any rebuttal to Jim's point
> about properly closed serrated fasteners offering far too much
> resistance for the calculated ejection force to overcome.

There are alternate designs with minimal impact on brake hardware that
are much more foolproof. They don't rely on the user attaining optimal
clamping force with the QR to prevent the loss of a front wheel under
hard braking. I don't think any further rebuttal is necessary.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu