A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Selecting An Appropriate Bolt



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old April 22nd 17, 03:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default Selecting An Appropriate Bolt

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:25:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/20/2017 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:21:56 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:


A friend, who was an EWO on B-52's, once commented that it wasn't
exactly confidence building to go to war armed with equipment built by
the lowest bidder :-)

"a loose gaggle of compromises flying in close formation" - which is
why I'm building my own - - -


Building your own plane?

Yup. Rag and tube fuselage, all aluminum flying surfaces - 2 seet
side by side STOL highwing. Power on dirty stall about 18MPH, normal
landing speed about 35MPH - max cruise on 90HP between 100 and 120MPH
- cruise all day at about 85. Land and take off on a football field
without turning around or backtracking. Got a bad cross wind? No
problem - land it ACROSS the runway.

It's called a Pegazair 100.
Ads
  #92  
Old April 22nd 17, 03:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default Selecting An Appropriate Bolt

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau
wrote:

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro
wrote:

On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote:

Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads.
The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does.


I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped,
which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point.

Art

And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-)

This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year.


I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after
15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks
annually?


Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years.

It is a ridiculously high failure rate.

No, the whole bike will fall apart every 15 years, so do what most
guys do and replace the bike every 12-14 years - and suffer no major
failures - - - -
  #94  
Old April 22nd 17, 05:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,409
Default Selecting An Appropriate Bolt

On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro
wrote:

On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote:

Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads.
The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does.


I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped,
which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point.

Art

And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-)

This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after
15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks
annually?

Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years.


Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other
part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean
that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by
a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you
are certainly next?

You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all.


My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike.

Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate.

Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average.


.... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives
of 15 years, as in this classic poem:
http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #95  
Old April 22nd 17, 11:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Selecting An Appropriate Bolt

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau
wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro
wrote:

On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote:

Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads.
The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does.


I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped,
which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point.

Art

And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-)

This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after
15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks
annually?

Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years.


Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other
part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean
that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by
a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you
are certainly next?

You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all.


My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike.


Well, I guess I was probably aware that the bolt on the stem isn't the
only part on the bicycle, but your assertion that because one bolt
breaks it somehow relates to any, or all, other fasteners, or for that
matter anything else on the bicycle, is certainly not logical.

You seem to be arguing that one bolt somehow relates to all other
bolts and thus a failure of one bolt will be related to possible
failures of other bolts. It doesn't, you know. Bolts are of different
size, different materials, different loads imposed, etc.

As for 15, I'm not sure whether there are 15 bolts on a bicycle. Nope,
I just went out and counted the bolts on my road bike... only 10 :-)










Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate.

Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average.

Remember, our friend Jobst died recently from injuries resulting from a frame failure. He had been riding the frame since 1962 or something like that. Now, I'm not saying anything one way or the other about that event. I am not trying to argue that it should have lasted longer, nor, on the other hand, that he shouldn't have ridden it as long as he did. But I think that it provides an interesting reference point.



  #96  
Old April 22nd 17, 11:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Selecting An Appropriate Bolt

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:38:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro
wrote:

On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote:

Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads.
The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does.


I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped,
which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point.

Art

And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-)

This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after
15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks
annually?

Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years.


Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other
part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean
that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by
a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you
are certainly next?

You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all.


My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike.

Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate.

Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average.


... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives
of 15 years, as in this classic poem:
http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm


The "One Horse Shay" was written some years ago :-) But I maintained a
fleet of Datsun pickup trucks at one site that failed in an almost
identical manner. If one major part failed you could be sure that
nearly all other major parts would fail in the immediate future.

Canny people those Japanese :-)
  #97  
Old April 22nd 17, 05:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default Selecting An Appropriate Bolt

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:05:33 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:38:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro
wrote:

On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote:

Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads.
The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does.


I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped,
which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point.

Art

And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-)

This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after
15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks
annually?

Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years.


Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other
part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean
that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by
a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you
are certainly next?

You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all.

My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike.

Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate.

Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average.


... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives
of 15 years, as in this classic poem:
http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm


The "One Horse Shay" was written some years ago :-) But I maintained a
fleet of Datsun pickup trucks at one site that failed in an almost
identical manner. If one major part failed you could be sure that
nearly all other major parts would fail in the immediate future.

Canny people those Japanese :-)

Quite typical of Nissan - possibly due to their alliance with
Renault. I see a lot of good looking Nissans in the wrecking yards
because when they start to fail it's a fast downhill spiral - so a lot
of people scrap them rather than starting to repair them.

Just an observation -
  #98  
Old Yesterday, 08:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Selecting An Appropriate Bolt

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:59:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:05:33 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:38:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro
wrote:

On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote:

Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads.
The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does.


I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped,
which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point.

Art

And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-)

This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after
15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks
annually?

Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years.


Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other
part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean
that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by
a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you
are certainly next?

You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all.

My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike.

Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate.

Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average.

... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives
of 15 years, as in this classic poem:
http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm

The "One Horse Shay" was written some years ago :-) But I maintained a
fleet of Datsun pickup trucks at one site that failed in an almost
identical manner. If one major part failed you could be sure that
nearly all other major parts would fail in the immediate future.

Canny people those Japanese :-)

Quite typical of Nissan - possibly due to their alliance with
Renault. I see a lot of good looking Nissans in the wrecking yards
because when they start to fail it's a fast downhill spiral - so a lot
of people scrap them rather than starting to repair them.

Just an observation -


I suspect that it was the usual Japanese tactic of taking a design
which works and then figuring out how to reduce the cost of making
them without losing the quality (or much of it). The early days of the
35mm cameras is typical. The Japanese started making copies of
European 35mm cameras. Then when the Korean war started the news guys
discovered that they could buy a Nikon, just as good as a Leica, for
half the price.

  #99  
Old Yesterday, 08:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default Selecting An Appropriate Bolt

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:56:53 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:59:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:05:33 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:38:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro
wrote:

On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote:

Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads.
The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does.


I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped,
which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point.

Art

And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-)

This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after
15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks
annually?

Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years.


Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other
part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean
that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by
a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you
are certainly next?

You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all.

My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike.

Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate.

Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average.

... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives
of 15 years, as in this classic poem:
http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm

The "One Horse Shay" was written some years ago :-) But I maintained a
fleet of Datsun pickup trucks at one site that failed in an almost
identical manner. If one major part failed you could be sure that
nearly all other major parts would fail in the immediate future.

Canny people those Japanese :-)

Quite typical of Nissan - possibly due to their alliance with
Renault. I see a lot of good looking Nissans in the wrecking yards
because when they start to fail it's a fast downhill spiral - so a lot
of people scrap them rather than starting to repair them.

Just an observation -


I suspect that it was the usual Japanese tactic of taking a design
which works and then figuring out how to reduce the cost of making
them without losing the quality (or much of it). The early days of the
35mm cameras is typical. The Japanese started making copies of
European 35mm cameras. Then when the Korean war started the news guys
discovered that they could buy a Nikon, just as good as a Leica, for
half the price.

More likely the french management. Toyota, Mazda, and Honda don't
have that problem. Mitsu deams to - and they have just been taken
under the wing of Renault/Nissan.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Converting Brake mounting bolt to recessed bolt? Sir Ridesalot Techniques 18 August 23rd 09 12:49 PM
Selecting a Bike Katuzo General 46 July 26th 08 03:11 PM
selecting a BB [email protected] Techniques 5 September 12th 07 03:10 AM
Selecting the right chain heedcase Techniques 10 August 28th 04 02:32 AM
Selecting a new saddle Nick Kew UK 18 December 25th 03 10:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.