Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

On 29/10/2014 22:33, Joerg wrote:

The only downside so far is that the steerer assembly shakes loose in no
time. Sometimes within 10 miles of adjusting it. The roughness of our
trails that is otherwise bone-jarring on rigid bikes gets well absorbed
by the full suspension on mine but it must still be very taxing for the
steerer.

Steerer assembly = stem?

They're not supposed to do that. Either it's crap, or you're not
assembling it right. Maybe time for a better stem?

Clive George wrote:
On 29/10/2014 22:33, Joerg wrote:

The only downside so far is that the steerer assembly shakes loose in no
time. Sometimes within 10 miles of adjusting it. The roughness of our
trails that is otherwise bone-jarring on rigid bikes gets well absorbed
by the full suspension on mine but it must still be very taxing for the
steerer.

Steerer assembly = stem?

They're not supposed to do that. Either it's crap, or you're not
assembling it right. Maybe time for a better stem?


I already have a new stem, the old 120mm was creaking too much and I
switched to 80mm also to get a bit more zippy control of the bike. That
plus shortening the handlebar by a little more than an inch gave me the
right cockpit feel. Same manufacturer (Oval Concepts) and now zero creaking.

What happens is this: There is some bearing play in the steerer,
evidenced by a little "clunk-clunk" when going over gnarly turf or
rocking the bike back and forth with an applied front brake. Requires
the usual procedure, loosen the stem, tighten the central screw some
more until no more play yet not friction, re-tighten stem. 5-50 miles
later (depending on the turf) - The play is back.

I am wondering whether I should improve the construction by punching out
that wimpy star nut, placing a big fat washer unterneath and using some
serious long screw or allthread to hold it together. On a mountain bike
for serious trail use bigger is usually better.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 10/29/2014 5:01 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:50 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2014 6:57 PM, Joerg wrote:
As I've said, people out here have paid
the price for taking the lane. Some with their lives.

I'm curious what data you have on the number "out there" who have "paid
the price" or died on bikes specifically because they were taking the
lane. Care to show us?


I don't have numbers but several cases that happened over the years
around here. I tend to learn by what others experienced, not so much by
statsistics, wishful thinking, or what the law says should be.

Again, "price" here includes cyclists hit who had (have) to suffer
serious and sometimes permanent consequences.

So, "several" cases somewhere "around here" over an unspecified number
of years. IOW, more "Danger! Danger!" with no context and no corroboration.


Nonsense. This includes two people who I knew personally. One lost a
kidney and one had a ruptured spleen after being hit by cars. Those are
facts.

Got details? I'm curious about when and where those "several" incidents
happened, including the ones where riders paid with their lives. I'm
also curious about how you're sure those incidents happened because the
riders were taking the lane.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/29/2014 6:33 PM, Joerg wrote:

In contrast to road biking there is a huge spread in risk between
different riding styles for mountain bikers.

I'm quite sure that there's a huge spread in risk between different
riding styles for road riders, too.

There are road riders who are predictable, are in control of their
machines, ride legally, avoid riding drunk, use proper lights at night,
and competently make use their legal rights to the road. And there are
road riders who fail at some or all of those behaviors.

The latter are greatly overrepresented in crash data.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 29/10/2014 22:55, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 29/10/2014 22:33, Joerg wrote:

The only downside so far is that the steerer assembly shakes loose in no
time. Sometimes within 10 miles of adjusting it. The roughness of our
trails that is otherwise bone-jarring on rigid bikes gets well absorbed
by the full suspension on mine but it must still be very taxing for the
steerer.

Steerer assembly = stem?

They're not supposed to do that. Either it's crap, or you're not
assembling it right. Maybe time for a better stem?


I already have a new stem, the old 120mm was creaking too much and I
switched to 80mm also to get a bit more zippy control of the bike. That
plus shortening the handlebar by a little more than an inch gave me the
right cockpit feel. Same manufacturer (Oval Concepts) and now zero creaking.

What happens is this: There is some bearing play in the steerer,
evidenced by a little "clunk-clunk" when going over gnarly turf or
rocking the bike back and forth with an applied front brake. Requires
the usual procedure, loosen the stem, tighten the central screw some
more until no more play yet not friction, re-tighten stem. 5-50 miles
later (depending on the turf) - The play is back.

I am wondering whether I should improve the construction by punching out
that wimpy star nut, placing a big fat washer unterneath and using some
serious long screw or allthread to hold it together. On a mountain bike
for serious trail use bigger is usually better.

The star nut isn't loaded after assembly - you can remove that bolt
after tightening the stem, though normally it's left on to hold the cap.

There do exist alternative mounts which don't use a star nut. eg

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/g...k/rp-prod17766

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/h...ers/rp-prod911

but that's just to help assembly rather than stop things coming loose.

If the stem is being moved up the steerer, it either needs tightening
more or you need one with a more effective clamping mechanism. What
fork, what model stem?

Various ideas here :

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/to...s-coming-loose

(googled for "mtb headset keeps coming loose" - it's a problem other
people have had, and it's mostly solvable. The washer thing you're
talking about isn't the answer)

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/29/2014 5:01 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:50 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2014 6:57 PM, Joerg wrote:
As I've said, people out here have paid
the price for taking the lane. Some with their lives.

I'm curious what data you have on the number "out there" who have
"paid
the price" or died on bikes specifically because they were taking the
lane. Care to show us?


I don't have numbers but several cases that happened over the years
around here. I tend to learn by what others experienced, not so much by
statsistics, wishful thinking, or what the law says should be.

Again, "price" here includes cyclists hit who had (have) to suffer
serious and sometimes permanent consequences.

So, "several" cases somewhere "around here" over an unspecified number
of years. IOW, more "Danger! Danger!" with no context and no
corroboration.


Nonsense. This includes two people who I knew personally. One lost a
kidney and one had a ruptured spleen after being hit by cars. Those are
facts.

Got details? I'm curious about when and where those "several" incidents
happened, including the ones where riders paid with their lives. I'm
also curious about how you're sure those incidents happened because the
riders were taking the lane.


Two of them (surviving) were in the city of Aachen in Germany, about 30
years ago. The guys told me personally how it happened. Both were hit
from behind. Out here a woman was killed who was in the right lane of a
four-lane section of road. A driver was in the left lane when the car in
front of her slowed down and set the turn signal, to turn left. The
driver then pulled over to the right lane to "go around" the
left-turning vehicle and smashed into the cyclist. The cyclist was
killed. The driver who killed her was inebriated.

There were more and lane position doesn't make much of a difference when
drivers see the cyclist too late on a narrow road. Or when the cyclist
is just behind a tight curve. But it can have an impact on the severity
of the outcome. Being farther into the lane reduces the chances of a
"scrape-by" or near miss. Being flung to the side like it happened to a
cyclist in front of me is still better than being smashed into from behind.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:43:54 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:


Got details? I'm curious about when and where those "several" incidents
happened, including the ones where riders paid with their lives. I'm
also curious about how you're sure those incidents happened because the
riders were taking the lane.


Two of them (surviving) were in the city of Aachen in Germany, about 30
years ago. The guys told me personally how it happened. Both were hit
from behind.

OK, but you said "I don't have numbers but several cases that happened over the
years _around here._" Those cases were not around where you now are; and it's
telling that you're having to reach back to 30 years ago. Can you see why
I might doubt your claims of great carnage?

Furthermore, being hit from behind does not prove that the reason for being hit
was the rider taking the lane, as you claimed. Many would say it's actually
the opposite - that when you are edge riding, you are less noticeable and thus
more likely to be hit. That's one of the reasons I ride lane centered as often
as I do.

Out here a woman was killed who was in the right lane of a
four-lane section of road. A driver was in the left lane when the car in
front of her slowed down and set the turn signal, to turn left. The
driver then pulled over to the right lane to "go around" the
left-turning vehicle and smashed into the cyclist. The cyclist was
killed. The driver who killed her was inebriated.

So we're down to one incident, an unspecified number of years ago, with no
specifics on location, and with still no information on lane position?

There were more ...

Really?

... and lane position doesn't make much of a difference when
drivers see the cyclist too late on a narrow road.

When you're lane centered, you're normally noticed much earlier. See
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/ one more time.

Or when the cyclist is just behind a tight curve.

Sorry, for a curve to hide a cyclist until too late, the curve would have to be
incredibly sharp; remember, the driver sits close to the leftmost portion of
the lane, so he's able to see around right hand curves; and curves to the left can't be much of a problem. This is pretty simple geometry. Sketch it out if
you need to. Furthermore, super-tight curves impose low speeds on drivers.

But it can have an impact on the severity
of the outcome. Being farther into the lane reduces the chances of a
"scrape-by" or near miss. Being flung to the side like it happened to a
cyclist in front of me is still better than being smashed into from behind.

You are very, very deep into hypothetical explanations. Why not give us
some real information on the actual crashes around your present area (where
it is supposedly very dangerous) with dates, locations, and relevant details?
Is it because they're actually rare?

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:00:24 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:43:54 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:


Got details? I'm curious about when and where those "several" incidents
happened, including the ones where riders paid with their lives. I'm
also curious about how you're sure those incidents happened because the
riders were taking the lane.


Two of them (surviving) were in the city of Aachen in Germany, about 30
years ago. The guys told me personally how it happened. Both were hit
from behind.

OK, but you said "I don't have numbers but several cases that happened over the
years _around here._" Those cases were not around where you now are; and it's
telling that you're having to reach back to 30 years ago. Can you see why
I might doubt your claims of great carnage?

Furthermore, being hit from behind does not prove that the reason for being hit
was the rider taking the lane, as you claimed. Many would say it's actually
the opposite - that when you are edge riding, you are less noticeable and thus
more likely to be hit. That's one of the reasons I ride lane centered as often
as I do.

Out here a woman was killed who was in the right lane of a
four-lane section of road. A driver was in the left lane when the car in
front of her slowed down and set the turn signal, to turn left. The
driver then pulled over to the right lane to "go around" the
left-turning vehicle and smashed into the cyclist. The cyclist was
killed. The driver who killed her was inebriated.

So we're down to one incident, an unspecified number of years ago, with no
specifics on location, and with still no information on lane position?

There were more ...

Really?

... and lane position doesn't make much of a difference when
drivers see the cyclist too late on a narrow road.

When you're lane centered, you're normally noticed much earlier. See
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/ one more time.

Or when the cyclist is just behind a tight curve.

Sorry, for a curve to hide a cyclist until too late, the curve would have to be
incredibly sharp; remember, the driver sits close to the leftmost por...

The very simple fact is that some very experienced bicyclist riding lane center have been struck from behind and either severely injured or killed. We gave you the exampe from Quebec and there are others. There have to be or we wouldn't be seeing statistics that state that up to 40% of bicyclist killed by motor vehicles were hit from behind. There are times when a bicyclist has to get the hell out of the way of an idiot driver for whatever reason even if that bicyclist is lane center and is legaally there.

I know a guy who relies on his hearing to tell how far back and how fast another vehicle is closing on him. That's fin until trffic from the front gets close or if the approaching vehicle is electric or a hybrid that's running in electric mode. Then he doesn't hear them but I do see them in my helmet mounted mirror.

With all the things taking drivers' attention these days plus possible road rage, I think it behooves a bicyclist to be aware of how vehicles behind them are behaving.

It may not happen all that often but getting hit from behind by a motor vehicle usually has very serious consequences for the hit bicyclist.

Cheers

On 10/29/2014 5:55 PM, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 29/10/2014 22:33, Joerg wrote:

The only downside so far is that the steerer assembly shakes loose in no
time. Sometimes within 10 miles of adjusting it. The roughness of our
trails that is otherwise bone-jarring on rigid bikes gets well absorbed
by the full suspension on mine but it must still be very taxing for the
steerer.

Steerer assembly = stem?

They're not supposed to do that. Either it's crap, or you're not
assembling it right. Maybe time for a better stem?


I already have a new stem, the old 120mm was creaking too much and I
switched to 80mm also to get a bit more zippy control of the bike. That
plus shortening the handlebar by a little more than an inch gave me the
right cockpit feel. Same manufacturer (Oval Concepts) and now zero creaking.

What happens is this: There is some bearing play in the steerer,
evidenced by a little "clunk-clunk" when going over gnarly turf or
rocking the bike back and forth with an applied front brake. Requires
the usual procedure, loosen the stem, tighten the central screw some
more until no more play yet not friction, re-tighten stem. 5-50 miles
later (depending on the turf) - The play is back.

I am wondering whether I should improve the construction by punching out
that wimpy star nut, placing a big fat washer unterneath and using some
serious long screw or allthread to hold it together. On a mountain bike
for serious trail use bigger is usually better.


Unless there is severe headset bearing surface damage, you
have a stem moving up your column. Address that, perhaps
using carbon assembly paste, a fine grit material, between
stem and fork. I assume you already lubricated the stem
bolts and observed stem maker's torque ratings.

Less likely, but remove stem and feel the column. Is it
deformed from overtorquing the stem bolts?

The top cap/star nut is not relevant to your symptom.

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

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:00:24 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:43:54 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:

[...]

Out here a woman was killed who was in the right lane of a
four-lane section of road. A driver was in the left lane when the
car in front of her slowed down and set the turn signal, to turn
left. The driver then pulled over to the right lane to "go
around" the left-turning vehicle and smashed into the cyclist.
The cyclist was killed. The driver who killed her was inebriated.

So we're down to one incident, an unspecified number of years ago,
with no specifics on location, and with still no information on
lane position?

There were more ...
Really?


Oh yeah. But I do not care whether people believe me or not, I will
simply never advocate taking the lane and will not do it myself either
except when left-turning in slow city traffic. Out here taking the lane
is almost suicide. Drivers usually state that they didn't see the
cyclicts and often get away with that.


... and lane position doesn't make much of a difference when
drivers see the cyclist too late on a narrow road.
When you're lane centered, you're normally noticed much earlier.
See
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/
one more time.

Or when the cyclist is just behind a tight curve.
Sorry, for a curve to hide a cyclist until too late, the curve
would have to be incredibly sharp; remember, the driver sits close
to the leftmost por...


You need to get out more. Into mountainous areas.


The very simple fact is that some very experienced bicyclist riding
lane center have been struck from behind and either severely injured
or killed. We gave you the exampe from Quebec and there are others.
There have to be or we wouldn't be seeing statistics that state that
up to 40% of bicyclist killed by motor vehicles were hit from behind.


One (government) statistic for the US was even talking about 67%.


There are times when a bicyclist has to get the hell out of the way
of an idiot driver for whatever reason even if that bicyclist is lane
center and is legaally there.


And there are times when the cyclist had better not even be in the lane
center. Mixing 15-20mph traffic with 50-60mph traffic in the same lane
is not a good idea.


I know a guy who relies on his hearing to tell how far back and how
fast another vehicle is closing on him. That's fin until trffic from
the front gets close or if the approaching vehicle is electric or a
hybrid that's running in electric mode. Then he doesn't hear them but
I do see them in my helmet mounted mirror.


The new Tesla can accelerate from zero to 60mph in a little over three
seconds and he probably won't hear a thing until it is too late.


With all the things taking drivers' attention these days plus
possible road rage, I think it behooves a bicyclist to be aware of
how vehicles behind them are behaving.

It may not happen all that often but getting hit from behind by a
motor vehicle usually has very serious consequences for the hit
bicyclist.


Like this right here in town:

http://www.sacramentonews.net/index.php/sid/215698026

And lots more. However, Frank won't believe it anyhow.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/