Training or Plain Riding?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:24:13 -0600, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
A guy I know rode for one of the top US pro road teams. Nothing like
the intensity of a pro team in Europe, but a team that contended and
won the biggest races in the US, and rode Trek OCLV frames. Most guys
on the team had a home bike for training and local racing, and would
use two or three frames over the course of the year.

And, if a frame wasn't especially beat, the team would sometimes sell
them at the end of the year. Another friend of mine rode one of those
teams bikes for a bunch of years like that.

Note that this would not be the case if that team were
riding overheated, factory produced steel bikes. The
kind that would be acceptable to Bill's friend, for
safety reasons.

At least one of the early 1990s team-issue Treks my friends got had a
steel fork, while the stock one's at the time were aluminum or carbon.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:25:42 -0800 (PST), hizark21
wrote:

I think the UCI council on professional cycling should do away with
the min weight requirement for bikes and institute testing for bikes
and parts.

Weight limites are a reasonable good surrogate for strength, and are
way way easier to administer.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:57:38 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:

Since you amd others definitively insist that carbon does NOT break
at a higher rate than steel did and she is wrong, you and the others
must have read some of these studies done by say UL, or other
appropriate, independent testing/review agencies.

No, we're around racing and the vast majority of people are riding
carbon forks and most of us have never or almost never seen a fork
fail except in a crash.

The same was true when forks were steel.

It's just not happening.

I've seen photos from back in the day of broken steerer tubes (steel)
but those were from 30+ years ago.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:33:33 -0600, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

You know what I find interesting? You won't name the person that
has a bias against carbon.

This person is not on this group and I don't think it's appropriate to
name the person, even though I disagree with that person's views.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:39:24 -0600, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

I have no clue whether you are correct in your characterization
of carbon failures because I've only heard of them. I've never seen
one in person.

Dude, a friend of mines knows a guy who heard about a guy who had a
carbon frame and he hit a bump in a race and it shattered. Spinergy
wheels detonated too.

The whole thing came home in pieces small enough to fit in a shoebox.

Or so I'm told.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:25:17 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:57:38 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:

Since you amd others definitively insist that carbon does NOT break
at a higher rate than steel did and she is wrong, you and the others
must have read some of these studies done by say UL, or other
appropriate, independent testing/review agencies.

No, we're around racing and the vast majority of people are riding
carbon forks and most of us have never or almost never seen a fork
fail except in a crash.

The same was true when forks were steel.

Excuse me -- I'm talking about catostrophic failures. I'm aware of
forks in all materials that riders don't trust or creak or whatever.

On Dec 12, 12:25*pm, hizark21 wrote:

I think the UCI council on professional cycling should do away with
the min weight requirement for bikes and institute testing for bikes
and parts. The original intent of the weight rule was to make bikes
more safe.

Do you want an organization that comes up with
not-well-thought-out plans like the ProTour
administering safety testing for every possible
type of bike part?

I don't see bikes breaking in pro races often enough
that the UCI needs to rush out and test parts. Their
foray into testing parts is limited to the wheel regulations,
which seemed to be mostly designed to get rid of
Spinergy Rev-Xs. I don't know if that was actually
well motivated, but those wheels were butt ugly anyway.

Ben

On Dec 12, 3:33*pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

I make an assertion. That assertion is correct unless you can
prove it to be false. That's an interesting debate technique.

Yeah, it's where they all start. You declare a topic, in this case
the reliability of carbon forks compared to steel and aluminium and
the rate of catastrophic, immediate failure.
You declare the position you will argue, in this case that carbon
forks fail in that fashion more than the other materials.
Then you make your case. They make their case based on decades of
officiating at and running races, and running Jr teams and programs.
This isn't something we've discussed in great, detailed depth, just
that they do feel this to be the case based on personal experience
with many team riders, other teams Jr. riders and coaches, and more
races than I'd bet they could count easily.
I have no idea if the Builder in question has been a major factor, I
don't recall them being mentioned in this case but they could be.
That's primarily what I believe their case to be based on, and I'm
still undecided on the issue.
Again, defend your assertion that this sin't the case and provide
evidence for your argument. I feel it's a debateable issue and there's
NO cause to belittle anyone on either side.
Then again being decent to people isn't exactly a hallmark of folks
while active on rbr, that's one of the few points I agree with Sybil
on.

The impact on joint strength resulting from overheating steel
tubes is well researched. I'm sure anyone that works with a
torch in the business could provide references. Chang's
probably got a couple within reach of his computer. I'm not
going to provide any because I'm not telling anyone that any
given material is dangerous. You are correct in that all my
experience is anecdotal. I've owned steel, aluminum, and
carbon bikes. I've had a number of frame and fork failures and
they've all been factory produced steel.

You know what I find interesting? You won't name the person that
has a bias against carbon. People that know what they are talking
about and are confident in their opinions don't have a problem
with accurate descriptions of those opinions being propagated.
To me that says that at some level you understand that while this
person may be knowledgeable about cycling in general, on this
issue they are full of ****.

Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -


Bob I'm not dragging them in by name, and I think JT isn't either
because they aren't here to make their case in person. JT's familiar
with the person and this particular opinion.
I know all about the issue of faulty joints, excess heating,
etc...Never said they weren't a problem. I'm sure this person, who is
someone I respect a lot, is perfectly familiar with that too.
The issue here is where your information came from to support your
position, and how that would make it more accurate.
Far as I can tell all you have is an opinion based on personal
experience and anecdotes. They've got that too, pluss the recent
recalls.
Again what makes your opinion, objectively, verifiably, enough more
accurate that you feel justified in calling them "paranoid" and wrong?
Bill C

On Dec 12, 3:49*pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Bill C wrote:
On Dec 11, 1:33 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Bill C wrote:
*The story was about pools being closed due to a new federal law based
on a couple of accidents, and the requirement to very expensively
retrofit the drain systems. The point was it only takes a few
incidents and lawsauits to bury a person or organization.
OK, I read the article about pools.

The writer did not explain the reasoning behind the law. When
you say 'a few incidents' it is not explained that they involved
fatalities involving children. A local incident involved a young
child that sat on a pool drain and died in grisly and painful
way.

Steel is time tested and known to fail. As a parent I would have
a problem turning my kid over to a program run by someone with
a level of paranoia that would lead them to provide that kind of
misinformation.

Bob Schwartz

Bob the nastiness of the death isn't a factor other than emotional,
and is it any worse than being spit out from under at least two wheels
of a car, or have most of your bones broken before you go flying from
the impact? 25 years ago now a bunch of my friends were out drunk, in
an old mail truck, you remember the type, and lost control, a couple
were ejected, and one of them, while sliding on his back hit the curb,
directly out my front door with the back of his head. half his body
made it onto the sidewalk while the back of his head and large chunk
of brain didn't make it up the sharp curb. Anyway he's not any more
dead than my mother who went to sleep and never woke up.
*The point is there are an incredibly tiny percentage of deaths by
this cause, even compared to general drownings, so to force an
unfunded mandate onto these cities and towns, over this tiny level of
deaths is what I would consider ridiculous paranoia. Post signs, make
parents aware that, like drowning, this is a possible hazard and let
them make the choice, or in they are going to insist phase it in over
a longer period, while providing long term, no interest loans, to
allow folks to do this.
*In the middle of massively declining physical activity for kids, and
an obesity epidemic they are slashing yet another recreational
activity outlet by this.
*I'm leaning towards the idea that it's much healtghier, and safer, in
the long run to have kids in the pre-modification pools than sitting
home playing video games.
*The same rational could easily be used, and much more easily
justified for a law banning kids from riding bicycles, alone, anywhere
other than a "lifeguarded", motor vehicle prohibited, cycling park.
Why not that since the rate of kids getting mauled and killed by cars,
on bikes, is higher than the rate of kids being sucked up and killed
in swinning pools? These numbers I know since they are pertinent to
the discussions around the idiotic death of the 8 yr old in the
shooting incident here, and the comparative numbers of accidental
deaths by activity type.
*Bill C

You launch into these tangents, lord only knows where they are
coming from.

Just ****ing google 'pool drain cover'. They're cheap. I don't
know where these people that are wetting their pants over the
cost are coming from, maybe they've got some unusual drain
where they have to get some special cover custom made. If so
they have my sympathy.

Since you are making the case that this is the result of only
a few incidents maybe you could use the google to see just how
rare (or not) this is. And maybe make a judgment whether a few
(or more than a few) kid's lives are worth the (in most cases)
minor cost.

Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They are citing anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 f0or the retrofits to
comply with the law.

http://nrpa.informz.net/nrpa/archive...ve_156251.html

Here's the good one:
http://tinyurl.com/5f8ysm

Controversial New Pool & Spa Safety Act Will Create Public Pool
Closures Nationwide

Legislation could force 300,000 public pools to shut down December 19



Some highlights:

quoted:

Suction entrapment claims about one to two victims per year based on
historic data from the CPSC. In contrast, drowning claimed the lives
of 761 children aged 14 and under in 2004 and those numbers may
increase since fewer children will attend swim lessons when pools are
closed.

-- Some compliant covers are only now becoming available.
-- Large and unique shaped (unblockable) compliant drain covers
will not
be available by the deadline.
-- The Act requires existing large, "unblockable" drains to be
replaced
with no evidence the change will reduce the risk of
entrapment. In
addition to the drain cover, the area below the cover (the
sump) must
sometimes be excavated and replaced in order to be compliant.
Confusion over this exists and can increase compliance costs
which can
reach $200,000 per pool. See discussion below.

One Massachusetts middle-school reports an estimate of $110,000. That
pool, they say, will remain closed due to lack of money. Many
professionals do not understand if a drain is "unblockable" and not a
risk of entrapment, why it has to be replaced at all.

etc...

Now prove your cheap to fix, and incredibly dangerous assertion.
Bill C

On Dec 12, 7:25*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:57:38 -0800 (PST), Bill C

wrote:
Since you amd others definitively insist that carbon does NOT break
at a higher rate than steel did and she is wrong, you and the others
must have read some of these studies done by say UL, or other
appropriate, independent testing/review agencies.

No, we're around racing and the vast majority of people are riding
carbon forks and most of us have never or almost never seen a fork
fail except in a crash. *

The same was true when forks were steel. *

It's just not happening.

I've seen photos from back in the day of broken steerer tubes (steel)
but those were from 30+ years ago.

So what you are saying is that your opinion is based on exactly the
same type of evidence theirs is? Once again I'm JFT and my opinion is
the truth.
Bill C