Training or Plain Riding?

In article
,
" wrote:

On Dec 12, 12:02*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Dec 10, 5:28*pm, "
wrote:

It is true that many steel alloys have a
fatigue limit and aluminum doesn't,...

?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit
http://www.epi-eng.com/mechanical_en..._in_metals.htm

In theory, enough cycles of even a small stress will
fatigue aluminum, but not most steel alloys. In
practice, this is not the most critical consideration for bike
parts. Design, stress risers, stupid-lightness and so on
are probably more important. You can make a breakable
steel bike, or a nearly unbreakable aluminum bike.

Very few of the people moaning and groaning
about the fragility or unrepairability of modern
lightweight stuff vs. Good Old Steel are willing
to go to the obvious conclusion and replace
their aluminum cranks with steel cranks.
Even though aluminum cranks do break.

I want steel bars with the shape of Cinelli Campo del Mondo.
Not to be had. Know where I can get steel cranks for square
taper spindles? Steel cranks and spindle for 55 mm bottom
brackets? My LBS owner opines that components are less sturdy
than when he got into the business.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Bob Schwartz wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
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.

Oh horse****. If it's an accurate representation of this person's
views then it's OK.

If I was in a forum someplace and stated that The Jobst thinks
tied and soldered wheels are crap and listed the reasons that
he's written about frequently, does anyone think he'd have a
problem with that?

That is not an accurate representation of what he thinks.
A well built, robust wheel can have the spokes tied and
soldered. Tying and soldering neither adds nor subtracts
to the quality of the wheel. (unless you overheat the joint)

You guys both know that this person's reputation would take a
hit.

I agree that it is best not to repeat others.
For one thing it is not best evidence.
For another, we might repeat them in a venue
where they would choose not to repeat the ideas.

--
Michael Press

Bill C wrote:

No real emotion involved on my side here. There's nothing passive-
agressive about my argument. You almost always personally attack
anyone who disagrees with you. it doesn't seem possible in your world
for people to come to different, equally valid conclusions, based on
their own experiences and priorities, it's either your way or they are
defective in some way.

There is scant evidence in favor of the proposition that JT is the only
person in RBB who is strongly attached to his opinion.

Bill C wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:47 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 12, 7:34 pm, Bill C wrote:

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
...
Now prove your cheap to fix, and incredibly dangerous assertion.
Bill C
From that link:

"SOURCE National Swimming Pool Foundation"

Look dude, I don't know who is wrong or right here,
but you can find biased information on any issue.
Any time there is a law, the people who will be
regulated by the law will put out a press release
saying that law will be the end of the industry.
The car industry fought seatbelts, and then said they'd
be bankrupted by airbags, and catalytic converters,
and so on.

Ben

Ben the CPSC says two deaths per year. Who is the CPSC biased in favor
of? My contention is that given the level of damage the law is a
ridiculous intrusion and burden which will, in the long run cause more
damage than good by reducing the oppourtunity for people to exercise,
especially in this tight economy, in cold weather areas.
Can you dispute the numbers and facts given in those pieces. I'll
say, again, that what I see locally is still lower than what they are
talking, but the closures are happening.
Bill C

I do not understand why people believe the Government, or anything else,
can remove all risks from life.

I'm curious about the circumstances in those 2 deaths per year. My
knee-jerk guess is that they would involve unsupervised children.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
...
I have to agree with Amit. It tends to be the newbies/Freds who obsess
about equipment.
Obviously you don't understand that the "best" stuff is only good for a
year or so now.
There are exceptions to the rule, but after awhile most racers figure
out that with the exception of time trialing, it's all about the skill/
fitness, not equipment.
Most of us buy good equipment because we think it is good equipment.
Having it come apart after 12 months is sort of disillusioning.
The word "good" is sometimes misleading. Expensive and "good" are not
always the same things. Also, "good" for racing up the Alps in the TdF
is not always "good" for riding on crappy urban roads.

If instead of using those bearings as an example, I wonder whether more
people would have agreed with you if you'd chosen tires. I know a LOT of
people who maintain a separate wheelset because they know that their
expensive racing tires wont take the punishment of training rides.

This is not so much a question of which is "best" as it is a matter of
serving the particular purpose.


The nominal value of the cars was $2000. Why can't you see this? lol


For $2000, I can buy an old Toyota pickup or an early 90's Mitsubishi
Eclipse. Which is best?

In article ,
Fred Fredburger 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.

That's irrelevant for purposes of policy.

Look at accident statistic comparisons for drunk drivers versus drivers
using cell phones. Then look at the differences in A) Laws against them
and B) Enforcement priority.

Either one can kill you, but one is perceived as mundane and the other
evil and irresponsible.

Do we have accurate statistics on injuries, maiming, and deaths
caused by drivers using cellular telephone?

--
Michael Press

Fred Fredburger wrote:
I do not understand why people believe the Government, or anything else,
can remove all risks from life.

Just read a news report about a killing in Vancouver, where someone shot
bullets at the christmas party of the place from where he was fired. I
know Ryan is fine, because he works for the government and people don't
get fired there.

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
Fred Fredburger wrote:
I do not understand why people believe the Government, or anything
else, can remove all risks from life.

Just read a news report about a killing in Vancouver, where someone shot
bullets at the christmas party of the place from where he was fired. I
know Ryan is fine, because he works for the government and people don't
get fired there.

That gave me a momentary start until I realized that Vancouver is just a
short ferry ride from the US. Since there's no crime in Canada, this was
obviously done by an American working in Canada.

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Fred Fredburger 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.
That's irrelevant for purposes of policy.

Look at accident statistic comparisons for drunk drivers versus drivers
using cell phones. Then look at the differences in A) Laws against them
and B) Enforcement priority.

Either one can kill you, but one is perceived as mundane and the other
evil and irresponsible.

Do we have accurate statistics on injuries, maiming, and deaths
caused by drivers using cellular telephone?


Not that I'm aware of.

I've seen studies that find equivalence between drunk driving and cell
phone driving, and I'm aware of _projections_ of lives that could be
saved with Hands-Free laws.

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...

Do we have accurate statistics on injuries, maiming, and deaths
caused by drivers using cellular telephone?

Yes, I actually read it though I can't remember where it was. They "claimed"
that it was "almost" as dangerous as drunk driving though the numbers I saw
were higher than drunk driving. Then they tried to pass it off as "as many
accidents but they aren't serious" which later turned out to mean 'since
cell phones haven't been around long enough the statistics are still
growing.'