Training or Plain Riding?

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
...

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.

That's all BS. When you're listening to the radio you don't pay attention to
everything that's being said in the songs etc. When you're talking on the
phone you're visualizing the face of the person talking and you aren't
seeing a lot of what is going on around you.

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...

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)

It is extremely difficult to hurt a wheelset by tying and soldering. It
doesn't increase the strength of the wheel but it DOES prevent the spokes
from slapping around and possibly damaging your paint etc. on the bike in
case of a spoke failure.

On Dec 13, 4:34*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
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.

Fred I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't have strong
opinions. I'm just sick and tired of the crap where anyone who has a
different one is a mental defective, being used by someone else
because they are weak mided, etc...JT is perfectly entitled to his
opinion based on his observations, someone else is just as entitled to
their opinion, and it's just as valid, or even more so since I'm
betting the other person has seen even more racing than JT, but both
are just opinions at this point since noone has any hard scientific
studies to back their argument.
If he'd just said " I disagree. That's not what I've seen" and left
it at that I'd have been fine with it. Reasonable people, reasonably
disagree all the time, this requires some level of respect for people
who hold divergent opinions JT has none that I can see. Diversity in
his world seems to mean, his opinion, and all those ignorant idiots
out there.
That I object to, it's the height of arrogance and intolerance.
Bill C

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:34*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
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.

Fred I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't have strong
opinions. I'm just sick and tired of the crap where anyone who has a
different one is a mental defective, being used by someone else
because they are weak mided, etc...JT is perfectly entitled to his
opinion based on his observations, someone else is just as entitled to
their opinion, and it's just as valid, or even more so since I'm
betting the other person has seen even more racing than JT, but both
are just opinions at this point since noone has any hard scientific
studies to back their argument.
If he'd just said " I disagree. That's not what I've seen" and left
it at that I'd have been fine with it. Reasonable people, reasonably
disagree all the time, this requires some level of respect for people
who hold divergent opinions JT has none that I can see. Diversity in
his world seems to mean, his opinion, and all those ignorant idiots
out there.
That I object to, it's the height of arrogance and intolerance.
Bill C

I guess that calling people who disagree with you "Stalinist" or "Maoist" is
different, eh, Bill? That's not "arrogance and intolerant" in the least.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Bob Schwartz wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:
I worked for a guy who's an accomplished frame builder out here (though
he hasn't made many recently, as it's now a hobby) and we spent a lot of time
talking about brazing technique. He said that it was pretty well known that
you wanted to keep the heat affected zone as small as possible and still get
good solder (silver or brass) flow. He went to Italy and visted the DeRosa
factory and saw those guys brazing high end frames. They had the tubes red
hot about 8" away from the joint. It's a matter of expedience - get the solder
down fast. I think you're right about overheating being a common cause for
the steel frames that failed.

In an automated process that particular manufacturing defect is built
in. That's how you get a machine to braze a joint, you use a lot of
heat. We accept it because of cost. The bike is cheaper, and a little
heavier. But it's a known defect that is certain to be there. It's
why the only frames and forks I've ever broken were factory steel.

That's certainly true about the frames that are made in automated setups but these
were being hand brazed, and were (at the time) the top of the line frames. As far as
I know, failures of those frames were rare but they do happen (anecdotal evidence via
the guy I already mentioned and another guy I know at a shop that sells De Rosas).

You wouldn't hear me tell anyone those bikes are dangerous though.

The thing about this thread that is strange is that pretty much everyone who knows
anything about bikes is aware at some level that steel frames are more resilient than
CF and takes that into account when buying. And the idea that you'll be hurt less
when crashing on a steel fork than a CF one is bizarre - if you crash hard enough to
bend a steel fork, it was hard enough to get hurt. Kunich's suggestion that a carbon
fork "failed" after he stuck his foot into the moving wheel and that he wouldn't have
been hurt had the fork been steel is beyond looney. And Charles Hizark trying to
claim that CF is dangerous is confusing when it was only August '07 that he wanted
our advice on getting a set of Mavic Cosmic Carbone Ultimate wheels [1]. That sounds
a lot like his "death penalty for first offenders" and "but they won't let Bruyneel's
team in the race, it's not fair!" routine, i.e. confused.

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...dd43b7a8ccfd57

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Dec 13, 6:12*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*Bob Schwartz wrote:



Howard Kveck wrote:
* *I worked for a guy who's an accomplished frame builder out here (though
he hasn't made many recently, as it's now a hobby) and we spent a lot of time
talking about brazing technique. He said that it was pretty well known that
you wanted to keep the heat affected zone as small as possible and still get
good solder (silver or brass) flow. He went to Italy and visted the DeRosa
factory and saw those guys brazing high end frames. They had the tubes red
hot about 8" away from the joint. It's a matter of expedience - get the solder
down fast. I think you're right about overheating being a common cause for
the steel frames that failed.

In an automated process that particular manufacturing defect is built
in. That's how you get a machine to braze a joint, you use a lot of
heat. We accept it because of cost. The bike is cheaper, and a little
heavier. But it's a known defect that is certain to be there. It's
why the only frames and forks I've ever broken were factory steel.

* *That's certainly true about the frames that are made in automated setups but these
were being hand brazed, and were (at the time) the top of the line frames.. As far as
I know, failures of those frames were rare but they do happen (anecdotal evidence via
the guy I already mentioned and another guy I know at a shop that sells De Rosas).

You wouldn't hear me tell anyone those bikes are dangerous though.

* *The thing about this thread that is strange is that pretty much everyone who knows
anything about bikes is aware at some level that steel frames are more resilient than
CF and takes that into account when buying. And the idea that you'll be hurt less
when crashing on a steel fork than a CF one is bizarre - if you crash hard enough to
bend a steel fork, it was hard enough to get hurt. Kunich's suggestion that a carbon
fork "failed" after he stuck his foot into the moving wheel and that he wouldn't have
been hurt had the fork been steel is beyond looney. And Charles Hizark trying to
claim that CF is dangerous is confusing when it was only August '07 that he wanted
our advice on getting a set of Mavic Cosmic Carbone Ultimate wheels [1]. That sounds
a lot like his "death penalty for first offenders" and "but they won't let Bruyneel's
team in the race, it's not fair!" routine, i.e. confused.

[1] *http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...dd43b7a8ccfd57

Steel forks break far less often than a carbon fork. I used to work in
a bike shop and race. I can't even recall a instance where a fork
simply snapped. In most cases they bend. Carbon fiber wheel are safer
because the spoke and hub structure will prevent the wheel from simply
breaking in half. You will have to replace the wheel. But you will be
able to stop safely.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Caught playing safe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * It's a bored game

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Dec 13, 9:20*pm, hizark21 wrote:
On Dec 13, 6:12*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

You wouldn't hear me tell anyone those bikes are dangerous though.

* *The thing about this thread that is strange is that pretty much everyone who knows
anything about bikes is aware at some level that steel frames are more resilient than
CF and takes that into account when buying. And the idea that you'll be hurt less
when crashing on a steel fork than a CF one is bizarre - if you crash hard enough to
bend a steel fork, it was hard enough to get hurt. Kunich's suggestion that a carbon
fork "failed" after he stuck his foot into the moving wheel and that he wouldn't have
been hurt had the fork been steel is beyond looney. And Charles Hizark trying to
claim that CF is dangerous is confusing when it was only August '07 that he wanted
our advice on getting a set of Mavic Cosmic Carbone Ultimate wheels [1].. That sounds
a lot like his "death penalty for first offenders" and "but they won't let Bruyneel's
team in the race, it's not fair!" routine, i.e. confused.

[1] *http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...dd43b7a8ccfd57

Steel forks break far less often than a carbon fork. I used to work in
a bike shop and race. I can't even recall a instance where a fork
simply snapped. In most cases they bend. *Carbon fiber wheel are safer
because the spoke and hub structure will prevent the wheel from simply
breaking in half. You will have to replace the wheel. But you will be
able to stop safely.

Dude,

You are missing the point again. If you hit something
hard enough to bend a steel fork, you are going to
fall down hard, whether the fork bends, breaks, or stands
up and whistles the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Steel forks are arguably more repairable than carbon
forks. But this does not have anything to do with
keeping you from getting hurt when you hit something.

I would also be happier riding a steel fork offroad
than a carbon fork (arguably, a carbon fork designed
to be beefy would be ok - carbon cyclocross forks
are rather sturdier looking than carbon road forks).
But again, this does not prove that carbon forks
are instruments of death on the road.

Ben
I only own one carbon fork, because I'm too cheap
to try to buy speed.

In article ,
hizark21 wrote:

Steel forks break far less often than a carbon fork. I used to work in
a bike shop and race. I can't even recall a instance where a fork
simply snapped. In most cases they bend.

I know that, but when they break, it's after crashes. Yeah, there have been a few
recalled recently for flaws, but I'd say that, based on the number of carbon forks
out there now that *aren't being recalled*, they're pretty reliable. We know steel
forks bend - so what? In general, once you've been in an incident that'll cause a
steel fork to bend, you're already hurt.

Carbon fiber wheel are safer
because the spoke and hub structure will prevent the wheel from simply
breaking in half. You will have to replace the wheel. But you will be
able to stop safely.

When did aluminum rim and stainless spoked wheels start breaking in half? I must
have missed that.

p.s. What Ben just said.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

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.

I do not see the danger of driving while operating a
telephone. The danger is the mental and emotional distraction
of the driver as a result of the conversation. The person
talking to the driver has no stake in the safety of the
driver or anyone else, and therefore is at liberty to
tweak the driver as she pleases. Therefore a hand-free
law will not make anything better. Drivers will continue
to be distracted.

When I drive with passengers my engagement in the
conversation waxes and wanes with traffic conditions.

I pull over to answer the telephone.

--
Michael Press

On Dec 13, 1:57 pm, Michael Press wrote:
" wrote:

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.

Steel drop bars are available. Which is more important,
the Campione del Mundo shape or your safety?
You better give up that shape preference for steel
bars or you will surely crash and die.

Know where I can get steel cranks for square
taper spindles?

Bullseye made some nice pinch-bolt steel cranks
that even Chalo Colina endorses, and such things
are fairly common in BMX-land. If you really want
steel cranks, you might also want the pinch-bolt
connection since square tapers occasionally fail.

Steel cotterless square taper cranks were always
rare, but I believe very cheap discount-store bikes
came with steel square taper cranks recently
and some still may.

Steel cranks and spindle for 55 mm bottom
brackets?

If you have a 55mm bottom bracket (? is that some
new outboard bearing "standard"?) you are out
on the bleeding edge - would you expect the
bike industry to make retro-fart components for it?

My LBS owner opines that components are less sturdy
than when he got into the business.

*Some* components are. Your LBS owner is
remembering only the good stuff. I had steel
cottered cranks. They sucked - the cranks
were okay if heavy, but cotters suck. Steel rims,
single channel rims, heavy-ass bad clincher tires,
crappy European freewheels, bad spokes ...
There was a lot of stuff out there that was
not that good.

Ben