Training or Plain Riding?

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:25:32 -0600, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

I've broken my share of frames and forks, all of them were
factory produced steel.

In spite of my own personal experience I would never recommend
people avoid steel.

I had a ti frame break. Bike break. One of the top (in terms of
quality) manufacturers of steel bikes in the country -- probably the
guy who influences the person Bill C mentioned -- said to me "Bikes
break. Mine can break. Well designed bikes don't break much and mine
sure don't, but they can."

On Dec 11, 9:29*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:34:14 -0800 (PST), Bill C





wrote:
http://www.velonews.com/article/82246
Cervelo recalls some carbon forks
Posted Aug. 22, 2008

http://thebikerack.com/page.cfm?PageID=3D62

Giant Bicycle is voluntarily recalling about 2,400 Giant bicycle
forks. These carbon-fiber forks were sold on 2001-model Giant TCR
Team, TCR 0, TCR 1, TCR 2 and OCR 1 bicycles and framesets (an
unassembled frame and fork). Warning: These forks can break during use
causing riders to lose control, fall and get seriously injured! If you
have one of these bicycles, stop riding it immediately!

http://www.raleighusa.com/recall/
Raleigh America is recalling 2007 Raleigh Cadent 1.0, Cadent 2.0 and
Cadent Carbon bicycle models with carbon forks. There have been three
reports of the carbon forks breaking resulting in injuries including a
dislocated shoulder, a concussion and a broken jaw.

Bill C

Considering that there are close to zero steel forks in use on racing
bikes nowadays, I don't see what that tells us, other than that
manufactures are perhaps more careful to recall stuff than back in the
day and that bikes can break. Which is true of all materaials.

And I can think, off the top of my head, of at least one instance of
aluminum fork recall when such forks were common.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Once again JT you went straight to the not up to current info, being
played by the evil Svengali Rasputin steel bike builder attack mode.
Upon further review you really do seem to be a miserable human being.
You've tap danced all over the issue here. First carbon stuff doesn't
break, then nothing recent breaks, then you challenge me to show it to
you, and when I do you blow it off. Typical.
You have really learned and embraced the Stalinist/maoist tactic of
attacking the mental health of anyone who holds a different viewpoint
from you.
I think the person in question's stance is a bit extreme, but I'm not
the one carrying the liability either.
What do you think of this?:
http://tinyurl.com/6domex

New law may close public swimming pools
by The Republican Newsroom
Wednesday December 10, 2008, 10:29 PM
By NANCY H. GONTER


Once again your preferred big government nanny-state has massively
over-reacted, but hey that's OK because it's for the good of the
people, by the government, despite there being an incredibly limited
danger here.
When an individual makes a decision based on our litigious risk
averse nanny state culture they are being manipulated and out of
touch, despite numerous recalls in the last 10 years, and much
personal experience with accidents involving those type products.
You really are a great example of the Soviet Man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4529073.stm
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5902

Power to "The People", and screw people unless they get on board the
Borg express.
Bill C

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:37:13 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:

Once again JT you went straight to the not up to current info, being
played by the evil Svengali Rasputin steel bike builder attack mode.
Upon further review you really do seem to be a miserable human being.
You've tap danced all over the issue here. First carbon stuff doesn't
break,

Bill, did I ever say that?

then nothing recent breaks, then you challenge me to show it to
you, and when I do you blow it off.

Everything can conceivably break.

Typical.

What is typical is your emotions clouding reason. Just as it is in
this case of this person. Because she's a good person we should
support her saying stuff that's irrational.

If we wan to bring it back to politics, it's like "liberals abused
Vietnam vets, so we can't vote liberal today (even if they happen to
be closer to my opinions on issues I talk about here)"

Get some mental discipline.

You have really learned and embraced the Stalinist/maoist tactic of
attacking the mental health of anyone who holds a different viewpoint
from you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- you need some serious
mental help. You have a lot of anger and let emotion, and also
personalities, cloud your reason

I think the person in question's stance is a bit extreme, but I'm not
the one carrying the liability either.

OK, so when someone has the possiblity of being sued, they can use
poor reasoning skills and we should give it a pass.

And by the way, in this thread you're really running extra-passive
agressive -- on the one hand saying you're not taking sides on the
carbon spectacular failure issue, and on the other hand backing up a
side.

What do you think of this?:
http://tinyurl.com/6domex

I don't care to comment on thisr even read it -- contrary to what you
may think, I don't go around looking to argue with you.

If you want to extract something from the story and I think it's
really good or really bad, I'll perhaps read it and comment.
Otherwise, I'm not reading it.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:37:13 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:

Upon further review you really do seem to be a miserable human being.

You really need some self-control.

I've simply pointed out the FUD over claims that carbon forks are more
prone to hurting people than steel forks, while carefully saying this
person is a nice person and even quoting the steel framemaker who has
some influence on her (and who I like a lot and whose bikes I lust
after) and you get personal.

If you want to call what I say about this nonsense, go ahead, but if
you think I entered into this discussion just to spite you or because
I'm "miserable" you've got another think coming.

Get some control over yourself. Get some control over your emotions.

The only spite I have toward you is about your politics, but if you
want to drag emotion into everything, go ahead. It's not me.

Calling something "nonsense" is about the something, not about what
you are repeating that someone else said.

On Dec 11, 11:57*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:37:13 -0800 (PST), Bill C

wrote:
Upon further review you really do seem to be a miserable human being.

You really need some self-control.

I've simply pointed out the FUD over claims that carbon forks are more
prone to hurting people than steel forks, while carefully saying this
person is a nice person and even quoting the steel framemaker who has
some influence on her (and who I like a lot and whose bikes I lust
after) and you get personal.

If you want to call what I say about this nonsense, go ahead, but if
you think I entered into this discussion just to spite you or because
I'm "miserable" you've got another think coming.

Get some control over yourself. *Get some control over your emotions.

The only spite I have toward you is about your politics, but if you
want to drag emotion into everything, go ahead. *It's not me.

*Calling something "nonsense" is about the something, not about what
you are repeating that someone else said.

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.
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. Taking a
proactive, unbelievably risk averse approach is a way to avoid this.
I'm not saying that's the only factor in the decision here, but alone
it's sufficient IMO given the ability of a lawyer to point out the
"known" risks of carbon fiber forks. Works the same way at a
motorcycle shop. In any reputable shop you've got to be incredibly
careful not to do anything out of the norm pretty much, or risk being
seriously sued even if what you did is not, or only marginally
responsible for any accident. The factories have investigation teams
that will come out and disect crashed bikes to cover their asses, at
great expense.
I have no issue with the level of risk posed by carbon fiber forks,
they do. Their poaition is just as acceptable to me as mine is.
Unfortunately you can't except someone else choosing, or deciding
anything different from you, and when they do you attack them.
Those recalls didn't happen out of the goodness of heart of those
companies, they happened over litigation, and fear of further
litigation. it's not unreasonable for an individual running a program
with kids to take the safe way out by going with tried and tested,
time proven equipment. It may not be any better, but IS easier to
defend in court.
Once again the problem isn't that we agree, or disagree it's that you
demean, belittle, and attack anyone who isn't 100% in agreement with
you, or at least damned close.
Hope you are having a great day, and that isn't sarcastic.
Bill C

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:10:00 -0800 (PST), 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.

The person who disagrees with me isn't even in this group, and I've
said several times that that person is good, but that the idea is
nonsense. The word nonsense has a mean - it's used to describe an
idea. I've also called the *idea* "dopey."

Those not personal attacks. Then you start onto me about Stalin and
stuff.

The passive-aggressive is the continuing to back up the idea that
person had while disavoing it, apparently because I've objected to it.

it doesn't seem possible in your world
for people to come to different, equally valid conclusions,

If we are talking about facts, they can't both be valid. The fact in
dispute here is that there is any more likelifhood for carbon forks to
fail catostrophically than steel or AL forks. There can be different
and perhaps equally valid concluions in terms of action, but if those
conclusions are based on flawed facts, then the conclusions are
suspect.

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

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:10:00 -0800 (PST), 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. Taking a
proactive, unbelievably risk averse approach is a way to avoid this.

I didn't read the article, but if the risk of carbon forks is not any
higher than the risks of other forks, then the issue is pointless.

I have no issue with the level of risk posed by carbon fiber forks,
they do. Their poaition is just as acceptable to me as mine is.

If their position is based on faulty information, then their position
is flawed. Your comment assumes one fork has higher risk than the
other.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:10:00 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:

You almost always personally attack
anyone who disagrees with you.

PS -- I don't know whether you agree with me or not on the carbon
forks, since you sorta keep taking different views of the issue, but
yeah, I'm personally attacking your emotional responses here. I guess
that's personal.

That wasn't my purpose in pointing out the FUD about carbon, but there
were are.

On Dec 11, 6:31*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:03:23 -0800 (PST), hizark21



wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:49*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:44:20 -0800 (PST), hizark21

wrote:
Carbon fiber is still prone to delamination and sudden failure.

What does this mean?Are you saying the many, many bikes being ridden
now by racers are "prone" to sudden failure?

Nonsense.

If you have a deep nick, gouge or crash on a carbon fiber frame then
there is the chance that the frame could eventually develop a stress
facture and break. With unidirectional stress weave cloth this problem
is much less, but still there is this chance.

Dude, would you ride a steel fork with deep nick or gouge *in the
metal?

And is eventually developing a stress fracture and breaking the same
as sudden failure?


One can similar degrees of damage which appears harmless on steel yet
on a composite frame can cause it to fail. You can crash with a carbon
fiber handlebar and it appears safe. Yet a few weeks later busts. With
steel and aluminum the material is more ductile so it is more
forgiving.