Training or Plain Riding?

On Dec 11, 1:28*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
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.

JY we'll totally remove anything personal here. A large part of her
objection is based on anecdotal evidence and firsthand experience. I
don't know if she's seen any engineering/insurance studies, I know I
haven't.
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. You folks can't just
be going by anecdotal evidence and personal experience on this when
you are SO concrete in your conclusions.
Can you please point me to, or link me to these studies which have
formed your factual, tested, concrete opinions, please.
Not having seen anything on this my feeling is that, like most any
other product line, the results are a spread. Cheap mass market junk
with a short life and high defect and failure rate, solid middle of
the road reliable stuff, and high end performance/ultralight stuff
that has a short lifespan and high failure rate, but is to be
expected. Then we have new tech/adapting matwerials for a new usage
which usually generates a fair amount of failures and glitches when
subjected to early real world usage that wasn't forseen, or didn't
show in lab/testing by the mfr.
This would apply to carbon, steel, aluminium, scandium, or anything
else out there as a general rule.
As I said I have not looked for or stumbled on any wide ranging,
detailed, independent studies of carbon forks and their types, types
of failures, etc...as compared to a wide range of varying quality and
styles of steel, or aluminium forks, but you folks must have them to
be so strong in saying she's wrong.
I'm a belt and suspenders kind of guy who likes tried, true, and
proven products, but have several bikes with carbon forks that have
had no problems, but aren't lightweight either.
One of the ways to CYA in my business is to do two things, follow
what are called "best practices" which amounts to basically doing
things, mostly, old school with old school materials, and making sure
that you have the Inspectors on board from plans, right through to
finish, and even though something may be within code, if the inspector
doesn't like it, or like it done that way, then you do what they want
and like, and it'll NEVER be under code due to their, and the towns
and cities liabilities.
In large part I think the person in question is thinking along those
lines too.
Looking forward to getting the links or pointed to the reading you
folks have used to form your concrete positions.
Thanks
Bill C

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

Bill C wrote:

JY we'll totally remove anything personal here. A large part of her
objection is based on anecdotal evidence and firsthand experience. I
don't know if she's seen any engineering/insurance studies, I know I
haven't.
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. You folks can't just
be going by anecdotal evidence and personal experience on this when
you are SO concrete in your conclusions.
Can you please point me to, or link me to these studies which have
formed your factual, tested, concrete opinions, please.
Not having seen anything on this my feeling is that, like most any
other product line, the results are a spread. Cheap mass market junk
with a short life and high defect and failure rate, solid middle of
the road reliable stuff, and high end performance/ultralight stuff
that has a short lifespan and high failure rate, but is to be
expected. Then we have new tech/adapting matwerials for a new usage
which usually generates a fair amount of failures and glitches when
subjected to early real world usage that wasn't forseen, or didn't
show in lab/testing by the mfr.
This would apply to carbon, steel, aluminium, scandium, or anything
else out there as a general rule.
As I said I have not looked for or stumbled on any wide ranging,
detailed, independent studies of carbon forks and their types, types
of failures, etc...as compared to a wide range of varying quality and
styles of steel, or aluminium forks, but you folks must have them to
be so strong in saying she's wrong.
I'm a belt and suspenders kind of guy who likes tried, true, and
proven products, but have several bikes with carbon forks that have
had no problems, but aren't lightweight either.
One of the ways to CYA in my business is to do two things, follow
what are called "best practices" which amounts to basically doing
things, mostly, old school with old school materials, and making sure
that you have the Inspectors on board from plans, right through to
finish, and even though something may be within code, if the inspector
doesn't like it, or like it done that way, then you do what they want
and like, and it'll NEVER be under code due to their, and the towns
and cities liabilities.
In large part I think the person in question is thinking along those
lines too.
Looking forward to getting the links or pointed to the reading you
folks have used to form your concrete positions.

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

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

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

Bob Schwartz wrote:
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 ****.

Perhaps we refuse to fly in a Airbus A4 or Boeing Dreamliner
until they stop making them from carbon.

Come to think of it the Dreamliner with (carbon 50%, Al 20%, Ti 15%,
and Steel 10%) sounds like the perfect fatty master accessory xmas
present.

"Bob Schwartz" wrote in message
...

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

Too bad you don't understand that when you make absurd assertions you need
to supply special proofs to support your off-beat claims.

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.

And you're missing the point entirely. The failure modes of steel frames and
carbon fiber frames are completely different. When a steel frame fails it
usually does so in a manner that warns the user. When carbon fiber frames
fail, often these failures are catastrohic.

Losing control of a steel frame that has become unstable because the
downtube has fractured at the head tube might cause you to veer sideways off
the road and go down sideways. The same accident on a carbon frame will
usually cause the top tube to fail almost immediately so that your head tube
and fork simply fall off of the bike leaving you to go face first into the
road.

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.

There is a fairly simple cure for the people who are
bitching about how newfangled bikes are unreliable.
Ride a good-quality 25 lb road bike. At that weight,
you can make every piece sturdy. The problem is
that your Fat Master bragging rights will go down
as your old fart buddies rag on you for having such
a heavy bike. This is why no self-respecting Fred
like Kunich would do such a thing.

Ben

Donald Munro wrote:
Come to think of it the Dreamliner with (carbon 50%, Al 20%, Ti 15%,
and Steel 10%) sounds like the perfect fatty master accessory xmas
present.

A couple of decades ago carbon bikes used to fail from galvanic
corrosion between carbon tubes and aluminum lugs. Getting on
board a plane made of carbon and aluminum seems way too risky
to me.

Bob Schwartz

"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message
...

What if it fails while you're riding it home?

Never seen one do it. In the bike shops it isn't unusual even for strong
frames to fail now and again. They just send the frame back to the
manufacturer and get a new one. The failures are generally from defects in
the construction or materials.

And just for your information - on my tour down the coast this last fall the
rear right dropout fractured on my touring bike at the chainstay. And the
only thing that happened was the it started jumping around on the gears and
I stopped immediately. I tried coasting down some hills but I began to worry
about that dropout possibly breaking off at the downtube really leaving me
stranded with all of my baggage on that bike. So I walked to an emergency
phone and then managed to get a passerby to give me a lift into San Luis
Obispo.

The failures of carbon frames I've seen in the local bikes shops were total
failures. And if you remember, in the early days of carbon frames you'd see
them carrying pieces of these frames away in a small bag. I had some of the
original carbon frames and they were either so overbuilt that they couldn't
fail or they would come apart from joint failures, electrolysis and the like
quite soon.

"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 5:28 pm, "
wrote:
It is true that many steel alloys have a
fatigue limit and aluminum doesn't,...

?

Steel is this marvelous material. If you flex it below it's yield strength
it will NEVER fail save in cases of manufacturing problems such as embedded
junk like carbon crystals or the like.

Aluminum will only take so much flexing and then will fail. Large flexing a
small number of times or little flexing a large number of times. It will
always fail when it hits that limit. Bike frames are supposed to be designed
so that this flexing limit is very far in the future.