x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal

Mike Causer wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:40:59 +0000, wafflycat wrote:

http://www.bikebiz.com/Wheel-ejection-theory-goes-legal

Ummmmm. So who's going to announce this on r.b.t?


Mike

Martin Dann wrote:
Mike Causer wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:40:59 +0000, wafflycat wrote:

http://www.bikebiz.com/Wheel-ejection-theory-goes-legal

Ummmmm. So who's going to announce this on r.b.t?


Mike

in news at 10, chains experience tensile stress, and pedal spindles are
subject to fatigue loading!

it's just legal ambulance chasing by those who aren't analyzing the full
picture. yes, disks cause a resolved force in the direction of the open
end of a dropout. but since this force is exceeded 3 or more times by
the retaining force of a properly tightened skewer, it's an argument
without merit. as evidence by the lack of actual ejections.

what i'm interested to see is whether brandt will act as expert on
whether he still believes "annan theory" to be "credible", now that he's
had a chance to consider not just ejection force, but retention force too.

jim beam wrote on 07/02/2007 07:14 +0100:

it's just legal ambulance chasing by those who aren't analyzing the full
picture.

Although I have never supported the Annan theory that is an unwarranted
slur on a fine cyclist and person that many of us here know from days
before the accident and some from after. It is a good thing that it is
being taken to Court. It may take some time but the Court is a good
forum to have the merits on both sides debated and reach a conclusion -
and I am prepared to admit my view on the theory could be wrong. As we
have seen the UK Courts are rather good at this if you look at things
like the bicycle helmet cases and many other nutty issues. Much better
than they are at setting appropriate sentencing for motorised killers.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 03:27:21 GMT, Martin Dann
wrote:

Mike Causer wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:40:59 +0000, wafflycat wrote:

http://www.bikebiz.com/Wheel-ejection-theory-goes-legal

Ummmmm. So who's going to announce this on r.b.t?


Mike

Dear Mike, Martin, & WC,

Should we expect to see the theory confirmed by reproduction? Or has
that already been done?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jim beam wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:

it's just legal ambulance chasing by those who aren't analyzing the full
picture. yes, disks cause a resolved force in the direction of the open
end of a dropout. but since this force is exceeded 3 or more times by
the retaining force of a properly tightened skewer, it's an argument
without merit. as evidence by the lack of actual ejections.

Ummmm... "Correctly tightened" seems about right, but have you had a
rear wheel pull over under acceleration because the QR wasn't tight
enough? The forces are comparable (probably lower). It's happened to me,
and i'm not exactly an inexperienced cyclist.
Roger

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

Roger Thorpe wrote:

jim beam wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:

it's just legal ambulance chasing by those who aren't analyzing the full
picture. yes, disks cause a resolved force in the direction of the open
end of a dropout. but since this force is exceeded 3 or more times by
the retaining force of a properly tightened skewer, it's an argument
without merit. as evidence by the lack of actual ejections.

Ummmm... "Correctly tightened" seems about right, but have you had a
rear wheel pull over under acceleration because the QR wasn't tight
enough? The forces are comparable (probably lower). It's happened to me,
and i'm not exactly an inexperienced cyclist.
Roger

Clearly what we need is a QR with a built-in torque wrench!

(actually, that might not be as stupid as it sounds)

--
Jim

On 2007-02-07 14:59:51 +0000, Jim Higson said:

Roger Thorpe wrote:

jim beam wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:

it's just legal ambulance chasing by those who aren't analyzing the full
picture. yes, disks cause a resolved force in the direction of the open
end of a dropout. but since this force is exceeded 3 or more times by
the retaining force of a properly tightened skewer, it's an argument
without merit. as evidence by the lack of actual ejections.

Ummmm... "Correctly tightened" seems about right, but have you had a
rear wheel pull over under acceleration because the QR wasn't tight
enough? The forces are comparable (probably lower). It's happened to me,
and i'm not exactly an inexperienced cyclist.
Roger

Clearly what we need is a QR with a built-in torque wrench!

(actually, that might not be as stupid as it sounds)

I bet it will be as expensive as it sounds.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

Buck wrote:
On 2007-02-07 14:59:51 +0000, Jim Higson said:

Roger Thorpe wrote:

jim beam wrote:

Martin Dann wrote:


it's just legal ambulance chasing by those who aren't analyzing the
full
picture. yes, disks cause a resolved force in the direction of the
open
end of a dropout. but since this force is exceeded 3 or more times by
the retaining force of a properly tightened skewer, it's an argument
without merit. as evidence by the lack of actual ejections.


Ummmm... "Correctly tightened" seems about right, but have you had a
rear wheel pull over under acceleration because the QR wasn't tight
enough? The forces are comparable (probably lower). It's happened to me,
and i'm not exactly an inexperienced cyclist.
Roger


Clearly what we need is a QR with a built-in torque wrench!

(actually, that might not be as stupid as it sounds)


I bet it will be as expensive as it sounds.

Yes, but anodise it in a nice colour and some people will buy it.

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

On 2007-02-07 15:43:45 +0000, Roger Thorpe
said:

Buck wrote:
On 2007-02-07 14:59:51 +0000, Jim Higson said:

Roger Thorpe wrote:

jim beam wrote:

Martin Dann wrote:


it's just legal ambulance chasing by those who aren't analyzing the full
picture. yes, disks cause a resolved force in the direction of the open
end of a dropout. but since this force is exceeded 3 or more times by
the retaining force of a properly tightened skewer, it's an argument
without merit. as evidence by the lack of actual ejections.


Ummmm... "Correctly tightened" seems about right, but have you had a
rear wheel pull over under acceleration because the QR wasn't tight
enough? The forces are comparable (probably lower). It's happened to me,
and i'm not exactly an inexperienced cyclist.
Roger


Clearly what we need is a QR with a built-in torque wrench!

(actually, that might not be as stupid as it sounds)


I bet it will be as expensive as it sounds.

Yes, but anodise it in a nice colour and some people will buy it.

Metal flake orange anyone?


--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message
...
jim beam wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:

it's just legal ambulance chasing by those who aren't analyzing the
full
picture. yes, disks cause a resolved force in the direction of the
open
end of a dropout. but since this force is exceeded 3 or more times by
the retaining force of a properly tightened skewer, it's an argument
without merit. as evidence by the lack of actual ejections.

Ummmm... "Correctly tightened" seems about right, but have you had a
rear wheel pull over under acceleration because the QR wasn't tight
enough? The forces are comparable (probably lower). It's happened to me,
and i'm not exactly an inexperienced cyclist.
Roger

--
Roger Thorpe

Last year I had that happen on 2 old bikes that I had just worked on. Both
had older Shimano rear hubs; one was a Dura-Ace skewer and the other a 600
series. I've used QRs for over 35 years and only had a rear wheel pull
over happen a few times before. The only thing that I could find was the
serrations on the QR lock nuts weren't very prominent. I switched the
skewers to Campy, end of problem.

Chas.