Minnesota Winters

"jim beam" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:12:12 -0800, Tom Keats wrote:

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
writes:
Tom Keats wrote:

[...]
We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and loose
(or loosening) everywhere else.
Well you can't do that anyway, because that would not leave cranks
180=C2=B0 apart as they should be.
Oi, bloody hell! Please, not the Q-factor thing again! How does how
convexly tapered pegs in squarely tapered holes fit, do with crank
spacing anyways?[...]
I think you misunderstand. The desired alignment is having the cranks
be 180° apart in plan view, and has nothing to do with pedal tread
width.
It doesn't matter when attachment points are fixed.

Things on a bicycle get automagically aligned when you install them,
right?

Anyways, I kinda like getting info out of Jobst. Sometimes it's like
tickling silk out of silkworms -- ya feel bad about the way you do it.
But in the long run, so many people get the benefit. Or at least, they
get the information. Whether or not they use it is up to them.

Jobst is a capacitance of experience. We'd be pretty stupid to
disregard or discard that away.

actually, there's an awful lot where he's blowing smoke, getting it wrong
or just plain making it up. to the unaware, it's hard to tell because he
writes with an assertive authoritative style so the presumption, in the
absence of better knowledge, is to assume he knows what he's talking
about, especially when he throws in a little nugget that /is/ known. but
reality is, he can be a frightful bull****ter. his assertion that his
motorcycle tire wear pattern was because he could brake harder than he
could corner was a recent classic - it's not possible to brake that hard
because the rider goes over the bars before they can exert as much force
as cornering can.

On the other hand, Andrew Muzi uses a VAR press for inserting cotters,
and I am aware of a couple of cottered cranks he serviced that have
provided good service afterwards.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
"jim beam" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:12:12 -0800, Tom Keats wrote:

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
writes:
Tom Keats wrote:

[...]
We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and loose
(or loosening) everywhere else.
Well you can't do that anyway, because that would not leave cranks
180=C2=B0 apart as they should be.
Oi, bloody hell! Please, not the Q-factor thing again! How does how
convexly tapered pegs in squarely tapered holes fit, do with crank
spacing anyways?[...]
I think you misunderstand. The desired alignment is having the cranks
be 180° apart in plan view, and has nothing to do with pedal tread
width.
It doesn't matter when attachment points are fixed.

Things on a bicycle get automagically aligned when you install them,
right?

Anyways, I kinda like getting info out of Jobst. Sometimes it's like
tickling silk out of silkworms -- ya feel bad about the way you do it.
But in the long run, so many people get the benefit. Or at least, they
get the information. Whether or not they use it is up to them.

Jobst is a capacitance of experience. We'd be pretty stupid to
disregard or discard that away.

actually, there's an awful lot where he's blowing smoke, getting it wrong
or just plain making it up. to the unaware, it's hard to tell because he
writes with an assertive authoritative style so the presumption, in the
absence of better knowledge, is to assume he knows what he's talking
about, especially when he throws in a little nugget that /is/ known. but
reality is, he can be a frightful bull****ter. his assertion that his
motorcycle tire wear pattern was because he could brake harder than he
could corner was a recent classic - it's not possible to brake that hard
because the rider goes over the bars before they can exert as much force
as cornering can.

On the other hand, Andrew Muzi uses a VAR press for inserting cotters,
and I am aware of a couple of cottered cranks he serviced that have
provided good service afterwards.

I've re-sewn buttons onto shirts, and y'now what?
They stay on.

Go Figure, eh?

Didn't even need no high-falootin' cast iron
machinery to stitch them into place.


Bike shop proprietors can go ahead and make
mountains out of molehills to make money.

But I don't mind supporting them.
After all, they don't mind supporting me.

As long as I've got money, and they've got
stuff I want.

Like properly sized, 73-degree cotter pins.
Of the right length.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
writes:


The way /you/ say it, you can't even get cotter pins in without
a fancy hydraulic press and a bunch of fussy alignment.
That's true, but as I mentioned, the press fit is preload on the
spindle, just as one needs preload on a square taper aluminum crank.
This is not because the cotter doesn't fit, but because it needs high
preload to no fret in use.

No, it needs to /fit/.

No fit, no value, no proper function.

That's all.

Oi, bloody hell! Please, not the Q-factor thing again! How does
how convexly tapered pegs in squarely tapered holes fit, do with
crank spacing anyways?
Cotters are cylindrical and have a sloping face toward the spindle.
You are imagining this assembly incorrectly.

Things should properly fit with each other, and not be
barbarically thrust or forced into each other in hopes
of achieving something that isn't cheap, ugly or wrong.[...]

Press fits are designed to have things crammed together with high force
and deformation of the parts involved. Would you ride a square taper
crank that you could push onto the spindle by hand?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
A Muzi writes:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when the
assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins properly.

For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins
into straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a
few in my stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and
there's no widening in their middles. Straight taper pins;
straight taper holes. As it should be, as long as there's
a perfect fit with no slop.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by drawing
up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and deform the
pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.

We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and
loose (or loosening) everywhere else.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service
the BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but
that goes with the territory. And there's an acquirable
"touch" for avoiding that. Well, it's mostly luck.

If I had a bike with cotter cranks that needed servicing, I would take
it to the shop with proper tools, such as Mr. Muzi's. A cotter pin that
does NOT require significant force to insert will NOT form a press fit,

Okay. You want an oversized something forced into a weakened
hole, thereby further weakening it.

What an American approach.


which is what this interface requires to function as intended.

The interface requires proper fitting of crank, spindle and
cotter pin.

And yet you want everything to depend on some fat guy/thing.

How typical.

Well, if that's what you want, knock yerself out. Shove
barrel-chested pins into your cranks, spread your metal
apart, and see what happens.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:

Press fits are designed to have things crammed together with high force
and deformation of the parts involved. Would you ride a square taper
crank that you could push onto the spindle by hand?

That's a way different matter from swaging, and you know it!


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:

Press fits are designed to have things crammed together with high force
and deformation of the parts involved. Would you ride a square taper
crank that you could push onto the spindle by hand?

That's a way different matter from swaging, and you know it!

Press fitting a cotter is not swaging in primary intent either.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
A Muzi writes:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when the
assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins properly.
For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins
into straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a
few in my stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and
there's no widening in their middles. Straight taper pins;
straight taper holes. As it should be, as long as there's
a perfect fit with no slop.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by drawing
up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and deform the
pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.
We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and
loose (or loosening) everywhere else.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service
the BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but
that goes with the territory. And there's an acquirable
"touch" for avoiding that. Well, it's mostly luck.

If I had a bike with cotter cranks that needed servicing, I would take
it to the shop with proper tools, such as Mr. Muzi's. A cotter pin that
does NOT require significant force to insert will NOT form a press fit,

Okay. You want an oversized something forced into a weakened
hole, thereby further weakening it.

What an American approach.

American, as in western hemisphere? That includes Vancouver, does it not?


which is what this interface requires to function as intended.

The interface requires proper fitting of crank, spindle and
cotter pin.

And yet you want everything to depend on some fat guy/thing.

How typical.

Well, if that's what you want, knock yerself out. Shove
barrel-chested pins into your cranks, spread your metal
apart, and see what happens.

The above is not an accurate discription, as it implies shoving in a
grossly oversized cotter by brute force, which is NOT the practice
recomended by either Jobst or Andrew.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:11:24 -0800, Tom Keats wrote:

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
A Muzi writes:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast
steel press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts
out about 80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a
better approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S
couplers: http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when
the assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins
properly.

For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins into
straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a few in my
stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and there's no widening in
their middles. Straight taper pins; straight taper holes. As it
should be, as long as there's a perfect fit with no slop.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by
drawing up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and
deform the pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.

We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the length
of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and loose
(or loosening) everywhere else.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate grease)
is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service the BB. They
don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but that goes
with the territory. And there's an acquirable "touch" for avoiding
that. Well, it's mostly luck.

If I had a bike with cotter cranks that needed servicing, I would take
it to the shop with proper tools, such as Mr. Muzi's. A cotter pin that
does NOT require significant force to insert will NOT form a press fit,

Okay. You want an oversized something forced into a weakened hole,
thereby further weakening it.

What an American approach.


which is what this interface requires to function as intended.

The interface requires proper fitting of crank, spindle and cotter pin.

And yet you want everything to depend on some fat guy/thing.

How typical.


what? don't you guys breed "get a bigger hammer" engineers over there?





Well, if that's what you want, knock yerself out. Shove barrel-chested
pins into your cranks, spread your metal apart, and see what happens.


cheers,
Tom

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:54:20 -0800, Tom Keats wrote:

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
"jim beam" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:12:12 -0800, Tom Keats wrote:

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
writes:
Tom Keats wrote:

[...]
We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not
cheap-assed swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized
spot, and loose (or loosening) everywhere else.
Well you can't do that anyway, because that would not leave cranks
180=C2=B0 apart as they should be.
Oi, bloody hell! Please, not the Q-factor thing again! How does
how convexly tapered pegs in squarely tapered holes fit, do with
crank spacing anyways?[...]
I think you misunderstand. The desired alignment is having the
cranks be 180° apart in plan view, and has nothing to do with pedal
tread width.
It doesn't matter when attachment points are fixed.

Things on a bicycle get automagically aligned when you install them,
right?

Anyways, I kinda like getting info out of Jobst. Sometimes it's like
tickling silk out of silkworms -- ya feel bad about the way you do
it. But in the long run, so many people get the benefit. Or at
least, they get the information. Whether or not they use it is up to
them.

Jobst is a capacitance of experience. We'd be pretty stupid to
disregard or discard that away.

actually, there's an awful lot where he's blowing smoke, getting it
wrong or just plain making it up. to the unaware, it's hard to tell
because he writes with an assertive authoritative style so the
presumption, in the absence of better knowledge, is to assume he knows
what he's talking about, especially when he throws in a little nugget
that /is/ known. but reality is, he can be a frightful bull****ter.
his assertion that his motorcycle tire wear pattern was because he
could brake harder than he could corner was a recent classic - it's
not possible to brake that hard because the rider goes over the bars
before they can exert as much force as cornering can.

On the other hand, Andrew Muzi uses a VAR press for inserting cotters,
and I am aware of a couple of cottered cranks he serviced that have
provided good service afterwards.

I've re-sewn buttons onto shirts, and y'now what? They stay on.

says it all!





Go Figure, eh?

Didn't even need no high-falootin' cast iron machinery to stitch them
into place.


Bike shop proprietors can go ahead and make mountains out of molehills
to make money.

But I don't mind supporting them.
After all, they don't mind supporting me.

As long as I've got money, and they've got stuff I want.

Like properly sized, 73-degree cotter pins. Of the right length.


cheers,
Tom

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 01:33:32 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:

"jim beam" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:21:16 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:

"jim beam" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:02:08 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:

"jim beam" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:55:04 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:

"jim beam" wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:29:26 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

[...]
The way you say that, I become ever more certain that you have
no experience with high quality racing bicycle cotters, the
mainstream when I began bicycling over longer distances.
cotters were fundamentally misconceived. your defense of them is
bizarre given your favorite hobby-horse of pedal thread fretting,
yet apparently you're oblivious to the same effects in this
application. [...]
Where did Jobst defend cotter cranks as being a good design? I
missed that. Please provide a citation.
serious social perception issue there tom! discuss that with your
medical professional.

So "jim beam" apparently can not provide a citation.
more perception problems! or your newsreader doesn't allow you to
follow a thread.

So "jim beam" apparently can not provide a citation. Enough said.

mea culpa - i can't be bothered to do your rudimentary google searching
for you.



Obviously, when Jobst took up serious cycling (late 1940's or
early 1950's?), there were no quality alternatives to cottered
cranks. From Jobst's postings, it appears he abandoned cottered
cranks shortly after quality square taper cranks became available.
as did we all. stupid design.

So "jim beam" criticizes Jobst for using the best commercially
available design at the time? Sheesh!
no, i'm criticizing defense of cotter pin use - jobst's position that
they're ok if "driven home hard enough". they're /never/ ok.
No "jim", Jobst was writing in the context of what was best if cotters
were being used. Of course, your personal hatred of Jobst blinds you
to reason when reading his posts.

don't read closely enough - do you.

Translation - I do not read with an anti-Jobst agenda. YAWN


it's not anti-jobst, it's anti made-up bull**** - that's where you're
making your huge mistake. i'll dish it out to /anyone/ that pollutes the
knowledge pool with misinformation and underinformed guesswork. just like
we saw with nate, it's the lies and bullying that keep people with real
information away. and that's just plain WRONG.