Doug Taylor wrote in message . ..
Tim McNamara wrote:
Well, now, that was certainly a charming response. It's unclear on
what grounds you think this to be the case, nor why you felt the need
for spurious invective. Ah, well, like many mysteries it will no
doubt remain unexplained.
Au contraire.
This from you:
"I too have been told by mountain bikers "dude, you've got no business
being out here on that road bike" on trails that are easily negotiated
on a "road" bike (although the bike in question was a cyclo-cross
bike), especially evidence by the fact that I was passing some of
them. Many mountain bikers have an exaggerated view of what equipment
is necessary to ride through a given terrain."
Gag me with a spoon. Maybe a trifle self important and sanctimonious?
Indeed. Tim holds himself above all others when commenting on this
issue, even though his training and expertise certainly do not qualify
him to be any kind of authority on any of the subjects under
discussion.
Sorry, but for the people who post in alt.mountain-bike, and who ride
mountain bikes frequently and in some cases exclusively, you clearly
have only a passing acquaintance with the sport, if that. The bikes
under discussions are mountain bikes. Nor are you an engineer. Your
observations on that subject simply parrot your idol, Brandt. You are
really nothing more than a dilettante.
Ouch. The truth hurts. Now, why can't you tell the truth about your
selfish, destructive sport? /MJV
Why not let the mountain bikers who know WTF they are talking about
(e.g. Hickey, Raven, Superslinky, Spider) discuss mountain bikes, and
the engineers who know WTF they are talking (e.g. Jobst; maybe Annan)
about discuss physics and engineering, and YOU get over yourself?
LOL. Hey, it's been a while since I went by that handle. Just to
correct the record, I do know something about MTBs, but most certainly
am NOT any kind of authority. I learn new stuff all the time, and
unlearn some old stuff now and again.
When it comes right down to it, my big problem with the whole disk
brake ejection/QR unscrewing thing is the serious lack of knowledge of
initial conditions in the reported failures/near failures. When this
issue is brought up, the distraction/obfuscation techniques begin
IMMEDIATELY. Every time.
The Annan hypothesis goes something like this (my commentary in square
brackets):
1. There is an ejection force at the drop-out. [From the simple
force diagram, this cannot be denied. The magnitude of the force is
questionable, due to the assumption of independent fork legs on Mr.
Annan's part. This simplifies the calculations, but might conceal
some mitigation.]
2. The QR is not designed to handle the ejection force. [*If* the
ejection force is as strong as he says, with no mitigation from the
fork legs being more of a unit than his calculations allow for, then
he has a possible point. Some QRs greatly exceed the minimum standard
clamping force.]
3. The QR will unscrew enough that the ends can get past the
retention tabs at the bottom of the drop-out. [This is the weakest
part of the hypothesis. It *is* true that some threaded fasteners
will unscrew under cyclical loads. Split- and lockwashers are some of
the things used to prevent this. But knurled, cammed QRs do not all
move of their own accord, and some still do under non-disk brake
useage. This implies that *further testing of the issue is required.*
Preferably where initial conditions are known and recorded, and how
many braking cycles it takes to make stuff move around.]
Clearly you are entitled to your opinion, but the officious manner in
which you express it is offensive and nauseating .
Tim clearly wishes to eat his cake and have it, too. He roundly
criticizes anyone who would show a whiff of disdain for Mr. Annan's
hypothesis, while engaging in the most sophomoric of ad hominem
commentary himself. The worst part is that he adds nothing of
substance to the discussion, but rather engages in debate tactics to
attempt to belittle his opponents. Hardly a recipe for convincing
others to take action.
--
Jonesy (formerly Spider)