|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#671
|
|||
|
|||
Carlton Reid on QR safety
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:19:21 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:
Given how often lawyer lips have come up in this and the previous threads on the topic, there is no chance that anyone has forgotten the lawyer lips. The intent of laywer lips is not to provide axle retention for disk brakes, it is to prevent people who don't know how to use QRs from losing their front wheels. Correct but by default it should prevent a QR from exiting the fork for forces many times the highest calculated here for an ejection force. Sadly not. British Standard 6102-1:1999 (which is based on ISO 4210:1996 but has advanced in some respects) requires wheel retention by the QR mechanism of 2300N (517lbf) for 30 seconds, but with open QR the lips have to withstand a load of just 100N (22.5lbf). [Section 9.4.4] Mike |
Ads |
#672
|
|||
|
|||
Carlton Reid on QR safety
Tony Raven wrote: I thought everyone here was was arguing against me that a loose QR was not detectable by the rider until it got to the point the wheel was ejected. Now you are trying to argue that a loose QR will be more than detectable - it will loose you control of the bike. Which is it? Be careful what you ascribe to "everyone." There can be differences of opinion on such matters, even among people who agree that brakes should not be trying to eject the front wheel from the dropouts. FWIW, I don't know of anyone interested in bicycling safety issues who feels it's fine to ride a bike with a loose QR, whose axle is held in place only by the lawyer lips. If you feel such riding is fine, you'll have very few members on your team. Having a loose but retained front wheel is not of itself unsafe. Again, I think that's a VERY uncommon attitude. Can you find any safety literature that agrees with you? I've ridden that way with disk brakes through my mistake a number of times although unlike many here I pretty quickly knew something was wrong by the feel of the steering and the knocking sound from the front wheel as the QR hit the lawyers lips. Under what conditions were you riding? It may be one thing to ride on ordinary pavement under ordinary speeds with a loose QR (although, again, I doubt you'll find anyone else who says so); but I suspect it's quite another thing to be barrelling hell-bent-for-leather down a steep rocky hillside with a loose QR. I don't do such riding, but I suspect the sounds and sensations would be severely muddied by the general chaos involved. And of course, if you _were_ pounding your way down a super-steep, rocky hill and felt something funny in your front wheel, what would you do about it? Slam on the front brake even harder so you could stop to inspect? Good luck! - Frank Krygowski |
#673
|
|||
|
|||
Carlton Reid on QR safety
Mike Causer writes:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:19:21 +0000, Tony Raven wrote: Given how often lawyer lips have come up in this and the previous threads on the topic, there is no chance that anyone has forgotten the lawyer lips. The intent of laywer lips is not to provide axle retention for disk brakes, it is to prevent people who don't know how to use QRs from losing their front wheels. Correct but by default it should prevent a QR from exiting the fork for forces many times the highest calculated here for an ejection force. Sadly not. British Standard 6102-1:1999 (which is based on ISO 4210:1996 but has advanced in some respects) requires wheel retention by the QR mechanism of 2300N (517lbf) for 30 seconds, but with open QR the lips have to withstand a load of just 100N (22.5lbf). [Section 9.4.4] Wow. Of course, those are the legal standards and not actual measurements. Laywer lips do vary in design from just a couple of small bumps at the tips of the dropouts to flanges that are almost half the height of the QR nuts. But do the math. Since the ejection force is applied to only one dropout, the British Standard requirements are effectively that the QR has to withstand a pullout force of 108.5 lbf and the lawyer lips only 11.25 lbf! I can't help but think that decent quality skewers and forks would exceed this handily, hopefully anyway since even moderate braking with a current design disk brake would create a force that would exceed those numbers. |
#674
|
|||
|
|||
Carlton Reid on QR safety
In article , Tony Raven
wrote: Luke wrote: The primary device, unlike the secondary, does not simply retain, it secures. The difference between these two functions is the difference between having and losing control of the bike. I thought everyone here was was arguing against me that a loose QR was not detectable by the rider until it got to the point the wheel was ejected. Now you are trying to argue that a loose QR will be more than detectable - it will loose you control of the bike. Which is it? That's an amusing contradiction. The secondary retention device, 'preferably' takes over in such a manner as to clearly inform that the QRs have failed to secure the wheel (what if the Lawyers' Lips cite client privilege, keeping mum?), which in of itself constitutes an unsafe condition, but is not considered so until the secondary retention system fails also. Its a standard analysis for single fault tolerant safety critical equipment: a single fault shall not create an unsafe condition nor go undetected. Otherwise an undetected failure can continue obscured by the secondary system until the secondary system fails and makes the original fault visible in a potentially unsafe way. Having a loose but retained front wheel is not of itself unsafe. I've ridden that way with disk brakes through my mistake a number of times although unlike many here I pretty quickly knew something was wrong by the feel of the steering and the knocking sound from the front wheel as the QR hit the lawyers lips. Succinctly, here's my argument: What you consider 'wrong' constitutes an unsafe condition to me; and what precipitates this condition (QR failing) is characterized as failure. I disagree with your notion that 'a loose but retained front wheel is not of itself unsafe'. That's all folks. Luke |
#675
|
|||
|
|||
Carlton Reid on QR safety
I believe his point was that a reader may indeed be interested, but having
no added information, would not post uselessly. I also find it interesting and would like the option to read or plonk as it suits me. The idea of posting to merely say "I find this interesting" is kinda lame. Oh crap, I just did that. "Andy H" wrote in message ... Then do just that, you have no potential problems do you? Do you have the statistics to hand? Andy H |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anniversary BR(52) 19.05.05 | flyingdutch | Australia | 44 | June 19th 05 03:19 AM |
Safety Case / Audit | Al C-F | UK | 9 | January 13th 05 08:30 PM |
Helmet Law: Upgrade to Omnibus Safety Legislation | Concerned Citizens | Social Issues | 0 | November 27th 04 12:12 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |