|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal
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! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal
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! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal | wafflycat | UK | 71 | February 10th 07 10:51 PM |
disk-brake wheel-ejection question | [email protected] | Techniques | 38 | October 5th 04 02:38 AM |
Disk brakes and wheel ejection - Manitou's answer? | Mark McMaster | Techniques | 75 | May 19th 04 05:46 PM |
Disc brake front wheel ejection: fact or fantasy? | John Morgan | Mountain Biking | 76 | September 8th 03 09:04 PM |
More on disk brakes and wheel ejection | Chris Zacho The Wheelman | Techniques | 54 | August 16th 03 10:16 PM |