Durability Of Velocity Aerohead Rims In 20/24 Hole Drillings.

Per :
If I were riding the bikepath today, I'd get a bell, partly because I
finally saw one I liked in a bike shop g. Nice sound, big, comfy
lever. Very good.

And, believe-it-or-not, every so often somebody says "Thank You"
in response to the ding.
--
PeteCresswell

On 11/15/2010 1:43 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 11/14/2010 7:43 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 11/14/2010 12:49 AM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman °_°twshermanREMOVE@THISsouthslope .net wrote:

On 11/12/2010 10:57 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:58Ãâ€sˇ am, Tom Sherman Ãâ€sˇÃ‚°_Ãâ€sˇÃ‚°
wrote:
On 11/12/2010 10:49 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
Ãâ€sˇ [...]

The classic aphorism Ãâ€sˇ "Cheap, light, strong. Pick two, " Ãâ€sˇ could be
graphically represented with each "factor" being the side of a
triangle. Ãâ€sˇ The phrase by itself Ãâ€sˇ could be misconstrued to suggest that
the only available choices are the three vertices where two "factors"
meet. More accurately, however, the range of choices is really
infinite Ãâ€sˇ and includes any point within or on the triangle's
boundaries.[...]

No, the range of choices is not infinite, since the sides of the
triangle bound the choices.

Since you seem to have insufficient mathematical background to grasp
the concept of an infinite number of points in a geometric figure (or
for that matter even a line segment), just to accommodate you I will
gladly change "infinite" to "nearly infinite" or "practically
infinite." Hopefully this brings it into the realm of your limited
understanding.

Tom Sherman never made the voyage to
the differential and integral calculus.


For example, say we are designing a rim to fit an ISO 406-mm tire. The
dimensions of the rim are bounded by it being required to both fit on
the bicycle and to fit the tire. Within those bounds, we can come up
with designs that will have a minimum and maximum volume of material.
Since we can not make a rim with a partial atom, the variations in
possible volumes will not be truly continuous. And since the number of
available materials is limited to 118 [1], there is only a finite number
of combinations possible. DUH.

[1] Current periodic table of discovered elements. The number of
elements that would actually be practical to use is of course, smaller.

Persiflage.

You are a board certified engineer without mastery
of the differential and integral calculus. You know
no more than the managers at the firms that hire you;
and maybe less.

And Mr. Press is missing the forest for the trees. We are not
discussing some abstract mathematical concept here,

Actually, somebody is. Your first mistake.

Then it is a useless discussion for application to to real world problem
of optimizing bicycle component design. But we all knew that.

Logical fallacy: petitio principii, or begging the question.

Frankly, I do not care that mathematically there are an infinite number
of possible coordinates within a triangle, when the goal is to optimize
a component. Anyone who did real world engineering would know better
than to waste time on abstractions.

but the possible
number of variations possible using *real* materials in a *real*
application. Mr. Press has a correct answer, but to a different
question than the one asked.

I did not supply an answer. That is your second mistake.

Mr. Press certainly implied he had an answer.

False statement.

How so?

And by the way, all the managers in my company have to have professional
registration in a technical field.

And you do not know more than any one of them in any discipline.

Mr. Press has no knowledge either way, so he is an ass to make this claim.

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem.

No Mr. Press, you cast the first (veiled) insult, and I called you out
on it.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 11/15/2010 4:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 15, 10:17 am, Peter wrote:

Having rescued a number of 80's road bikes, I'd have to say that many
people are better off with a new bike. Old bikes have their charms for
retro-grouches, but most casual riders prefer more contemporary stuff
(like indexed shifting). By the time you replace the "consumables" on an
old bike, at least at bike shop prices, you're spending lots before even
considering upgrading components.

Well, it depends. Index shifting dates from the mid-1980s, so there
are certainly 1980s bikes that have it, for those who want it. And
there were plenty of 1980s friction shifting bikes that shifted well
enough to satisfy lots of modern riders.

I don't know lots of riders, modern or otherwise who like friction
shifting. Even when the first indexed shifters started showing up in the
mid-80's, they were DT or stem.

The worst part of old shifters is that you have to use old (design)
freewheels.

On 11/15/2010 4:42 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
In rec.bicycles.tech Frank wrote:
:On Nov 15, 10:17 am, Peter wrote:
:
: Having rescued a number of 80's road bikes, I'd have to say that many
: people are better off with a new bike. Old bikes have their charms for
: retro-grouches, but most casual riders prefer more contemporary stuff
: (like indexed shifting). By the time you replace the "consumables" on an
: old bike, at least at bike shop prices, you're spending lots before even
: considering upgrading components.

:Well, it depends. Index shifting dates from the mid-1980s, so there
:are certainly 1980s bikes that have it, for those who want it. And
:there were plenty of 1980s friction shifting bikes that shifted well
:enough to satisfy lots of modern riders.

It's really amazing how well even the cheapest modern front derailleurs
shift, even with crappy 70s plain chainwheels. That, and a modern HG
freewheel (assuming a half-ay decent suntour rear derailleur, or anything
made in the 21st century), and you've got a bike that shifts better than
anythin available when it was new did.


I've felt that the improvements in rear derailers were much more
noticeable. They're cheap, light, durable and accurate -- all the things
the old ones weren't. I often leave FD's on old bikes, never RD's.

On 11/15/2010 8:22 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
[...]
The only one that almost got me was a jogger. I managed to pass
her at the exact moment she reached her personal finish line and
did a wide 180 into my path.... but she was wearing ear buds, so
I was going slow enough to stop in time.

Joggers are evil.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 11/15/2010 12:10 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 15-11-2010 9:49, Tom Sherman °_° schreef:
On 11/15/2010 12:08 AM, wrote:
[...]
Would I like to have the urban and rural bike paths (lanes, etc., "red
bricks" in the city) in the USA, similar to what I've seen in
Holland? You bet, as long as I wasn't fair game for the bad folks in
their MV's if I wanted to get off the bike paths!

In the real world, you can have one, but not both.

Would you also like to spend most of your time riding in a crowd moving
10-15 kph?


Yes very crowded:
http://picasaweb.google.com/LoetjeH/LBSTour#5539447265121115650
Outside town bikepaths are only a crowded betweem 8.00 - 9.00 am, when
hordes of kids go to school on bike. In the bigger cities it's a
different story, but I don't think you manage 35 kph in rush hour in
your cities on a bent.

I can easily exceed 60 kph on a moderate downhill.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Peter wrote:
Having rescued a number of 80's road bikes, I'd have to say that many
people are better off with a new bike. Old bikes have their charms for
retro-grouches, but most casual riders prefer more contemporary stuff
(like indexed shifting). By the time you replace the "consumables" on an
old bike, at least at bike shop prices, you're spending lots before even
considering upgrading components.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Well, it depends. Index shifting dates from the mid-1980s, so there
are certainly 1980s bikes that have it, for those who want it. And
there were plenty of 1980s friction shifting bikes that shifted well
enough to satisfy lots of modern riders.

Peter Cole wrote:
I don't know lots of riders, modern or otherwise who like friction
shifting. Even when the first indexed shifters started showing up in the
mid-80's, they were DT or stem.

The worst part of old shifters is that you have to use old (design)
freewheels.


Really? why is that?

Friction and classic equipment works well, in fact better,
with modern tooth design freewheels and cassettes. Up to
eightish though; friction 9-10-11 is dicey. Seven systems
are fantastically better with modern freewheels/cassettes
than with classic tooth forms.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 11/15/2010 12:06 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Nov 15, 1:53 am, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
[...]
Yes, Frank Krygowski [is not] posting threats to attempt
to damage the employment status of another.
So what is it about Frank's online conduct that you think could pose
problems regarding his employment status if brought to light? Have you
told him of your concerns?
And where do you see "threats?" I envisioned no more than a simple
communication along the lines of "Is the Frank Krygowski you know in
real life as ignorant and unpleasant as the party who uses the name
'Frank Krygowski' online?"

Your disingenuous statement is not convincing. Your post was a threat
to harass Frank Krygowski.

I even asked Frank if that was OK with him and he has not objected.
So why do you have a problem with it?

Frank is not reading your posts anymore.

And why do you persist in stalking me? My "anonymity?" No, you don't
do the same for the vast majority of posters who use pseudonyms.
I must have hurt you real bad, bro.
Can't say that I'm sorry since I have nothing to apologize for.

I point out the use of a pseudonym on the part of "DirtRoadie" since he
is obviously using it as cover to behave in a manner he would not want
to be acknowledged for in real life.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Nov 15, 4:50*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

Frankly, I do not care that mathematically there are an infinite number
of possible coordinates within a triangle, when the goal is to optimize
a component. *Anyone who did real world engineering would know better
than to waste time on abstractions.

You mean like graphs or other graphical representations?
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/abstraction

OK, I'll take you word for it.
So do you seriously tray to count atoms?
I guess I'll take you word for that too.

I cannot help but note how well the the adverb "Frankly" fits with
your analysis.
DR

In rec.bicycles.tech Peter Cole wrote:
:On 11/15/2010 4:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
: On Nov 15, 10:17 am, Peter wrote:
:
: Having rescued a number of 80's road bikes, I'd have to say that many
: people are better off with a new bike. Old bikes have their charms for
: retro-grouches, but most casual riders prefer more contemporary stuff
: (like indexed shifting). By the time you replace the "consumables" on an
: old bike, at least at bike shop prices, you're spending lots before even
: considering upgrading components.
:
: Well, it depends. Index shifting dates from the mid-1980s, so there
: are certainly 1980s bikes that have it, for those who want it. And
: there were plenty of 1980s friction shifting bikes that shifted well
: enough to satisfy lots of modern riders.

:I don't know lots of riders, modern or otherwise who like friction
:shifting. Even when the first indexed shifters started showing up in the
:mid-80's, they were DT or stem.

:The worst part of old shifters is that you have to use old (design)
:freewheels.

I've got a firend who rides a bike with a 10 speed rear, shifted by
suntour friction stem shifters. He says it works just fine.

--
sig 94