A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shimano Headset



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old May 15th 17, 04:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 445
Default Shimano Headset

On Sun, 14 May 2017 19:58:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:54:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 15:00:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 14 May 2017 07:42:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 8:43:29 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:57:35 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 08:23:02 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:06:04 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
But then, to one who habitually uses a nail and a rock as a chain tool
the use of proper tools is probably a mystery.


Try to differentiate between an outdoors emergency situation and the
workshop in the garage. It's not that difficult.

-
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Which is hy mose of us carry a small tool repair kit that includes a chain-breaker. That way a broken chain isn't an ememrgency and a repair only takes a few seconds. After all seconds count when you're beig stalked by mountain lions or other hungry critters doesn't it? For someone who either breaks chains a lot or often comes across people with a broken chain (bother very rare where I ride even on the technical trails) it ONLY makes sense to have a chain breaker and spare link(s)and quick-link WITH YOU.

To be honest using a rock and rusty nail to repair a chain in the field sounds like something an armchair bicyclist would think up. Such a repaired chain would most likely fail again after only a short distance. Believe it or not there's good reasons why chain breakers are used to fix a chain.

Cheers

Out of curiosity I weighed and measured the chain tool that I carry in
my bike tool kit. It is 2-1/2 inches in length and 2-1/8 inches in
height. 1/2 inch thick, at its thickest, and weighs 2.6 ounces. It
works with chains up to and including 10 speed chains (I don't own an
11 speed). Frankly, as a broken chain immobilizes the bicycle I can
see no logic in not carrying it.

Since I have never once had a broken chain nor seen one I cannot see any
requirement to carry such a tool. Yesterday I did 55 miles and 2500
feet of climbing with some of it pretty steep ~12%. There were fore of
us there and the dirt encrusted on the bikes showed a certain lack of
careful maintenance. No one had any problems. I have been carrying all
these tools around for the last 6 years and the only one's I've used
are the tire repair tools.

Equally, I have had two crashes severe enough to break bones and in
neither did my head strike the ground. Thus, based on your logic,
there is no reason what so ever to wear a helmet.

There is almost no reason to wear a helmet under any conditions. If a

helmet was just barely able to protect me in a fall literally from 18"
what makes you think that a helmet can do anything other than protect
you from getting scratches on your head in a sideways fall at a dead
stop?

My oldest daughter hit her head on a concrete retaining wall hard
enough to crack the hardshell bike helmet and came away without a
scratch (on her head - she did get a bit of "road rash" elsewhere)-
and most certainly would have suffered a concussion without it. The
foam lining and hard plastic shell absorbed a LOT of impact.


Of course it happens. But equally, I had a run away horse run under an
apple tree and knock me off. In fact I was unconscious for a short
period. No helmet, and no concussion, or at least none that evidenced
any symptoms.

But my post was in response to someone that stated that, he rode 50
miles and didn't need a chain tool, thus chain tools aren't necessary.
I, perhaps somewhat whimsically, pointed out that as I had two severe
crashes without injuring my head that helmets obviously weren't
necessary either.

Alternately, there have been a number of people that fell or jumped
out of airplanes without a parachute and survived. Which may prove
that parachutes aren't necessary either.


From my point of view you are actually less likely to get a concussion without a helmet. You can even crack your head and because your skull is made to have at least some resiliency you can get away with less damage than with a helmet.

Bell's original calculation had to do with skull and neck strength. And they worked well on motorcycles because of the way motorcycles crash. (most crashes)

But bicycles are a different matter. You fall sideways and you protect yourself with your body. You go over the bars; you try to do a 180 and land on your back. It you go head first into a car or if you fall off in any manner where most of the force is taken by your head and a helmet is less than worthless.

There's no secret to this - the statistics are readily available and they show that with and without a "safety" helmet that the number of serious or fatal accidents involving the head are the same.


You are not reading the same information I am.

This is NOT something that should be under discussion on a group of experienced cyclists because all should know that you do not crash on a bike and expect to come way smiling.

That is your theory. Check the "inconvenient facts"

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm
Ads
  #72  
Old May 15th 17, 04:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 445
Default Shimano Headset

On Sun, 14 May 2017 20:00:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 7:05:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 08:54:22 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 14 May 2017 15:00:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 14 May 2017 07:42:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 8:43:29 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:57:35 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 08:23:02 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:06:04 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
But then, to one who habitually uses a nail and a rock as a chain tool
the use of proper tools is probably a mystery.


Try to differentiate between an outdoors emergency situation and the
workshop in the garage. It's not that difficult.

-
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Which is hy mose of us carry a small tool repair kit that includes a chain-breaker. That way a broken chain isn't an ememrgency and a repair only takes a few seconds. After all seconds count when you're beig stalked by mountain lions or other hungry critters doesn't it? For someone who either breaks chains a lot or often comes across people with a broken chain (bother very rare where I ride even on the technical trails) it ONLY makes sense to have a chain breaker and spare link(s)and quick-link WITH YOU.

To be honest using a rock and rusty nail to repair a chain in the field sounds like something an armchair bicyclist would think up. Such a repaired chain would most likely fail again after only a short distance. Believe it or not there's good reasons why chain breakers are used to fix a chain.

Cheers

Out of curiosity I weighed and measured the chain tool that I carry in
my bike tool kit. It is 2-1/2 inches in length and 2-1/8 inches in
height. 1/2 inch thick, at its thickest, and weighs 2.6 ounces. It
works with chains up to and including 10 speed chains (I don't own an
11 speed). Frankly, as a broken chain immobilizes the bicycle I can
see no logic in not carrying it.

Since I have never once had a broken chain nor seen one I cannot see any
requirement to carry such a tool. Yesterday I did 55 miles and 2500
feet of climbing with some of it pretty steep ~12%. There were fore of
us there and the dirt encrusted on the bikes showed a certain lack of
careful maintenance. No one had any problems. I have been carrying all
these tools around for the last 6 years and the only one's I've used
are the tire repair tools.

Equally, I have had two crashes severe enough to break bones and in
neither did my head strike the ground. Thus, based on your logic,
there is no reason what so ever to wear a helmet.

There is almost no reason to wear a helmet under any conditions. If a
helmet was just barely able to protect me in a fall literally from 18"
what makes you think that a helmet can do anything other than protect
you from getting scratches on your head in a sideways fall at a dead
stop?

My oldest daughter hit her head on a concrete retaining wall hard
enough to crack the hardshell bike helmet and came away without a
scratch (on her head - she did get a bit of "road rash" elsewhere)-
and most certainly would have suffered a concussion without it. The
foam lining and hard plastic shell absorbed a LOT of impact.

Of course it happens. But equally, I had a run away horse run under an
apple tree and knock me off. In fact I was unconscious for a short
period. No helmet, and no concussion, or at least none that evidenced
any symptoms.


Similar situation but the took me off on hydro pole. Took me right
out of my boots - and my ribs were sore for a month.

But my post was in response to someone that stated that, he rode 50
miles and didn't need a chain tool, thus chain tools aren't necessary.
I, perhaps somewhat whimsically, pointed out that as I had two severe
crashes without injuring my head that helmets obviously weren't
necessary either.

Alternately, there have been a number of people that fell or jumped
out of airplanes without a parachute and survived. Which may prove
that parachutes aren't necessary either.

Any safety equipment that is not overly intrusive is worth using


I will agree to that with the stipulation that most crashes on a bike are fall-offs with the head only being the minor damage.

Read the statistics given he

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

They dissagree with your theory in almost all respects.
  #73  
Old May 15th 17, 04:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 445
Default Shimano Headset

On Sun, 14 May 2017 20:03:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 7:45:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2017 3:00 PM,
wrote:

My oldest daughter hit her head on a concrete retaining wall hard
enough to crack the hardshell bike helmet and came away without a
scratch (on her head - she did get a bit of "road rash" elsewhere)-
and most certainly would have suffered a concussion without it. The
foam lining and hard plastic shell absorbed a LOT of impact.


Sorry, but it's pretty clear that a broken or cracked helmet is not
evidence of a prevented concussion. There are probably thousands of
incidents of broken helmets per year; yet bike concussions have _risen_
tremendously since helmets became popular. Check out the article titled
"Senseless" in _Bicycling_ magazine, June 2013.
http://www.bicycling.com/sites/defau...-13-Helmet.pdf

"Here’s the trouble. Stat #3: As more people buckled on helmets, brain
injuries also increased. Between 1997 and 2011 the number of
bike-related concussions su?ered annually by American riders increased
by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546, according to the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System..."

A broken helmet is evidence that helmets are very breakable.

--
- Frank Krygowski


The trouble is that the only way to make a safer helmet is to make one considerably larger. People would not buy them.

True, there is no PERFECT helmet - but the protection afforded by
even todays helmets is significant.
  #74  
Old May 15th 17, 05:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Shimano Headset

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:50:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 20:03:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 7:45:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2017 3:00 PM,
wrote:

My oldest daughter hit her head on a concrete retaining wall hard
enough to crack the hardshell bike helmet and came away without a
scratch (on her head - she did get a bit of "road rash" elsewhere)-
and most certainly would have suffered a concussion without it. The
foam lining and hard plastic shell absorbed a LOT of impact.

Sorry, but it's pretty clear that a broken or cracked helmet is not
evidence of a prevented concussion. There are probably thousands of
incidents of broken helmets per year; yet bike concussions have _risen_
tremendously since helmets became popular. Check out the article titled
"Senseless" in _Bicycling_ magazine, June 2013.
http://www.bicycling.com/sites/defau...-13-Helmet.pdf

"Here’s the trouble. Stat #3: As more people buckled on helmets, brain
injuries also increased. Between 1997 and 2011 the number of
bike-related concussions su?ered annually by American riders increased
by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546, according to the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System..."

A broken helmet is evidence that helmets are very breakable.

--
- Frank Krygowski


The trouble is that the only way to make a safer helmet is to make one considerably larger. People would not buy them.

True, there is no PERFECT helmet - but the protection afforded by
even todays helmets is significant.


With your eyes wide closed you walk on a path of righteousness and believe believe believe.
  #75  
Old May 15th 17, 02:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Shimano Headset

On 2017-05-14 10:17, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 1:07:57 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-14 09:37, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:24:49 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped

Hint: A repetitive scraping noise is usually a sign of
imminent wear-out of some part. A derailer hanger coming apart
on the 20mi home isn't so cool because that means hoofing the
remaining miles.

As unbelievable as it may sound I tend to invest that extra
minute or two to prevent such things.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

If you carried a chain-breaker you could shorten your chain when
your derailler hanger comes apart and then ride that 20mi home on
the single gear. Then you wouldn't have to worry about being
stalked by mountain lions.


I can do that without a chain breaker. However, Where I ride with
my MTB single gear won't help much. You'd be stuck all the time. I
use almost the whole gear range on every ride, jumping 4-6 gears
all the time because it has to happen fast.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/


You could simply put the chain onto a low gear and ride a bit slower.
It'd still beat walking. But then again in your corner of the world
nothing easy nor sensible (such as carrying a small multi-tool with a
chain breaker on it) works. You'd rather scrounge rocks and rusty
nails.


On my MTB I can lock out the rear suspension so I can hobble along
single-speed. However, with my "outlandish" tool set I was so far always
able to save the situation so normal ride could be maintained.

I do carry a Swiss Army knife with bottle opener and cork screw though :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #76  
Old May 15th 17, 03:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default Shimano Headset

On 13/05/2017 7:34 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 12:13:42 PM UTC+2, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 6:57:35 AM UTC+2, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 08:23:02 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:06:04 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
But then, to one who habitually uses a nail and a rock as a chain tool
the use of proper tools is probably a mystery.


Try to differentiate between an outdoors emergency situation and the
workshop in the garage. It's not that difficult.

-
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Which is hy mose of us carry a small tool repair kit that includes a
chain-breaker. That way a broken chain isn't an ememrgency and a repair
only takes a few seconds. After all seconds count when you're beig
stalked by mountain lions or other hungry critters doesn't it? For
someone who either breaks chains a lot or often comes across people
with a broken chain (bother very rare where I ride even on the
technical trails) it ONLY makes sense to have a chain breaker and spare
link(s)and quick-link WITH YOU.

To be honest using a rock and rusty nail to repair a chain in the field
sounds like something an armchair bicyclist would think up. Such a
repaired chain would most likely fail again after only a short
distance. Believe it or not there's good reasons why chain breakers are
used to fix a chain.

Cheers

Out of curiosity I weighed and measured the chain tool that I carry in
my bike tool kit. It is 2-1/2 inches in length and 2-1/8 inches in
height. 1/2 inch thick, at its thickest, and weighs 2.6 ounces. It
works with chains up to and including 10 speed chains (I don't own an
11 speed). Frankly, as a broken chain immobilizes the bicycle I can
see no logic in not carrying it.

--
Cheers,

John B.

Whether I carry a chaintool is the result of the probability a chain
breaks multiplied with the severity of the consequences when it happens.
The outcome for me is off road I carry one, on my roadbikes I don't. This
applies for all tools.

Lou


My multi-tool thing has a chain tool so I carry one all the time.


I don't carry a multitool on my roadbikes either.

I don't
think I've used one in over 20 years though.


There you go ....


I mean I haven't used the chain tool. I have had to use the allen
wrenches and other tools occasionally.

Last time I used one it was
handy to have though.


What would have happened when you didn't carry one at that moment?



The chain tool? I would have had to walk maybe 30 miles to a telephone.
This was before I had a cell phone.

Even now, if I do a 120km ride, I'm usually leaving Montreal and heading
to the country. Trying to get a cab or something 60 km from anywhere is
seems more difficult than carrying a tool to fix the broken chain.

I'm just saying that's what I do. I'm not insisting anyone else does
anything.

Except that if I lived in a mountain lion infested area where the riding
was so much more difficult than Quebec and you had chains breaking on a
daily basis, rather than looking for a rock and a nail in the woods, I'd
carry a chain tool.



https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5020-5...i-Tool#reviews


168 gram Geezzzz.. ;-)

Yeah, my god, another 1/4 pound on my 15 lb bike. That's almost 1 less
cheeseburger!

Technically, the chain tool is probably 20 grams as I would carry some
sort of tool anyway. g


Lou



  #77  
Old May 15th 17, 04:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/14/2017 11:41 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 22:47:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/14/2017 10:04 PM,
wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 08:54:22 +0700, John B.

Any safety equipment that is not overly intrusive is worth using


??? Really??

OK, do you wear a bike helmet when driving to the start of a bike ride?

I wear my bike helmet whenever I ride my bike(s)
If you mean when in my car, don't be stupid. I guess I have to
stipulate any "appropriate" safety equipment.


You're deciding what's "appropriate" based on fashion driven by
propaganda. You've been told it's appropriate to wear a helmet when
riding a bike - but why?

Is it because bicycling is a major source of traumatic brain injury?
No, it's only about 1% of the TBI problem in America. Motoring and
walking cause far more.

Is it because the risk of serious or fatal TBI per mile traveled is so
high on a bike? No, it's roughly 1/3 that of walking, per mile.

Is it because the cost to society of bike TBI is so high? No, it's
dwarfed by the cost to society from auto TBI, not to mention just
walking-around-the-house TBI.

Is it because your collapsible steering wheel, air bags and seat belts
remove the risk of motoring TBI? No, despite those features, riding in
a car causes huge amounts of TBI.

I'm not making this stuff up. Car helmets have been very seriously
proposed, and those proposing them have pointed out that they'd be much
more cost effective than many other measures, like air bags. They could
be far more pleasant to wear than bike helmets, too, partly because of
the non-exertion and climate control.

Don't distract us about welding without goggles or grinding without
safety glasses. Your ability to name two appropriate bits of safety
equipment doesn't make all safety promotions rational.

If you want to argue for bike helmets, first look at relative risk
levels for individuals and at relative costs to society; because it
makes little sense to put huge focus on a nearly non-existent problem.

Then look at actual effectiveness, or lack of same, in the real world,
not in tiny and confounded "case control" studies. (For example, you
might try to explain why pedestrian fatalities have fallen faster than
bike fatalities for the past 20 years, given that pedestrians stubbornly
refuse to wear helmets.)

Then you might deal with the benefits vs. detriments of bike helmets and
of the "dangerizing" of bicycling. Every study done on the topic has
found the benefits of bicycling FAR outweigh its tiny risks. Why would
you scare people away from riding by pretending it's safe only with a
weird plastic hat?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #78  
Old May 15th 17, 04:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/14/2017 11:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 20:00:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Read the statistics given he

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

They dissagree with your theory in almost all respects.


We are very familiar with "them," although you don't seem to realize
that "they" are Randy Swart, a single person who since about 1975 or so
has devoted his life to the dangerization of bicycling and the promotion
of mandatory bike helmets. That's for everyone, including adults.

Swart copies and publishes every bit of pro-helmet nonsense he can find.
For decades, he was one of the loudest trumpeters of the purported
"85% benefit" from the 1979 Thompson & Rivara "case-control" study.
That study was savaged by PhD statisticians (including in r.b.tech)
right from the start, and its figures were _never_ corroborated by other
studies. But since it sounded so great it was touted to high heaven.
(I was told "Frank! 85%! It's so simple!!!")

A few years ago, after a legal challenge, the NHTSA was forced to admit
that those :"85%" results did not meet the governments own standards for
accuracy. NHTSA was forced to stop quoting it in their helmet promotion
(although some deep recesses of their websites still have mention of it).

So what was Swart's reaction to the discrediting of his favorite number?
He said he wouldn't remove it from his website, because "it wouldn't
be helpful."

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #79  
Old May 15th 17, 04:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/14/2017 11:05 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 22:45:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/14/2017 3:00 PM,
wrote:

My oldest daughter hit her head on a concrete retaining wall hard
enough to crack the hardshell bike helmet and came away without a
scratch (on her head - she did get a bit of "road rash" elsewhere)-
and most certainly would have suffered a concussion without it. The
foam lining and hard plastic shell absorbed a LOT of impact.


Sorry, but it's pretty clear that a broken or cracked helmet is not
evidence of a prevented concussion. There are probably thousands of
incidents of broken helmets per year; yet bike concussions have _risen_
tremendously since helmets became popular. Check out the article titled
"Senseless" in _Bicycling_ magazine, June 2013.
http://www.bicycling.com/sites/defau...-13-Helmet.pdf


We will have to agree to disagree. Only a fool would take extra risks
just because he is wearing a helmet.


Hmm. You don't think that (for example) mountain bikers would ride more
carefully without helmets?

You've never heard a bicyclist say "I would never ride that road without
a helmet"? or "I would never fly down that hill without a helmet"?

Come to think of it, how many (American) football players would enter a
game without a helmet?

Risk compensation exists. It's a very well known phenomenon. Read the
book _Risk_ by John Adams.


"Here’s the trouble. Stat #3: As more people buckled on helmets, brain
injuries also increased. Between 1997 and 2011 the number of
bike-related concussions su?ered annually by American riders increased
by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546, according to the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System..."


The reporting of concussions has gone up in ALL sports - because of a
higher awareness and the fact there is better reporting systems in
place. Relating increased concussions to helmet use is mis-applying
the data - attributing a cause and effect where none exists.


Strictly speaking, what I'm pointing out is not cause and effect. For
my purposes, cause and LACK of effect is sufficient.

The public was promised that if everybody (or most everybody) wore bike
helmets, the terrible plague of bike-related TBI would go away; or at
least be reduced by 85%.

In reality, there never was a plague of bike-related TBI. You
essentially never heard of it before the commercial product hit the
market. But because of those claims and the social pressure that
resulted, millions of people have decided to strap on garish styrofoam
before every ride.

So where's the evidence of benefit? At the very least, you should be
able to show the rise in bike TBI is less than in other sports and
activities (like pedestrian travel). But you don't even have the needle
moving in the proper direction!

A broken helmet is evidence that helmets are very breakable.


Actuaklly, hard shell foam helmets take quite a force to break.


Most bike helmets sold these days don't qualify as "hard shell." The
shell plastic is less than 0.010" thick. I once broke one of those in
pieces when I slipped and sat down hard on wet grass. I was carrying it
in my hand, and I didn't land on it. I still don't know how it broke;
maybe I clutched it to my chest too hard, trying to protect it.

In any case, there's no doubt the number of damaged helmets FAR exceeds
the non-existent drop in bicycle TBI.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #80  
Old May 15th 17, 05:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/14/2017 11:34 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 19:46:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 07:42:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 8:43:29 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:57:35 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 08:23:02 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:06:04 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
But then, to one who habitually uses a nail and a rock as a chain tool
the use of proper tools is probably a mystery.


Try to differentiate between an outdoors emergency situation and the
workshop in the garage. It's not that difficult.

-
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Which is hy mose of us carry a small tool repair kit that includes a chain-breaker. That way a broken chain isn't an ememrgency and a repair only takes a few seconds. After all seconds count when you're beig stalked by mountain lions or other hungry critters doesn't it? For someone who either breaks chains a lot or often comes across people with a broken chain (bother very rare where I ride even on the technical trails) it ONLY makes sense to have a chain breaker and spare link(s)and quick-link WITH YOU.

To be honest using a rock and rusty nail to repair a chain in the field sounds like something an armchair bicyclist would think up. Such a repaired chain would most likely fail again after only a short distance. Believe it or not there's good reasons why chain breakers are used to fix a chain.

Cheers

Out of curiosity I weighed and measured the chain tool that I carry in
my bike tool kit. It is 2-1/2 inches in length and 2-1/8 inches in
height. 1/2 inch thick, at its thickest, and weighs 2.6 ounces. It
works with chains up to and including 10 speed chains (I don't own an
11 speed). Frankly, as a broken chain immobilizes the bicycle I can
see no logic in not carrying it.

Since I have never once had a broken chain nor seen one I cannot see any
requirement to carry such a tool. Yesterday I did 55 miles and 2500
feet of climbing with some of it pretty steep ~12%. There were fore of
us there and the dirt encrusted on the bikes showed a certain lack of
careful maintenance. No one had any problems. I have been carrying all
these tools around for the last 6 years and the only one's I've used
are the tire repair tools.

Equally, I have had two crashes severe enough to break bones and in
neither did my head strike the ground. Thus, based on your logic,
there is no reason what so ever to wear a helmet.

There is almost no reason to wear a helmet under any conditions. If a helmet was just barely able to protect me in a fall literally from 18" what makes you think that a helmet can do anything other than protect you from getting scratches on your head in a sideways fall at a dead stop?
My oldest daughter hit her head on a concrete retaining wall hard
enough to crack the hardshell bike helmet and came away without a
scratch (on her head - she did get a bit of "road rash" elsewhere)-
and most certainly would have suffered a concussion without it. The
foam lining and hard plastic shell absorbed a LOT of impact.


I would suggest that you don't understand the nature and causes of concussion. And that you don't understand the mechanics of impact. Where did you get a hardshell bicycle helmet?

I don't know the age or weight of your child or what "retaining wall" means. Colliding and hitting your head in the forward lunge is NOT the same as falling off of your bike and taking the brunt of the collision with the ground on your head.

Sorry, but you would be wrong. I understand that concussions are
caused by the head decellerating too quickly, causing the brain to
bruise or twist inside the skull. I also know that compressing an inch
of foam can increase the time taken to slow the head to a stop - in
actual testing, about an extra 6ms - which changes the effective
impact significantly - reducing the peak impact force by more than
half. It spreads the force over a longer time - reducing the
decelleration.

When I say Hard shell, I don't mean fiberglass - this was a fairly
tough polypropelene shell - they were pretty common here in Ontario
Canada 20 years ago.
She was riding down a hill when the pedal broke and she lost control,
veering into a retaining wall made of bags of cement which was used to
stabilize a steep bank beside the road (the road is in a "cut") She
came off the bike sideways, hitting her head on the wall, and also
hitting her shoulder. Helmets protect against impacts whether caused
by the acceleration of gravity in a fall, are due to forward velocity
(which CAN be much higher than a strictly gravitational fall from
about 4 feet)


Lots of information that does not support the interpretation of
increased injuries due to helmet use here.

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Also you need to talk to paramedics and emergency room physicians.
You will get a different story than Frank's.


I've talked to a woman in our bike club whose full time job was TBI
rehabilitation. This was back in the 1990s. She admitted that in seven
years of full time work, she'd encountered only one bike-related TBI
victim, and he was a racer who had been wearing a helmet when he crashed.

Look up the numbers of TBI victims sorted by activity. Fatality data I
found indicates that bicyclists are only 0.6% of TBI fatalities in the
U.S. And again, that's not low because of the helmets. See
http://vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html and
http://vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

Read this: http://ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

If you hit TBI websites, you'll see that bicycling is usually not even
mentioned in ranked lists of causes. Yet the myth of great risk
persists. And the myth of great protection is nearly as strong.

--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shimano headset with hose clamp (for Frank) Joerg[_2_] Techniques 34 June 8th 16 03:04 PM
FA: NOS Shimano Dura Ace 1" HP-7410 threaded headset retrofan Marketplace 0 August 14th 08 04:41 AM
WTB: Mavic 305 or Shimano Dura Ace 1" threaded headset LawBoy01 Marketplace 2 August 14th 08 12:02 AM
Installing shimano 105 headset Neil Smith UK 1 November 7th 07 06:49 PM
FA: Pinarello frame, fork, Shimano Dura Ace headset retrofan Marketplace 0 July 6th 07 11:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.