Ventoso blasts the use of disc brakes in the peloton

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:14:03 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
How do you explain this picture from the 2013 Tour de France?

https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/...6f5eb8858bd56a
Snipped
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

The rear wheel is tecnically a one spoke wheel and the front wheel is a three spoke wheel.

Joerg, you have more excuses that Carter made little liver Pills. Buy a dirt-motorcycle, weld on a bottom bracket and convert to a chain or rod-drive if that's the bike you buy and be done with all the breakages and non-automobile features you dislike so much.
Do you REALLY ride a bicycle?

Cheers

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:50:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-04-29 16:35, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 3:21:38 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 30/04/16 00:40, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-04-28 18:40, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:00:33 -0700, Joerg
wrote:


For those who can imagine mechanical things and don't need
every idea as a fully completed and ECO-released CAD
drawing:

Picture a freehub body that is a little over 2x longer than
the cassette. The outside has a spring that always tries to
push the cassette to its left peg which would translate to
the chain being on the smallest sprocket. Unless the shifter
tells it not to. The inside contains a bearing that slides on
the splines just like the cassette does but the outer ring of
that bearing does not touch the cassette.


This would still require a device to tension the chain, probably in
much the same way as a conventional rear derailleur does.


It does but it would not add much in cost. Or maybe none at all.


Isn't all this eliminated with an IGH? I really don't see any reason
to come up with an entirely new design (including frame, hub,
cassette, chain tensioner, shifters (fenders, racks and everything
else that needs two-sided attachment)) to solve a problem (chain
alignment) that has been solved with IGHs and isn't that much of a
problem with ordinary bikes -- at least not for me.


Sturdy gear hubs are way expensive. A Rohloff costs well into the four
digits.


If Joerg wants a rod-driven bike, he should look into a Biocam.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA/biocam.htm It's the future . . .
as seen from 1979.


No idea how that would ride but a key reason why it may have fizzled is
buried in he

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA...am_ad_copy.htm

$1500 for a road bike was pretty much a non-starter in 1979. Trying to
enter a market at premium pricing to quickly make up for R&D expenses
has killed many ideas.


... And as far as innovation goes, just search the
USPTO for any conceivable type of bicycle transmission. It's all
there, with pictures. It just never made it into production, or it
was produced and there was no market. It's not like people are
sitting on their thumbs. Here's Shimano's CVT patent.
http://tinyurl.com/jhldk6t It looks simple. You could build it at
home.


It's blank here because they require Adobe. The patent number
US009005068 looks weird and pops back as invalid upon a search.

One can build many things at home and I have. But for those of us who
like me only have a modest selection of hand tools it's not that easy.
When I built stuff for the rear of my MTB I had to find someone with a
brake to bend the thicker metal parts somewhat gracefully. That brake
which is propbably the only one in the neighborhood is in poor condition
so much of it was up to 1/10" off, requiring extra work.

I was actually joking. Go to the USPTO and look at the patent. The Shimano implementation of CVT is complex. Maybe Lou could do it in his garage operating room or at work, but not most ordinary people.

I think BioCam actually went on the market around 1980-81, but I'm not sure.. Anyway, yes, a bare frame with transmission for $1.5K was a lot, but innovation costs money. You want the high-tech fix, be prepared to pay. Otherwise, you live with ordinary parts like the rest of us. Not cheap **** that falls apart but decent, durable components.

While your MTB might be a special case with having to outrun mountain lions on alpine trails while hauling refrigerators, your road bike should be no different from any other road bike ridden by a rider of your size, weight and fitness. It should require nothing more than decent OTC equipment.

And the usual caveat -- there are expensive-yet-crappy components out there, and you have every reason to complain about them. I'll complain with you, but with careful shopping, you can get a bullet-proof bike with a good chain line no sweat.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2016-04-30 16:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:50:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-04-29 16:35, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

If Joerg wants a rod-driven bike, he should look into a Biocam.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA/biocam.htm It's the future .
. . as seen from 1979.


No idea how that would ride but a key reason why it may have
fizzled is buried in he

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA...am_ad_copy.htm



$1500 for a road bike was pretty much a non-starter in 1979. Trying to
enter a market at premium pricing to quickly make up for R&D
expenses has killed many ideas.


... And as far as innovation goes, just search the USPTO for any
conceivable type of bicycle transmission. It's all there, with
pictures. It just never made it into production, or it was
produced and there was no market. It's not like people are
sitting on their thumbs. Here's Shimano's CVT patent.
http://tinyurl.com/jhldk6t It looks simple. You could build it
at home.


It's blank here because they require Adobe. The patent number
US009005068 looks weird and pops back as invalid upon a search.

One can build many things at home and I have. But for those of us
who like me only have a modest selection of hand tools it's not
that easy. When I built stuff for the rear of my MTB I had to find
someone with a brake to bend the thicker metal parts somewhat
gracefully. That brake which is propbably the only one in the
neighborhood is in poor condition so much of it was up to 1/10"
off, requiring extra work.

I was actually joking. Go to the USPTO and look at the patent. The
Shimano implementation of CVT is complex. Maybe Lou could do it in
his garage operating room or at work, but not most ordinary people.

I think BioCam actually went on the market around 1980-81, but I'm
not sure. Anyway, yes, a bare frame with transmission for $1.5K was
a lot, but innovation costs money. You want the high-tech fix, be
prepared to pay. Otherwise, you live with ordinary parts like the
rest of us. Not cheap **** that falls apart but decent, durable
components.


Banking on enough early adopters with deep pockets is the wrong strategy
to win market acceptance of a new concept. The proper way is what Asian
companies mostly do. They come out of the gate in the shape of a sales
stampede, no premium pricing. This is what made companies such as Sony
oodles of money (Walkman et cetera). In med tech we do it in a similar
way, same for most other markets I do design work for.


While your MTB might be a special case with having to outrun mountain
lions on alpine trails while hauling refrigerators, your road bike
should be no different from any other road bike ridden by a rider of
your size, weight and fitness. It should require nothing more than
decent OTC equipment.


I do expect better than dynamo lighting plus a good load carrying
capability (which its steel frame has). In contrast to most other road
bike riders around here I use both of my bikes also heavily for errands
and that includes hauling stuff. Else the bikes could hardly be
competing with motorized vehicles.

The tech stuff, well, one grudgingly gets used to excessive wear of
chains, tires, cassettes and whatnot. Things one does not have to worry
about when driving a car.


And the usual caveat -- there are expensive-yet-crappy components out
there, and you have every reason to complain about them. I'll
complain with you, but with careful shopping, you can get a
bullet-proof bike with a good chain line no sweat.


If you know a chain that yields more miles per Dollar on singletrack
than a KMC X10.93 I am all ears. Or a reasonably priced MTB cassette
that lasts more than 4000mi.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-04-30 14:51, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:14:03 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
How do you explain this picture from the 2013 Tour de France?

https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/...6f5eb8858bd56a


Snipped
-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

The rear wheel is tecnically a one spoke wheel and the front wheel
is a three spoke wheel.


Those can be of rigid construction, clearly demonstrating what is
possible. Spokes cannot take up pushing or bending forces. Carbon fiber
and similar materials can.


Joerg, you have more excuses that Carter made little liver Pills. Buy
a dirt-motorcycle, weld on a bottom bracket and convert to a chain or
rod-drive if that's the bike you buy and be done with all the
breakages and non-automobile features you dislike so much. Do you
REALLY ride a bicycle?


North of 4k miles/year. Right now about 70% road bike and 30% MTB but
that often changes depending on where I mostly (need to) go.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Sun, 01 May 2016 07:44:24 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-04-30 16:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:50:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-04-29 16:35, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

If Joerg wants a rod-driven bike, he should look into a Biocam.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA/biocam.htm It's the future .
. . as seen from 1979.


No idea how that would ride but a key reason why it may have
fizzled is buried in he

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA...am_ad_copy.htm



$1500 for a road bike was pretty much a non-starter in 1979. Trying to
enter a market at premium pricing to quickly make up for R&D
expenses has killed many ideas.


... And as far as innovation goes, just search the USPTO for any
conceivable type of bicycle transmission. It's all there, with
pictures. It just never made it into production, or it was
produced and there was no market. It's not like people are
sitting on their thumbs. Here's Shimano's CVT patent.
http://tinyurl.com/jhldk6t It looks simple. You could build it
at home.


It's blank here because they require Adobe. The patent number
US009005068 looks weird and pops back as invalid upon a search.

One can build many things at home and I have. But for those of us
who like me only have a modest selection of hand tools it's not
that easy. When I built stuff for the rear of my MTB I had to find
someone with a brake to bend the thicker metal parts somewhat
gracefully. That brake which is propbably the only one in the
neighborhood is in poor condition so much of it was up to 1/10"
off, requiring extra work.

I was actually joking. Go to the USPTO and look at the patent. The
Shimano implementation of CVT is complex. Maybe Lou could do it in
his garage operating room or at work, but not most ordinary people.

I think BioCam actually went on the market around 1980-81, but I'm
not sure. Anyway, yes, a bare frame with transmission for $1.5K was
a lot, but innovation costs money. You want the high-tech fix, be
prepared to pay. Otherwise, you live with ordinary parts like the
rest of us. Not cheap **** that falls apart but decent, durable
components.


Banking on enough early adopters with deep pockets is the wrong strategy
to win market acceptance of a new concept. The proper way is what Asian
companies mostly do. They come out of the gate in the shape of a sales
stampede, no premium pricing. This is what made companies such as Sony
oodles of money (Walkman et cetera). In med tech we do it in a similar
way, same for most other markets I do design work for.


Actually Sony didn't do that. Their first product was tape recorders,
the first seems to have been the"G Type" sold in about 1950
for"Government Use" which, given the Japanese Government in the
1950's, must have been a pretty small market. The Walkman, the
prototype built in 1978, came along nearly 30 years later.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 2016-05-01 18:48, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2016 07:44:24 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-04-30 16:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:50:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-04-29 16:35, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

If Joerg wants a rod-driven bike, he should look into a Biocam.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA/biocam.htm It's the future .
. . as seen from 1979.


No idea how that would ride but a key reason why it may have
fizzled is buried in he

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA...am_ad_copy.htm



$1500 for a road bike was pretty much a non-starter in 1979. Trying to
enter a market at premium pricing to quickly make up for R&D
expenses has killed many ideas.


... And as far as innovation goes, just search the USPTO for any
conceivable type of bicycle transmission. It's all there, with
pictures. It just never made it into production, or it was
produced and there was no market. It's not like people are
sitting on their thumbs. Here's Shimano's CVT patent.
http://tinyurl.com/jhldk6t It looks simple. You could build it
at home.


It's blank here because they require Adobe. The patent number
US009005068 looks weird and pops back as invalid upon a search.

One can build many things at home and I have. But for those of us
who like me only have a modest selection of hand tools it's not
that easy. When I built stuff for the rear of my MTB I had to find
someone with a brake to bend the thicker metal parts somewhat
gracefully. That brake which is propbably the only one in the
neighborhood is in poor condition so much of it was up to 1/10"
off, requiring extra work.

I was actually joking. Go to the USPTO and look at the patent. The
Shimano implementation of CVT is complex. Maybe Lou could do it in
his garage operating room or at work, but not most ordinary people.

I think BioCam actually went on the market around 1980-81, but I'm
not sure. Anyway, yes, a bare frame with transmission for $1.5K was
a lot, but innovation costs money. You want the high-tech fix, be
prepared to pay. Otherwise, you live with ordinary parts like the
rest of us. Not cheap **** that falls apart but decent, durable
components.


Banking on enough early adopters with deep pockets is the wrong strategy
to win market acceptance of a new concept. The proper way is what Asian
companies mostly do. They come out of the gate in the shape of a sales
stampede, no premium pricing. This is what made companies such as Sony
oodles of money (Walkman et cetera). In med tech we do it in a similar
way, same for most other markets I do design work for.


Actually Sony didn't do that. Their first product was tape recorders,
the first seems to have been the"G Type" sold in about 1950
for"Government Use" which, given the Japanese Government in the
1950's, must have been a pretty small market. The Walkman, the
prototype built in 1978, came along nearly 30 years later.


So ... they did it :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/