|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Ventoso blasts the use of disc brakes in the peloton
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. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Ventoso blasts the use of disc brakes in the peloton
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/ |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Ventoso blasts the use of disc brakes in the peloton
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/ |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Ventoso blasts the use of disc brakes in the peloton
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. |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Ventoso blasts the use of disc brakes in the peloton
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Disc Brakes - pad touching disc | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 2 | March 21st 06 01:41 PM |
Might Dump Road Disc Brakes for Rim Brakes | mykal | Techniques | 24 | July 7th 05 05:48 PM |
'V' Brakes vs Mechanical Disc Brakes | Ian Brown | Mountain Biking | 14 | May 31st 04 08:09 PM |
disc brakes on front, v-brakes on rear | Per Elmsäter | Mountain Biking | 24 | October 21st 03 10:42 PM |