|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Selecting An Appropriate Bolt
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:25:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/20/2017 11:43 PM, wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:21:56 +0700, John B Slocomb wrote: A friend, who was an EWO on B-52's, once commented that it wasn't exactly confidence building to go to war armed with equipment built by the lowest bidder :-) "a loose gaggle of compromises flying in close formation" - which is why I'm building my own - - - Building your own plane? Yup. Rag and tube fuselage, all aluminum flying surfaces - 2 seet side by side STOL highwing. Power on dirty stall about 18MPH, normal landing speed about 35MPH - max cruise on 90HP between 100 and 120MPH - cruise all day at about 85. Land and take off on a football field without turning around or backtracking. Got a bad cross wind? No problem - land it ACROSS the runway. It's called a Pegazair 100. |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Selecting An Appropriate Bolt
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau
wrote: On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro wrote: On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote: Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads. The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does. I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped, which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point. Art And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-) This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after 15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks annually? Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years. It is a ridiculously high failure rate. No, the whole bike will fall apart every 15 years, so do what most guys do and replace the bike every 12-14 years - and suffer no major failures - - - - |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Selecting An Appropriate Bolt
On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro wrote: On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote: Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads. The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does. I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped, which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point. Art And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-) This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after 15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks annually? Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years. Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you are certainly next? You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all. My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike. Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate. Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average. .... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives of 15 years, as in this classic poem: http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm -- - Frank Krygowski |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Selecting An Appropriate Bolt
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau
wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro wrote: On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote: Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads. The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does. I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped, which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point. Art And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-) This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after 15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks annually? Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years. Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you are certainly next? You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all. My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike. Well, I guess I was probably aware that the bolt on the stem isn't the only part on the bicycle, but your assertion that because one bolt breaks it somehow relates to any, or all, other fasteners, or for that matter anything else on the bicycle, is certainly not logical. You seem to be arguing that one bolt somehow relates to all other bolts and thus a failure of one bolt will be related to possible failures of other bolts. It doesn't, you know. Bolts are of different size, different materials, different loads imposed, etc. As for 15, I'm not sure whether there are 15 bolts on a bicycle. Nope, I just went out and counted the bolts on my road bike... only 10 :-) Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate. Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average. Remember, our friend Jobst died recently from injuries resulting from a frame failure. He had been riding the frame since 1962 or something like that. Now, I'm not saying anything one way or the other about that event. I am not trying to argue that it should have lasted longer, nor, on the other hand, that he shouldn't have ridden it as long as he did. But I think that it provides an interesting reference point. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Selecting An Appropriate Bolt
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:38:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro wrote: On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote: Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads. The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does. I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped, which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point. Art And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-) This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after 15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks annually? Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years. Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you are certainly next? You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all. My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike. Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate. Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average. ... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives of 15 years, as in this classic poem: http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm The "One Horse Shay" was written some years ago :-) But I maintained a fleet of Datsun pickup trucks at one site that failed in an almost identical manner. If one major part failed you could be sure that nearly all other major parts would fail in the immediate future. Canny people those Japanese :-) |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Selecting An Appropriate Bolt
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:05:33 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:38:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro wrote: On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote: Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads. The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does. I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped, which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point. Art And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-) This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after 15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks annually? Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years. Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you are certainly next? You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all. My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike. Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate. Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average. ... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives of 15 years, as in this classic poem: http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm The "One Horse Shay" was written some years ago :-) But I maintained a fleet of Datsun pickup trucks at one site that failed in an almost identical manner. If one major part failed you could be sure that nearly all other major parts would fail in the immediate future. Canny people those Japanese :-) Quite typical of Nissan - possibly due to their alliance with Renault. I see a lot of good looking Nissans in the wrecking yards because when they start to fail it's a fast downhill spiral - so a lot of people scrap them rather than starting to repair them. Just an observation - |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Selecting An Appropriate Bolt
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:59:51 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:05:33 +0700, John B Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:38:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro wrote: On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote: Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads. The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does. I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped, which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point. Art And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-) This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after 15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks annually? Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years. Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you are certainly next? You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all. My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike. Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate. Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average. ... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives of 15 years, as in this classic poem: http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm The "One Horse Shay" was written some years ago :-) But I maintained a fleet of Datsun pickup trucks at one site that failed in an almost identical manner. If one major part failed you could be sure that nearly all other major parts would fail in the immediate future. Canny people those Japanese :-) Quite typical of Nissan - possibly due to their alliance with Renault. I see a lot of good looking Nissans in the wrecking yards because when they start to fail it's a fast downhill spiral - so a lot of people scrap them rather than starting to repair them. Just an observation - I suspect that it was the usual Japanese tactic of taking a design which works and then figuring out how to reduce the cost of making them without losing the quality (or much of it). The early days of the 35mm cameras is typical. The Japanese started making copies of European 35mm cameras. Then when the Korean war started the news guys discovered that they could buy a Nikon, just as good as a Leica, for half the price. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Selecting An Appropriate Bolt
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:56:53 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:59:51 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:05:33 +0700, John B Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:38:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2017 9:12 PM, Doug Landau wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:17:23 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:15 -0700, Art Shapiro wrote: On 4/17/2017 1:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote: Get a new stem. This one is a flawed design. There is built-in problem with the shape of the part, and that is a lack of remaining metal around the bolt hole. The stem has been made bigger around the front bolt hole to overcome this, but it still has the 2-bolt-1-failure problem. The traditional shape does not make this concession to ease-of-handlebar-change, and carefully places the single bolt in the rear where there is plenty of metal surrounding the threads. The traditional design is both less likely to experience a bolt failure, and - in the wild guess dept., be more likely to hold on to the bars and remain usable in the event that one does. I'm he OP. It so happens that the rear bolt was the one that snapped, which seems to contradict your assertion about the design's weak point. Art And, if I remember correctly, after only 15 years too :-) This is false logic. There are at least 15 parts on your bike; by your policy we should expect catastrophic part failure once per year. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. A bolt that broke after 15 years of use is somehow associated with something that breaks annually? Exactly. If your stem fails once in 15yrs, on the average, and so does your seatpost, and so do your bars, forks, and crank, then something will fail every three years. Why do you equate the failure of one part to the failure of any other part? Does the fact that the tree in your front yard fell down mean that your house will fall down? Or that because Joe Boudrou was hit by a car while crossing the street mean that you can't cross roads as you are certainly next? You don't have faulty logic. You have no logic at all. My logic is perfect. I made no such absolute statements, my statement is prefaced with your 15 year period. You seem impressed with that as an MTBF for an 6mm bolt. I am reminding you that that bolt is not the only such part on the bike, (it has a twin in the seatpost, for example), and so to calculate your average E.T. between scary failures, you must divide that by the # of such parts on the bike. Viewed in this light, 15 years is an unacceptably high failure rate. Yes, I am assuming that you would be similarly impressed by a set that failed only once in 15 years, and by such a post, and such fork, and such a bars. Hence the opening "If". Again: IF your stem breaks once in 15 years, AND so does your seat, your post, your forks and bars, THEN, you will have a scary failure once every three years, on the average. ... unless they were all perfectly designed with precise working lives of 15 years, as in this classic poem: http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm The "One Horse Shay" was written some years ago :-) But I maintained a fleet of Datsun pickup trucks at one site that failed in an almost identical manner. If one major part failed you could be sure that nearly all other major parts would fail in the immediate future. Canny people those Japanese :-) Quite typical of Nissan - possibly due to their alliance with Renault. I see a lot of good looking Nissans in the wrecking yards because when they start to fail it's a fast downhill spiral - so a lot of people scrap them rather than starting to repair them. Just an observation - I suspect that it was the usual Japanese tactic of taking a design which works and then figuring out how to reduce the cost of making them without losing the quality (or much of it). The early days of the 35mm cameras is typical. The Japanese started making copies of European 35mm cameras. Then when the Korean war started the news guys discovered that they could buy a Nikon, just as good as a Leica, for half the price. More likely the french management. Toyota, Mazda, and Honda don't have that problem. Mitsu deams to - and they have just been taken under the wing of Renault/Nissan. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Selecting An Appropriate Bolt
On 4/20/2017 10:18 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
With all ofthe replies about just about everything else, did you get a definitive reply that ANSWERED your question about whether to use a Grade 5 or Grade 8 bolt? Sorry - I hadn't checked the newsgroup in a few days. I was pretty well convinced to look for a Grade 8. Right now I took the same bolt from another of the same stem that I had on a previous bicycle, and am using that for the time being. ASrt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Converting Brake mounting bolt to recessed bolt? | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 18 | August 23rd 09 12:49 PM |
Selecting a Bike | Katuzo | General | 46 | July 26th 08 03:11 PM |
selecting a BB | [email protected] | Techniques | 5 | September 12th 07 03:10 AM |
Selecting the right chain | heedcase | Techniques | 10 | August 28th 04 02:32 AM |
Selecting a new saddle | Nick Kew | UK | 18 | December 25th 03 10:47 PM |