Shimano Headset

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:59:42 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/16/2017 8:47 AM, wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 1:05:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 12:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:41:39 PM UTC-7, 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.

In my car (which has a colapsible steering column, air bags, and seat
belts) I wear my seat belts. When driving my motorcycle I always wore
an approved helmet and good shoes/boots. I would NEVER ride in shorts
and tee-shirt wearing flip-flops or tennis shoes.
I also won't mow the lawn barefoot, or use a grinder without safety
glasses, or weld without goggles.
To do otherwise is shear stupidity.

And we aren't suggesting you don't. We are suggesting that you don't take chances you wouldn't take because you are wearing a helmet.
And as I stated earlier, only a TOTAL IDIOT would take extra chances
just because he's wearing a helmet (or a seatbelt in a car).
A helmet doesn't make you bullet-proof or immortal.

I still take all other sensible precautions when using tools too - not
depending on safety glasses to protect me from stupidity, but giving
my eyes a fighting chance in case carefull use of the tools still
sends something flying towards my eyes. Don't know about you, but I
can only blink SO fast - - -

Look, if people believe any safety device works they take extra chances.. Exactly why do you suppose speed limits are set so entirely out of line with the safety of anyone in mind?

With the increase in auto safety cages the numbers of deaths have dropped somewhat. But the levels of accidents have greatly increased.

Well, we're telling you and WE HAVE THE STATISTICS that helmets do not do anything in the way of significant protection. ANY accident in which the brunt of the energy of a fall is taken by your head at any speed will gain NO help from a so-called "safety" helmet.


There is a window within which a helmet would decelerate the
brain to sub-damage impact forces and a range within which
abrasions/lacerations/contusions will be mitigated.

There are points below which a helmet wasn't necessary and
above which useless.

That said, people differ in their analyses of those risks,
frequencies, mitigation ranges etc. I cannot agree with you
categorically that a helmet is useless in every case.

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

As an engineer I know that there IS that point. But it is a window so narrow that I doubt that anyone has ever met it.

If I fell about 20" while leaning over at about 5 mph got a life threatening concussion (by the way I appear to be having seizures of a mild sort again) and have to take $200 worth of medicine every couple of months each morning I'd like to discover how someone could fall off of the top of a bicycle and land on their head and expect a helmet to do anything at all.

All of the other possible medications cost a great deal more and have worse side effects.

I have very few memories of the last 20 years and if anyone thinks that a concussion is a laughing matter they are fools. How would you like it if you couldn't remember your mother or father in their later lives? Of course there are the good parts - I can't remember all of the things my ex-wife did to me so she's come back and I can't complain. I don't remember my older brother and his shenanigans so I can take him off to the doctor every other week without bopping him in the head.

On Tue, 16 May 2017 18:56:39 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 21:39:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
That would do. I think Joerg is a special case and could use a tool and some master links because he breaks chains. If you don't break chains . . .

I've broken a couple of chains because I messed up reassembly or, in one case, I had an odd shift on to the big ring and up-shift, and the quick-link snapped open. I probably side-loaded the chain in some odd way. I had no chain tool, but I was close enough to home that I could scooter until my wife came to pick me up.

I broke one chain in the middle of nowhere, but I was on tour and had a chain tool. Another mis-assembled chain broke on the way to work, but I was close enough to work to scooter the last bit, and then I bought a cheap chain tool at lunch. The bad part was dealing with a greasy chain in my backpack.

-- Jay Beattie.

Indeed does Joerg appear to be a special case. However, if I experienced the number of problems/reakages that he does then I'd be carrying a pretty comprehensive repar kit with tools and parts that I'd most likely need. MAybe what Joerg needs to do is fix up a method of towing another bike behind the one that he rides and that way when one bike breaks something major he can then rather than having to walk 20+ miles back to civilization he could just ride the extra bike back and tow the werecked one behind it.

Cheers
Perhaps he just needs a better bike. Sounds like he's riding a
"flying pigeon". Those things would break if you looked at them wrong
from 50 feet.

Goodness, there must be a lot of disappointed people. After all Flying
Pigeon sold more than 500 million PA 2 bicycles since 1950, and they
are still in business. The PA 2 model has, as of 2007, sold more then
any other any other model of vehicle.

Can you imagine all those broken hearted owners weeping over their
broken bicycles? Think of it, nearly ten percent of the world's
population, in 2007, with the tears dripping off their chin because
their pigeon broke.
They didn't stand up well in Zambia.Perhaps it was assembly problems,
but I found if tou loc-tited or safety wired everything (or as Zambian
bike mechanics would do, crimp the end of the thread with a vice-grips
(or "mole" as they were known)) the partrs would actually stay on -
but that didn't help the welds that let go.

On Tue, 16 May 2017 18:56:39 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 00:16:10 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 10:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
That would do. I think Joerg is a special case and could use a tool and some master links because he breaks chains. If you don't break chains . . .

I've broken a couple of chains because I messed up reassembly or, in one case, I had an odd shift on to the big ring and up-shift, and the quick-link snapped open. I probably side-loaded the chain in some odd way. I had no chain tool, but I was close enough to home that I could scooter until my wife came to pick me up.

I broke one chain in the middle of nowhere, but I was on tour and had a chain tool. Another mis-assembled chain broke on the way to work, but I was close enough to work to scooter the last bit, and then I bought a cheap chain tool at lunch. The bad part was dealing with a greasy chain in my backpack.

-- Jay Beattie.

Indeed does Joerg appear to be a special case. However, if I experienced the number of problems/reakages that he does then I'd be carrying a pretty comprehensive repar kit with tools and parts that I'd most likely need. MAybe what Joerg needs to do is fix up a method of towing another bike behind the one that he rides and that way when one bike breaks something major he can then rather than having to walk 20+ miles back to civilization he could just ride the extra bike back and tow the werecked one behind it.

Cheers

I can only say that although I rarely, based on distances cycled, have
a flat I carry a spare tube and patch kit and while I even less
frequently break a chain I still carry a chain tool and a couple of
chain links.

Strange though, although I've had far fewer bike crashes than flat
tires everyone says "wear a helmet" :-)
Generally speeking a flat or broken chain won't kill you.

Generally speaking neither will a bike accident.

While true that these numbers don't come from the U.S., I would
suggest that they are indicative of bicycle accidents. Their report
http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/adv...facts-figures/
Shows that in 2014 there were 21,287 reported bicycle accidents of
which some 17,773 were only slightly injured. Given that the numbers
are only the accidents that were reported the report estimates that
total accidents may well be twice the numbers shown.

In short it appears that the vast majority of bicycle accidents do not
result in death and the article seems to indicate that perhaps a half
of all bike accidents are so minor as to require no medical attention
at all.
Correct - but what of the other 4500? How severe were they? and how
many either were not severe because of a helmet, or could have had
reduced severity if a helmet was worn. 4500 injuries requiring
hospitalization isn't trivial
NOTE - I am NOT saying cycling is a "dangerous" endeavour per se
-but there are risks that CAN be mitigated.

On Tue, 16 May 2017 07:38:12 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/16/2017 6:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 21:39:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
That would do. I think Joerg is a special case and could use a tool and some master links because he breaks chains. If you don't break chains . . .

I've broken a couple of chains because I messed up reassembly or, in one case, I had an odd shift on to the big ring and up-shift, and the quick-link snapped open. I probably side-loaded the chain in some odd way. I had no chain tool, but I was close enough to home that I could scooter until my wife came to pick me up.

I broke one chain in the middle of nowhere, but I was on tour and had a chain tool. Another mis-assembled chain broke on the way to work, but I was close enough to work to scooter the last bit, and then I bought a cheap chain tool at lunch. The bad part was dealing with a greasy chain in my backpack.

-- Jay Beattie.

Indeed does Joerg appear to be a special case. However, if I experienced the number of problems/reakages that he does then I'd be carrying a pretty comprehensive repar kit with tools and parts that I'd most likely need. MAybe what Joerg needs to do is fix up a method of towing another bike behind the one that he rides and that way when one bike breaks something major he can then rather than having to walk 20+ miles back to civilization he could just ride the extra bike back and tow the werecked one behind it.

Cheers
Perhaps he just needs a better bike. Sounds like he's riding a
"flying pigeon". Those things would break if you looked at them wrong
from 50 feet.

Goodness, there must be a lot of disappointed people. After all Flying
Pigeon sold more than 500 million PA 2 bicycles since 1950, and they
are still in business. The PA 2 model has, as of 2007, sold more then
any other any other model of vehicle.

Can you imagine all those broken hearted owners weeping over their
broken bicycles? Think of it, nearly ten percent of the world's
population, in 2007, with the tears dripping off their chin because
their pigeon broke.



Then again Trabants enjoyed something like a 97% market
share in DDR.
" In a world of blind men, the one eyed man is king"

On 5/16/2017 9:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:

There is a window within which a helmet would decelerate the brain to
sub-damage impact forces and a range within which
abrasions/lacerations/contusions will be mitigated.

There are points below which a helmet wasn't necessary and above which
useless.

That said, people differ in their analyses of those risks, frequencies,
mitigation ranges etc. I cannot agree with you categorically that a
helmet is useless in every case.

The concept of a window of usefulness seems reasonable. I don't think
anyone doubts that under certain circumstances, a helmet can prevent
abrasions, lacerations and contusions.

However, I think the window of usefulness is much smaller than people
have been led to believe. At the lower end, it's made smaller by the
fact that it's preventing only minor surface injury. IOW, there must be
many helmet hits that would have been near misses, or at worst slight
bumps and scratches. Personally, I suspect those account for most of
the "My helmet saved me!!!" stories. (And many of those would have been
protected by Guy Chapman's "wooly hat," which he humorously claimed
"saved his life.")

At the upper end, of course there are linear impacts beyond a helmet's
protective capacity. But I think it's likely that helmets can impose
rotational acceleration which is more damaging than with a bare head. I
think there are very good evolutionary reasons that we have hair (well,
some of us still do!) and scalps which are loosely attached to the skull
and well lubricated. Yes, it can be messy and scary when that mechanism
gets activated by a glancing blow; but I suspect it's a protective
mechanism that to some degree is thwarted by a helmet.

As mentioned upthread, bicycle concussions are way up, not way down,
since the surge in helmet popularity. The increase is so large that I
can't believe it's due only to increased reporting. (And I've not heard
of a similar increase in reported pedestrian concussions during that
time span.) If the "window of usefulness" were very large, we'd see
significant drops in bike concussions and other TBI.

However, let's keep in mind that bike concussions have _never_ been very
common compared to other sources' concussions. Any objective look at
sources of TBI shows that the great risk that helmeteers portray is a
myth.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 11:51 PM, Barry Beams wrote:

I would be dead twice because the two helmet crackers I had would have both likely been fatal if I didn't have a helmet on.

It is amazing, isn't it. Researchers estimate only one bike fatality
for over ten million miles ridden in the U.S. Out of over 100 million
cyclists, only about 800 die every year. By any measure, bike
fatalities are incredibly, incredibly rare, and that's always been true.

But lives saved by helmets are so incredibly, amazingly common! There
must be thousands of such stories every year!

Someone must be mistaken. Who could it possibly be?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 11:56 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 04:41:09 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

The overconfidence and "bigger hit area"
arguments I accept as arguments, however how it
plays out in the data who knows.

However the comparisons over time I don't know
as there might be many things changing during
that time and it is very difficult to single
out what leads to what and what doesn't
influence.

Also comparing bike and pedestrian accidents
aren't the same things with many different
factors involved.

It would be better if there were stats like
this: this year, there has been x accidents.
Of those, h(x) involved severe head injuries.
How many bikers in h(x) used helmets?
All of those statistics were given in the links I previously
provided. Frank discounts the stats.

You gave a link to a site that publishes every bit of pro-helmet
propaganda the site owner can dig up.

Pick a specific statistic, and let's discuss it in detail.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/16/2017 12:13 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 22:57:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/15/2017 10:41 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
The overconfidence and "bigger hit area"
arguments I accept as arguments, however how it
plays out in the data who knows.

However the comparisons over time I don't know
as there might be many things changing during
that time and it is very difficult to single
out what leads to what and what doesn't
influence.

Also comparing bike and pedestrian accidents
aren't the same things with many different
factors involved.

It would be better if there were stats like
this: this year, there has been x accidents.
Of those, h(x) involved severe head injuries.
How many bikers in h(x) used helmets?

None of this is dead simple. There are always confounding factors.

In my view, even what you propose does not tell the whole story, or
allow for a perfect decision. Why? Because your proposed stats could be
gathered for any activity; yet people think about those things only for
helmets on bicyclists and motorcyclists.

The links I gave previously covered MUCH more than cycling.
You obviously did not read them.

Take a look again at http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm#bikevsother



From the American Association of Neurological Surgeons

The following 20 sports/recreational activities represent the
categories contributing to the highest number of estimated head
injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms in 2009.
•Cycling: 85,389
•Football: 46,948
•Baseball and Softball: 38,394
•Basketball: 34,692
•Water Sports (Diving, Scuba Diving, Surfing, Swimming, Water Polo,
Water Skiing, Water Tubing): 28,716
•Powered Recreational Vehicles (ATVs, Dune Buggies, Go-Carts, Mini
bikes, Off-road): 26,606
•Soccer: 24,184
•Skateboards/Scooters: 23,114
•Fitness/Exercise/Health Club: 18,012
•Winter Sports (Skiing, Sledding, Snowboarding, Snowmobiling): 16,948
•Horseback Riding: 14,466
•Gymnastics/Dance/Cheerleading: 10,223
•Golf: 10,035
•Hockey: 8,145
•Other Ball Sports and Balls, Unspecified: 6,883
•Trampolines: 5,919
•Rugby/Lacrosse: 5,794
•Roller and Inline Skating: 3,320
•Ice Skating: 4,608
The top 10 sports-related head-injury categories among children ages
14 and younger: •Cycling: 40,272
•Football: 21,878
•Baseball and Softball: 18,246
•Basketball: 14,952
•Skateboards/Scooters: 14,783
•Water Sports: 12,843
•Soccer: 8,392
•Powered Recreational Vehicles: 6,818
•Winter Sports: 6,750
•Trampolines: 5,025
*Note: Reported incidence is known to be significantly underreported
(up to 50%, McCrea Clin J Sports med 13:13-17, 2004) and do not
reflect those that are treated by family doctors or other para-medical
professionals.

These are just a few of the information available from
www.helmets.org.


OK, and look up the definition of "head injury." After decades of
propaganda and deliberate conflation, most people think "head injury"
and "brain injury" are equivalent. But they are not.

"Head injury" usually refers to any injury at all above the neck; in
other words, the numbers above are _not_ concussions, TBI, or brain
injury. Almost all are minor surface injuries. (One infamous paper on
the topic specifically counted scratched ears as "head injuries.") So
while the count for bicycling looks high, what's being counted are not
the scary "head injuries" that actually affect people's lives. "Head
injury" does not equal "brain injury," despite deliberate attempts to
confuse the two.

Next: Why is bicycling the top "sport" listed there? One reason is
they omitted another "sport" with many times more TBI (and yes, I am now
focusing on TBI, not on "head injuries.") The table omitted the "sport"
of walking!

What's that you say? Walking isn't a "sport"?

Precisely! And neither is bicycling! Bicycling is tops in that count
only because kids use bicycles as playthings in their drive.
Vacationers use bicycles to slowly cruise boardwalks. Messengers use
bicycles to deliver packages. Teenagers use bicycles to get to friends'
houses. Commuters use bicycles to get to work. People use bicycles to
get to shops. Bicycles are used for lots of non-sport reasons.

Yes, there is _some_ use of bikes in push-yourself-hard competitive
work, just as there is some competitive walking and running. But almost
everyone walking or even running is not competing in a sport, just as
almost everyone bicycling is not competing in a sport. And please pay
attention to this: THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT BICYCLING OR WALKING IS
HUGE compared to any other "sport."

Bicycling and walking have large counts not because they are dangerous;
they have large counts because they are so incredibly popular, and they
are FAR more than mere "sports."

It's foolish to put bicycling in a comparative table of sports. But if
you insist on doing so, it's only fair to put the "sport" of walking
there too. It will at least show how silly the ranking is.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/16/2017 12:16 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 10:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
That would do. I think Joerg is a special case and could use a tool and some master links because he breaks chains. If you don't break chains . . .

I've broken a couple of chains because I messed up reassembly or, in one case, I had an odd shift on to the big ring and up-shift, and the quick-link snapped open. I probably side-loaded the chain in some odd way. I had no chain tool, but I was close enough to home that I could scooter until my wife came to pick me up.

I broke one chain in the middle of nowhere, but I was on tour and had a chain tool. Another mis-assembled chain broke on the way to work, but I was close enough to work to scooter the last bit, and then I bought a cheap chain tool at lunch. The bad part was dealing with a greasy chain in my backpack.

-- Jay Beattie.

Indeed does Joerg appear to be a special case. However, if I experienced the number of problems/reakages that he does then I'd be carrying a pretty comprehensive repar kit with tools and parts that I'd most likely need. MAybe what Joerg needs to do is fix up a method of towing another bike behind the one that he rides and that way when one bike breaks something major he can then rather than having to walk 20+ miles back to civilization he could just ride the extra bike back and tow the werecked one behind it.

Cheers

I can only say that although I rarely, based on distances cycled, have
a flat I carry a spare tube and patch kit and while I even less
frequently break a chain I still carry a chain tool and a couple of
chain links.

Strange though, although I've had far fewer bike crashes than flat
tires everyone says "wear a helmet" :-)
Generally speeking a flat or broken chain won't kill you.

Oh good grief. You can't seriously think that generally speaking, a
fall off a bike _will_ kill you??


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/16/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 18:56:39 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 00:16:10 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 10:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
That would do. I think Joerg is a special case and could use a tool and some master links because he breaks chains. If you don't break chains . . .

I've broken a couple of chains because I messed up reassembly or, in one case, I had an odd shift on to the big ring and up-shift, and the quick-link snapped open. I probably side-loaded the chain in some odd way. I had no chain tool, but I was close enough to home that I could scooter until my wife came to pick me up.

I broke one chain in the middle of nowhere, but I was on tour and had a chain tool. Another mis-assembled chain broke on the way to work, but I was close enough to work to scooter the last bit, and then I bought a cheap chain tool at lunch. The bad part was dealing with a greasy chain in my backpack.

-- Jay Beattie.

Indeed does Joerg appear to be a special case. However, if I experienced the number of problems/reakages that he does then I'd be carrying a pretty comprehensive repar kit with tools and parts that I'd most likely need. MAybe what Joerg needs to do is fix up a method of towing another bike behind the one that he rides and that way when one bike breaks something major he can then rather than having to walk 20+ miles back to civilization he could just ride the extra bike back and tow the werecked one behind it.

Cheers

I can only say that although I rarely, based on distances cycled, have
a flat I carry a spare tube and patch kit and while I even less
frequently break a chain I still carry a chain tool and a couple of
chain links.

Strange though, although I've had far fewer bike crashes than flat
tires everyone says "wear a helmet" :-)
Generally speeking a flat or broken chain won't kill you.

Generally speaking neither will a bike accident.

While true that these numbers don't come from the U.S., I would
suggest that they are indicative of bicycle accidents. Their report
http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/adv...facts-figures/
Shows that in 2014 there were 21,287 reported bicycle accidents of
which some 17,773 were only slightly injured. Given that the numbers
are only the accidents that were reported the report estimates that
total accidents may well be twice the numbers shown.

In short it appears that the vast majority of bicycle accidents do not
result in death and the article seems to indicate that perhaps a half
of all bike accidents are so minor as to require no medical attention
at all.
Correct - but what of the other 4500? How severe were they? and how
many either were not severe because of a helmet, or could have had
reduced severity if a helmet was worn. 4500 injuries requiring
hospitalization isn't trivial
NOTE - I am NOT saying cycling is a "dangerous" endeavour per se
-but there are risks that CAN be mitigated.

There are risks that can be mitigated in every activity.

There are far more cases of serious TBI in total, or per mile traveled,
among pedestrians than among cyclists.

Why is only bicycling getting the label of a brain injury risk? Why not
all the other activities that actually cause roughly 99% of America's
brain injuries?

--
- Frank Krygowski