summary - the disk brake debate

ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and still
we have:

1. annan's theory which calculates supposed ejection force and tells us
that the sky is about to fall.

2. the cpc, the cycling industry and a total lack of accident incidence
saying it doesn't.

3. a theory explaining the reason for the inconsistency - that of actual
pullout force exceeding ejection force

4. the logical conclusion that annan's theory is therefore incomplete.

5. a core of space cadets that argue, despite point 4 above, that there
is some kind of design flaw - much as a bridge is destined to fail as
soon as it's loaded, apparently.

6. an intriguing group of secondary hangers-on that are arguing the toss
in the face of all logic, reason or math, just for the sheer devilment
of it.

and what is the result?

our lemming-like suicide squad of primary morons apparently determined
to undermine and explode any credibility or influence this group may
have on an activity and sport we all supposedly love. all as our
secondary participants & silent watchers throw stones, stand by, watch,
or effectively condone this behavior!!!

no one has the minerals to grasp reality. no one has the grace to
concede any fault - on either side. the word "consensus" has never even
passed the mind. and AMAZINGLY, we have individuals, allegedly of an
engineering bent, who won't discuss the math!!! i'm calling it for what
it is - ****ing asinine. i've never seen such sheer bloody-minded
unreasoning stupidity in my life before. you know who you are. you
call yourselves engineers when you fight shy of fact? you need to learn
the meaning of the word "shame". you're a disgrace to your universities.

jim beam wrote:

ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and still
we have:

[snip]

Thanks for that enlightening and helpful information!

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

jim beam wrote:

ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and still
we have:

1. annan's theory which calculates supposed ejection force

Are you going to share your own estimate? You'll obviously want to take
account of the 235 foot-pounds of torque that Cannondale measured (with
a medium-sized rider riding round a car park):

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames...annondale.html

I'm really surprised why you seem to keep trying to beat yourself up
over this. You guessed wrong, the world passed you by. Better luck next
time eh?

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

James Annan Wrote:
jim beam wrote:

ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and
still
we have:

1. annan's theory which calculates supposed ejection force

Are you going to share your own estimate? You'll obviously want to
take
account of the 235 foot-pounds of torque that Cannondale measured
(with
a medium-sized rider riding round a car park):

http://tinyurl.com/dmzct

I'm really surprised why you seem to keep trying to beat yourself up
over this. You guessed wrong, the world passed you by. Better luck
next
time eh?

James



TROLL


--
motorhommer

motorhommer wrote:

TROLL

Welcome to usenet. In your second and subsequent posts, I hope you will
learn to separate the quoted text from your own original contribution by
indenting to different levels.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

James Annan wrote:
jim beam wrote:

ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and
still we have:

1. annan's theory which calculates supposed ejection force


Are you going to share your own estimate? You'll obviously want to take
account of the 235 foot-pounds of torque that Cannondale measured (with
a medium-sized rider riding round a car park):

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames...annondale.html


I'm really surprised why you seem to keep trying to beat yourself up
over this. You guessed wrong, the world passed you by. Better luck next
time eh?

James

james, i already did the math for you, but somehow, incredibly, you will
still not address it. if you were to, you may suddenly find some
credibility and get some traction with your crusade, whatever the heck
the objective of that may be. an axle will not eject if the pullout
force exceeds ejection force. [ignoring lawyer lips of course.] end of
message from planet earth.

jim beam wrote:
ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and still
we have:

1. annan's theory which calculates supposed ejection force and tells us
that the sky is about to fall.

2. the cpc, the cycling industry and a total lack of accident incidence
saying it doesn't.

3. a theory explaining the reason for the inconsistency - that of actual
pullout force exceeding ejection force

4. the logical conclusion that annan's theory is therefore incomplete.

5. a core of space cadets that argue, despite point 4 above, that there
is some kind of design flaw - much as a bridge is destined to fail as
soon as it's loaded, apparently.

6. an intriguing group of secondary hangers-on that are arguing the toss
in the face of all logic, reason or math, just for the sheer devilment
of it.

and what is the result?

our lemming-like suicide squad of primary morons apparently determined
to undermine and explode any credibility or influence this group may
have on an activity and sport we all supposedly love. all as our
secondary participants & silent watchers throw stones, stand by, watch,
or effectively condone this behavior!!!

Such as you, apparently.

Jim, shut the hell up already. I have nearly all the materials in hand
to measure some pullout forces under various conditions.

Until you're ready to show, both with calculations and diagramatically
what in the **** you have calculated, and are talking about, you're
just as bad as the David Dammerlls and Frank Krygowskis that stupidly
chime in without any sort of additional info, just to see themselves
type in usenet.

Yeah, I know - google. I've looked for your calcualtions and diagrams
and haven't seen them. Consolidate.

no one has the minerals to grasp reality. no one has the grace to
concede any fault - on either side.

And that's where you're completely wrong.

If the data turn my arguments away, I have no problem admitting I'm
wrong. And will say so publically, with an apology. Unlike you, or
really most every other poster to usenet, I actually am an adult who
understands I'm not perfect.

****ing asinine.

Yes, that's exactly what you're being.

Get out your drawings and your calculator, and stop hinting. Show the
math, do an experiement, or shut the **** up.

E.P.

wrote:
jim beam wrote:

ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and still
we have:

1. annan's theory which calculates supposed ejection force and tells us
that the sky is about to fall.

2. the cpc, the cycling industry and a total lack of accident incidence
saying it doesn't.

3. a theory explaining the reason for the inconsistency - that of actual
pullout force exceeding ejection force

4. the logical conclusion that annan's theory is therefore incomplete.

5. a core of space cadets that argue, despite point 4 above, that there
is some kind of design flaw - much as a bridge is destined to fail as
soon as it's loaded, apparently.

6. an intriguing group of secondary hangers-on that are arguing the toss
in the face of all logic, reason or math, just for the sheer devilment
of it.

and what is the result?

our lemming-like suicide squad of primary morons apparently determined
to undermine and explode any credibility or influence this group may
have on an activity and sport we all supposedly love. all as our
secondary participants & silent watchers throw stones, stand by, watch,
or effectively condone this behavior!!!


Such as you, apparently.

Jim, shut the hell up already. I have nearly all the materials in hand
to measure some pullout forces under various conditions.

Until you're ready to show, both with calculations and diagramatically
what in the **** you have calculated, and are talking about, you're
just as bad as the David Dammerlls and Frank Krygowskis that stupidly
chime in without any sort of additional info, just to see themselves
type in usenet.

Yeah, I know - google. I've looked for your calcualtions and diagrams
and haven't seen them. Consolidate.


no one has the minerals to grasp reality. no one has the grace to
concede any fault - on either side.


And that's where you're completely wrong.

If the data turn my arguments away, I have no problem admitting I'm
wrong. And will say so publically, with an apology. Unlike you, or
really most every other poster to usenet, I actually am an adult who
understands I'm not perfect.


****ing asinine.


Yes, that's exactly what you're being.

Get out your drawings and your calculator, and stop hinting. Show the
math, do an experiement, or shut the **** up.

E.P.


this is exactly what i'm talking about. you, as possibly the most
coherent contributor to that thread, are so polluted with the poison and
acrimony of it all, you're now assuming /everything/ to be b.s.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...1dfaaf2?hl=en&

even with a shear yield at only 100Nmm^-2 for a really soft magnesium
alloy fork end, shearing through 100mm^2 of enmeshed serrations takes
10,000N, order of magnitude. annan's theory resolves only 1000N, order
of magnitude. be my guest, re-work it. annan won't.

jim beam wrote:


Get out your drawings and your calculator, and stop hinting. Show the
math, do an experiement, or shut the **** up.


this is exactly what i'm talking about. you, as possibly the most
coherent contributor to that thread, are so polluted with the poison and
acrimony of it all, you're now assuming /everything/ to be b.s.

Bull****. I want *numbers*. Not conjecture, not anecdotal,
self-selected stories of dubious value. I see now that you have
provided some numbers, which I appreciate.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...1dfaaf2?hl=en&

even with a shear yield at only 100Nmm^-2 for a really soft magnesium
alloy fork end, shearing through 100mm^2 of enmeshed serrations takes
10,000N, order of magnitude. annan's theory resolves only 1000N, order
of magnitude. be my guest, re-work it. annan won't.

OK, that's fine - I see where you get the calculation. But that
doesn't address the whole problem, does it? There's the smooth-faced
QR on smooth drop-out that needs to be calculated. It is this case
where James' hypothesis actually comes close to something important.
No serrations to inhibit unscrewing. No shear of DO material is going
to happen there - it's all about clamping, coefficient of friction, and
the forces of braking. *That's* where hay is to be made. It is *that*
situation that needs experiment or dutiful calculations.

I apologize, Jim - I do not mean to be harsh. I tire of weasels who
figure to use logical fallacies to attempt to confound the issue, all
the while shedding no light on the actual soundness of James'
hypothesis.

My experiment is going to address the worst-case scenario.

E.P.

wrote:


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...1dfaaf2?hl=en&

Ooops - subsequent attempts at that .pdf give me a "file not found."

Could you retrieve that .pdf. please?

E.P.