|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Disc brake front wheel ejection: fact or fantasy?
James Annan said...
Unproven since the 1960s, as lamely described on this far-fetched web site: http://www.boltscience.com/pages/vibloose.htm But they aren't talking about bicycle skewers, are they? Bicycle skewers have safeguards against just this sort of thing happening. The heavily knurled surfaces in contact with the soft metal of the forks are going to be a major obstacle. I also noticed that my bolt-on skewers have a buffer against your purported unscrewing mechanism. The allen head spins freely inside the cup that has the knurled surface that clamps to the dropouts. This will isolate it from any torque that might act to unscrew it if the friction in the threads is greater than the friction of the allen head against the cup, especially if the allen head is on the same side as the brake. I don't know which side has more friction, but my guess is that the threads have more, and consequently this setup isn't very likely to unscrew, even if we suspend disbelief and accept your theory as fact. This effect can be enhanced by putting graphite in the cup and allen head interface and using thread lock on the threaded side. and not brought bang up-to-date a few weeks ago with this irrelevant demonstration that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with unscrewing of QR skewers: http://kinetics.org.uk/html/disc_brakes___qrs.html With all due respect to the author of the article, I'm sure he's a nice guy and means well, but this ranks among the most superficial and unscientific 'experiments' I have ever heard of. I'm surprised you bothered to point it out. He wants to see if there is unscrewing happening, but he didn't even do something as basic as putting matching hash marks on the fork and skewer or checking the dropouts for telltale signs of wear. If a properly tightened skewer is forced to move in the dropouts, IT WILL DAMAGE THE DROPOUTS. I really don't know how to make it any plainer. If this were happening as often as you claim, then we would all see it and it would have been thoroughly discussed before now. Aside from that, he didn't come down very hard on your side. He said that his QR and disc brake combo hadn't loosened in a year and a half of riding when tightened to his own satisfaction. He also said the effect disappeared when the cam lever was installed on the left. I can't think of a reason why this would nullify the alleged unscrewing effect, because a QR isn't isolated from the clamp surface the way the allen head in my bolt-on skewer is. But I suppose there would be some isolation since they aren't welded together. I don't expect that he, or anyone else for that matter, agrees with every word I have said - in fact, I'm not sure that even I agree with every word that I've said - but what I've heard from him and his friends has been generally supportive. If you or anyone else wants to see what he said not long ago try reading this: http://www.singletrackworld.co.uk/fo...8#reply_523608 James Russ's accident was a tragic thing to be sure. That it could have been any one of us makes it hit even closer to home. As such, it would have been hard to chime in on that discussion with a dissenting point of view. You seem to focus much of your attention on downhill accidents, like what happened to Russ. Downhill is certainly the most dangerous part of a ride and the brakes play a key role there, but a small problem with that hang up is that a downhill is the last place we would see the maximum brake ejection force. Brakes must be used judiciously and gently going downhill, or you will just skid out the front wheel or endo. Going downhill, the friction available to the wheels will be smaller, and since you are already at an angle, less force will be required to produce an endo. You will see the maximum ejection force on level ground. So your proposed loosening isn't likely to start on the downhill if the skewer stayed tight through the rest of the ride. The only thing you can say is that if the skewer is already loose, the downhill can quickly provide the agitation to finish it off. I'm not going to say I know what happened in this accident. It sounds to me like it all happened so fast that nobody knows how it unfolded. This is typical of most of my own comparatively minor trail accidents, as I have said previously. I'm being perfectly honest when I say that until there is more evidence in your favor, I don't see how you are doing anyone any favors by linking this accident to your theories. In spite of your condescending arrogance, you have failed to impress the CPSC, or anyone else with the power to affect change, that there is any hard evidence in support of your claims. But carry on like you have. I'm sure the whole thing will die of apathy and be forgotten soon enough. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Disc brake front wheel ejection: fact or fantasy?
(James Annan) wrote in message . com...
(Spider) wrote in message . com... (James Annan) wrote in message . com... http://www.boltscience.com/pages/vibloose.htm What has this to do with cammed, knurled-surface QRs, again? Hey, it didn't mention the colour or any other irrelevant detail. Why not mention the purple anodising too? Hmmm, here's a couple of "irrelevant details" from the website you gave: "Through the efforts of the American National Standards Subcommittee B18:20 on locking fasteners, three basic locking fastener categories have been established. They a free spinning, friction locking, and chemical locking. The free spinning type are plain bolts with a circumferential row of teeth under the washer head. These are ramped, allowing the bolt to rotate in the clamping direction, but lock into the bearing surface when rotated in the loosening direction. The "Whizlock" is in this category." And, "In general terms, the key to preventing self loosening of fasteners is to ensure that : 1. There is sufficient clamp force present on the joint interface to prevent relative motion between the bolt head or nut and the joint. ...." Now, let's see here - knurling, and a cam-activated mechanical advantage lever to get more clamping. How odd that you would consider these two important parts of the QR irrelevant. You are nearly Vandemanesque in your ability to see the data you like, and "not see" the data that inconvenient. Perilously close to what is know as "junk science." and not brought bang up-to-date a few weeks ago with this irrelevant demonstration that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with unscrewing of QR skewers: http://kinetics.org.uk/html/disc_brakes___qrs.html If you think that this website actually supports your hypothesis, you haven't read it. His one (1) experiment with a Ti skewer is not representative. His conclusions are about the same as the most of the MTB community that has read your hypothesis. His conclusion is that the CPSC had better not look into it carefully, because he has seen that there is a real problem. Here is the only thing he actually said about the CPSC: "The CPSC in the States is investigating, but they have not been the most balanced cycling test body on previous occasions." He also says this: "Unlike James Annan, I do not believe that there is a fatal design flaw with *all* combinations of disc brake, fork and quick release." In his conclusions, he says this: "There are three levels of solution, depending on how paranoid you are feeling at the moment... Level 1 paranoia: (cheap or no-cost DIY solutions) * Use a good quality branded skewer from one of the major manufacturers - make sure that it has good serrations and that the lever action feels smooth and has a definite "clunk" as you close it. * Fit the skewer with the lever on the left side. This means that the entire skewer has to turn, instead of just the nut, making visual checks easier. * Close the lever as hard as you can manage by hand - it should leave a definite imprint in your palm (if you use your palm). If you don't have that much hand strength, lay the bike on it's side and stand on the lever, but don't go OTT. * Make sure that the lever is not touching anything when it's closed - it should not be touching the fork leg, for example. I know it's not as neat, but closing the skewer so it points horizontally backwards is the best way. * Use a releasable cable tie to sttach the lever to the fork leg, to stop it flipping open. Level 2 paranoia: (cheap low-hassle aftermarket solutions) * Several manufacturers are producing (or have on the drawing board) various types of locking skewer. These could be a good idea, assuming that they lock with enough force, as they'd prevent any vibration loosening. * Use a solid axle nutted hub instead. The clamping force of a 10mm nut is much higher than that of a QR skewer, which is why track bikes use them. Level 3 paranoia: (serious bombproof solutions) * Use a bolt-through front hub. This requires new forks and a new wheel, but is totally solid. * Several manufacturers are introducing forks with forward-facing dropouts - this means that the ejection force is no longer pushing the axle out of the slot. * Use forks with the caliper on the front of the right fork leg. This alters the angle of the force so it is no longer a problem. This would require a custom fork, of course. Personally, I'm a level 1 person..." No, James, he just doesn't agree that this is an earth-shattering problem. THe fact that you would misrepresent his analysis speaks to your obfuscation on the issues. In any case, your motivations are certainly not as clear as you pretend they are. I'd be grateful if you could help me out and tell me what they are. Well, that a clever bit of irony, but considering the other two claims that you have made in this last post of yours, shown to be hilariously misleading at best, your claims of purity of motivation strike me as hollow, tending toward disingenuous. I won't call you a deliberate liar, because I do not know if this is the case of not. But your communication style has again gotten in the way of your message, and you are doing your best to alienate the folks you should be trying to recruit. My apologies for quoting so much material - I just wanted to be clear that what James says, and what is actually written, can be two entirely different things. Spider |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Disc brake front wheel ejection: fact or fantasy?
Super Slinky wrote in message et...
But they aren't talking about bicycle skewers, are they? Bicycle skewers have safeguards against just this sort of thing happening. The heavily knurled surfaces in contact with the soft metal of the forks are going to be a major obstacle. They are talking about threaded bolts in general, which includes skewers. They specifically mention the value of knurling, but it's clear that the mechanism by which this works (when it does) is by preventing movement. When it fails to prevent movement, it won't prevent unscrewing either. I also noticed that my bolt-on skewers have a buffer against your purported unscrewing mechanism. I'm not talking about your skewers. Perhaps this is why you've been so hostile - did you think I was telling you that _your_ skewers were slipping and unscrewing, and you had failed to notice? Of course I believe you when you say this has not happened. All I have been trying to say is that _some_ skewers have been seen to slip and unscrew, even when correctly used. http://kinetics.org.uk/html/disc_brakes___qrs.html With all due respect to the author of the article, I'm sure he's a nice guy and means well, but this ranks among the most superficial and unscientific 'experiments' I have ever heard of. I agree, but he happens to be the only person (that I know of) who has bothered to (a) measure the unscrewing repeatedly, and (b) put up a web page about it. So it's a handy reference. Unless you think he's lying, or too incompetent to make this simple observations, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that his skewer did, in fact, unscrew. If a properly tightened skewer is forced to move in the dropouts, IT WILL DAMAGE THE DROPOUTS. Probably there will be some fretting, yes. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Unless you think that the velotech lab faked their measurements (and even photos too) then their skewer certainly moved. In fact Ernst Brust says he has known about this skewer movement for several years and has warned manufacturers, but they have ignored him. Although IMO this alone is prima facie evidence of a bad design (the axle isn't supposed to move under ordinary braking forces) it seems like no-one had previously thought of the potential for unscrewing from repeated transverse movement, so the danger wasn't apparent. I really don't know how to make it any plainer. If this were happening as often as you claim, then we would all see it and it would have been thoroughly discussed before now. I haven't made any strong claim as to the frequency. It happens to some people, and to a subset of them, it's a very real problem. Downhill is certainly the most dangerous part of a ride and the brakes play a key role there, but a small problem with that hang up is that a downhill is the last place we would see the maximum brake ejection force. Brakes must be used judiciously and gently going downhill, or you will just skid out the front wheel or endo. Going downhill, the friction available to the wheels will be smaller, and since you are already at an angle, less force will be required to produce an endo. You will see the maximum ejection force on level ground. So your proposed loosening isn't likely to start on the downhill if the skewer stayed tight through the rest of the ride. The only thing you can say is that if the skewer is already loose, the downhill can quickly provide the agitation to finish it off. Certainly hard braking on level ground can provide exceptionally large momentary forces - this is why Planet-X recently changed the angle of their dropouts, since rider(s) (cerainly Brant Richards, another vocal critic of me, has reported it, and they give this explanation on their website) can move the front wheel when doing low-speed stoppies. Some people have reported loosening under rather tame testing (like Ben Cooper) but it seems reasonable to me that fast rough downhill is particularly testing as it will can generate lots of up and down forcing in a very short interval of time. There needs to be significant upwards forcing too, as the steady force of body weight alone will probably not be enough to move the axle back up to the correct position. Hitting bumps fast can certainly provide that. I don't see any reason why friction itself is reduced by a slope, and it takes a very steep slope to prevent firm front brake use if the terrain is reasonably firm. I'm sure the whole thing will die of apathy and be forgotten soon enough. Planet X and a couple of tandem builders have already made design changes, rumour has it that Pace may do for next year and (according to the journalists involved) the major manufacturers have all but promised it for 2005 in the hope that the journalists will shut up about it. That doesn't sound like apathy to me. In fact it seems to me that things are pretty well wrapped up except for how to deal with the forks in use and being sold at the moment. That's where the debate should be, not on whether the problem exists at all. James |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Disc brake front wheel ejection: fact or fantasy?
James Annan said...
I'm not talking about your skewers. Perhaps this is why you've been so hostile - did you think I was telling you that _your_ skewers were slipping and unscrewing, and you had failed to notice? Of course I believe you when you say this has not happened. All I have been trying to say is that _some_ skewers have been seen to slip and unscrew, even when correctly used. I guess that is part of the problem and where a lot of the disagreement is. If this is true, maybe more energy should have been spent trying to see what their specific problem is and how it can be remedied using what we have available to us now. After looking at my bolt-on skewers, I think that most of your concerns, whatever merit they may have, can be addressed with skewer design. If the QR cam lever and nut were isolated from the clamping surfaces, and the nut was a locking design that had more friction with the threads, your proposed unscrewing mechanism would have another major obstacle to overcome. When combined with retention lips, a skewer like this would have the even better safety benefit of making it far less likely to loose the wheel if the rider forgot to tighten it or tightened it inadequately. It wouldn't as easily unscrew the rest of the way from vibration, no matter what brake system was used. But a simple fix like this begs the question why it hasn't already been done. The obvious answer is that very few people have a problem with skewers the way they are now. It would be more expensive skewer with more parts to lose and it would be harder to get on and off. Would anyone want it or pay extra for it? Another shameful consequence of you trying to railroad through wholesale changes to a design that appears to be safe and functional for almost everyone might be that new designs may turn out to be ultimately less safe than what we have now. Since countless thousands of people have been using the current design with so few problems, how long is it going to take us to really know if there has been a net gain in safety? If new designs cause twice as many accidents as we have now, who will ever know if there isn't another media induced hoopla to point it out? We would never know about the unintended consequences of increasing costs or diverting scant engineering and tooling resources toward this instead of something else that might be even more beneficial. I agree, but he happens to be the only person (that I know of) who has bothered to (a) measure the unscrewing repeatedly, and (b) put up a web page about it. So it's a handy reference. Unless you think he's lying, or too incompetent to make this simple observations, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that his skewer did, in fact, unscrew. That is your take on it. Mine is different. I don't think there is enough information there to make it noteworthy. Probably there will be some fretting, yes. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Unless you think that the velotech lab faked their measurements (and even photos too) then their skewer certainly moved. In fact Ernst Brust says he has known about this skewer movement for several years and has warned manufacturers, but they have ignored him. Although IMO this alone is prima facie evidence of a bad design (the axle isn't supposed to move under ordinary braking forces) it seems like no-one had previously thought of the potential for unscrewing from repeated transverse movement, so the danger wasn't apparent. The point I'm trying to make is that this is the smoking gun if there is one. It is physical evidence, not anecdotes, not amateurish experiments or force equations. If properly tightened skewers are being jerked around as you say, then damage to the dropouts will be seen. There would be a clear difference between the condition of the brake side dropout and the right side dropout. The paint would be stripped away and there would be an oval shaped wear pattern with considerable scoring of the metal on the fork leg and metal shavings. If you had been producing this kind of evidence from the start, then you would have something. You keep repeating the Velotech testing as if it is irrefutable proof of what you say, but I'm not so easily impressed by one lab in a foreign country doing tests using equipment and conditions that I know nothing about. Nor do I accept your implication that what they have done is somehow infallible or above reproach. I don't know what their reputation is, how they are funded, if they are audited or regulated or anything else that might shed some light on what they are trying to prove. I work in a testing lab and I know how difficult it can sometimes be to produce data that is free from error or flawed test methods. What I have heard about the Velotech testing hasn't made me want to go buy a thru-axle fork just yet. The last I heard the testing was incomplete and merely showed that the axle moved under brake load. You proved more than that with your accident and the resulting photos. It didn't say they had been able to get a skewer to unscrew, which you claim is the basic threat, or that they had even been able to show that there is up and down movement. Certainly hard braking on level ground can provide exceptionally large momentary forces - this is why Planet-X recently changed the angle of their dropouts, since rider(s) (cerainly Brant Richards, another vocal critic of me, has reported it, and they give this explanation on their website) can move the front wheel when doing low-speed stoppies. I looked at the Planet-x forks and I saw that they shared most of the unfortunate design qualities of your tandem fork--lack of retention lips, rearward facing dropouts, steel construction. Not that there is anything wrong with steel, but the vast majority of disc brakes are mounted to magnesium suspension forks which would provide a better grip for the skewer. Some people have reported loosening under rather tame testing (like Ben Cooper) but it seems reasonable to me that fast rough downhill is particularly testing as it will can generate lots of up and down forcing in a very short interval of time. There needs to be significant upwards forcing too, as the steady force of body weight alone will probably not be enough to move the axle back up to the correct position. Hitting bumps fast can certainly provide that. I don't see any reason why friction itself is reduced by a slope, and it takes a very steep slope to prevent firm front brake use if the terrain is reasonably firm. The frictional force available from the ground on the slope is reduced by multiplying the weight of the bike and rider by the cosine of the angle of the slope. On level ground, you get all of the frictional force. Falling off a cliff, the friction of the cliff face is irrelevant because you have no weight pressing against it. Level ground: Cos(0º)=1, falling off a cliff: cos(90º)=0. On a 25º slope, 10% of the maximum braking force is lost. The slope also raises the center of gravity relative to the axle, decreasing the force required to produce an endo, and consequently reducing maximum braking force yet again by the same factor. All if this is in addition to the fact that the typical coefficient of friction of a dirt trail will always be much less than on pavement. To sum it all up, the largest maximum braking force will be seen on level pavement and the smallest maximum braking force would be on a downhill slope off-road. My point is that your proposed unscrewing mechanism isn't likely to start on a downhill. The force required to move the axle back up if it is forced down from its original position by braking force is also a very important question, as Joe Riel pointed out in r.b.t. We know that the downward force must be considerably greater than the upward force, or your brake induced movement of the axle can't happen. In addition to that, the upward force will increase to its maximum at the same time that the downward force is approaching its critical point, because all of the weight of the bike and rider will shift to the front wheel. But it gets worse. 95-99% of disc brakes are mounted to suspension forks. This means that the almost all the weight on a front axle is sprung weight and this greatly decreases the upward forces generated. That is what a suspension does, and that is why the upward force needed to produce that up and down unscrewing motion of yours may not be possible, because the upward force must also overcome the clamping force of the skewer and there is a very limited amount of upward force available. Planet X and a couple of tandem builders have already made design changes, rumour has it that Pace may do for next year and (according to the journalists involved) the major manufacturers have all but promised it for 2005 in the hope that the journalists will shut up about it. That doesn't sound like apathy to me. In fact it seems to me that things are pretty well wrapped up except for how to deal with the forks in use and being sold at the moment. That's where the debate should be, not on whether the problem exists at all. Whatever. If this is true, then I guess we can thank you for increasing our costs and possibly delaying other innovations that might have proved more useful. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Disc brake front wheel ejection: fact or fantasy?
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Disc brake front wheel ejection: fact or fantasy?
Chris Phillipo wrote:
Now if Joe Machineshop comes up with this magical design that clamps with 5 times the force and fits in a standard droupout/hollow axle, Joe might make a ton of money capitalizing on this problem that doesn't exist, thanks to his unwitting lackys. Joe would do well not to let this greed get the best of him and skip out to the Bahamas before collective damage his design has caused to frames everywhere becomes evident. His name is "James," not Joe. --dt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Disc brake woes (aka. Did I make a boo-boo?) | psycho- | Mountain Biking | 12 | September 6th 03 06:12 PM |
squeeky front brake! | Darren | General | 3 | September 2nd 03 08:01 AM |
XTR disc brake pad retraction problems | GigaNews | Mountain Biking | 4 | August 25th 03 08:09 PM |
Thoughts on braking | John Appleby | General | 76 | August 11th 03 10:30 AM |