Cannondale's tests of disks and QRs

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Tony Raven wrote:

James, you whole approach and language says you are on a crusade for
your theory and to cast out those who are not true believers. You are a
scientist. Start behaving like one and stop behaving like a religious
zealot.


From here it looks like he's fed up with people nitpicking and/or repeating
arguments that have already been gone over many times before, and he's fed
up with going over his theory again and again for people who assume it
can't possibly be right without looking at it properly.
Some of which may rub off even on people who aren't doing that.

"from here" is the kicker. agreed, james is certainly making himself
out to be the victim of a dreadful conspiracy, with people like me being
the heartless aggressor of the poor little lambkin. the reality however
is, and you should check the archives on this, that james came to town
with his "armageddon" sandwich boards on, stumping a cute simplistic
little math model of predicted destruction. but his math is flawed -
he's didn't bother to account for the actual pull-out force generated by
serrated axle ends embedding in the fork facing, which is a design
feature by the way, so james, is out by at least one order of magnitude.
this could perhaps account for the mysterious fact that no one who
rides mountain bikes ever seems to have experienced his problem.

even if you accept james's basic premise that all bike engineers are
negligent, it's interesting how anyone that dares point out a problem
with his theory is cunningly transformed, in a classic passive-aggessive
game, into an aggressor to his victim.

jim beam wrote:

... agreed, james is ...

... that james came ...

... so james, is ...

... accept james's basic ...

Are you "done with me" yet?

How about the Cannondale tests? Any comment?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

In article , jim beam wrote:

james is certainly making himself
out to be the victim of a dreadful conspiracy,

Go on with ridiculous suggestions like that, and I might start thinking
he really is.


little math model of predicted destruction. but his math is flawed -
he's didn't bother to account for the actual pull-out force generated by
serrated axle ends embedding in the fork facing, which is a design
feature by the way, so james, is out by at least one order of magnitude.

You'll have to rewrite that to make some sense. I assume you are talking about
the resistance to the pull-out force provided by serrated nuts embedding in
the fork, in which case you have missed about three-quarters of the point.

(James Annan) wrote in message n
You do realise, don't you, that Carlton Reid (editor of
www.bikebiz.co.uk) asked Cannondale for a copy of this report about a
year ago, and was refused. Now, thanks to the FOIA and the fact that I
wrote a letter several months ago, it is readily and freely available
to all - a point which you might not have realised had I not also
posted some excerpts here immediately after receiving it.

I have nothing to say about the primary issues, but doesn't FOIA only
apply to public agencies? How can you "FOIA" a document from a
private entity?

(Ed Sullivan) writes:

(James Annan) wrote in message n
You do realise, don't you, that Carlton Reid (editor of
www.bikebiz.co.uk) asked Cannondale for a copy of this report about a
year ago, and was refused. Now, thanks to the FOIA and the fact that I
wrote a letter several months ago, it is readily and freely available
to all - a point which you might not have realised had I not also
posted some excerpts here immediately after receiving it.

I have nothing to say about the primary issues, but doesn't FOIA only
apply to public agencies? How can you "FOIA" a document from a
private entity?

I think it was research done for the CSPC.

A

Alan Braggins said...

From here it looks like he's fed up with people nitpicking and/or repeating
arguments that have already been gone over many times before, and he's fed
up with going over his theory again and again for people who assume it
can't possibly be right without looking at it properly.
Some of which may rub off even on people who aren't doing that.

You know, I'd like to see one post from the UK from somebody who isn't
rooting for 'our guy'. Quite a number of things about this preposterous
argument leave me scratching my head. James does not live or work in the
USA. His bike was not made in the USA. In fact, it was UK made, if I am
not mistaken, and lack of retention lips on UK made forks is the rule,
not the exception. If his bike had them, we wouldn't be hearing this
nonsense. Yet here he is whining to the _American_ CPSC and publicly
trashing on an _American_ manufacturer who almost certainly has never
sold a disc equipped bike without retention lips. The claim that skewers
loosen by applying a disc brake was a pipe dream to begin with and
doesn't have a shred of evidence to back it up.

The American CPSC listened to him and an American manufacturer performed
a test for which results are available. What are the UK equivalent to
the American CPSC and UK manufacturers doing to investigate James' bold
claims? Nothing? Something? If there is a story there, let's hear it.
But methinks there is more to this than we are being told. Clearly,
something more than selfless altruism is fueling James' dogged
determination to make something of this. Maybe it is only pride and a
desperate need to never be proven wrong. Maybe he is doing the legwork
for somebody's dream of a lucrative lawsuit. If that were the case, then
American manufacturers would certainly be a juicier target than the ones
who are really to blame for the origins of this nonsense. Maybe some
publisher will be stupid enough to print a book with his name on it. Who
cares? His original story was interesting. But when he, and others,
found that it could not be easily extrapolated to all bikes, it became
ridiculous and gets more ridiculous with each nauseating installment.

SuperSlinky wrote:

found that it could not be easily extrapolated to all bikes, it became
ridiculous and gets more ridiculous with each nauseating installment.

Where has anyone (except you) tried to extrapolate this to "all bikes"?
The *point* is that if it is an issue on *some* bikes then that is a
Bad Thing and it is worth investigating so we can be as sure as possible
it does not apply to *any* bikes.

But you continue along the lines of "it doesn't appear to affect many
people, so it's not a problem".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

SuperSlinky wrote in message et...

You know, I'd like to see one post from the UK from somebody who isn't
rooting for 'our guy'.

You're not seeing Tony Raven's posts then?

--
Dave...

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Tony Raven wrote:

James, you whole approach and language says you are on a crusade for
your theory and to cast out those who are not true believers. You are a
scientist. Start behaving like one and stop behaving like a religious
zealot.


From here it looks like he's fed up with people nitpicking and/or repeating
arguments that have already been gone over many times before, and he's fed
up with going over his theory again and again for people who assume it
can't possibly be right without looking at it properly.
Some of which may rub off even on people who aren't doing that.

Some of us were involved in the original debate on James' tandem forks
which everyone except James agreed was an absolute disaster just waiting
to happen. If you are correct all I can say is he was fed up from the
very beginning of people nitpicking aka taking counter views to his own.

At best the small part of the Cannondale report he has chosen to share
is neutral with regard to his theory and at worst it is evidence against
it. Nothing there can be seen as supporting it in any way.

Tony

jim beam wrote:

"from here" is the kicker. agreed, james is certainly making himself
out to be the victim of a dreadful conspiracy, with people like me being
the heartless aggressor of the poor little lambkin. the reality however
is, and you should check the archives on this, that james came to town
with his "armageddon" sandwich boards on, stumping a cute simplistic
little math model of predicted destruction. but his math is flawed -
he's didn't bother to account for the actual pull-out force generated by
serrated axle ends embedding in the fork facing, which is a design
feature by the way, so james, is out by at least one order of magnitude.
this could perhaps account for the mysterious fact that no one who
rides mountain bikes ever seems to have experienced his problem.


The aspect you may have missed is, IIRC, James' tandem accident which
was the start of his campaign was with a smooth faced skewer which
didn't even damage the paint on the forks. There are designer skewers
out there without serrations on them. However if you use a standard
Shimano skewer they do incorporate two of the three mechanisms in the
famous bolt science article for preventing vibration loosening viz
serrations and a nyloc insert. If you want to go for all three, add
some threadlock but two out of three should suffice.

Although it has been raised in the past no-one has addressed why the
bolt science stuff on vibration loosening is touted as the reason
skewers allegedly become loose but the bolt science stuff on how to
prevent this which is incorporated into Shimano skewer design is ignored.

Tony