Shimano Headset

On 5/15/2017 2:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 11:31:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/14/2017 11:41 PM, 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.

You're deciding what's "appropriate" based on fashion driven by
propaganda. You've been told it's appropriate to wear a helmet when
riding a bike - but why?

Is it because bicycling is a major source of traumatic brain injury?
No, it's only about 1% of the TBI problem in America. Motoring and
walking cause far more.

Is it because the risk of serious or fatal TBI per mile traveled is so
high on a bike? No, it's roughly 1/3 that of walking, per mile.

Is it because the cost to society of bike TBI is so high? No, it's
dwarfed by the cost to society from auto TBI, not to mention just
walking-around-the-house TBI.

Is it because your collapsible steering wheel, air bags and seat belts
remove the risk of motoring TBI? No, despite those features, riding in
a car causes huge amounts of TBI.

I'm not making this stuff up. Car helmets have been very seriously
proposed, and those proposing them have pointed out that they'd be much
more cost effective than many other measures, like air bags. They could
be far more pleasant to wear than bike helmets, too, partly because of
the non-exertion and climate control.

Don't distract us about welding without goggles or grinding without
safety glasses. Your ability to name two appropriate bits of safety
equipment doesn't make all safety promotions rational.

If you want to argue for bike helmets, first look at relative risk
levels for individuals and at relative costs to society; because it
makes little sense to put huge focus on a nearly non-existent problem.

Then look at actual effectiveness, or lack of same, in the real world,
not in tiny and confounded "case control" studies. (For example, you
might try to explain why pedestrian fatalities have fallen faster than
bike fatalities for the past 20 years, given that pedestrians stubbornly
refuse to wear helmets.)

Then you might deal with the benefits vs. detriments of bike helmets and
of the "dangerizing" of bicycling. Every study done on the topic has
found the benefits of bicycling FAR outweigh its tiny risks. Why would
you scare people away from riding by pretending it's safe only with a
weird plastic hat?
Like I said, we will have to agree to dissagree. Read the data I sent
you.

Not saying cycling is inherently dangerous, but it does have it's
risks - which can be significantly reduced by wearing a suitable
helmet.

It sounds like you're gaining perspective. Now consider: What you just
wrote is also true of dozens of normal activities, like driving,
crossing a street in a crosswalk, hiking, ice skating, climbing ladders,
descending stairs, etc. Why is it that bicycling is the only one of
those activities to suffer helmet mania?

(See if you can find the annual number of serious or fatal TBI cases
caused by descending stairs. Compare with bicycling.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 2:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 12:05:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/14/2017 11:34 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 19:46:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 07:42:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 8:43:29 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:57:35 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 08:23:02 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:06:04 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
But then, to one who habitually uses a nail and a rock as a chain tool
the use of proper tools is probably a mystery.


Try to differentiate between an outdoors emergency situation and the
workshop in the garage. It's not that difficult.

-
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Which is hy mose of us carry a small tool repair kit that includes a chain-breaker. That way a broken chain isn't an ememrgency and a repair only takes a few seconds. After all seconds count when you're beig stalked by mountain lions or other hungry critters doesn't it? For someone who either breaks chains a lot or often comes across people with a broken chain (bother very rare where I ride even on the technical trails) it ONLY makes sense to have a chain breaker and spare link(s)and quick-link WITH YOU.

To be honest using a rock and rusty nail to repair a chain in the field sounds like something an armchair bicyclist would think up. Such a repaired chain would most likely fail again after only a short distance. Believe it or not there's good reasons why chain breakers are used to fix a chain.

Cheers

Out of curiosity I weighed and measured the chain tool that I carry in
my bike tool kit. It is 2-1/2 inches in length and 2-1/8 inches in
height. 1/2 inch thick, at its thickest, and weighs 2.6 ounces. It
works with chains up to and including 10 speed chains (I don't own an
11 speed). Frankly, as a broken chain immobilizes the bicycle I can
see no logic in not carrying it.

Since I have never once had a broken chain nor seen one I cannot see any
requirement to carry such a tool. Yesterday I did 55 miles and 2500
feet of climbing with some of it pretty steep ~12%. There were fore of
us there and the dirt encrusted on the bikes showed a certain lack of
careful maintenance. No one had any problems. I have been carrying all
these tools around for the last 6 years and the only one's I've used
are the tire repair tools.

Equally, I have had two crashes severe enough to break bones and in
neither did my head strike the ground. Thus, based on your logic,
there is no reason what so ever to wear a helmet.

There is almost no reason to wear a helmet under any conditions. If a helmet was just barely able to protect me in a fall literally from 18" what makes you think that a helmet can do anything other than protect you from getting scratches on your head in a sideways fall at a dead stop?
My oldest daughter hit her head on a concrete retaining wall hard
enough to crack the hardshell bike helmet and came away without a
scratch (on her head - she did get a bit of "road rash" elsewhere)-
and most certainly would have suffered a concussion without it. The
foam lining and hard plastic shell absorbed a LOT of impact.

I would suggest that you don't understand the nature and causes of concussion. And that you don't understand the mechanics of impact. Where did you get a hardshell bicycle helmet?

I don't know the age or weight of your child or what "retaining wall" means. Colliding and hitting your head in the forward lunge is NOT the same as falling off of your bike and taking the brunt of the collision with the ground on your head.
Sorry, but you would be wrong. I understand that concussions are
caused by the head decellerating too quickly, causing the brain to
bruise or twist inside the skull. I also know that compressing an inch
of foam can increase the time taken to slow the head to a stop - in
actual testing, about an extra 6ms - which changes the effective
impact significantly - reducing the peak impact force by more than
half. It spreads the force over a longer time - reducing the
decelleration.

When I say Hard shell, I don't mean fiberglass - this was a fairly
tough polypropelene shell - they were pretty common here in Ontario
Canada 20 years ago.
She was riding down a hill when the pedal broke and she lost control,
veering into a retaining wall made of bags of cement which was used to
stabilize a steep bank beside the road (the road is in a "cut") She
came off the bike sideways, hitting her head on the wall, and also
hitting her shoulder. Helmets protect against impacts whether caused
by the acceleration of gravity in a fall, are due to forward velocity
(which CAN be much higher than a strictly gravitational fall from
about 4 feet)


Lots of information that does not support the interpretation of
increased injuries due to helmet use here.

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Also you need to talk to paramedics and emergency room physicians.
You will get a different story than Frank's.

I've talked to a woman in our bike club whose full time job was TBI
rehabilitation. This was back in the 1990s. She admitted that in seven
years of full time work, she'd encountered only one bike-related TBI
victim, and he was a racer who had been wearing a helmet when he crashed.

Look up the numbers of TBI victims sorted by activity. Fatality data I
found indicates that bicyclists are only 0.6% of TBI fatalities in the
U.S. And again, that's not low because of the helmets. See
http://vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html and
http://vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

Read this: http://ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

If you hit TBI websites, you'll see that bicycling is usually not even
mentioned in ranked lists of causes. Yet the myth of great risk
persists. And the myth of great protection is nearly as strong.
Like I said, we will agree to dissagree. I have provided links to
opposing data - others can make up their own minds.
You are in a small minority, even of Cyclists, who oppose helmet
wearing.

Sorry, that too is false. After decades of fear mongering and intense
helmet promotion, something like half of American bicyclists wear
helmets. (In my area, it's closer to one third.)

But that's just the U.S. If you look at the world's cyclists, helmets
are still very uncommon. Most of the world's cyclists have not been
subject to the false propaganda. And oddly enough, those who haven't
gotten the "Danger!" sales pitch have never noticed the supposed great
risk of brain injury.

That's because the great risk of brain injury is mythical.

There's still hope, though. For a couple decades, major bike magazines
had a policy - sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes not - of showing
no cyclists not wearing helmets. (Oh, except for Africans, Asians or
others who were once called "white man's burden.") But lately there's
been a trickle of photos of bareheaded white folk.

This weird fashion/paranoia may one day pass.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 3:50 PM, 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.

Mayer Hillman (look him up) is a renowned British researcher on many
topics. He's a bike helmet skeptic. I believe he was the one who said
you might possibly get some benefit from wearing a bike helmet if you
could just forget that you had it on.

I think he was overly optimistic. He made that statement when "85%" was
still considered by some to be correct. There's a lot more data
available these days.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 4:05 PM, 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.

Again, the behavior you limit to only total idiots is instead perfectly
normal among humans. It's been demonstrated time and again. It applies
not only to helmets, but to countless different safety devices.

Read the book _Risk_ by John Adams. I believe that was the one that
noted the initial effect of Britain's mandatory seat belt laws. See,
Britain first mandated seat belts only for drivers, predicting great
reductions in traffic fatalities. After the first year, it turned out
that driver fatalities did indeed drop; but at the same time, the
numbers of passenger fatalities and pedestrian fatalities jumped! The
most common explanation was that the drivers felt more protected, and
therefore took more risks. Others suffered from their "protected"
confidence.

The phenomenon is sometimes called Risk Compensation, sometimes Risk
Homeostasis. One theory is that most people have some personal level of
perceived risk with which they are comfortable. Up to that level,
they'll often engage in riskier behavior to gain other benefits like
less travel time, for example.

If they feel more protected, they'll try for more of the benefit - say,
by driving faster. (Or by riding a bike on a road they'd otherwise
avoid.) Which is not irrational, really!

But it breaks down when the safety benefit is overstated or illusory.
Then the increased acceptance of risk outstripped the protective
capacity. And the "85%" benefit for bike helmets was certainly grossly
exaggerated, but was the most widely accepted number for a long time.

(Some say bicyclists would not take extra risk because of fear of other
injury; but helmeteers warned ONLY of TBI risk, never of other risks of
bicycling.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 4:35 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:05:27 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Snipped
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 - - -

Might as well give it up now. In this newsgroup those who oppose helmet use do so vehemently and will NEVER be persuaded that a helmet can help.

:-) And by the same token, most of the people who religiously believe
in the great TBI risk of bicycling and the great protective value of
bike helmets will never give up those beliefs.

I think most of them are convinced that if they hadn't worn helmets all
their lives, bicycling would have killed them. Which is really odd,
considering that bike helmets weren't available until the mid-1970s.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:

But that's just the U.S. If you look at the
world's cyclists, helmets are still
very uncommon.

Here, helmets are not exactly uncommon but
proportionally usage is low - without any data,
I'd say somewhere around one out of twenty.
However that is the huge mass of "utility"
bikers. Of the people with sport bikes that
also has the "style police" outfit and all the
gear to go with it, with those I'd say the
proportion is the other way around (or close to
100% helmet actually). But those are much, much
fewer in numbers.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Frank Krygowski wrote:

I think most of them are convinced that if
they hadn't worn helmets all their lives,
bicycling would have killed them. Which is
really odd, considering that bike helmets
weren't available until the mid-1970s.

When the case is made helmets do not help, does
one mean the number of accidents with head
trauma hasn't decreased despite helmets being
sold or what exactly is the case?
Because obviously the helmet helps if one hits
it with a hammer...

Also, are we talking racing, MTB or any other
sport version, or are we talking
utility/commuting?

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

On 5/15/2017 7:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2017 4:35 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:05:27 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
Snipped
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 - - -

Might as well give it up now. In this newsgroup those who
oppose helmet use do so vehemently and will NEVER be
persuaded that a helmet can help.

:-) And by the same token, most of the people who
religiously believe in the great TBI risk of bicycling and
the great protective value of bike helmets will never give
up those beliefs.

I think most of them are convinced that if they hadn't worn
helmets all their lives, bicycling would have killed them.
Which is really odd, considering that bike helmets weren't
available until the mid-1970s.


Jean Robic wore a helmet religiously in the 1940s and 1950s.
You can't ask his opinion. He's dead.

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

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 8:29:32 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2017 7:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2017 4:35 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:05:27 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
Snipped
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 - - -

Might as well give it up now. In this newsgroup those who
oppose helmet use do so vehemently and will NEVER be
persuaded that a helmet can help.

:-) And by the same token, most of the people who
religiously believe in the great TBI risk of bicycling and
the great protective value of bike helmets will never give
up those beliefs.

I think most of them are convinced that if they hadn't worn
helmets all their lives, bicycling would have killed them.
Which is really odd, considering that bike helmets weren't
available until the mid-1970s.


Jean Robic wore a helmet religiously in the 1940s and 1950s.
You can't ask his opinion. He's dead.

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

The ONE time my helmeted head slammed into the pavememt I was VERY happy that I was wearing that helmet then. I don't care if anyone else wears or doesn't wear a helmet. It's their choice. I do know that in some cses a helmet can really help even if it just means you get up and continue your ride instead of going to the hospital for stiches, wound scrubbing or concusion, after wiping out.

I don't care aboutthe statistics that many can trot out. I care about what happened that time to ME.

Cheers

On 5/15/2017 8:13 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

But that's just the U.S. If you look at the
world's cyclists, helmets are still
very uncommon.

Here, helmets are not exactly uncommon but
proportionally usage is low - without any data,
I'd say somewhere around one out of twenty.
However that is the huge mass of "utility"
bikers. Of the people with sport bikes that
also has the "style police" outfit and all the
gear to go with it, with those I'd say the
proportion is the other way around (or close to
100% helmet actually). But those are much, much
fewer in numbers.

That's what I've seen when in Europe. Helmets go with lycra, usually.
But it didn't necessarily connect with going fast. Even the people we
encountered who were part of guided tour groups, pottering at 15kph on
bike paths, often had "sporty" lycra stretched over their bellies, and
oh-so-safe helmets on their heads. But who knows? Many of them were
probably Americans.

OTOH, the elderly ladies riding normal city streets and doing their
shopping on bikes were dressed like - well, like normal people!


--
- Frank Krygowski