Eddy Merckx Elite

On 3/18/2021 2:49 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 5:57:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I was curious why the cups I got for the Merckx almost fell through the BB and then fiddling with the numbers figures out that there is about 2 mm difference in the inside diameter of British and Italian BB's I had never though about that before.
Wow.
Tel us Frank - did you ever think of that? Rather than just putting Italian threaded Bottom Brackets into Italian shells and British bottom brackets into British sells, you sat around and calculated the difference as it you could somehow fit reverse threads into each other? Most people would consider that foolish and you've proven more than once that term applies in spades to you. How much money are you worth Frank? Do you have enough to pay subsidies to illegal aliens? Do you believe that your school is going to be able to continue paying your retirement after they go broke?

To be honest I always thought the difference between British and Italian threading in bottom brackets was the threading itself. Different thread spacing. And the Italians go the opposite direction on one side. I always assumed the bottom bracket shell was the same diameter.


BSC is 1.370" x 24tpi (34.8mm roughly) RH cup is reversed
ITA is m36 x 24tpi both sides RH.

So in fact the thread pitch and form are identical on a
different diameter (plus the reverse aspect).

Over in metricland, French metric are m35x1.
The most logical format is Swiss, m35x1 with RH cup
reversed. It's so logical that virtually no one uses it.

There are other formats (Raleigh, ChaterLea etc) but of less
significance.

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

Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:53:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:09:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".

I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.
Well,I never thought that 23's were "super narrow" as I had ridden
19mm sew ups at one time :-) and as for rolling resistance I have the
suspicions that it is a highly over rated consideration. Does a 25mm
tire (pumped up to 100 psi) really decrease your speed on your 2 mile
Sunday ride to Church? And as for"more comfortable" I remember a bloke
named Frank, telling the world how tension your thigh muscles a bit
and sort of decompress your buttocks when riding over bumps. My own
humble opinion is if you want springs then buy a mountain bike. They
come with front and back suspension.

Tests of rolling resistance mean almost nothing because they do not
reflect real world conditions. There is no rider on the test machine and
there are no real road conditions. That is why the road Pros discovered
that wide tires are actually faster. Not because of the tiny difference
in rolling resistance but because in the road world on normal road
conditions the rider is being thrown up and down and that is similar to
putting the brakes on. Pro's used to somewhat make up for this by riding
extremely smoothly being very careful with their pedal strokes etc. But
with the wider tires (most pro's in the Tour use 26 mm sewups they are a
lot more free to ride any way they like. Smooth circular pedal strokes no
longer gain them as much and you can watch some of them riding as "mashers".

Pros seem as a group rather conservative, regarding kit, see Chris Froome
and disk brakes for recent examples. Ie tendency to resist rather than
embrace change.

To the best of my knowledge tubs have been overtaken by clinchers in terms
of raw speed, for some years now, according to manufacturers etc.

I do have some sympathy for pros and disks/though axels which I suspect for
a Pro offers little advantages for them, but increases time and complexity
of wheel changes.

This said according to some tubeless plus sealant would be a fire and
forget solution, not yet been convinced the faff is worth it yet for
myself.

Roger Merriman

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 5:12:06 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:53:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:09:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".

I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.
Well,I never thought that 23's were "super narrow" as I had ridden
19mm sew ups at one time :-) and as for rolling resistance I have the
suspicions that it is a highly over rated consideration. Does a 25mm
tire (pumped up to 100 psi) really decrease your speed on your 2 mile
Sunday ride to Church? And as for"more comfortable" I remember a bloke
named Frank, telling the world how tension your thigh muscles a bit
and sort of decompress your buttocks when riding over bumps. My own
humble opinion is if you want springs then buy a mountain bike. They
come with front and back suspension.

Tests of rolling resistance mean almost nothing because they do not
reflect real world conditions. There is no rider on the test machine and
there are no real road conditions. That is why the road Pros discovered
that wide tires are actually faster. Not because of the tiny difference
in rolling resistance but because in the road world on normal road
conditions the rider is being thrown up and down and that is similar to
putting the brakes on. Pro's used to somewhat make up for this by riding
extremely smoothly being very careful with their pedal strokes etc. But
with the wider tires (most pro's in the Tour use 26 mm sewups they are a
lot more free to ride any way they like. Smooth circular pedal strokes no
longer gain them as much and you can watch some of them riding as "mashers".

Pros seem as a group rather conservative, regarding kit, see Chris Froome
and disk brakes for recent examples. Ie tendency to resist rather than
embrace change.

To the best of my knowledge tubs have been overtaken by clinchers in terms
of raw speed, for some years now, according to manufacturers etc.

I do have some sympathy for pros and disks/though axels which I suspect for
a Pro offers little advantages for them, but increases time and complexity
of wheel changes.

This said according to some tubeless plus sealant would be a fire and
forget solution, not yet been convinced the faff is worth it yet for
myself.

Roger, while certain clinchers and tubeless have slightly less rolling resistance they are saved for time trials. With these arguments on here a pro-mechanic wrote me and explained that they still use sewups in the peleton because if you get a flat, the tire doesn't fall off of the time leaving you with no control at all. And when the mechanic does replace a flat inside of the car in the back seat he can replace the flat with a pre-glued new sewup, inflate it with a CO2 cannister and then lean out the window and replace the now new tire in the rack to replace any further flats with.

Once in awhile some pro mechanics will look in here but seeing people like John and the other morons go away in a hurry. They used to comment in the past before people like Frank and John took over. Usually they didn't much agree with Jobst since he had an ego the size of a house. But Jobst was usually successful in chasing them away. The shop I have do any repairs I don't have equipment for such as an Italian thread cleaner, was a pro mechanic for 7-11 and he didn't have much good to say about Jobst and his hill climbing in a 54.

Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 5:12:06 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:53:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:09:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".

I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.
Well,I never thought that 23's were "super narrow" as I had ridden
19mm sew ups at one time :-) and as for rolling resistance I have the
suspicions that it is a highly over rated consideration. Does a 25mm
tire (pumped up to 100 psi) really decrease your speed on your 2 mile
Sunday ride to Church? And as for"more comfortable" I remember a bloke
named Frank, telling the world how tension your thigh muscles a bit
and sort of decompress your buttocks when riding over bumps. My own
humble opinion is if you want springs then buy a mountain bike. They
come with front and back suspension.

Tests of rolling resistance mean almost nothing because they do not
reflect real world conditions. There is no rider on the test machine and
there are no real road conditions. That is why the road Pros discovered
that wide tires are actually faster. Not because of the tiny difference
in rolling resistance but because in the road world on normal road
conditions the rider is being thrown up and down and that is similar to
putting the brakes on. Pro's used to somewhat make up for this by riding
extremely smoothly being very careful with their pedal strokes etc. But
with the wider tires (most pro's in the Tour use 26 mm sewups they are a
lot more free to ride any way they like. Smooth circular pedal strokes no
longer gain them as much and you can watch some of them riding as "mashers".

Pros seem as a group rather conservative, regarding kit, see Chris Froome
and disk brakes for recent examples. Ie tendency to resist rather than
embrace change.

To the best of my knowledge tubs have been overtaken by clinchers in terms
of raw speed, for some years now, according to manufacturers etc.

I do have some sympathy for pros and disks/though axels which I suspect for
a Pro offers little advantages for them, but increases time and complexity
of wheel changes.

This said according to some tubeless plus sealant would be a fire and
forget solution, not yet been convinced the faff is worth it yet for
myself.

Roger, while certain clinchers and tubeless have slightly less rolling
resistance they are saved for time trials. With these arguments on here a
pro-mechanic wrote me and explained that they still use sewups in the
peleton because if you get a flat, the tire doesn't fall off of the time
leaving you with no control at all. And when the mechanic does replace a
flat inside of the car in the back seat he can replace the flat with a
pre-glued new sewup, inflate it with a CO2 cannister and then lean out
the window and replace the now new tire in the rack to replace any further flats with.

Yes I did mention that, to be honest the needs/wants of the peloton and
roadies is somewhat diverging, in that for the pros a slow wheel change can
be race over, for the standard roadie it’s a non event. Equally the need
for stuff like disks is far less for pros, really.

Once in awhile some pro mechanics will look in here but seeing people
like John and the other morons go away in a hurry. They used to comment
in the past before people like Frank and John took over. Usually they
didn't much agree with Jobst since he had an ego the size of a house. But
Jobst was usually successful in chasing them away. The shop I have do any
repairs I don't have equipment for such as an Italian thread cleaner, was
a pro mechanic for 7-11 and he didn't have much good to say about Jobst
and his hill climbing in a 54.

Roger Merriman

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

As is usual, you forget to tell us how you would be able to tell
poor from good quality. Seems like the voters in your area decided
that you were a rather poor quality elected official. What has cheanged?

The topic has change.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:36:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

As is usual, you forget to tell us how you would be able to tell
poor from good quality. Seems like the voters in your area decided
that you were a rather poor quality elected official. What has cheanged?

The topic has change.


See Jeff, you just don't understand. With Tommy the subject is
optional.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 2:36:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

As is usual, you forget to tell us how you would be able to tell
poor from good quality. Seems like the voters in your area decided
that you were a rather poor quality elected official. What has cheanged?
The topic has change.

And here I thought that SMS had just changed the subject to quality without specifying what quality was or how he of all people could tell the difference. Or you. Why don't you tell me some more about how I couldn't have done the things I said I did because I misspelled something? Isn't that your idea of quality?

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:14:24 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 2:36:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

As is usual, you forget to tell us how you would be able to tell
poor from good quality. Seems like the voters in your area decided
that you were a rather poor quality elected official. What has cheanged?
The topic has change.

And here I thought that SMS had just changed the subject to quality without specifying
what quality was or how he of all people could tell the difference. Or you.

For reference, what Steven wrote was:
I have a friend like this who constantly buys used,
poor quality, obsolete stuff, from smart phones to
computers to cars. She ends up spending far more than
she would if she bought quality new products, or even
quality used products. And of course she constantly
complains about what she purchased to anyone who will
listen. Like Tom, she's what we call a "kvetch."

While the word "quality" does appear in the text, it is in reference
to whether something purchased prematurely breaks or becomes unusable.
Since you asked for a definition of quality, methinks that should
suffice.

Why don't you tell me some more about how I couldn't have
done the things I said I did because I misspelled something?

Nice change of topic. The reason I won't tell you is that nothing I
wrote about your inability to recall the company names of two alleged
former employers will have an effect on any topic currently under
discussion. It was not a spelling error, but rather a failure to
recall the full company names, something I would not expect from an
alleged former employee of both companies.

Isn't that your idea of quality?

No. But it is a good demonstration of your lack of quality.

Topic drift: Incidentally, in another of your proclamations:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mWxNovvEDds/m/xw0lSUmPBgAJ
you mentioned that:
Got a call from my financial advisor today and he intends
to sell some small cap funds in a 401 account...
It's called a 401(k), not 401. By age 72, you are required to begin
distributing funds in your 401(k) accounts and paying the deferred
taxes. In theory, you should not have any 401(k) accounts after age
72, unless you have a Roth IRA which does not require distributions
until after you're dead. If you converted from a 401(k) to a Roth
IRA, you might have been paying 10% annual penalty on earnings, which
is an obvious incentive to begin distributions:
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/whats-difference-between-401k-and-roth-ira.asp
I don't recall your exact age, but I do know that you're older than
me, and I'm 73 years old.

Hint: You can solve the problem by claiming that your "401 account" is
actually a "Roth IRA" and all will be forgiven except your lack of
investment expertise.



--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:14:24 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 2:36:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

As is usual, you forget to tell us how you would be able to tell
poor from good quality. Seems like the voters in your area decided
that you were a rather poor quality elected official. What has cheanged?
The topic has change.

And here I thought that SMS had just changed the subject to quality without specifying
what quality was or how he of all people could tell the difference. Or you.
For reference, what Steven wrote was:
I have a friend like this who constantly buys used,
poor quality, obsolete stuff, from smart phones to
computers to cars. She ends up spending far more than
she would if she bought quality new products, or even
quality used products. And of course she constantly
complains about what she purchased to anyone who will
listen. Like Tom, she's what we call a "kvetch."
While the word "quality" does appear in the text, it is in reference
to whether something purchased prematurely breaks or becomes unusable.
Since you asked for a definition of quality, methinks that should
suffice.
Why don't you tell me some more about how I couldn't have
done the things I said I did because I misspelled something?
Nice change of topic. The reason I won't tell you is that nothing I
wrote about your inability to recall the company names of two alleged
former employers will have an effect on any topic currently under
discussion. It was not a spelling error, but rather a failure to
recall the full company names, something I would not expect from an
alleged former employee of both companies.
Isn't that your idea of quality?
No. But it is a good demonstration of your lack of quality.

Topic drift: Incidentally, in another of your proclamations:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mWxNovvEDds/m/xw0lSUmPBgAJ
you mentioned that:
Got a call from my financial advisor today and he intends
to sell some small cap funds in a 401 account...
It's called a 401(k), not 401. By age 72, you are required to begin
distributing funds in your 401(k) accounts and paying the deferred
taxes. In theory, you should not have any 401(k) accounts after age
72, unless you have a Roth IRA which does not require distributions
until after you're dead. If you converted from a 401(k) to a Roth
IRA, you might have been paying 10% annual penalty on earnings, which
is an obvious incentive to begin distributions:
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/whats-difference-between-401k-and-roth-ira.asp
I don't recall your exact age, but I do know that you're older than
me, and I'm 73 years old.

Hint: You can solve the problem by claiming that your "401 account" is
actually a "Roth IRA" and all will be forgiven except your lack of
investment expertise.

So now you know more about investing than a good financial advisor. No wonder you're living in a rental.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 06:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:14:24 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 2:36:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

As is usual, you forget to tell us how you would be able to tell
poor from good quality. Seems like the voters in your area decided
that you were a rather poor quality elected official. What has cheanged?
The topic has change.

And here I thought that SMS had just changed the subject to quality without specifying
what quality was or how he of all people could tell the difference. Or you.
For reference, what Steven wrote was:
I have a friend like this who constantly buys used,
poor quality, obsolete stuff, from smart phones to
computers to cars. She ends up spending far more than
she would if she bought quality new products, or even
quality used products. And of course she constantly
complains about what she purchased to anyone who will
listen. Like Tom, she's what we call a "kvetch."
While the word "quality" does appear in the text, it is in reference
to whether something purchased prematurely breaks or becomes unusable.
Since you asked for a definition of quality, methinks that should
suffice.
Why don't you tell me some more about how I couldn't have
done the things I said I did because I misspelled something?
Nice change of topic. The reason I won't tell you is that nothing I
wrote about your inability to recall the company names of two alleged
former employers will have an effect on any topic currently under
discussion. It was not a spelling error, but rather a failure to
recall the full company names, something I would not expect from an
alleged former employee of both companies.
Isn't that your idea of quality?
No. But it is a good demonstration of your lack of quality.

Topic drift: Incidentally, in another of your proclamations:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mWxNovvEDds/m/xw0lSUmPBgAJ
you mentioned that:
Got a call from my financial advisor today and he intends
to sell some small cap funds in a 401 account...
It's called a 401(k), not 401. By age 72, you are required to begin
distributing funds in your 401(k) accounts and paying the deferred
taxes. In theory, you should not have any 401(k) accounts after age
72, unless you have a Roth IRA which does not require distributions
until after you're dead. If you converted from a 401(k) to a Roth
IRA, you might have been paying 10% annual penalty on earnings, which
is an obvious incentive to begin distributions:
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/whats-difference-between-401k-and-roth-ira.asp
I don't recall your exact age, but I do know that you're older than
me, and I'm 73 years old.

Hint: You can solve the problem by claiming that your "401 account" is
actually a "Roth IRA" and all will be forgiven except your lack of
investment expertise.

So now you know more about investing than a good financial advisor.
No wonder you're living in a rental.

Nice deflection towards a topic shift. Do we now discuss my real
estate dealings next or shall we return and continue with your alleged
401(k)? While it's possible at your age to still have a 401(k), I
think it rather unlikely. If it's of any interest, I had a tiny
401(k) left over from when I was working for a salary before 1983(?).
I think it was about $1,500. I just ignored it until 2018(?) when my
bank sent me a letter informing me that Federal law requires that I
will soon be required to close my retirement account and pay the
deferred taxes. The bank also offered to discuss various reinvestment
alternatives. I decided it was easiest (not best) to just cash in the
account, pay the taxes, and be done with it.

I've owned the house I'm currently living in since 1974:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1540-Jackson-Ave-Ben-Lomond-CA-95005/16155480_zpid/?view=public
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/home/
Since about 1976, I've owned and sold two rentals (at a profit
including taxes) mostly to cover my uninsured medical expenses.

However, you are correct that I don't know much about investing. I've
never been much of an investor having tried my luck on a small scale
and found it to be not worth the time and effort. I did ok with real
estate. For information on your alleged 401(k), I asked a retired
enrolled agent for an explanation of how it works, and then found the
necessary links by searching online.

Do you invent these changes of topic, misinformation and accusations
for the occasion, or do you have a computer program that does it for
you?

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558