Habanero shows up curved stays

On 4/14/2017 9:15 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 17:39, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/13/2017 7:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 17:10, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/13/2017 7:02 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 16:19, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:37:11 PM UTC-7,
wrote:
On April 13, 2017, jbeattie wrote:

- snip snippy snip-
I so wish someone would offer an o-ringed bike chain. To
hell with efficiency and all that, I just want to ride and
not start hearing squeaks after every little rain.

I am not an expert but a quick perusal of motorcycle chain
seems to
indicate that o-ring 1/2" pitch chain exists. For any
single speed or
internal gearbox setup, a wider chain would work just fine
as long as
it's 1/2".


Unfortunately my bikes are all derailer types, two with
7-speed and one 10-speed (but that could be "downgraded"). I
really don't want to spend 1.5 kilobucks on a Rohloff.


There will never be an o-ring derailleur chain,
requirements for those
two formats being diametrically opposed.


Never say never. That's what people told us with
intravascular ultrasound and then we made it happen. Even HP
had thrown in the towel.

Regarding getting sideways-moving or bending things to seal
one of the pioneers was Andre Citroen. Folks said that front
wheel drive is a stupid idea because of the steering, that
it would never last, yet he and his engineers did it.
Despite the fact that back then they did not have all the
moderns silicone materials and other stuff that we take for
granted. Unfortunately he died from cancer at a young age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-...tion_avant.jpg


I had its tiny little brother when I was young. The
technology in there was simple but amazing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0288067%29.jpg



OK, technology advances.
Now explain how a rigid design is also flexible. Except for
carbon frame advertising, those are very different things.


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

On 2017-04-13 19:20, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 07:22:31 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-04-12 18:32, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:58:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-04-11 12:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2017 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-11 09:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

Freeway trips should be omitted from the "cars vs. bikes" competitions,
simply because bikes are impractical for freeway trip distances. And
when fatalities per mile are computed for non-freeway car travel, the
result is much closer to that for bike travel. Furthermore, if you were
to compute fatalities per mile for non-drunk law abiding bicyclists, I'd
bet it would beat the car rate for non-freeway travel.


No. We are talking about using the _existing_ infrastructure. For cars
it exists and for bikes it largely doesn't in the US.

Almost every street is a bicycle facility. It's unfortunate that people
like you pretend that isn't true.


Many streets are not safe for cycling. It is also not exactly fun to
ride on the side of a county road while noisy vehicles zoom by at 60mph
and some spew a copious amount of Diesel soot into your face. Why would
anyone deliberately want to do that if they have a car?

But Joerg, the State Laws that I've read all essentially state the
same thing, that a bicycle is a vehicle and a vehicle has the right to
use the public roads.


Yeah, AFRAP and when you get smacked by a car the driver will claim you
"suddenly swerved" unless you have an ironclad witness situation. Even
then it didn't help the people who died or now suffer longterm health
impairments.

But I've been ridding a bicycle since I was 12 years old, certainly
not every day and when I was working in the jungles I certainly didn't
ride, but for all that I've never been hit by a car.

And, in fact, I have never personally know anyone who was hit by a car
while riding a bicycle. Not that it doesn't happen but simply that it
is rare enough that no one I've know has.


Exactly, if it didn't happen to you and your friends you were lucky. I
know several who got hit, badly.


Why, simply because you are riding a bicycle, do you believe that the
tax payers of your state/city.town should be burdened with the cost of
building an infrastructure for your private use?


Some (few) politicians have the smarts to see that this will foster a
healthier community because then lots of people start cycling. I ride
here despite a lack of infrastructure but the vast majority of potential
cyclists does not. Even seasoned road bikers don't, they cart their bike
to the valley and ride there. Of course, this requires smart enough
local leaders which we don't have.


You must smoke funny cigarettes, or something.

In every society I have lived in or have read about, people strive for
an easier life style as the eco,nomy grows and one has greater income.
China, for example, the swarms of bicycles that existed 20 years ago
are no longer there. I've lived in several developing countries and
in every one as the economy developed and people became more affluent
bicycle use decreased,


That is because the government there has adopted something similar to
what the Hungarian called "goulash-communism". Almost laissez-faire
style on a local level. Now they finally realize that some of this was a
mistake. As evidenced by events like where a pilot of a business jet
needed three attempts to land in Beijing because of dense fog, only to
find out that this wasn't fog when he stepped out of his aircraft and
almost coughed his lungs out.


In fact in the Netherlands, that wonderful haven of cycling now has
contested city roads. Rotterdam is even listed in one of the "Worlds
Most Congested Cities" that I recently read.

Building bicycle trails isn't going to create a great new cycling
world.


Where there is a will there is a way:

http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/fil...g_strategy.pdf

If we do nothing then nothing will happen regarding mode share. The
question we have to ask ourselves is whether we truly want to increase
cycling or just let it be. In most areas of the US it seems the latter
is the case.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-04-14 07:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 10:15:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On

Well according to Joerg what happened to my bicycling buddy can
be construed as proving that ALL DISC BRAKES are on good. My
buddy paid $1,500.00 US for a Davinci MTB with disc brakes. We're
riding along a crushed limestone stone dust trail and he says to
me, "watch this". i asked him what I was watching. He said,
"This. My brake levers are all the way to the handlebar". Now
that was on a bicycle that had had the brakes adjusted by two
different good bicycle shops. My buddy had so much trouble with
his disc brake that he ended up swapping them for V-brakes. Since
then he's had no trouble with his brakes at all. This is proof
positive that disc brakes are inferior to rim brakes. ;) VB EG
LOL

As I mentioned previously, we recently hosted a very experienced
bike tourist. His rig had disc brakes. His complaint was that on
one not-so-long tour, he was suddenly without brakes. Apparently
the pads had worn down, and unlike with caliper brakes, he couldn't
pop into the closest Wal-Mart and buy new brake shoes or pads.

Not that discs don't have their benefits. But one does have to
separate the hype from the practicality. In Joerg's writing,
there's always a lot of hype.

Was he on mechanical or hydraulic discs? If I were touring on discs,
I'd take some pads along, and with mechanical discs, you do get a
warning that your pads are nearly worn out. The return spring
sandwiched between the pads will start pinging on the rotor.
Hydraulic discs are more fussy -- great braking and no manual pad
adjustment, but I don't know if that outweighs the inconvenience of
dealing with hydraulic fluid.


I was initially concerned about that, bleeding them and all that. Turns
out I didn't even have to get a bleed kit. When I feel a levers becoming
a bit "spongy" I just open the reservoir, burp that brake for a minute
or two, top it off when no more bubbles appear, close it and carefully
clean it because DOT-4 fluid is a bit aggressive on paint. I had to do
this twice over three years which I'd consider not too onerous a
maintenance requirement.


... Even on a loaded touring bike, a
mechanical disc provides plenty of stopping power -- as do various
rim brakes. The calculus is different for MTBs.

Rim brakes are not as quick-stopping in wet weather and are certainly
harder on rims, but I wouldn't bother with discs unless you're riding
in a lot of rain and muck.


On trail rides creeks and puddles are a problem. It's not so much sharp
bends or steep hills that then cause an issue (you could always slow
down, it's not a race) but in my case mostly animals. No idea why but
many of them jump into the trail without looking. The closest call was
with a young buck. He crossed right in front of me, probably never saw
me and then kept on galopping as if on a mission. He never turned around
even though he must have heard me with the gravel flying and all that.
With rim brakes we would have most likely collided.


... I do that, so I have discs -- and like
them. If I had to go back to rim brakes, I'd be fine. I was fine for
the 40 years before I got discs. I'd probably just be grinding down
more rims.


That's the other problem. The rims on my old MTB had nasty grooves after
just 1000mi. One could carry an extra bottle of water and a sponge, then
stop after every muck crossing and wipe off the rims. "Honey, sorry,
I'll be late for dinner because I just ran out of muck cleaning water
and have to find a clear creek of something now".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 4/14/2017 10:17 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 10:15:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On

Well according to Joerg what happened to my bicycling buddy can be construed as proving that ALL DISC BRAKES are on good. My buddy paid $1,500.00 US for a Davinci MTB with disc brakes. We're riding along a crushed limestone stone dust trail and he says to me, "watch this". i asked him what I was watching. He said, "This. My brake levers are all the way to the handlebar". Now that was on a bicycle that had had the brakes adjusted by two different good bicycle shops. My buddy had so much trouble with his disc brake that he ended up swapping them for V-brakes. Since then he's had no trouble with his brakes at all. This is proof positive that disc brakes are inferior to rim brakes. ;) VB EG LOL

As I mentioned previously, we recently hosted a very experienced bike
tourist. His rig had disc brakes. His complaint was that on one
not-so-long tour, he was suddenly without brakes. Apparently the pads
had worn down, and unlike with caliper brakes, he couldn't pop into the
closest Wal-Mart and buy new brake shoes or pads.

Not that discs don't have their benefits. But one does have to separate
the hype from the practicality. In Joerg's writing, there's always a
lot of hype.

Was he on mechanical or hydraulic discs? If I were touring on discs, I'd take some pads along, and with mechanical discs, you do get a warning that your pads are nearly worn out.

He was on hydraulic discs. What struck me the most was that he claimed
the failure happened without much warning at all.

As I said when I previously mentioned his complaint, I think the lesson
is: If you run disc brakes, always carry a spare set of brake pads.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/14/2017 10:15 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 17:39, AMuzi wrote:


There will never be an o-ring derailleur chain, requirements for those
two formats being diametrically opposed.


Never say never. That's what people told us with intravascular
ultrasound and then we made it happen. Even HP had thrown in the towel.

People have also said there will never be a mechanical perpetual motion
machine. There still isn't one.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/14/2017 10:27 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 18:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/13/2017 7:52 PM, Joerg wrote:

The
three miles of this trail from Washingtonville to Western Reserve Road
is being stopped by farmers who just don't want to sell. No particular
reason - it's at the edge of their land and isn't very valuable - but
they just don't want to sell, so it can't be used. OTOH, if a right of
way does connect commercially valuable locations, it's probably got
trains running on it, and nobody will want to sell that either.

So what you get is a rail trail connecting nowhere to nowhere else.


Then they should have invested those finds somewhere else. Like this:

https://sacramentocityexpress.com/20...ort-boulevard/

OK, you're demonstrating a "bike advocate" behavior that frustrates me.
Advocates tout a certain type of facility and claim it will be the
world's salvation. The facility gets built, and behold! It does no
good, or does actual harm.

The advocates never say "We were wrong." Instead, they say "Well, they
didn't do _that_ one well enough."

We've seen this in general with bike lanes. For dozens of years, it was
"We need bike lanes, then everyone will ride!!" But they made very
little difference. Now we hear "Those designers should have known that
ordinary bike lanes aren't good enough! We need _protected_ bike lanes,
THEN everyone will ride!!"

We saw it with bike boxes: "We need bike boxes to prevent crashes!"
After bike boxes were installed and crashes went way up, "Those
designers should have known that bike boxes need warning signs and
flashing lights!"

The rail-trail we're talking about is sort of the same, but sort of
different. I saw the initial grant applications. They claimed this was
going tto be a transportation facility. "Give us money to build this,
and people will ride to the fairgrounds, kids will ride to the schools,
people will ride to work, etc."

However, in this case, nobody's even checking whether it's ever used for
real transportation. They know it's not, just as they knew they were
lying to get the grants.

It's only people like you who want to repeat the process who say "Well,
they did _that_ one wrong." (Um... just like all the others.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/14/2017 10:37 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 19:20, John B Slocomb wrote:


Building bicycle trails isn't going to create a great new cycling
world.


Where there is a will there is a way:

http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/fil...g_strategy.pdf

Sure is a lot of "Photoshopping" there!


If we do nothing then nothing will happen regarding mode share. The
question we have to ask ourselves is whether we truly want to increase
cycling or just let it be. In most areas of the US it seems the latter
is the case.

The pie-in-the-sky advocates always seem to point to Netherlands and
Denmark - or more specifically, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Both are
places that were known for their intense bicycle popularity almost 100
years ago, long before any special facilities were built.

There are roughly 200 countries in the world. Where are the wonderful
examples of facility-driven 30% mode share in the other 198?

When you can show truly massive shifts from motor vehicles to bicycles
in a country without a cycling history - e.g. the U.S., Canada,
Australia, Mexico - then maybe you'll prove your point.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-04-14 07:29, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/14/2017 9:15 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 17:39, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/13/2017 7:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 17:10, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/13/2017 7:02 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 16:19, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:37:11 PM UTC-7,
wrote:
On April 13, 2017, jbeattie wrote:

- snip snippy snip-
I so wish someone would offer an o-ringed bike chain. To
hell with efficiency and all that, I just want to ride and
not start hearing squeaks after every little rain.

I am not an expert but a quick perusal of motorcycle chain
seems to
indicate that o-ring 1/2" pitch chain exists. For any
single speed or
internal gearbox setup, a wider chain would work just fine
as long as
it's 1/2".


Unfortunately my bikes are all derailer types, two with
7-speed and one 10-speed (but that could be "downgraded"). I
really don't want to spend 1.5 kilobucks on a Rohloff.


There will never be an o-ring derailleur chain,
requirements for those
two formats being diametrically opposed.


Never say never. That's what people told us with
intravascular ultrasound and then we made it happen. Even HP
had thrown in the towel.

Regarding getting sideways-moving or bending things to seal
one of the pioneers was Andre Citroen. Folks said that front
wheel drive is a stupid idea because of the steering, that
it would never last, yet he and his engineers did it.
Despite the fact that back then they did not have all the
moderns silicone materials and other stuff that we take for
granted. Unfortunately he died from cancer at a young age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-...tion_avant.jpg



I had its tiny little brother when I was young. The
technology in there was simple but amazing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0288067%29.jpg




OK, technology advances.
Now explain how a rigid design is also flexible. Except for carbon frame
advertising, those are very different things.


In industrial applications they are called side bow roller chains. For
example, those are used when machine section alignment or exact sprocket
line-up cannot be guaranteed.

http://www.directindustry.com/prod/r...86-290844.html

Quote "Extra clearanceTrans-Flex® chain is designed for severe duty
applications, such as in transit mixers, crawler drives, and other uses
requiring delivery of full power despite recurrent sprocket
misalignment. ULTR-O-LIFE™ O-ring roller chain Uses square cross
sectional O-rings to seal in special lube while sealing out dirt,
moisture and other contaminants".

For cycling there would have to be more R&D and O-rings are probably not
the best option. Possibly sliding multi-layer PTFE gaskets are the
ticket for lower friction loss, who knows. Usually problems like that
can be solved.

It is not something that could be marketed to racers or weight weenies,
more to commuters and most of all the more hardcore MTB riders. Once I
saw a group who had very dirty MTBs on their truck in front of ... you
guessed it ... a pub. I was riding mine and it was full of mud as well.
So we talked shop. They were very surprised that I got 50 miles out of
one lube. They said theirs usually sound horrid at 30-35mi.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-04-14 08:51, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2017 10:27 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 18:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/13/2017 7:52 PM, Joerg wrote:

The
three miles of this trail from Washingtonville to Western Reserve Road
is being stopped by farmers who just don't want to sell. No particular
reason - it's at the edge of their land and isn't very valuable - but
they just don't want to sell, so it can't be used. OTOH, if a right of
way does connect commercially valuable locations, it's probably got
trains running on it, and nobody will want to sell that either.

So what you get is a rail trail connecting nowhere to nowhere else.


Then they should have invested those finds somewhere else. Like this:

https://sacramentocityexpress.com/20...ort-boulevard/


OK, you're demonstrating a "bike advocate" behavior that frustrates me.
Advocates tout a certain type of facility and claim it will be the
world's salvation. The facility gets built, and behold! It does no
good, or does actual harm.


It did not do harm. I caused people to ride without having to endure
lots of close passes, expletives, blaring horns.


The advocates never say "We were wrong." Instead, they say "Well, they
didn't do _that_ one well enough."

We've seen this in general with bike lanes. For dozens of years, it was
"We need bike lanes, then everyone will ride!!" But they made very
little difference. Now we hear "Those designers should have known that
ordinary bike lanes aren't good enough! We need _protected_ bike lanes,
THEN everyone will ride!!"


That is wrong as well. You may ridicule Folsoms 1.2% mode share but for
America that is a lot. Especially since it was 0.1% before they put in a
nice bike path system, if that.


We saw it with bike boxes: "We need bike boxes to prevent crashes!"
After bike boxes were installed and crashes went way up, "Those
designers should have known that bike boxes need warning signs and
flashing lights!"


Bike need bright lights, that's what prevents many crashes there.


The rail-trail we're talking about is sort of the same, but sort of
different. I saw the initial grant applications. They claimed this was
going tto be a transportation facility. "Give us money to build this,
and people will ride to the fairgrounds, kids will ride to the schools,
people will ride to work, etc."

However, in this case, nobody's even checking whether it's ever used for
real transportation. They know it's not, just as they knew they were
lying to get the grants.


Unfortunately that happens a lot.


It's only people like you who want to repeat the process who say "Well,
they did _that_ one wrong." (Um... just like all the others.)


"all the others", phhht. You are clearly prejudiced against bike paths.
Discussing it further won't make sense. I know that the vast majority in
my area is pro bike path just like I am, and that's good enough for me
since that gets things done.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-04-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2017 10:37 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 19:20, John B Slocomb wrote:


Building bicycle trails isn't going to create a great new cycling
world.


Where there is a will there is a way:

http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/fil...g_strategy.pdf


Sure is a lot of "Photoshopping" there!


If we do nothing then nothing will happen regarding mode share. The
question we have to ask ourselves is whether we truly want to increase
cycling or just let it be. In most areas of the US it seems the latter
is the case.

The pie-in-the-sky advocates always seem to point to Netherlands and
Denmark - or more specifically, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Both are
places that were known for their intense bicycle popularity almost 100
years ago, long before any special facilities were built.

There are roughly 200 countries in the world. Where are the wonderful
examples of facility-driven 30% mode share in the other 198?


Burundi :-)

http://www.traveladventures.org/coun...cyclists05.jpg


When you can show truly massive shifts from motor vehicles to bicycles
in a country without a cycling history - e.g. the U.S., Canada,
Australia, Mexico - then maybe you'll prove your point.


You of all people don't see that? Folsom increased the mode share from
pretty much zero to somewhere between 1-2%. They did that by massive
investment in bike paths and in contrast to when we moved here it is a
joy to ride there. Now do the math and figure out the health benefit to
their society. Actually, neighbor communities like ours benefit for free
as well because now people ride there.

Manhattan was another success story where it even increase business for
restaurants and other such places, big time.

In America you will never get above 10% except in very isolated cases
and then only for young people. It's still worth it, even if just for
the health benefit.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/