Shimano Headset

On 5/15/2017 9:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 19:36:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.
It's like I've said about motorcycle helmets. Anyone who rides
without a "brain bucket" hasn't got anything to worry about. You can
take that any way you want to. Nothing worth saving.

Yeah, I've heard that remark from people. But I don't think I've ever
heard it from a person with an IQ over 110 and an ounce of mathematical
knowledge. Those that don't qualify for science often resort to insult.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 20:08:50 -0400, 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.
Your lagic totally escapes me. From your previous post.

Sat the risk of being involved in a serious accident where a seat belt
may help is 1 in 10,000 on a given day under normal legal driving
conditions (in really bad traffic). You are wearing a seat belt, so
you think you are safer, so drive 20% over the speed limit, pass on
solid lines, text and drink coffee on the way, and perhaps even have a
nip before heading home just because seat belts are supposed to reduce
the severity of injuries by 30%. 30% of 1 in 10,000.

But your new "safer" driving habits increase your risk of a serious
accident by, say 50%. Are you safer because you are wearing a seat
belt? Certainly not, and only a mentally deficient would think so. I
thiunk you overestimate the stupidity of the average person (perhaps
based on personal experience)?

Perhaps you should do some reading on risk compensation. Let me know if
you need help finding information. (They have this thing called Google.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 02:19:20 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

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?
Frankly, I don't think Frank knows what he's talking about.I know
several very serious cyclists - BMX, Flat track, touring, and mountain
bike, and they ALL wear helmets - both in competition (where it is
mandated) and on recreational rides.

Nobody's doubting that helmets are popular among enthusiastic North
American cyclists. That's not the question I'm discussing. Yes, the
sales job has been persistent and effective. The question is whether
the popularity is appropriate, or whether all cyclists should wear a
helmet every time they ride - which is, after all, what the propaganda says.

A friend has a steel plate in his head which he would not have had
helmets been available, and had he worn one, as s teenager. Will he
develop parkinsons because of the injury, or would he not develop
parkinsons if he had NOT had the injury? (diagnosis is not definite,
but it's looking like parkinsons)

FWIW, I had 9 friends who died in motoring accidents. I know for sure
that three of them died of TBI, and I suspect that others did as well.
Unlike the rare bicyclist fatalities, newspapers don't normally tell
what injury killed a motorist.

And BTW, one of those was on a motorcycle, the same make and model I
ride. He did have his helmet on.

I've never personally known a bicyclist who was killed in a crash.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 10:08 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 21:15:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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!
Must be a real bitch to worry that much about how you look riding a
bike - - - - - - That you'll look like less of a man if you wear a
helmet.

Who said that? Are you now imagining things?? Sheesh!

--
- Frank Krygowski

The overconfidence and "bigger hit area"
arguments I accept as arguments, however how it
plays out in the data who knows.

However the comparisons over time I don't know
as there might be many things changing during
that time and it is very difficult to single
out what leads to what and what doesn't
influence.

Also comparing bike and pedestrian accidents
aren't the same things with many different
factors involved.

It would be better if there were stats like
this: this year, there has been x accidents.
Of those, h(x) involved severe head injuries.
How many bikers in h(x) used helmets?

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

On 5/15/2017 10:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2017 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 20:08:50 -0400, 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.
Your lagic totally escapes me. From your previous post.

Sat the risk of being involved in a serious accident where a seat belt
may help is 1 in 10,000 on a given day under normal legal driving
conditions (in really bad traffic). You are wearing a seat belt, so
you think you are safer, so drive 20% over the speed limit, pass on
solid lines, text and drink coffee on the way, and perhaps even have a
nip before heading home just because seat belts are supposed to reduce
the severity of injuries by 30%. 30% of 1 in 10,000.

But your new "safer" driving habits increase your risk of a serious
accident by, say 50%. Are you safer because you are wearing a seat
belt? Certainly not, and only a mentally deficient would think so. I
thiunk you overestimate the stupidity of the average person (perhaps
based on personal experience)?

Perhaps you should do some reading on risk compensation. Let me know if
you need help finding information. (They have this thing called Google.)

Oh heck, here, I'll help.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89

https://www.damninteresting.com/the-balance-of-risk/

http://www.selectinternational.com/s...ersonal-safety

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

I don't expect you to read an entire book on the subject, but you should
at least try to gain a little background knowledge.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2017 10:41 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
The overconfidence and "bigger hit area"
arguments I accept as arguments, however how it
plays out in the data who knows.

However the comparisons over time I don't know
as there might be many things changing during
that time and it is very difficult to single
out what leads to what and what doesn't
influence.

Also comparing bike and pedestrian accidents
aren't the same things with many different
factors involved.

It would be better if there were stats like
this: this year, there has been x accidents.
Of those, h(x) involved severe head injuries.
How many bikers in h(x) used helmets?

None of this is dead simple. There are always confounding factors.

In my view, even what you propose does not tell the whole story, or
allow for a perfect decision. Why? Because your proposed stats could be
gathered for any activity; yet people think about those things only for
helmets on bicyclists and motorcyclists.

Now I ride both bicycles and motorcycles. But I know the risk of serious
TBI is far, far less on a bicycle than on motorcycle. (Fatalaties per
hour are over 30 times greater for motorcycling than for bicycling.) In
fact, researcher (John Pucher) has computed that in America, pedestrians
have over triple the risk of fatality per km traveled compared to
bicyclists. And the data I've found (cited in a paper I linked earlier)
shows that about 45% of bicycle fatalities are due to TBI, and about 40%
of pedestrian fatalities are due to TBI - in other words, that
difference is small. So when you look at the total numbers of annual
fatalities (about 800 for bikes, about 4500 or more for pedestrians)
it's clear that the pedestrian TBI problem is far bigger in every way.

So, why do we not do studies of the number of severe head injuries of
pedestrians with and without helmets?

Answer: Because there has never been a huge propaganda campaign
pointing out the head injury risks of walking. And nobody has seriously
tried to sell helmets for pedestrians. That's true even though the
problem is far bigger than for biking.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:27:53 -0400, 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.

But, based on the statistics that Frank quotes above, the dangers of a
severe head injury is far greater when driving an auto or even
walking. Do you wear an approved helmet when walking or driving an
auto?

If not then why on a bicycle where a head injury is far less likely to
happen?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 15 May 2017 20:03:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.)

I might add that someone here, recently stated that he felt much safer
surrounded by sheet metal and glass then riding a bike although
statistically he is far more likely to have an auto accident then a
bike accident.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
That would do. I think Joerg is a special case and could use a tool and some master links because he breaks chains. If you don't break chains . . .

I've broken a couple of chains because I messed up reassembly or, in one case, I had an odd shift on to the big ring and up-shift, and the quick-link snapped open. I probably side-loaded the chain in some odd way. I had no chain tool, but I was close enough to home that I could scooter until my wife came to pick me up.

I broke one chain in the middle of nowhere, but I was on tour and had a chain tool. Another mis-assembled chain broke on the way to work, but I was close enough to work to scooter the last bit, and then I bought a cheap chain tool at lunch. The bad part was dealing with a greasy chain in my backpack.

-- Jay Beattie.

Indeed does Joerg appear to be a special case. However, if I experienced the number of problems/reakages that he does then I'd be carrying a pretty comprehensive repar kit with tools and parts that I'd most likely need. MAybe what Joerg needs to do is fix up a method of towing another bike behind the one that he rides and that way when one bike breaks something major he can then rather than having to walk 20+ miles back to civilization he could just ride the extra bike back and tow the werecked one behind it.

Cheers

I can only say that although I rarely, based on distances cycled, have
a flat I carry a spare tube and patch kit and while I even less
frequently break a chain I still carry a chain tool and a couple of
chain links.

Strange though, although I've had far fewer bike crashes than flat
tires everyone says "wear a helmet" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.