"Crash Into Religion": Are we coming up on a record number of posts yet?

On Sat, 13 May 2006 16:52:37 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:

Werehatrack wrote:
Dunno. I think it's in the top 3 for helmet threads, anyway. I've
had it on ignore since it passed about 25.

So, about 5 minutes in?

Yeah, about. It didn't take much more than that to show that it was
going to be another of those threads.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

wrote:
aha! tellus dear fogjell - izdare a way to get back
to pin down multiple email address emenememinaitng from one computer?
#19(o)

many sockpuppetz shaking in their...well on their...uhm. never mind.

On 13 May 2006 10:27:33 -0700, wrote:

aha! tellus dear fogjell - izdare a way to get back
to pin down multiple email address emenememinaitng from one computer?
#19(o)

If you had the full headers, you could track the NNTP posting host
line, but that wouldn't always be useful; large numbers of posts would
show up from certain IP addresses that are actually public portals of
one sort or another...and not all messages have that header anyway.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:34:49 +0200, Erik Sandblom
wrote:

956 posts including the current thread.

I grabbed the history just now, and it had 965 posts in the thread
exclusive of any from posters that might be in my killfile.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Sorni says...

many sockpuppetz shaking in their...well on their...uhm. never mind.

Hear, hear, Nuckin' Futz...er, I mean, Bill.

On Sat, 13 May 2006 18:29:59 GMT, Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Anybody got the tools to keep track?

Does Forte Agent do this for you? This here news reader
does a search on words in the subject line.

Yes; 1115 when I checked earlier this evening (Sunday).

Pat

Email address works as is.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Anybody got the tools to keep track?

Pete, I couldnt' get your e-mail address, so check out this link:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...006/news/05-12

Look near the bottom. Is the monolink there a possible upgrade path for
your bike?
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Per Phil, Squid-in-Training:
Pete, I couldnt' get your e-mail address, so check out this link:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...006/news/05-12

Thanks. For future ref, it's FirstName underscore LastName at Fatbelly
fullstop com.
--
PeteCresswell

Per Phil, Squid-in-Training:
Look near the bottom. Is the monolink there a possible upgrade path for
your bike?

In the end, I'll probably shell out the bucks for the alu version. Looks like
the Palominos had some sort of low-end bearings. Mine always had the high-end
bearings that it looks like they're offering in the upgrade.

BTW: I sent the stripped-out monolink to Seven along with a virgin one that
they had sent me on warranty.

Seven found a crack in the thing and they think that's why it failed.

They acknowledged all the flat spots in the threads on the new one but opined
that it "should work"... so I guess my expectations of tread quality in a BB are
unrealistic. All three of the ones I got on warranty look like really bad to me
- as in half the threads flattened to just a spiral score in the metal.

The one I have in there now keeps backing out about 1 cm on every ride. Doesn't
matter whether it's just a couple of miles or the three-and-a-half hours I put
on it yesterday... it's always about 1 cm of rotation.

Torque it up, it's quiet.... ride a few miles and it backs out and starts
creaking.

Going to pull it out, clean the threads, and try a different grease next time.
If that doesn't work, it goes in dry but wrapped in Teflon plumber's tape.
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Phil, Squid-in-Training:
Look near the bottom. Is the monolink there a possible upgrade path
for your bike?

In the end, I'll probably shell out the bucks for the alu version.
Looks like the Palominos had some sort of low-end bearings. Mine
always had the high-end bearings that it looks like they're offering
in the upgrade.

Hmm... guess it wasn't a help after all.

BTW: I sent the stripped-out monolink to Seven along with a virgin
one that they had sent me on warranty.

Seven found a crack in the thing and they think that's why it failed.

Do you think it was cracked before you had ever even ridden it?

They acknowledged all the flat spots in the threads on the new one
but opined that it "should work"...

I hate to say this but I tell customers "it should work" when I don't really
know if it will or not, but fool myself into thinking it will. I have the
feeling the same thing's going on here.

so I guess my expectations of
tread quality in a BB are unrealistic. All three of the ones I got
on warranty look like really bad to me - as in half the threads
flattened to just a spiral score in the metal.

The one I have in there now keeps backing out about 1 cm on every
ride. Doesn't matter whether it's just a couple of miles or the
three-and-a-half hours I put on it yesterday... it's always about 1
cm of rotation.

Torque it up, it's quiet.... ride a few miles and it backs out and
starts creaking.

Going to pull it out, clean the threads, and try a different grease
next time. If that doesn't work, it goes in dry but wrapped in Teflon
plumber's tape.

Do you have an extra one now? I would ride the current one without
readjusting it so that it fails, and then when you constantly send back new
ones, they'll finally get the hint and send you something that works. My
guess is that there's not enough thread material to make the screw/tapped
hole a self-locking system. This condition is met when pi*f*dml where f is
the force, dm is the mean diameter, and f is the coefficient of normal force
friction.

--
Philip Lee