|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Sep 2004 15:46:49 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell
wrote: (Dave Kahn) writes: Tom Sherman wrote in message ... The word "teh" appears seven times. What does "teh" mean? I would have thought that anyone with the intellectual equipment to follow, or even read through, Ian's argument would have had little trouble with such a trivial anagram. OK: The word "het" appears seven times. What does "het" mean? Buggered if I know. :-) -- Dave... Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain |
Ads |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
in message , Dave Kahn
') wrote: On 30 Sep 2004 15:46:49 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote: (Dave Kahn) writes: Tom Sherman wrote in message ... The word "teh" appears seven times. What does "teh" mean? I would have thought that anyone with the intellectual equipment to follow, or even read through, Ian's argument would have had little trouble with such a trivial anagram. OK: The word "het" appears seven times. What does "het" mean? Buggered if I know. :-) An abbreviation of hetero, meaning 'different from' (this is not an ad homonym comment). -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 05:28:26 GMT, SuperSlinky wrote
in message : All the engineering types here are trying to outdo each other in techno- babble, but while this may impress the gullible, what I see above is only a small part of the big picture. Let's assume for a moment that the ejection forces exceed or are unacceptably close to restraining forces. How does a skewer that starts sliding down the dropout get past the ubiquitous retention lips? By coming undone. Do try to keep up at the back there! And what if the wheel stays in the fork, but slips sideways and jams solid? Your faith in lawyer lips as the solution to all problems is touching, if misplaced. If the problem is as unlikely as you claim, how come Cannondale designed their test to steer well clear of the kinds of forces James has documented, i.e. heavy repeated braking on rough ground? Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 05:28:26 GMT, SuperSlinky wrote:
Ian Smith said... It's not me that's seeking to prove anything by estimating available restraint forces - it's you. It's your argument that's in need of defence, so having pointed out all these things wrong with it, it's not really down to me to defend it. If, of course, you can't defend your argument - can't explain why it's valid to assume serration orientation etc. - we can simply drop your claim that there's 5000N retsraining force available, and return to consideration of why teh manufacturers don't want to think about wheel ejection, when it is evidently a real issue. All the engineering types here are trying to outdo each other in techno- babble, but while this may impress the gullible, Well obviously if super-slinky doesn't understand it, it must just be irrelevant babble. Oh yes. only a small part of the big picture. Let's assume for a moment that the ejection forces exceed or are unacceptably close to restraining forces. Which is the limit of teh point I was making. I was addressing the SPECIFIC point made by one poster that it can't be a problem because the pull-out resistnace is massively greater than any ejection force. I was demonstrating PURELY that this 'because' is wrong. I was doing nothing more, so why criticise what I did for going no further? I didn't solve world peace or eradicate hunger either, but that in no way reduces the accuracy of what I did or said. Why should it? it either stops or blows through the retention lips. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard anyone claim that the retention lips are going to give way easily. But interestingly, teh force to shear the retention lip would be rather less than the 5000N that was presented as the cconservative estimate of teh force required to shift the axle, because the argument presented then _does_ make sense, but with a reduced area sheared. I'd then have to wonder why retention lips are designed for a small fraction of teh force that's conservatively generated from a QR. problem that will require the immediate attention of the rider. Where are all the reports of these partial failures? For every ejection we should see even more partial failures, yet the cycling community does not offer any examples of them ever occurring, Well, you're evidently looking in teh wrong places, since I have seen a reasonable number of reports. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
James Annan wrote:
David Martin wrote: Maybe it is time to find a pair of forks, a standard q/r hub and a machine that can do a lot of pulling and measure it.. Um....this has actually been done, systematically and fairly thoroughly. There's a published test report linked from my website (surprise). The pullout resistance achieved in real life seem to generally be way below jim beam's theoretical calculation (which, to be blunt, completely misses the point, irrespective of whether or not his figure can be achieved in some circumstances). James um, this test report http://www.engr.ukans.edu/%7Ektl/bicycle/QRReport1.pdf is really rather weak. it spends an inordinate amount of time doing 10th grade science class testing on clamping force, merely a function of cam displacement - even to the extent of bothering to see whether fork material could affect q/r lever closure force [sic] - but then goes on to ignore the elephant in the room, the effect of different fork materials and axle end serrations on pull-out force. it does briefly touch on "embossing" of fork ends by serrated axle faces, but doesn't bother to investigate it in any detail. critical details missed in my opinion. maybe that's why it was cited? |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
James Annan wrote:
SuperSlinky wrote: Where are all the reports of these partial failures? For every ejection we should see even more partial failures, yet the cycling community does not offer any examples of them ever occurring, It's deja vu all over again! http://tinyurl.com/5s5uo A couple of those singletrackworld URLs are now out of date as the posts have been archived, "f=2" needs to be changed to "f=8" in the first two. Not that SuperSlinky is any more likely to read them this time round than he did last time, but others may be interested. This is how the manufacturers respond when someone reports a problem to them: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames...se/denial.html Make no mistake, this is all about scare-mongering, ego and emotion. Um...and what is your motivation, SuperSlinky? Anyone who doubts this should take note that the question has been looked at by scientists, and not the ones on Usenet. Yeah, sure, these great "scientists" who are obviously superior intellects to any of us - that's why they work in the high-prestige and high-pay bike industry, after all. The only publically available research from these "scientists" is the Cannondale test. What do you think of that? Can you think any "reasons to believe anything is missing or over constrained in this test"? http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames...annondale.html If not, perhaps you might like to think of applying for a job there. I'm sure they could use someone of your calibre. James exactly how is such petty sniping advancing your argument other than disgusting people to the extent of withdrawing? just because people are sufficiently adult to not rise to your bait does not make your argument more accurate - though you seem to misinterpret silence as their acquiescence. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|