How long should caliper brake springs last?

On 8/6/2017 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-06 07:46, wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Putting aside large scale producers, why should federal law apply
to individual consumers? Health and welfare laws are typically the
province of the states. Why shouldn't the states decide whether to
legalize individual use of marijuana? Indeed, the conservative
mantra is to rein in commerce clause legislation. I would think a
true conservative would support state regulation of marijuana.

Something like a third of the population is manic-depressive to one
degree or another. Drugs like marijuana make them feel better and
they are almost immediately addicted. The idea that this doesn't lead
to other drugs a large amount of the time is preposterous. I have had
a brother who dies from the long term effect of illegal drugs and
legalizing them doesn't change one iota that controlling the purity
of drugs only leads of overdoses more readily.


It ratchets up. Legalize one drug and the dealers start pushing the next
level. Goes via peer pressure. "Hey, you've got to try this other stuff,
much better". I knew a lot of people in the Netherlands who all came to
grief this way. The ones that didn't die were probably worse off. Their
organs hadn't become totally destroyed but their brains had, turning
them to almost vegetative status yet with decades of "life" in front of
them.

I understand your argument and think it's plausible. But OTOH, Portugal
seems to have done rather well with its de facto legalization scheme.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-dec...ecord-straight

I think legalization would have to be done very carefully, though, as
part of a total package. And I think an essential part of the package
should be to stop glamorizing use of pot (let alone other drugs) as
fashionable and funny. It bothers me when comedians, films, songs, etc.
glorify chemical-induced stupidity.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/6/2017 12:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-06 09:42, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:33 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-05 19:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2017 10:59 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-04 18:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2017 3:18 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-31 20:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/31/2017 5:50 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/27/2017 6:40 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:57:44 -0700, sms

wrote:

On 7/27/2017 7:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

In theory maybe but I've never seen that in real life. Rust is
ugly
but
in terms of % reduction of cross section of a spring, it's
meaningless.

The spring is not rusty. But it pops out with no effort, it's
just
not
springy anymore. It seems to be fatigued.

The brake sets are cleaned and lubed. I may still order some
springs to
use these brakes on another road bike which has lower quality
brakes. If
I were in Wisconsin, I'm sure that AMuzi would have the
springs in
stock, but the shops in Silicon Valley have little interest in
stocking
and selling little parts like this.


Probably because no one but you ever wanted to buy any :-(

Yet they are available online, so clearly someone has wanted them,
and
there are instructions online that refer to the need to replace
weak
springs.

There are? Where?


The springs?

No, Joerg. The instructions.

Where are those instructions online that refer to the need to replace
weak springs.?


Why does anyone need instructions to figure out that a weakened spring
is no longer fit for service and should be replaced?

You're diverting the conversation. You said there were instructions
online referring to the need to replace weak springs. You haven't
produced a link.


Where did I write that? Quote please, no blah-blah again that you are
"too busy to back up your statements" or whatever.


In anything remotely like normal use, those springs last forever. The
fail about as often as the mounting nuts split in two.

Good grief, Joerg, it's about 15 lines up in the post!

"... there are instructions online that refer to the need to replace
weak springs."


And who wrote that? Is it so difficult to find out? Take the fingers on
your hand and count. If that is too difficult for you page through the
real posts and then even you will know.

Oh, sorry, my mistake.

Yes, I did confuse your posts and SMS's posts, because both you and SMS
were talking about the hazard of spring fatigue.

--
- Frank Krygowski

no one here has fiddled with springs n shims then ?

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:23:24 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

3. National health? YGBSM! The regulation is bad enough but actual
health care really? Check out the wonderful results of BIA hospital
system. Over a hundred years of rank incompetence, fraud, theft, waste
and error. Good luck expanding that.

You're conflating health care finance (insurance) and health care
(doctors and other providers). While connected to each other, they are
not the same issues.

There is only one equitable way to provide health care financing to all
citizens, and there is no political stomach for that. Plus, the heads
of a significant portion of Americans would just explode if it came to a
serious debate.

But forcing Americans to pay hundreds of millions of tax dollars for
sports stadiums to benefit billionaire team owners- who could afford to
build and operate the stadiums themselves- is fine and dandy.

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2017 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-06 07:46, wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Putting aside large scale producers, why should federal law apply
to individual consumers? Health and welfare laws are typically the
province of the states. Why shouldn't the states decide whether to
legalize individual use of marijuana? Indeed, the conservative
mantra is to rein in commerce clause legislation. I would think a
true conservative would support state regulation of marijuana.

Something like a third of the population is manic-depressive to one
degree or another. Drugs like marijuana make them feel better and
they are almost immediately addicted. The idea that this doesn't lead
to other drugs a large amount of the time is preposterous. I have had
a brother who dies from the long term effect of illegal drugs and
legalizing them doesn't change one iota that controlling the purity
of drugs only leads of overdoses more readily.


It ratchets up. Legalize one drug and the dealers start pushing the next
level. Goes via peer pressure. "Hey, you've got to try this other stuff,
much better". I knew a lot of people in the Netherlands who all came to
grief this way. The ones that didn't die were probably worse off. Their
organs hadn't become totally destroyed but their brains had, turning
them to almost vegetative status yet with decades of "life" in front of
them.

I understand your argument and think it's plausible. But OTOH, Portugal
seems to have done rather well with its de facto legalization scheme.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-dec...ecord-straight

Have you personally BEEN to Portugal? This is an entirely different society that is FAR less likely to use drugs - on a financial basis if not the fact that the Catholic Church is entirely against it.

I think legalization would have to be done very carefully, though, as
part of a total package. And I think an essential part of the package
should be to stop glamorizing use of pot (let alone other drugs) as
fashionable and funny. It bothers me when comedians, films, songs, etc.
glorify chemical-induced stupidity.

As Joerg pointed out - legalize one drug and you might as well legalize them all because people will ALWAYS try the newer stronger street drugs.

After I got out of the service my brother was in a band. I got into a couple more as bass player and backup singer. Not one single person in all of those bands lived past 50.

Not from bad drugs and not from OD'ing but simply destroying their internal organs with drugs. My brother's heart simply quit when he was 49. My older brother is 78 close to 79, I'm near 73 and my youngest half brother is about to retire at 58. We are all healthy except my older brother's bad knees from jumping off and onto trains as a switchman.

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 1:24:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2017 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-06 07:46, wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Putting aside large scale producers, why should federal law apply
to individual consumers? Health and welfare laws are typically the
province of the states. Why shouldn't the states decide whether to
legalize individual use of marijuana? Indeed, the conservative
mantra is to rein in commerce clause legislation. I would think a
true conservative would support state regulation of marijuana.

Something like a third of the population is manic-depressive to one
degree or another. Drugs like marijuana make them feel better and
they are almost immediately addicted. The idea that this doesn't lead
to other drugs a large amount of the time is preposterous. I have had
a brother who dies from the long term effect of illegal drugs and
legalizing them doesn't change one iota that controlling the purity
of drugs only leads of overdoses more readily.


It ratchets up. Legalize one drug and the dealers start pushing the next
level. Goes via peer pressure. "Hey, you've got to try this other stuff,
much better". I knew a lot of people in the Netherlands who all came to
grief this way. The ones that didn't die were probably worse off. Their
organs hadn't become totally destroyed but their brains had, turning
them to almost vegetative status yet with decades of "life" in front of
them.

I understand your argument and think it's plausible. But OTOH, Portugal
seems to have done rather well with its de facto legalization scheme.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-dec...ecord-straight

Have you personally BEEN to Portugal? This is an entirely different society that is FAR less likely to use drugs - on a financial basis if not the fact that the Catholic Church is entirely against it.

I think legalization would have to be done very carefully, though, as
part of a total package. And I think an essential part of the package
should be to stop glamorizing use of pot (let alone other drugs) as
fashionable and funny. It bothers me when comedians, films, songs, etc.
glorify chemical-induced stupidity.

As Joerg pointed out - legalize one drug and you might as well legalize them all because people will ALWAYS try the newer stronger street drugs.

Alcohol is a drug -- more dangerous than cannabis. Alcohol destroys more lives than all the illegal drugs put together. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/causes_of_death Might as well legalize heroin now.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/6/2017 4:16 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:23:24 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

3. National health? YGBSM! The regulation is bad enough but actual
health care really? Check out the wonderful results of BIA hospital
system. Over a hundred years of rank incompetence, fraud, theft, waste
and error. Good luck expanding that.

You're conflating health care finance (insurance) and health care
(doctors and other providers). While connected to each other, they are
not the same issues.

People who complain that a government health care system would be
inefficient amaze me. They must never deal with insurance companies.

In the last year, we had an amazing go-round with our medical insurance.
My wife's doctor did some routine blood tests that should have been
100% covered by insurance. He sent the samples out to the normal
laboratory. Months later, we got a bill from the laboratory for the
full amount, claiming coverage was denied.

Leaving out much detail: I was on the phone in three-way conversations
between the laboratory, the insurance company and me. The lab rep was
telling the insurance guy they'd sent the claim in multiple times, the
insurance guy was saying they never got it, so re-submit. In the second
three-way call, the lab said they sent it in electronically, plus faxed
it to the number provided during the first call, AND mailed it in
hardcopy. The insurance guy said it never came in. Only after THREE
such phone calls and who-knows-what behind the scene was the matter settled.

The issue took over six months to settle. My total phone time was over
an hour, and I did that work for free. I don't know what the business
major flunk-outs working for the insurance company get paid, but the
episode MUST have raised somebody's rates somewhere - because the
insurance company would surely not let such incompetence affect their
profits or their CEO's bonuses.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/6/2017 3:16 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:23:24 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

3. National health? YGBSM! The regulation is bad enough but actual
health care really? Check out the wonderful results of BIA hospital
system. Over a hundred years of rank incompetence, fraud, theft, waste
and error. Good luck expanding that.

You're conflating health care finance (insurance) and health care
(doctors and other providers). While connected to each other, they are
not the same issues.

There is only one equitable way to provide health care financing to all
citizens, and there is no political stomach for that. Plus, the heads
of a significant portion of Americans would just explode if it came to a
serious debate.

But forcing Americans to pay hundreds of millions of tax dollars for
sports stadiums to benefit billionaire team owners- who could afford to
build and operate the stadiums themselves- is fine and dandy.


It is not 'fine and dandy' with all of us; lights our hair
on fire and makes us rant! Those of us who do not get
kickbacks anyway, and for that reason our votes do not count.

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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2017 07:35:53 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-05 17:56, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 07:59:49 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-04 18:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2017 3:18 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-31 20:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/31/2017 5:50 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/27/2017 6:40 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:57:44 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/27/2017 7:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

In theory maybe but I've never seen that in real life. Rust is ugly
but
in terms of % reduction of cross section of a spring, it's
meaningless.

The spring is not rusty. But it pops out with no effort, it's just
not
springy anymore. It seems to be fatigued.

The brake sets are cleaned and lubed. I may still order some
springs to
use these brakes on another road bike which has lower quality
brakes. If
I were in Wisconsin, I'm sure that AMuzi would have the springs in
stock, but the shops in Silicon Valley have little interest in
stocking
and selling little parts like this.


Probably because no one but you ever wanted to buy any :-(

Yet they are available online, so clearly someone has wanted them, and
there are instructions online that refer to the need to replace weak
springs.

There are? Where?


The springs?

No, Joerg. The instructions.

Where are those instructions online that refer to the need to replace
weak springs.?


Why does anyone need instructions to figure out that a weakened spring
is no longer fit for service and should be replaced?

Reminds me of "Attention, beverage is hot!" or "Do not put smoke
detector in mouth".

From the court case concerning McDonalds coffee it appears that Usians
do require a notice that "Attention, beverage is hot!" while
Europeans, or specifically the English (if they are considered
European) do not. At least U.S. courts heard the case while an English
court refused to hear a similar case calling it "frivolous".


I completely side with English court. They still assume that man is
capable of having common sense. What a concept!

I did not read the transcript of the trial but as described in several
articles abut the trial the complainant's attorney highlighted the
fact that McDonalds daily income from coffee sales was much higher
then the sum that the complainant was asking for.

Or, in other words, "they've got a lot so they should pay" thinking.
( this kind of thinking could justify bank robbery :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 8/6/2017 7:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2017 07:35:53 -0700, Joerg
On 2017-08-05 17:56, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 07:59:49 -0700, Joerg
On 2017-08-04 18:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2017 3:18 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-31 20:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/31/2017 5:50 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/27/2017 6:40 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:57:44 -0700, sms
On 7/27/2017 7:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:

-snip snip snip-

Or, in other words, "they've got a lot so they should pay" thinking.
( this kind of thinking could justify bank robbery :-)


That, sir, qualifies you for a PhD program in Marxist
Economics.

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