Re: summary - the disk brake debate

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:434aaec8.0@entanet...

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and
still we have:

1. annan's theory which calculates supposed ejection force and tells
us that the sky is about to fall.

2. the cpc, the cycling industry and a total lack of accident
incidence saying it doesn't.

3. a theory explaining the reason for the inconsistency - that of
actual pullout force exceeding ejection force

4. the logical conclusion that annan's theory is therefore
incomplete.

5. a core of space cadets that argue, despite point 4 above, that
there is some kind of design flaw - much as a bridge is destined to
fail as soon as it's loaded, apparently.

6. an intriguing group of secondary hangers-on that are arguing the
toss in the face of all logic, reason or math, just for the sheer
devilment of it.

Isn't the point that the designers screwed up by putting the caliper
on the wrong side of the fork,

No kidding

Quoted message said:

but they got away with it because the QR (supplemented by lawyer lips
in most cases) provides enough clamping force to counteract the
ejection force? It's not elegant but it's OK.

Not that I care; my MTB has V's.

It only requires a single failure (forgetting to tighten the QR) and you
will probably pull the wheel out when applying the front brake. With
regular rim brakes, this likely would never happen.

Phil H

"Probably" and "likely" - statistical physics no less here on RBT!

"Phil Holman" <piholmanz@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It only requires a single failure (forgetting to tighten the QR) and you
will probably pull the wheel out when applying the front brake. With
regular rim brakes, this likely would never happen.

Phil H

"Probably" and "likely" - statistical physics no less here on RBT!

Zog The Undeniable said:

jim beam said:

ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and still
we have:

1. annan's theory which calculates supposed ejection force and tells us
that the sky is about to fall.

2. the cpc, the cycling industry and a total lack of accident incidence
saying it doesn't.

3. a theory explaining the reason for the inconsistency - that of actual
pullout force exceeding ejection force

4. the logical conclusion that annan's theory is therefore incomplete.

5. a core of space cadets that argue, despite point 4 above, that there
is some kind of design flaw - much as a bridge is destined to fail as
soon as it's loaded, apparently.

6. an intriguing group of secondary hangers-on that are arguing the toss
in the face of all logic, reason or math, just for the sheer devilment
of it.

Isn't the point that the designers screwed up by putting the caliper on
the wrong side of the fork

"Screwed up" in the hypothetical sense - if there are no ejections
documented, then it's pretty hard to call it a screw-up.

Quoted message said:

but they got away with it because the QR
(supplemented by lawyer lips in most cases) provides enough clamping
force to counteract the ejection force? It's not elegant but it's OK.

It's in the realm of user-installed carbon-fiber stuff. If the user
goofs in installation, injury could result. Heck, with CF it's worse
than that - if you accidentally whack it, the same end result could
occur. Even a small scratch can cause failure.

Not a word passes on r.b.t. about the hideous danger of CF parts.

🙂

E.P.

Quoted message said:

Not a word passes on r.b.t. about the hideous danger of CF parts.

🙂

No, you've posted words similar to the above many times. We've
noticed.

What's going on is this: People tend to be more interested in one
issue than another, and they tend to work on the issues that interest
them. Life is like that.

Which is a gentle way of saying, have at it, whatever your name is! If
you think carbon fiber parts are stupidly dangerous, start a thread, or
start a website, or write to Buycycling magazine, or write to the
manufacturers. Whatever.

But the fact that people aren't interested in your distraction has
little to do with the present discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Zog The Undeniable said:

jim beam said:

ok, so that idiocy has been rolling on for nearly 3 weeks now, and
still we have:

1. annan's theory which calculates supposed ejection force and tells
us that the sky is about to fall.

2. the cpc, the cycling industry and a total lack of accident
incidence saying it doesn't.

3. a theory explaining the reason for the inconsistency - that of
actual pullout force exceeding ejection force

4. the logical conclusion that annan's theory is therefore incomplete.

5. a core of space cadets that argue, despite point 4 above, that
there is some kind of design flaw - much as a bridge is destined to
fail as soon as it's loaded, apparently.

6. an intriguing group of secondary hangers-on that are arguing the
toss in the face of all logic, reason or math, just for the sheer
devilment of it.

Isn't the point that the designers screwed up by putting the caliper on
the wrong side of the fork, but they got away with it because the QR
(supplemented by lawyer lips in most cases) provides enough clamping
force to counteract the ejection force? It's not elegant but it's OK.

Not that I care; my MTB has V's.

what, you mean like bridge builders screw up by not putting a safety net
underneath in case of failure? dude, if the pullout exceeds ejection by
an order of magnitude, that should be sufficient safety factor to allow
adoption of a design that doesn't expose the risk of the caliper tabs
fatiguing off and losing the brake. just like any modern road
motorcycle you care to mention. any idea what safety factor there is on
the wings of a plane? clue: it's not an order of magnitude.

email hidden said:

Not a word passes on r.b.t. about the hideous danger of CF parts

[censored], actually. The dangers of CF parts have been discussed many times
and at length.

Jasper

jim beam said:

dude, if the pullout exceeds ejection by
an order of magnitude,

Whoa, whoa whoa.. order of magnitude? Where the hell do you get THAT from?
Only calculations I've seen are a factor of *2*, not an order of
magnitude, and that was in the best case.

As an aside, are many cars still fitted with front-opening 'suicide
doors'? As long as you close them before taking off, don't open them while
riding, and the lock doesn't fail, they're perfectly safe, so why don't
manufacturers make them?

Jasper

Jasper Janssen said:

email hidden said:

Not a word passes on r.b.t. about the hideous danger of CF parts

[censored], actually. The dangers of CF parts have been discussed many times
and at length.

Not while I've been reading. And disk brakes have been discussed
umpteen (scientific term for "assload"😉 numbers of times.

Doing a quick title search on "danger" and "carbon fiber" yields very
few posts.

Hmmm, interesting.

E.P.

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Jasper Janssen said:

[censored], actually. The dangers of CF parts have been discussed many times
and at length.

Not while I've been reading. And disk brakes have been discussed
umpteen (scientific term for "assload"😉 numbers of times.
Doing a quick title search on "danger" and "carbon fiber" yields very
few posts.

"disk brakes" + "danger", 15 results.
"disc brakes" + "danger", 14 results.
"disk brakes" + "dangerous", 23 results.
"disc brakes" + "dangerous", 24 results.

"carbon fiber" + "danger", 20 results.
"carbon fibre" + "danger", 3 results.
"carbon fiber" + "dangerous", 43 results.
"carbon fibre" + "dangerous", 11 results.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is First Teleute, October.

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Jasper Janssen said:

[censored], actually. The dangers of CF parts have been discussed many times
and at length.

Not while I've been reading. And disk brakes have been discussed
umpteen (scientific term for "assload"😉 numbers of times.
Doing a quick title search on "danger" and "carbon fiber" yields very
few posts.

"disk brakes" + "danger", 15 results.
"disc brakes" + "danger", 14 results.
"disk brakes" + "dangerous", 23 results.
"disc brakes" + "dangerous", 24 results.

"carbon fiber" + "danger", 20 results.
"carbon fibre" + "danger", 3 results.
"carbon fiber" + "dangerous", 43 results.
"carbon fibre" + "dangerous", 11 results.

*Title* search?

Jasper Janssen said:

jim beam said:

dude, if the pullout exceeds ejection by
an order of magnitude,

Whoa, whoa whoa.. order of magnitude? Where the hell do you get THAT from?
Only calculations I've seen are a factor of *2*, not an order of
magnitude, and that was in the best case.

i'm sorry, did i write my previous posts in invisible ink? here, let me
spell it all out one more time:

you /do/ know the purpose of doing math in orders of magnitude, right?

Quoted message said:

As an aside, are many cars still fitted with front-opening 'suicide
doors'? As long as you close them before taking off, don't open them while
riding, and the lock doesn't fail, they're perfectly safe, so why don't
manufacturers make them?

that herring is so vermillion, it's just insulting.

Quoted message said:

Jasper

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Doing a quick title search on "danger" and "carbon fiber" yields very
few posts.

[numbers of hits in article bodies are very similar for CF and disc brakes]

Quoted message said:

*Title* search?

Oh, in the Subject: line? Call it by its name, please.

Then I get no hits at all for dis(c|k) brakes and either "danger" or
"dangerous". This equally does not demonstrate that people are more
concerned about disc brakes than CF components.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Oneiros, October.

jim beam said:

Jasper Janssen said:

jim beam said:

dude, if the pullout exceeds ejection by
an order of magnitude,

Whoa, whoa whoa.. order of magnitude? Where the hell do you get THAT from?
Only calculations I've seen are a factor of *2*, not an order of
magnitude, and that was in the best case.

i'm sorry, did i write my previous posts in invisible ink? here, let me
spell it all out one more time:

Quoted message said:

you /do/ know the purpose of doing math in orders of magnitude, right?

Yeah, and you're totally abusing the privilege.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As an aside, are many cars still fitted with front-opening 'suicide
doors'? As long as you close them before taking off, don't open them while
riding, and the lock doesn't fail, they're perfectly safe, so why don't
manufacturers make them?

that herring is so vermillion, it's just insulting.

Really? Fancy that. Well, whatever floats your boat.

Jasper

email hidden said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell wrote:
>Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:
>>Doing a quick title search on "danger" and "carbon fiber" yields very
>>few posts.

[numbers of hits in article bodies are very similar for CF and disc brakes]

Quoted message said:

*Title* search?

Oh, in the Subject: line? Call it by its name, please.

That *is* its name, you pedantic [censored].

The Subject: line's name is "Title"? Can you give me a good reason why?

Both the actual header and google call it a Subject.

Jasper

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

*Title* search?

Oh, in the Subject: line? Call it by its name, please.

That *is* its name, you pedantic [censored].

No, that's a name you made up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then I get no hits at all for dis(c|k) brakes and either "danger" or
"dangerous".

Then you're an idiot.

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&as_epq=&scoring=r&as_oq=&hl=en&as_eq=&as_ugroup=rec.bicycles.tech&as_usubject=disc+brakes+dangerous&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=13&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2005&safe=off

"Your search - group:rec.bicycles.tech insubject:disc insubject:brakes
insubject: dangerous - did not match any documents."

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&as_epq=&scoring=r&as_oq=&hl=en&as_eq=&as_ugroup=rec.bicycles.tech&as_usubject=disc+brakes+danger&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=13&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2005&safe=off

"Your search - group:rec.bicycles.tech insubject:disc insubject:brakes
insubject:danger - did not match any documents."

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&as_epq=&scoring=r&as_oq=&hl=en&as_eq=&as_ugroup=rec.bicycles.tech&as_usubject=disk+brakes+danger&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=13&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2005&safe=off

Your search - group:rec.bicycles.tech insubject:disk insubject:brakes
insubject:danger - did not match any documents.

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&as_epq=&scoring=r&as_oq=&hl=en&as_eq=&as_ugroup=rec.bicycles.tech&as_usubject=disk+brakes+dangerous&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=13&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2005&safe=off

Your search - group:rec.bicycles.tech insubject:disk insubject:brakes
insubject: dangerous - did not match any documents.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Mania, October.

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:
>*Title* search?
Oh, in the Subject: line? Call it by its name, please.

That *is* its name, you pedantic [censored].

No, that's a name you made up.

Since it's clear anyone with any grasp of the English language knew
*exactly* what I meant, one must be a total and complete [censored] to not be
able to figure out that the title of a usenet posting is the very same
thing as its subject.

But thank you so much for being a pedantic [censored] - I'm sure everyone
enjoys it fully. I know *I* have.

E.P.

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell wrote:
>Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:
>>*Title* search?
>Oh, in the Subject: line? Call it by its name, please.
That *is* its name, you pedantic [censored].

No, that's a name you made up.

Since it's clear anyone with any grasp of the English language knew
*exactly* what I meant,

ie, it _is_ a name you made up and you're smokescreening again.

I also notice you've quietly discarded the fact that I was, er, exactly
right about Google search results. Any comment there?
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is First Aponoia, October.

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:
>>>*Title* search?
>>Oh, in the Subject: line? Call it by its name, please.
>That *is* its name, you pedantic [censored].
No, that's a name you made up.

Since it's clear anyone with any grasp of the English language knew
*exactly* what I meant,

ie, it _is_ a name you made up and you're smokescreening again.

That is false of course. You're being nitpicky and pedantic. But
that's what boorish young people do, I guess.

Quoted message said:

I also notice you've quietly discarded the fact that I was, er, exactly
right about Google search results. Any comment there?

You were? I didn't see that. I looked up carbon fiber danger and
failure in a SUBJECT search (since you don't grasp the meaning of the
word "title" WRT Google searching) and found no hits. The fact that
there are some subsequent searches to be made is irrelevant to that
uncomfortable fact.

BTW, a CF seatpost thread passed by the other day - no mention of any
potential danger. Just shimming.

Now, you were saying something rivettingly important to the bicycling
world again...?

E.P.

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting [email hidden] <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Since it's clear anyone with any grasp of the English language knew
*exactly* what I meant,

ie, it _is_ a name you made up and you're smokescreening again.

That is false of course. You're being nitpicky and pedantic.

Look, you didn't know the name of the Subject: line. That's OK, lots of
people are clueless. Just admit it and get it over with.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also notice you've quietly discarded the fact that I was, er, exactly
right about Google search results. Any comment there?

You were? I didn't see that.

That's very odd. You certainly seemed to see it when I wrote;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then I get no hits at all for dis(c|k) brakes and either "danger" or
"dangerous".

and you wrote;

Quoted message said:

Then you're an idiot.

[for being completely right, apparently]

and then I posted exact links to the search results I was talking about,
in an article you saw enough to follow up to.

You do seem to have been caught in another lie. "I didn't see that -
except, er, 4 articles ago!"

Quoted message said:

I looked up carbon fiber danger and
failure in a SUBJECT search (since you don't grasp the meaning of the
word "title" WRT Google searching) and found no hits. The fact that
there are some subsequent searches to be made is irrelevant to that
uncomfortable fact.

Except inasmuch as, since we get no hits from any combination of "disc
brakes" or "disk brakes" and "danger" or "dangerous", we can hardly
conclude from these searches that people are less concerned about CF than
about disc brakes.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is First Aponoia, October.