New hub from shimano

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 18 Aug 2007 12:45:12
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: New hub from shimano

Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??

http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html

Date: 23 Aug 2007 05:06:25
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

On Aug 18, 6:45 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>
> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___in...

Found out the new freehub cannot be retrofitted to the 7800/7810
hub..what a surprise.

BUT I found this out from shimano, AUSTRALIA...wouldn't it be nice if
shimano, USA had a contact email.

Date: 24 Aug 2007 18:13:28
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Aug 18, 6:45 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>
>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___in...
>
> Found out the new freehub cannot be retrofitted to the 7800/7810
> hub..what a surprise.
>
> BUT I found this out from shimano, AUSTRALIA...wouldn't it be nice if
> shimano, USA had a contact email.
>
Maybe Shimano USA has a filter that blocks anyone with "Campagnolo" in
their user name. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 22 Aug 2007 03:03:55
From:
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

On Aug 21, 12:21 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 12:02 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >>>> fuck you.
> >>> I think "jim beam" should add that to the sig, as well! Same
> >>> reason! ;-)
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> you're a fucking idiot krygowski. fucked up any engineering careers lately?
>
> > See how much typing it would save?
>
> > :-)
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> fucking idiot.

"jim" will never, ever forgive anyone who has proven him wrong. And
the more conclusive the proof, the more obscene he becomes.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 21 Aug 2007 21:02:24
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 21, 12:21 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 21, 12:02 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> fuck you.
>>>>> I think "jim beam" should add that to the sig, as well! Same
>>>>> reason! ;-)
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>> you're a fucking idiot krygowski. fucked up any engineering careers lately?
>>> See how much typing it would save?
>>> :-)
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> fucking idiot.
>
> "jim" will never, ever forgive anyone who has proven him wrong. And
> the more conclusive the proof, the more obscene he becomes.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

eh? you're just a fucking idiot krygowski.

Date: 20 Aug 2007 23:18:25
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:49:57 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>>>>>
>>>>> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the "free"
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>>>>>
>>>>> then buy one.
>>>>
>>>> This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was
>>>>>> about to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress
>>>>>> concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to differentiate
>>>>> overload from fatigue from examination of the fracture surfaces.
>>>>
>>>> butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
>>>> cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the experiment
>>>> on.
>>>>
>>>> Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional
>>>> wheel, why not post the proof?
>>>
>>> i don't understand - what more do you want me to post? i've already
>>> posted a pic of me sitting on it. do you want the pic notarized?
>>
>> No, I want proof that the wheel with missing spoke will/will not
>> function as a bicycle wheel. A static test with the wheel in one (1)
>> position does inform either way.
>
> than take a free wheel, cut some spokes out and test away!
>
>
>>
>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion axis.
>>>>>> What gives?
>>>>>
>>>>> so, do you get it yet?
>>>>
>>>> Indefinite pronoun - get what?
>>>
>>> you being evasive?
>>
>> Just want to avoid misunderstanding.
>>
>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>>>>>
>>>>> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof"
>>>>> tendered is dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.
>>>>
>>>> Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more
>>>> frequently than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking anodizing?
>>>
>>> who says it does? i run mavic "cd" hard ano rims on my della santa
>>> and my mtb. no rim cracking.
>>
>> Why do so many report more cracking with MA-40's than MA-2's? Does Jobst
>> sneak into people houses at night and sabotage MA-40 rims? ;)
>
> as i've said many times before, jobst started to advocate spoke tension
> "as high as the rim can bear" at about the time the ma40 came out.
> excess spoke tension is the cause, not anodizing.

And MA-2's built in the same way didn't crack because .... ?

personally, i've seen
> many /uncracked/ ma40's but nobody ever things to kick up a big fuss
> about those. and you also need to understand that ma2's, the allegedly
> uncrackable rims, both /do/ crack and /are/ anodized. the green labels
> at any rate.
>
>

I have no opinion about whether MA-2's were anodized or not. The more
important point is that it doesn't matter to this discussion. What Jobst
says is that hard anodizing leads to rim cracking, not thin anodizing used
to protect against corrosion or for cosmetic purposes. And he has support
in the engineering literature for that.

>
>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>>>>>
>>>>> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/ pay!
>>>>> post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.
>>>>
>>>> Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns strike
>>>> again?
>>>
>>> stop being evasive - what do you want other than the tests i've
>>> already posted?
>>
>> Are we discussing wheels with missing spokes or headsets?
>
> you're being evasive...
>
>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective?
>>>>>> Cites?
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is what
>>>>> needs proof!
>>>>
>>>> Did I disagree on that? No.
>>>
>>> so say so! jeepers, it's taken how many iterations of beating about
>>> the bush?
>>
>> I did say that a while back.
>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?
>>>>
>>>> There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults would
>>>> help, as would using capital letters.
>>>
>>> i love that - the irony is so rich. ad hominem is ok, but being
>>> direct is not. ridiculous.
>>
>> We need a new course: How to Win Friends and Influence People on
>> Usenet. ;)
>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had any
>>>>>> engineering experience, you would realize that many problems are
>>>>>> too complex or have too little information available to solve at a
>>>>>> fundamental level. In these cases an empirical approach is
>>>>>> justified, and is considered to meet the legal requirements for
>>>>>> "standard of care" which you would know if you have ever prepared
>>>>>> deliverables for clients.
>>>>>
>>>>> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a continuous
>>>>> process of mapping the macro, then filling in the gaps between since
>>>>> it allows much more control of the bits already roughly known.
>>>>> engineers should try that approach rather than the "i've graduated
>>>>> so i know it all" approach many seem to have.
>>>>
>>>> What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?
>>>
>>> er, disregard of spoke gauge?
>>
>> The question that comes to mind is whether the error produced by
>> ignoring spoke gauge is significant in the range of normal bicycle
>> spoke diameters (1.5 to 2.0 mm)?
>
> all the tensiometer manufacturers apart from fsa [which jobst designed]
> seem to think so.
>
>

As you well know, Jobst now agrees that spoke gauge is significant within
the range of normal diameters.

>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Yes, your point being?
>>>>>
>>>>> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!
>>>>
>>>> No, it a purely a legal matter.
>>>
>>> not solely. if you want to be legally defendable, you'd better be
>>> sure you can prove you know what you're doing better than the
>>> prosecutor's own expert! and then there's insurance...
>>
>> I was referring to accepting liability. The above appears to be about
>> defending one's self from liability claims.
>
> but part of accepting liability is being able to avoid/defend liability
> claims!!! as anyone in professional practice knows, when someone screws
> up, the pointy finger comes out. you got to make sure it's not pointing
> at you, or if it does, that you can prove it unwarranted. unless it
> /was/ you that screwed up of course, in which case you have professional
> indemnity insurance. you /do/ have professional indemnity insurance
> don't you?
>
>
>
>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>>>>>
>>>>> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e. he
>>>>> ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight into
>>>>> residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be
>>>>> worshiped accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff
>>>>> about "stress relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or the
>>>>> process he /calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his own birth
>>>>> so he /cannot/ be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother to show
>>>>> whether he's actually determined whether something is significant or
>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the "ancients".
>>>
>>> but he claims "invention". that is his word.

Where does he say that?

>>
>> I was of the impression Jobst's claim was of first explanation, not
>> invention.
>
> "dags".
>
>
>
>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>>>>>
>>>>> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
>>>>> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as you
>>>>> want.
>>>>
>>>> I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.
>>>
>>> eh? i live in an apartment. i have parts for cars, bikes as well as
>>> my office stuff. you do stuff on the kitchen table, then pack it up
>>> when you're done and put it away. i don't get the problem. unless of
>>> course you wan tto be evasive.
>>
>> The epoxies are not something I want to deal with without proper
>> protective equipment. Not to mention the hazard of carbon fiber dust.
>
> do you drive a car? do you eat tuna?
>
>
>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have
>>>>>> problems with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of high
>>>>>> end bicycles.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and
>>>>> non-axial loading causing repeated bending. straight pull spokes
>>>>> are fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.
>>>>
>>>> What about the hubs?
>>>
>>> what about them?
>>
>> Can you make a hub for straight pull spokes that is as inexpensive,
>> lightweight and durable as one for J-bend spokes? If not, the trade-off
>> does not seem worth it.
>
> dude, you can buy mavic cosmos front wheels on sale for as little as
> $60. why bother to buy stuff and build it when you can get it ready
> made?
>
>
>> The other consideration is that until (if it happens) straight-pull
>> spokes become common, spares would be much harder to find.
>
> eh? if they're more common, they're more common. aren't they?
>
>
>>>> If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with Jobst's
>>>> wheel building technique, do we really need anything better?
>>>
>>> but where's the proof it's "his" technique? i want numbers. and
>>> where to the effects of superior spoke materials come into this
>>> picture?
>>
>> Many have reported success with the technique. However, I agree that a
>> formal study would be a good thing, so the argument could be
>> conclusively settled.
>>
>>>>> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes, the
>>>>> next step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these include
>>>>> surface finish, composition, environment, etc. and eventually
>>>>> residual stress. but even then, since observed fatigue initiation
>>>>> points are /not/ those regions of the spoke with high residual
>>>>> stress, i.e. the outer and inner portions of the j-bend curve,
>>>>> residual stress theory is highly questionable. the next step for
>>>>> someone wanting to hypothesize residual stress relevance and alleged
>>>>> effectiveness of mitigation is to test and publish results.
>>>>> credentials pissing matches with those who dare point out that over
>>>>> a century of fatigue research is being ignored ["ignoring" again
>>>>> tom] simply don't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at least,
>>>>> you won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.
>>>>
>>>> On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would just
>>>> go in circles (sorry Andres).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that makes no sense. on one hand, we have an assertion for which
>>> there is no theoretical or even quantitative support, from an author
>>> who evidences fundamental misunderstandings of materials theory. on
>>> the other, we have text book fatigue mitigation based on over 100
>>> years of research. what is there to disagree about?
>>
>> What there is to disagree about is that all else being equal, a sock
>> puppet has less credibility that someone using their real identity.
>>
>>
> ad hominem!

Nonsense. The ad hominem logical fallacy is committed when someone adduces
personal information about an interlocutor that isn't relevant to the
issue at hand. Your arguments rely heavily on your supposed training in
metallurgy and familiarity with the scientific literature. Hence, you've
put your own credibility into issue.

> the resort of those unwilling to address naked emperors.
> and you're still not addressing the fundamental point:
>
> in the blue corner, we have johnny-come-lately with nothing other than
> assertion, bluster and something of a credibility problem since he
> didn't even realize that strain aging materials cannot be use as fatigue
> prevention models for materials that don't strain age.
>
> in the red corner, we have literally millions of hours of published
> academic research, and more importantly, _replicable quantified
> results_.
>
> want to address this now?

Date: 21 Aug 2007 04:07:36
From:
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

On Aug 21, 12:02 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> >> fuck you.
>
> > I think "jim beam" should add that to the sig, as well! Same
> > reason! ;-)
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> you're a fucking idiot krygowski. fucked up any engineering careers lately?

See how much typing it would save?

:-)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:05:08
From: Luke
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

In article <1187669256.077410.311150@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Aug 21, 12:02 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> fuck you.
> >
> > > I think "jim beam" should add that to the sig, as well! Same
> > > reason! ;-)
> >
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > you're a fucking idiot krygowski. fucked up any engineering careers lately?
>
> See how much typing it would save?
>
> :-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

LOL!

Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:21:22
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 21, 12:02 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> fuck you.
>>> I think "jim beam" should add that to the sig, as well! Same
>>> reason! ;-)
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> you're a fucking idiot krygowski. fucked up any engineering careers lately?
>
> See how much typing it would save?
>
> :-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
fucking idiot.

Date: 21 Aug 2007 03:55:46
From:
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> > jim beam wrote:
>
> >> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and credentials
> >> /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that thinks anodizing
> >> causes rim cracking? or that bike bearings don't brinell? or that
> >> elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike bearings? or
> >> that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made fatigue
> >> proof? or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
> >> what a joke.
>
> > Why don't you just make this into a sig? Save yourself a lot of typing.
>
> fuck you.

I think "jim beam" should add that to the sig, as well! Same
reason! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:02:32
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and credentials
>>>> /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that thinks anodizing
>>>> causes rim cracking? or that bike bearings don't brinell? or that
>>>> elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike bearings? or
>>>> that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made fatigue
>>>> proof? or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
>>>> what a joke.
>>> Why don't you just make this into a sig? Save yourself a lot of typing.
>> fuck you.
>
> I think "jim beam" should add that to the sig, as well! Same
> reason! ;-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
you're a fucking idiot krygowski. fucked up any engineering careers lately?

Date: 19 Aug 2007 19:02:08
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:06:21 -0700, jim beam wrote: <snip >
> because that's a strawman akin to arguing existence of the emperor's
> clothes. "only a fool would question the great and wonderful stanford
> alumni - you won't disclose your credentials so you must be wrong".
>
> thing is tom, i don't /need/ to show credentials - everything is done
> for me already. open "the book". we then find that "stress relief
> theory" makes no account of known fatigue factors such as material,
> surface finish, work hardening [increasing dislocation density],
> environment or even miner's cumulative damage rule. and it dismisses
> more basic fundamentals such as physical configuration [j-bend elbows]
> that even the most rudimentary engineer should address.

You really haven't read the book, have you? Jobst gives plenty of
deference to the importance of materials. For instance, on the first page
of his introduction to the 3d edition, he talks about how spoke
manufacturers had improved their game since the earlier editions, with a
consequent reduction in the number of spoke failures.

The book doesn't explain the importance of materials at length, but then
it doesn't purport to. Much of the focus of the book is on the things the
individual wheel builder can do to make strong wheels. As a practical
matter, most of us can't make our own spokes, but we do have control over
which of the available spokes, rims, and hubs we buy; and how we lace and
tension our wheels. Focusing on the things we control does not mean that
we necessarily deny the importance of the things we can't control.

The only explanation I can come up for why you consistently
mischaracterize Jobst's book is that you seem unable to deal with the idea
that a single thing -- spoke failure -- can have more than one cause.
(You're not the only one -- Carl Fogel sometimes falls into this error as
well.)

If I said that the most important factor in a good meal is fresh
ingredients, would you take that to mean that it doesn't matter what
recipe one follows? Presumably not. Yet when it comes to spoke
failures, you come across as a farmer who takes offense at the cookbook
writer for daring to suggest ways of using fresh vegetables to best effect.
Writing a cookbook does not mean denigrating farming.

My point is that there's nothing inconsistent in saying that both
materials (good ingredients) and building technique (a good recipe)
contribute to the desired outcome.

So what exactly is your beef about Jobst's book and its treatment of
materials? That it doesn't teach how to make good spokes? No, it certainly
doesn't. But again, it makes no pretense of doing so and goes out of
its way to point to the importance of good materials.

(One caveat -- I don't want to create the impression that Jobst's book is
pure practice and no theory. I do think it's fair to say, however, that a
good portion of it can fairly be characterized as a cookbook for making
good wheels.)

> instead, we
> find a work zooming in on just one potential component, that of residual
> stress, with no attempt to quantify, enumerate or even test samples.
> amazing really since there is more than a century of very well
> documented research on this subject.
>
> you want to go ahead and accept a credentials decoy argument? i'll go
> ahead and witness gullibility of disturbing proportion.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:23:18
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>
> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>

"Shimano introduces an optimized Dura-Ace freehub FH-7850 and four new
wheel sets that carry this new rear hub. The titanium freehub body is
now compatible with 8, 9 and 10 speed cassettes. "

Oooh, titanium! *And* compatibility!

"Furthermore it features a quicker pawl engagement"

Finally! I'll be able to shave that millisec off the coast to sprint
transition!

" and the sealing performance has been improved by 400%."

Jeepers, that sounds like a lot!

"The four, new Dura-Ace wheel sets carry the new rear hub and they also
have an upgraded appearance with a sharp edged hub design"

Anti-squirrel, I guess.

" and red spoke nipples."

Be still my heart.

"All Dura-Ace wheelsets have radial lacing in the front wheel and the
rear wheel has a cross over spoke pattern at both sides to increase
torsional rigidity."

Solved that pesky torsional rigidity problem. Frankly, they had me at
red spokes.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:48:26
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>
>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>
>>
>
> "Shimano introduces an optimized Dura-Ace freehub FH-7850 and four new
> wheel sets that carry this new rear hub. The titanium freehub body is
> now compatible with 8, 9 and 10 speed cassettes. "
>
> Oooh, titanium! *And* compatibility!
>
> "Furthermore it features a quicker pawl engagement"
>
> Finally! I'll be able to shave that millisec off the coast to sprint
> transition!
>
> " and the sealing performance has been improved by 400%."
>
> Jeepers, that sounds like a lot!
>
> "The four, new Dura-Ace wheel sets carry the new rear hub and they also
> have an upgraded appearance with a sharp edged hub design"
>
> Anti-squirrel, I guess.
>
> " and red spoke nipples."
>
> Be still my heart.
>
> "All Dura-Ace wheelsets have radial lacing in the front wheel and the
> rear wheel has a cross over spoke pattern at both sides to increase
> torsional rigidity."
>
> Solved that pesky torsional rigidity problem. Frankly, they had me at
> red spokes.

why don't you bother to post something useful? you know, something
that's not simply vitriol or underinformed opinion?

Date: 19 Aug 2007 09:18:56
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

On Aug 19, 8:03 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@innvalid.com > wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > TYVM.
>
> Hey, we are just honoring Andres Muro's request to have arguments with
> "jim beam". ;)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovini
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

I was just about to thank you guys for providing some amusement. I
went to bed late last night and didn't get up for the morning Sunday
ride. Instead, I am enjoying a cup of coffee and reading the exchange.
I wish that Tim, Jobst, etc would join in. So, guys, please keep it
up. Thank you all for a lovely morning,

Andres

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:39:06
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:03 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> TYVM.
>> Hey, we are just honoring Andres Muro's request to have arguments with
>> "jim beam". ;)
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovini
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> I was just about to thank you guys for providing some amusement. I
> went to bed late last night and didn't get up for the morning Sunday
> ride. Instead, I am enjoying a cup of coffee and reading the exchange.
> I wish that Tim, Jobst, etc would join in. So, guys, please keep it
> up. Thank you all for a lovely morning,

It's not over yet, we haven't reached the infantile name-calling and
obscenity sputtering part yet (we're still at righteous chest-thumping).

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:03:19
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 8:03 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>> <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> TYVM.
>>> Hey, we are just honoring Andres Muro's request to have arguments with
>>> "jim beam". ;)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovini
>>>
>>> --
>>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>>
>> I was just about to thank you guys for providing some amusement. I
>> went to bed late last night and didn't get up for the morning Sunday
>> ride. Instead, I am enjoying a cup of coffee and reading the exchange.
>> I wish that Tim, Jobst, etc would join in. So, guys, please keep it
>> up. Thank you all for a lovely morning,
>
> It's not over yet, we haven't reached the infantile name-calling and
> obscenity sputtering part yet (we're still at righteous chest-thumping).

no, /you/ are still in denial and still daring to call into question
facts that you could yourself check but won't because you'll have to
contradict yourself.

Date: 20 Aug 2007 08:14:53
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

jim beam wrote:

> no, /you/ are still in denial and still daring to call into question
> facts

That's me -- living on the edge!

Date: 20 Aug 2007 09:06:55
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> no, /you/ are still in denial and still daring to call into question
>> facts
>
> That's me -- living on the edge!

you may find disregard of facts recreational but it confuses the proles.
but i guess that's more recreation for you.

Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:14:37
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> no, /you/ are still in denial and still daring to call into question
>>> facts
>>
>> That's me -- living on the edge!
>
> you may find disregard of facts recreational but it confuses the proles.
> but i guess that's more recreation for you.

I'm sorry, I promise to visit a bike shop & make sure these hubs use red
nipples.

Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:08:52
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> no, /you/ are still in denial and still daring to call into question
>>>> facts
>>>
>>> That's me -- living on the edge!
>>
>> you may find disregard of facts recreational but it confuses the
>> proles. but i guess that's more recreation for you.
>
> I'm sorry, I promise to visit a bike shop & make sure these hubs use red
> nipples.

make sure you don't confuse the red one with the blue ones. and bikes
are those things with /two/ wheels.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 12:14:30
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

On Aug 18, 1:06 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> >> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
> >> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
> >>http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___in...
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
> > Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new Shimano
> > low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium and carbon
> > fiber composite rims. ;)
>
> The heck with Peter.
> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
> wheel sales for us.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I get it..too early this morning after a busy week.....'interesting'
to see 2 of the 'players' go at it again tho...just missing one other
and it would be complete.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 09:02:14
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> On Aug 18, 1:06 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___in...
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new Shimano
>>> low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium and carbon
>>> fiber composite rims. ;)
>> The heck with Peter.
>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
>> wheel sales for us.
>> --
>> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> I get it..too early this morning after a busy week.....'interesting'
> to see 2 of the 'players' go at it again tho...just missing one other
> and it would be complete.

So Peter, tell us how you like the new rims and complete wheel sets.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Aug 2007 12:08:53
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

On Aug 18, 1:06 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> >> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
> >> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
> >>http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___in...
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
> > Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new Shimano
> > low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium and carbon
> > fiber composite rims. ;)
>
> The heck with Peter.
> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
> wheel sales for us.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

WTF Andy, I think the new hub is a good thing....more wheels built for
us as well. 7700 hubs were getting hard to find.

Date: 18 Aug 2007 20:32:59
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

On Aug 18, 8:21 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
>
>
> > "jim beam" wrote:
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>> Andrew Muzi mused:
> >>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder
> >>>>>>>>>> if the
> >>>>>>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
> >>>>>>>>>>http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___in...
>
> >>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new
> >>>>>>>>> Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite,
> >>>>>>>>> scandium and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>
> >>>>>>>> The heck with Peter.
> >>>>>>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom
> >>>>>>>> handbuilt wheel sales for us.
>
> >>>>>>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo
> >>>>>>> than the OEM wheels?
>
> >>>>>>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0),
> >>>>>>> stainless steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the
> >>>>>>> rim at the spoke that is being tensioned?
>
> >>>>>> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!
>
> >>>>> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought you
> >>>>> recommended buying them "out of box"?
>
> >>>> only 16 spoke from what used to be a 32 spoke wheel. but don't
> >>>> worry about the little details tom - i just mess about with stuff to
> >>>> see if the bullshitters know what they're talking about.
>
> >>> Like the wheel with missing spokes that can support a static load,
> >>> but would not work if the bicycle were actually moving?
>
> >> suppositional bullshit. you go ahead and try that experiment at home
> >> rather than just piss and moan from a position of ignorance.
>
> > Why would I want to destroy a perfectly good rim and risk injuring myself?
>
> > Why doesn't "jim beam" post a video of the wheel with the spokes missing
> > being ridden on YouTube (or the equivalent)? (He could always scramble
> > the image of his head to protect his anonymity.) Come on "jim", show us
> > that this wheel works!
>
> but the ball's in your court big guy - you say it doesn't work. you'll
> hardly "injure yourself" in the parking lot - from which you will not
> progress if all you say is true.
>
>
>
> >>>> how much other stuff do you believe from what you read on the net btw?
>
> >>> I consider the source - anonymous sock puppets are generally not
> >>> reliable.
>
> >> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and credentials
> >> /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that thinks anodizing
> >> causes rim cracking?
>
> > Citations that anodizing does NOT cause rim cracking?
>
> so you /accept/ that dye penetrant proves anodizing causes rim cracks???
> wow dude, you really need to get off that sofa some time.
>
>
>
> >> or that bike bearings don't brinell?
>
> > We only have your word for that (and "Dear Carl" imposing loads with a
> > hammer on a cheap headset that are unlike anything that would happen on
> > a bicycle in use).
>
> buy a headset and try it yourself, sofa king.
>
>
>
> >> or that elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike bearings?
>
> > Well, Jobst has done real world work in tribology.
>
> he has? when? he alludes to owning a book on bearing design, but
> doesn't appear to have cracked it open or he wouldn't have made such
> basic mistakes.
>
> > What "jim beam" has
> > done is a mystery.
>
> a mystery indeed.
>
>
>
> >> or that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made
> >> fatigue proof?
>
> > Is this Jobst's real claim, or is his claim that one spokes are "stress
> > relieved" the endurance limit is high enough that fatigue is no longer a
> > PRACTICAL concern?
>
> well, since he does no testing, no analysis and makes fundamental
> mistakes in materials theory, there's not much else he /can/ say to
> convince the gullible sofa pilots of this world.
>
>
>
> >> or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
>
> > No effect, or no significant effect?
>
> what does it say in the book tom? you know, the section where spoke
> gauge is disregarded in the math.
>
>
>
> >> what a joke.
>
> > Here is a hint "jim". Engineers do not concern themselves with
> > insignificant effects. Why? Well, because they are insignificant, and
> > add unnecessary complication to the problem.
>
> not true big guy. if you want to disregard something, you state what it
> is and why you're disregarding it. you don't just go ahead and ignore
> it. people think you don't know what you're doing if you make mistakes
> like that. and guess what...
>
>
>
> >>>> did you see the one about the ww2 bomber found on the moon?
>
> >>> How about the story of the ex-metallurgist who thought he was an
> >>> engineer?
>
> >> how about the guy that has opinions on every subject under the sun
> >> from the comfort and safety of his sofa?
>
> > It's a futon. However, I should get a keyboard mount for my trike. ;)
>
> >> the guy that feels qualified to condemn stuff he's never used?
>
> > I see enough examples of other people have problems with foo foo
> > components,
>
> you can form that opinion from the futon?
>
> > that I have no wish to waste my limited financial resources
> > on them (assuming such stuff would even fit my bikes).
>
> craigslist. get all kinds of stuff cheap. since you evidently have the
> time on your hands, use it productively. report your results. or is
> that harder than just sitting on your ass just punching keys?

FWIW, lil' Tom seems to have slipped a few gears and is now nuttier
than a Christmas fruitcake. Debating anything with him is pointless,
IMO.

Date: 18 Aug 2007 18:08:35
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

On Aug 18, 8:51 am, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> > M-gineering wrote:
> >> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
> >>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
> >>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>
> >>>http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___in...
>
> >> Now by the looks of it all we now need is a retrofitkit to get rid of
> >> the aluminium axle ;)
>
> > has anyone had a problem with the 7800 hub?
>
> Yes, as in selling Ultegra hubs where previously you would have made
> more money with DA ;) (there is a whole bunch of cogsets which won't fit
> for starters)
> --
> /Marten
>
> info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

We've had a few with FH/pawl problems, sticking down..maybe that has
something to do with changing the design...I think a poor copy of
Campag's hubs...plus the bonded to the axle cone..cone/axle sold as an
assembly...$50.

Not the smoothest hub either, even after overhauling..7700 was much
better, hopefully 7850 will be too.

Date: 18 Aug 2007 15:26:35
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:18:56
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

M-gineering wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>
>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>
>>
> Now by the looks of it all we now need is a retrofitkit to get rid of
> the aluminium axle ;)
>

has anyone had a problem with the 7800 hub?

Date: 18 Aug 2007 17:51:12
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

jim beam wrote:
> M-gineering wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>
>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>
>>>
>> Now by the looks of it all we now need is a retrofitkit to get rid of
>> the aluminium axle ;)
>>
>
> has anyone had a problem with the 7800 hub?

Yes, as in selling Ultegra hubs where previously you would have made
more money with DA ;) (there is a whole bunch of cogsets which won't fit
for starters)
--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:53:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>
> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html

Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new Shimano
low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium and carbon
fiber composite rims. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:06:29
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: New hub from shimano

> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new Shimano
> low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium and carbon
> fiber composite rims. ;)

The heck with Peter.
We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
wheel sales for us.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:31:17
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Andrew Muzi mused:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new Shimano
>> low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium and
>> carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>
> The heck with Peter.
> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
> wheel sales for us.

Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo than
the OEM wheels?

Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0), stainless
steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the rim at the spoke
that is being tensioned?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Aug 2007 15:20:34
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

In article
<46c73cf4$0$8096$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote:

> Andrew Muzi mused:
> >> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> >>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
> >>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
> >>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
> >
> >
> > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new Shimano
> >> low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium and
> >> carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
> >
> > The heck with Peter.
> > We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
> > wheel sales for us.
>
> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo than
> the OEM wheels?

Properly spelled frou-frou.

The word frou-frou is first recorded in English in the
early 1870s. Its original sense was 'a rustling, as of
silk on a woman's dress'. An example that the Oxford
English Dictionary cites from 1871: "With a frou-frou
of soft silk she arose." This sense also appears as a
verb--"frou-frouing skirts," for example.

The current sense, 'elaborate or frilly decoration, as
on women's clothing', is also found for the first time
in the 1870s.

The word frou-frou is a borrowing from French, in which
it is first found in the 1730s. It is ultimately of
imitative origin--the word is supposed to sound like
the rustling of silk.

--
Michael Press

Date: 18 Aug 2007 13:38:58
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new
>>> Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium
>>> and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>
>> The heck with Peter.
>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
>> wheel sales for us.
>
> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo than
> the OEM wheels?
>
> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0), stainless
> steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the rim at the spoke
> that is being tensioned?
>

of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!

Date: 18 Aug 2007 16:35:12
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

jim beam wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new
>>>> Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium
>>>> and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>>
>>> The heck with Peter.
>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
>>> wheel sales for us.
>>
>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo than
>> the OEM wheels?
>>
>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0), stainless
>> steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the rim at the
>> spoke that is being tensioned?
>>
>
> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!

So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought you
recommended buying them "out of box"?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Aug 2007 16:42:48
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new
>>>>> Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite,
>>>>> scandium and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>>>
>>>> The heck with Peter.
>>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
>>>> wheel sales for us.
>>>
>>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo than
>>> the OEM wheels?
>>>
>>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0), stainless
>>> steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the rim at the
>>> spoke that is being tensioned?
>>>
>>
>> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!
>
> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought you
> recommended buying them "out of box"?
>

only 16 spoke from what used to be a 32 spoke wheel. but don't worry
about the little details tom - i just mess about with stuff to see if
the bullshitters know what they're talking about.

how much other stuff do you believe from what you read on the net btw?
did you see the one about the ww2 bomber found on the moon?

Date: 18 Aug 2007 18:57:57
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>>>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new
>>>>>> Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite,
>>>>>> scandium and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> The heck with Peter.
>>>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
>>>>> wheel sales for us.
>>>>
>>>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo
>>>> than the OEM wheels?
>>>>
>>>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0), stainless
>>>> steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the rim at the
>>>> spoke that is being tensioned?
>>>>
>>>
>>> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!
>>
>> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought you
>> recommended buying them "out of box"?
>>
>
> only 16 spoke from what used to be a 32 spoke wheel. but don't worry
> about the little details tom - i just mess about with stuff to see if
> the bullshitters know what they're talking about.

Like the wheel with missing spokes that can support a static load, but
would not work if the bicycle were actually moving?

> how much other stuff do you believe from what you read on the net btw?

I consider the source - anonymous sock puppets are generally not reliable.

> did you see the one about the ww2 bomber found on the moon?

How about the story of the ex-metallurgist who thought he was an engineer?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Aug 2007 17:25:12
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
>>>>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>>>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new
>>>>>>> Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite,
>>>>>>> scandium and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The heck with Peter.
>>>>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom
>>>>>> handbuilt wheel sales for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo
>>>>> than the OEM wheels?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0), stainless
>>>>> steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the rim at the
>>>>> spoke that is being tensioned?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!
>>>
>>> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought you
>>> recommended buying them "out of box"?
>>>
>>
>> only 16 spoke from what used to be a 32 spoke wheel. but don't worry
>> about the little details tom - i just mess about with stuff to see if
>> the bullshitters know what they're talking about.
>
> Like the wheel with missing spokes that can support a static load, but
> would not work if the bicycle were actually moving?

suppositional bullshit. you go ahead and try that experiment at home
rather than just piss and moan from a position of ignorance.

>
>> how much other stuff do you believe from what you read on the net btw?
>
> I consider the source - anonymous sock puppets are generally not reliable.

so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and credentials
/are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that thinks anodizing
causes rim cracking? or that bike bearings don't brinell? or that
elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike bearings? or
that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made fatigue
proof? or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
what a joke.

>
>> did you see the one about the ww2 bomber found on the moon?
>
> How about the story of the ex-metallurgist who thought he was an engineer?
>

how about the guy that has opinions on every subject under the sun from
the comfort and safety of his sofa? the guy that feels qualified to
condemn stuff he's never used?

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:26:21
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

jim beam wrote:

> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and credentials
> /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that thinks anodizing
> causes rim cracking? or that bike bearings don't brinell? or that
> elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike bearings? or
> that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made fatigue
> proof? or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
> what a joke.

Why don't you just make this into a sig? Save yourself a lot of typing.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:46:42
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and credentials
>> /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that thinks anodizing
>> causes rim cracking? or that bike bearings don't brinell? or that
>> elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike bearings? or
>> that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made fatigue
>> proof? or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
>> what a joke.
>
> Why don't you just make this into a sig? Save yourself a lot of typing.

fuck you.

Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:48:56
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>>>>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new
>>>>>>>> Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite,
>>>>>>>> scandium and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The heck with Peter.
>>>>>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom
>>>>>>> handbuilt wheel sales for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo
>>>>>> than the OEM wheels?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0),
>>>>>> stainless steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the
>>>>>> rim at the spoke that is being tensioned?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!
>>>>
>>>> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought you
>>>> recommended buying them "out of box"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> only 16 spoke from what used to be a 32 spoke wheel. but don't worry
>>> about the little details tom - i just mess about with stuff to see if
>>> the bullshitters know what they're talking about.
>>
>> Like the wheel with missing spokes that can support a static load, but
>> would not work if the bicycle were actually moving?
>
> suppositional bullshit. you go ahead and try that experiment at home
> rather than just piss and moan from a position of ignorance.

Why would I want to destroy a perfectly good rim and risk injuring myself?

Why doesn't "jim beam" post a video of the wheel with the spokes missing
being ridden on YouTube (or the equivalent)? (He could always scramble
the image of his head to protect his anonymity.) Come on "jim", show us
that this wheel works!

>>> how much other stuff do you believe from what you read on the net btw?
>>
>> I consider the source - anonymous sock puppets are generally not
>> reliable.
>
> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and credentials
> /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that thinks anodizing
> causes rim cracking?

Citations that anodizing does NOT cause rim cracking?

> or that bike bearings don't brinell?

We only have your word for that (and "Dear Carl" imposing loads with a
hammer on a cheap headset that are unlike anything that would happen on
a bicycle in use).

> or that elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike bearings?

Well, Jobst has done real world work in tribology. What "jim beam" has
done is a mystery.

> or that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made fatigue
> proof?

Is this Jobst's real claim, or is his claim that one spokes are "stress
relieved" the endurance limit is high enough that fatigue is no longer a
PRACTICAL concern?

> or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?

No effect, or no significant effect?

> what a joke.

Here is a hint "jim". Engineers do not concern themselves with
insignificant effects. Why? Well, because they are insignificant, and
add unnecessary complication to the problem.

>>> did you see the one about the ww2 bomber found on the moon?
>>
>> How about the story of the ex-metallurgist who thought he was an
>> engineer?
>
> how about the guy that has opinions on every subject under the sun from
> the comfort and safety of his sofa?

It's a futon. However, I should get a keyboard mount for my trike. ;)

> the guy that feels qualified to condemn stuff he's never used?

I see enough examples of other people have problems with foo foo
components, that I have no wish to waste my limited financial resources
on them (assuming such stuff would even fit my bikes).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Aug 2007 18:21:58
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder
>>>>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>>>>>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new
>>>>>>>>> Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite,
>>>>>>>>> scandium and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The heck with Peter.
>>>>>>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom
>>>>>>>> handbuilt wheel sales for us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo
>>>>>>> than the OEM wheels?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0),
>>>>>>> stainless steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the
>>>>>>> rim at the spoke that is being tensioned?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought you
>>>>> recommended buying them "out of box"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> only 16 spoke from what used to be a 32 spoke wheel. but don't
>>>> worry about the little details tom - i just mess about with stuff to
>>>> see if the bullshitters know what they're talking about.
>>>
>>> Like the wheel with missing spokes that can support a static load,
>>> but would not work if the bicycle were actually moving?
>>
>> suppositional bullshit. you go ahead and try that experiment at home
>> rather than just piss and moan from a position of ignorance.
>
> Why would I want to destroy a perfectly good rim and risk injuring myself?
>
> Why doesn't "jim beam" post a video of the wheel with the spokes missing
> being ridden on YouTube (or the equivalent)? (He could always scramble
> the image of his head to protect his anonymity.) Come on "jim", show us
> that this wheel works!

but the ball's in your court big guy - you say it doesn't work. you'll
hardly "injure yourself" in the parking lot - from which you will not
progress if all you say is true.

>
>>>> how much other stuff do you believe from what you read on the net btw?
>>>
>>> I consider the source - anonymous sock puppets are generally not
>>> reliable.
>>
>> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and credentials
>> /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that thinks anodizing
>> causes rim cracking?
>
> Citations that anodizing does NOT cause rim cracking?

so you /accept/ that dye penetrant proves anodizing causes rim cracks???
wow dude, you really need to get off that sofa some time.

>
>> or that bike bearings don't brinell?
>
> We only have your word for that (and "Dear Carl" imposing loads with a
> hammer on a cheap headset that are unlike anything that would happen on
> a bicycle in use).

buy a headset and try it yourself, sofa king.

>
>> or that elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike bearings?
>
> Well, Jobst has done real world work in tribology.

he has? when? he alludes to owning a book on bearing design, but
doesn't appear to have cracked it open or he wouldn't have made such
basic mistakes.

> What "jim beam" has
> done is a mystery.

a mystery indeed.

>
>> or that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made
>> fatigue proof?
>
> Is this Jobst's real claim, or is his claim that one spokes are "stress
> relieved" the endurance limit is high enough that fatigue is no longer a
> PRACTICAL concern?

well, since he does no testing, no analysis and makes fundamental
mistakes in materials theory, there's not much else he /can/ say to
convince the gullible sofa pilots of this world.

>
>> or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
>
> No effect, or no significant effect?

what does it say in the book tom? you know, the section where spoke
gauge is disregarded in the math.

>
>> what a joke.
>
> Here is a hint "jim". Engineers do not concern themselves with
> insignificant effects. Why? Well, because they are insignificant, and
> add unnecessary complication to the problem.

not true big guy. if you want to disregard something, you state what it
is and why you're disregarding it. you don't just go ahead and ignore
it. people think you don't know what you're doing if you make mistakes
like that. and guess what...

>
>>>> did you see the one about the ww2 bomber found on the moon?
>>>
>>> How about the story of the ex-metallurgist who thought he was an
>>> engineer?
>>
>> how about the guy that has opinions on every subject under the sun
>> from the comfort and safety of his sofa?
>
> It's a futon. However, I should get a keyboard mount for my trike. ;)
>
>> the guy that feels qualified to condemn stuff he's never used?
>
> I see enough examples of other people have problems with foo foo
> components,

you can form that opinion from the futon?

> that I have no wish to waste my limited financial resources
> on them (assuming such stuff would even fit my bikes).
>

craigslist. get all kinds of stuff cheap. since you evidently have the
time on your hands, use it productively. report your results. or is
that harder than just sitting on your ass just punching keys?

Date: 19 Aug 2007 00:05:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Date: 19 Aug 2007 07:06:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:29:48
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

jim beam wrote:

> thing is tom, i don't /need/ to show credentials - everything is done
> for me already. open "the book".

Why don't you? You've obviously never read it.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:46:15
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> thing is tom, i don't /need/ to show credentials - everything is done
>> for me already. open "the book".
>
> Why don't you? You've obviously never read it.

wow. what's next? red is blue? up is down? peter cole can get over
himself and get his ass on into a bike shop or a supermarket?

Date: 19 Aug 2007 09:48:39
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the
>>>>>>>>>>>> new Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy
>>>>>>>>>>>> composite, scandium and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The heck with Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom
>>>>>>>>>>> handbuilt wheel sales for us.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less
>>>>>>>>>> foo-foo than the OEM wheels?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0),
>>>>>>>>>> stainless steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect
>>>>>>>>>> the rim at the spoke that is being tensioned?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought you
>>>>>>>> recommended buying them "out of box"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only 16 spoke from what used to be a 32 spoke wheel. but don't
>>>>>>> worry about the little details tom - i just mess about with stuff
>>>>>>> to see if the bullshitters know what they're talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like the wheel with missing spokes that can support a static load,
>>>>>> but would not work if the bicycle were actually moving?
>>>>>
>>>>> suppositional bullshit. you go ahead and try that experiment at
>>>>> home rather than just piss and moan from a position of ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Why would I want to destroy a perfectly good rim and risk injuring
>>>> myself?
>>>>
>>>> Why doesn't "jim beam" post a video of the wheel with the spokes
>>>> missing being ridden on YouTube (or the equivalent)? (He could
>>>> always scramble the image of his head to protect his anonymity.)
>>>> Come on "jim", show us that this wheel works!
>>>
>>> but the ball's in your court big guy - you say it doesn't work.
>>> you'll hardly "injure yourself" in the parking lot - from which you
>>> will not progress if all you say is true.
>>
>> Still my money. Buy me an upright road bicycle and I will try the
>> experiment.
>
> but you can get them free of craigslist - money is no excuse.

Do you mean free FROM Craigslist? That would be a used bicycle? How
would I know what condition the spokes were in without expensive
testing? They could be ready to fail from fatigue.

>>>>>>> how much other stuff do you believe from what you read on the net
>>>>>>> btw?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consider the source - anonymous sock puppets are generally not
>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and
>>>>> credentials /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that
>>>>> thinks anodizing causes rim cracking?
>>>>
>>>> Citations that anodizing does NOT cause rim cracking?
>>>
>>> so you /accept/ that dye penetrant proves anodizing causes rim
>>> cracks??? wow dude, you really need to get off that sofa some time.
>>
>> Did I say that? No.
>
> it's what you imply if you accept jobst's b.s.

Only in the logic of beamian world.

>> Do you disagree that a sharp notch, such as a crack in the anodizing
>> layer, produces a stress concentration?
>
> so what's the orientation of the crack then bill? if rim cracking
> ignores anodizing crack orientation, and it does, clearly [to anyone
> that knows fatigue and fracture mechanics at any rate] the anodizing is
> not the cause.

Who's Bill?

Demonstrate why forming the rim into a hoop from a straight extrusion
could NOT produce a crack in the anodizing that would be stresses by the
spoke/nipple pulling on the rim.

>> FYI, I have personally run comparison 4-point bending tests on
>> notched, large radius notched and sharp radius notched aluminium alloy
>> beams, so I do not have to take Jobst's or anyone else words on the
>> effect.
>
> see my comment on orientation big guy. notch your beams lengthwise,
> then tell me how much 4-point loading stress gets concentrated at the root.

Where have you proved that cracks could NOT occur in the anodized layer
at an orientation that would be loaded?

>>>>> or that bike bearings don't brinell?
>>>>
>>>> We only have your word for that (and "Dear Carl" imposing loads with
>>>> a hammer on a cheap headset that are unlike anything that would
>>>> happen on a bicycle in use).
>>>
>>> buy a headset and try it yourself, sofa king.
>>
>> We are talking about headsets in bicycles, not one hit with hammers -
>> who has their headset impacted the way Carl Fogel did, in real world use?
>
> er, so how much resistance to a blow did fogel's headset have when
> rested on a straw mat?

I have no idea, since there was no instrumentation to measure the effect.

>> Please send me an upright bicycle I can destructively test by bashing
>> the front wheel at high speed to see if this causes brinneling of the
>> headset bearing races.
>
> craigslist.

Will I find a bicycle with a brand new headset? What would testing on a
used headset of unknown history prove?

>>>>> or that elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike
>>>>> bearings?
>>>>
>>>> Well, Jobst has done real world work in tribology.
>>>
>>> he has? when? he alludes to owning a book on bearing design, but
>>> doesn't appear to have cracked it open or he wouldn't have made such
>>> basic mistakes.
>
> what? no repost? why not make something up rather than be at a loss
> for words?

What real world work has "jim beam" done in the field. Oh, never mind,
how can a sock puppet prove experience.

>>>> What "jim beam" has done is a mystery.
>>>
>>> a mystery indeed.
>>
>> Yes, the life of a sock puppet is poorly documented.
>
> as is the life of a sofa king.

Snappy retort there, "jim".

>>>>> or that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made
>>>>> fatigue proof?
>>>>
>>>> Is this Jobst's real claim, or is his claim that one spokes are
>>>> "stress relieved" the endurance limit is high enough that fatigue is
>>>> no longer a PRACTICAL concern?
>>>
>>> well, since he does no testing, no analysis and makes fundamental
>>> mistakes in materials theory, there's not much else he /can/ say to
>>> convince the gullible sofa pilots of this world.
>>
>> And where is "jim beam's" real world testing. Since he is anonymous,
>> how can we confirm that his/her/its testing is not imaginary?
>
> eh? what's wrong with this picture? we have a guy claiming they can
> eliminate fatigue from a material with no endurance limit, contrary to
> all known materials science, yet he publishes no graphs, no analysis, no
> testing, no numbers, but with the use of the magic word "practical", you
> swallow that b.s? and the fact that he evidences a gross
> misunderstanding of deformation theory [confusing strain aging and
> non-strain aging materials] doesn't concern you?

Well, I have not accepted Jobst's hypothesis on "stress relief" as being
the absolute truth, since no one seems to have done the proper testing
to confirm or deny. However, the method of "squeezing spokes" appears to
work in the real world, so continuing the practice seems reasonable.

> bottom line, you may not know enough to know you're being bullshitted
> bill, but that sure doesn't give you the right to criticize because you
> can't be bothered to go to the library and borrow bona-fide materials
> texts on the subject. i've even cited if you can be bothered to google.

Again, who is "Bill"?

By the way "jim", if you check the archives, I have NOT always agreed
with Jobst Brandt in the past, since he has been wrong in a couple of
areas where I have more expertise than he does.

>>>>> or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
>>>>
>>>> No effect, or no significant effect?
>>>
>>> what does it say in the book tom? you know, the section where spoke
>>> gauge is disregarded in the math.
>
> no witty repost?

What should I post that has been posted before?

>>>>> what a joke.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a hint "jim". Engineers do not concern themselves with
>>>> insignificant effects. Why? Well, because they are insignificant,
>>>> and add unnecessary complication to the problem.
>>>
>>> not true big guy. if you want to disregard something, you state what
>>> it is and why you're disregarding it. you don't just go ahead and
>>> ignore it. people think you don't know what you're doing if you make
>>> mistakes like that. and guess what...
>>
>> By "jim beam's" approach, we could just get rid of engineering. Why
>> not approach every problem as one of physics and chemistry, doing the
>> analysis at the most fundamental level?
>
> why not indeed. removes the scope for frauds and impostors.

And makes many real world problems to difficult to solve. Something
"jim" would realize if he had been a practicing engineer.

BTW "jim", some of us are financially liable or even criminally liable
if our work is not correct. Pretty good incentive to get it right, eh?

>> So what if the problems are too complicated to solve - we would want
>> to ignore anything, no matter how insignificant, would we?
>
> not knowing stuff is different to ignoring it. people ignore things
> through ignorance, stupidity or fraud - it doesn't suit their purpose.

Any if ignoring something produces an acceptably small error, why waste
time analyzing it?

>>>>>>> did you see the one about the ww2 bomber found on the moon?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about the story of the ex-metallurgist who thought he was an
>>>>>> engineer?
>>>>>
>>>>> how about the guy that has opinions on every subject under the sun
>>>>> from the comfort and safety of his sofa?
>>>>
>>>> It's a futon. However, I should get a keyboard mount for my trike. ;)
>>>>
>>>>> the guy that feels qualified to condemn stuff he's never used?
>>>>
>>>> I see enough examples of other people have problems with foo foo
>>>> components,
>>>
>>> you can form that opinion from the futon?
>>>
>>>> that I have no wish to waste my limited financial resources on them
>>>> (assuming such stuff would even fit my bikes).
>>>>
>>> craigslist. get all kinds of stuff cheap.
>>
>> Most of the foo-foo stuff would not work on my bikes, since it is
>> intended for upright road bikes.
>
> so, you can't/won't use it, but you have an opinion? even though you
> can pick up stuff for free and get real hands-on experience? tom,
> you're ridiculous.

Lets see: road bicycle wheels and rims - no use.
Tubulars - not made in the sizes and widths I use.
Road bicycle handlebars, stems, seat posts, saddles - not much use on a
'bent, eh?
Fancy cranks and bottom brackets - possibly, but a couple of bikes use
oversize chain rings and the others use MTB chain rings.
Hubs - possibly in a few instances if they were 32 or 36-hole.

>>> since you evidently have the time on your hands, use it
>>> productively. report your results. or is that harder than just
>>> sitting on your ass just punching keys?
>>
>> And what value should we put to "results" posted by a sock puppet?
>> When you argue with a real person who has a reputation at stake, who
>> should I find more credible?
>>
>
> because that's a strawman akin to arguing existence of the emperor's
> clothes. "only a fool would question the great and wonderful stanford
> alumni - you won't disclose your credentials so you must be wrong".

[Yawn] I have questioned Jobst Brandt in the past - DAGS.

> thing is tom, i don't /need/ to show credentials - everything is done
> for me already. open "the book". we then find that "stress relief
> theory" makes no account of known fatigue factors such as material,
> surface finish, work hardening [increasing dislocation density],
> environment or even miner's cumulative damage rule. and it dismisses
> more basic fundamentals such as physical configuration [j-bend elbows]
> that even the most rudimentary engineer should address. instead, we
> find a work zooming in on just one potential component, that of residual
> stress, with no attempt to quantify, enumerate or even test samples.
> amazing really since there is more than a century of very well
> documented research on this subject.

Unfortunately for you "jim", whether the theory is right or not, the
practice appears to work in the real world.

> you want to go ahead and accept a credentials decoy argument? i'll go
> ahead and witness gullibility of disturbing proportion.

I still am curious of what "jim" is so afraid of that he/she needs to
hide his/her real identity. To a rational observer, his/her stalking of
Brandt goes beyond factual disagreement.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:37:02
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

> And makes many real world problems to difficult to solve. Something
> "jim" would realize if he had been a practicing engineer.

Forget it, in "jim"'s world bikes would be designed by "metallurgists"
-- even composite ones.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:44:31
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
>> And makes many real world problems to difficult to solve. Something
>> "jim" would realize if he had been a practicing engineer.
>
> Forget it, in "jim"'s world bikes would be designed by "metallurgists"
> -- even composite ones.

no, just by people that had bothered to study the materials they used.
or failing that, bother to /consult/ with someone that does.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 18:28:11
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
>> And makes many real world problems to difficult to solve. Something
>> "jim" would realize if he had been a practicing engineer.
>
> Forget it, in "jim"'s world bikes would be designed by "metallurgists"
> -- even composite ones.

LOL!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Aug 2007 07:00:33
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

> I still am curious of what "jim" is so afraid of that he/she needs to
> hide his/her real identity. To a rational observer, his/her stalking of
> Brandt goes beyond factual disagreement.
-----------
Jim is Jobst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

Das Fahrrad-Rad

Date: 19 Aug 2007 18:27:40
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>
>> I still am curious of what "jim" is so afraid of that he/she needs to
>> hide his/her real identity. To a rational observer, his/her stalking
>> of Brandt goes beyond factual disagreement.
> -----------
> Jim is Jobst.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
>
> Das Fahrrad-Rad

Well, both JB and jb are about 6'5" inches tall and live near Palo Alto. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:43:34
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>>
>>> I still am curious of what "jim" is so afraid of that he/she needs to
>>> hide his/her real identity. To a rational observer, his/her stalking
>>> of Brandt goes beyond factual disagreement.
>> -----------
>> Jim is Jobst.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
>>
>> Das Fahrrad-Rad
>
> Well, both JB and jb are about 6'5" inches tall and live near Palo Alto. ;)
>
we both have yellow bikes too. scary.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 08:34:37
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> composite, scandium and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The heck with Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom
>>>>>>>>>>>> handbuilt wheel sales for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less
>>>>>>>>>>> foo-foo than the OEM wheels?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0),
>>>>>>>>>>> stainless steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect
>>>>>>>>>>> the rim at the spoke that is being tensioned?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought
>>>>>>>>> you recommended buying them "out of box"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> only 16 spoke from what used to be a 32 spoke wheel. but don't
>>>>>>>> worry about the little details tom - i just mess about with
>>>>>>>> stuff to see if the bullshitters know what they're talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like the wheel with missing spokes that can support a static
>>>>>>> load, but would not work if the bicycle were actually moving?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> suppositional bullshit. you go ahead and try that experiment at
>>>>>> home rather than just piss and moan from a position of ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would I want to destroy a perfectly good rim and risk injuring
>>>>> myself?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why doesn't "jim beam" post a video of the wheel with the spokes
>>>>> missing being ridden on YouTube (or the equivalent)? (He could
>>>>> always scramble the image of his head to protect his anonymity.)
>>>>> Come on "jim", show us that this wheel works!
>>>>
>>>> but the ball's in your court big guy - you say it doesn't work.
>>>> you'll hardly "injure yourself" in the parking lot - from which you
>>>> will not progress if all you say is true.
>>>
>>> Still my money. Buy me an upright road bicycle and I will try the
>>> experiment.
>>
>> but you can get them free of craigslist - money is no excuse.
>
> Do you mean free FROM Craigslist? That would be a used bicycle?

yes, a used bicycle /from/ craigslist. craigslist is lower case. look
it up.

> How
> would I know what condition the spokes were in without expensive
> testing? They could be ready to fail from fatigue.

er, you wanted to show that the reduced spoke wheel will collapse didn't
you? you don't need to worry about fatigue for that experiment, so
don't get your squirming evasive panties in a bunch.

>
>>>>>>>> how much other stuff do you believe from what you read on the
>>>>>>>> net btw?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I consider the source - anonymous sock puppets are generally not
>>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and
>>>>>> credentials /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that
>>>>>> thinks anodizing causes rim cracking?
>>>>>
>>>>> Citations that anodizing does NOT cause rim cracking?
>>>>
>>>> so you /accept/ that dye penetrant proves anodizing causes rim
>>>> cracks??? wow dude, you really need to get off that sofa some time.
>>>
>>> Did I say that? No.
>>
>> it's what you imply if you accept jobst's b.s.
>
> Only in the logic of beamian world.
>
>>> Do you disagree that a sharp notch, such as a crack in the anodizing
>>> layer, produces a stress concentration?
>>
>> so what's the orientation of the crack then bill? if rim cracking
>> ignores anodizing crack orientation, and it does, clearly [to anyone
>> that knows fatigue and fracture mechanics at any rate] the anodizing
>> is not the cause.
>
> Who's Bill?
>
> Demonstrate why forming the rim into a hoop from a straight extrusion
> could NOT produce a crack in the anodizing that would be stresses by the
> spoke/nipple pulling on the rim.

ok, two mistakes.

1. the assumption that all rims are hooped after anodizing - they're not.
2. even if they were, anodizing cracking would /still/ be perpendicular
to rim cracking - which follows the extrusion axis!!!

>
>>> FYI, I have personally run comparison 4-point bending tests on
>>> notched, large radius notched and sharp radius notched aluminium
>>> alloy beams, so I do not have to take Jobst's or anyone else words on
>>> the effect.
>>
>> see my comment on orientation big guy. notch your beams lengthwise,
>> then tell me how much 4-point loading stress gets concentrated at the
>> root.
>
> Where have you proved that cracks could NOT occur in the anodized layer
> at an orientation that would be loaded?

google the photo evidence i've previously posted!!! cracking is
strictly following extrusion axis regardless of any potential anodizing
crack orientation.

and a dye penetrant test /still/ does not prove any connection!!!

>
>>>>>> or that bike bearings don't brinell?
>>>>>
>>>>> We only have your word for that (and "Dear Carl" imposing loads
>>>>> with a hammer on a cheap headset that are unlike anything that
>>>>> would happen on a bicycle in use).
>>>>
>>>> buy a headset and try it yourself, sofa king.
>>>
>>> We are talking about headsets in bicycles, not one hit with hammers -
>>> who has their headset impacted the way Carl Fogel did, in real world
>>> use?
>>
>> er, so how much resistance to a blow did fogel's headset have when
>> rested on a straw mat?
>
> I have no idea, since there was no instrumentation to measure the effect.

how much resistance do you /expect/ a straw mat to impart compared to a
steel frame?

>
>>> Please send me an upright bicycle I can destructively test by bashing
>>> the front wheel at high speed to see if this causes brinneling of the
>>> headset bearing races.
>>
>> craigslist.
>
> Will I find a bicycle with a brand new headset? What would testing on a
> used headset of unknown history prove?

dude, are you trying to be funny? you take a headset. you examine it.
then you perform the test. if you can see a difference before and
after, you have a result. or you can spend ~$12 and repeat fogel's test
on a new one. you want to make a point? cough up the dough.

>
>>>>>> or that elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike
>>>>>> bearings?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Jobst has done real world work in tribology.
>>>>
>>>> he has? when? he alludes to owning a book on bearing design, but
>>>> doesn't appear to have cracked it open or he wouldn't have made such
>>>> basic mistakes.
>>
>> what? no repost? why not make something up rather than be at a loss
>> for words?
>
> What real world work has "jim beam" done in the field. Oh, never mind,
> how can a sock puppet prove experience.
>
>>>>> What "jim beam" has done is a mystery.
>>>>
>>>> a mystery indeed.
>>>
>>> Yes, the life of a sock puppet is poorly documented.
>>
>> as is the life of a sofa king.
>
> Snappy retort there, "jim".

backatcha. your majesty.

>
>>>>>> or that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made
>>>>>> fatigue proof?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this Jobst's real claim, or is his claim that one spokes are
>>>>> "stress relieved" the endurance limit is high enough that fatigue
>>>>> is no longer a PRACTICAL concern?
>>>>
>>>> well, since he does no testing, no analysis and makes fundamental
>>>> mistakes in materials theory, there's not much else he /can/ say to
>>>> convince the gullible sofa pilots of this world.
>>>
>>> And where is "jim beam's" real world testing. Since he is anonymous,
>>> how can we confirm that his/her/its testing is not imaginary?
>>
>> eh? what's wrong with this picture? we have a guy claiming they can
>> eliminate fatigue from a material with no endurance limit, contrary to
>> all known materials science, yet he publishes no graphs, no analysis,
>> no testing, no numbers, but with the use of the magic word
>> "practical", you swallow that b.s? and the fact that he evidences a
>> gross misunderstanding of deformation theory [confusing strain aging
>> and non-strain aging materials] doesn't concern you?
>
> Well, I have not accepted Jobst's hypothesis on "stress relief" as being
> the absolute truth, since no one seems to have done the proper testing
> to confirm or deny. However, the method of "squeezing spokes" appears to
> work in the real world, so continuing the practice seems reasonable.

so you /do/ have testing proof? please share!!! seriously, i'd love to
see the numbers. or are you just making an ineffectual statement
evidencing being gullible to jobst's taking credit for the effect of
improved spoke materials?

>
>> bottom line, you may not know enough to know you're being bullshitted
>> bill, but that sure doesn't give you the right to criticize because
>> you can't be bothered to go to the library and borrow bona-fide
>> materials texts on the subject. i've even cited if you can be
>> bothered to google.
>
> Again, who is "Bill"?
>
> By the way "jim", if you check the archives, I have NOT always agreed
> with Jobst Brandt in the past, since he has been wrong in a couple of
> areas where I have more expertise than he does.

indeed. but that's not acceptable in areas where /i/ have expertise
though apparently.

>
>>>>>> or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
>>>>>
>>>>> No effect, or no significant effect?
>>>>
>>>> what does it say in the book tom? you know, the section where spoke
>>>> gauge is disregarded in the math.
>>
>> no witty repost?
>
> What should I post that has been posted before?
>
>>>>>> what a joke.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a hint "jim". Engineers do not concern themselves with
>>>>> insignificant effects. Why? Well, because they are insignificant,
>>>>> and add unnecessary complication to the problem.
>>>>
>>>> not true big guy. if you want to disregard something, you state
>>>> what it is and why you're disregarding it. you don't just go ahead
>>>> and ignore it. people think you don't know what you're doing if you
>>>> make mistakes like that. and guess what...
>>>
>>> By "jim beam's" approach, we could just get rid of engineering. Why
>>> not approach every problem as one of physics and chemistry, doing the
>>> analysis at the most fundamental level?
>>
>> why not indeed. removes the scope for frauds and impostors.
>
> And makes many real world problems to difficult to solve. Something
> "jim" would realize if he had been a practicing engineer.

typical "engineer" bullshit. one of the problems with you guys is this
bizarre attitude about science not being relevant. have you ever looked
down a microscope and witnessed how microscopic properties make
significant differences to macroscopic "engineering"? if not, then
you'll forever have this disconnect. "engineering" without proper
fundamentals is simply hackery.

>
> BTW "jim", some of us are financially liable or even criminally liable
> if our work is not correct. Pretty good incentive to get it right, eh?

of course. so you bother to learn about materials and how to use them
properly then, right?

>
>>> So what if the problems are too complicated to solve - we would want
>>> to ignore anything, no matter how insignificant, would we?
>>
>> not knowing stuff is different to ignoring it. people ignore things
>> through ignorance, stupidity or fraud - it doesn't suit their purpose.
>
> Any if ignoring something produces an acceptably small error, why waste
> time analyzing it?

because then it's been /determined/ to be insignificant, not simply
ignored!!!

>
>>>>>>>> did you see the one about the ww2 bomber found on the moon?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about the story of the ex-metallurgist who thought he was an
>>>>>>> engineer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how about the guy that has opinions on every subject under the sun
>>>>>> from the comfort and safety of his sofa?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a futon. However, I should get a keyboard mount for my trike. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>> the guy that feels qualified to condemn stuff he's never used?
>>>>>
>>>>> I see enough examples of other people have problems with foo foo
>>>>> components,
>>>>
>>>> you can form that opinion from the futon?
>>>>
>>>>> that I have no wish to waste my limited financial resources on them
>>>>> (assuming such stuff would even fit my bikes).
>>>>>
>>>> craigslist. get all kinds of stuff cheap.
>>>
>>> Most of the foo-foo stuff would not work on my bikes, since it is
>>> intended for upright road bikes.
>>
>> so, you can't/won't use it, but you have an opinion? even though you
>> can pick up stuff for free and get real hands-on experience? tom,
>> you're ridiculous.
>
> Lets see: road bicycle wheels and rims - no use.
> Tubulars - not made in the sizes and widths I use.
> Road bicycle handlebars, stems, seat posts, saddles - not much use on a
> 'bent, eh?
> Fancy cranks and bottom brackets - possibly, but a couple of bikes use
> oversize chain rings and the others use MTB chain rings.
> Hubs - possibly in a few instances if they were 32 or 36-hole.

all of which are perfect for testing rather than bleating from a
position of ignorance, sofa king.

>
>>>> since you evidently have the time on your hands, use it
>>>> productively. report your results. or is that harder than just
>>>> sitting on your ass just punching keys?
>>>
>>> And what value should we put to "results" posted by a sock puppet?
>>> When you argue with a real person who has a reputation at stake, who
>>> should I find more credible?
>>>
>>
>> because that's a strawman akin to arguing existence of the emperor's
>> clothes. "only a fool would question the great and wonderful stanford
>> alumni - you won't disclose your credentials so you must be wrong".
>
> [Yawn] I have questioned Jobst Brandt in the past - DAGS.
>
>> thing is tom, i don't /need/ to show credentials - everything is done
>> for me already. open "the book". we then find that "stress relief
>> theory" makes no account of known fatigue factors such as material,
>> surface finish, work hardening [increasing dislocation density],
>> environment or even miner's cumulative damage rule. and it dismisses
>> more basic fundamentals such as physical configuration [j-bend elbows]
>> that even the most rudimentary engineer should address. instead, we
>> find a work zooming in on just one potential component, that of
>> residual stress, with no attempt to quantify, enumerate or even test
>> samples. amazing really since there is more than a century of very
>> well documented research on this subject.
>
> Unfortunately for you "jim", whether the theory is right or not, the
> practice appears to work in the real world.

how? all we have is some dude taking credit for what is an improvement,
but not an improvement of his creation, that of better materials, vacuum
degassed steels.

>
>> you want to go ahead and accept a credentials decoy argument? i'll go
>> ahead and witness gullibility of disturbing proportion.
>
> I still am curious of what "jim" is so afraid of that he/she needs to
> hide his/her real identity. To a rational observer, his/her stalking of
> Brandt goes beyond factual disagreement.
>

ho hum. still don't get it, do you.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 18:43:40
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Muzi mused:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> composite, scandium and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The heck with Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>> handbuilt wheel sales for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less
>>>>>>>>>>>> foo-foo than the OEM wheels?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0),
>>>>>>>>>>>> stainless steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect
>>>>>>>>>>>> the rim at the spoke that is being tensioned?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line &
>>>>>>>>>>> sinker!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought
>>>>>>>>>> you recommended buying them "out of box"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> only 16 spoke from what used to be a 32 spoke wheel. but don't
>>>>>>>>> worry about the little details tom - i just mess about with
>>>>>>>>> stuff to see if the bullshitters know what they're talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like the wheel with missing spokes that can support a static
>>>>>>>> load, but would not work if the bicycle were actually moving?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> suppositional bullshit. you go ahead and try that experiment at
>>>>>>> home rather than just piss and moan from a position of ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would I want to destroy a perfectly good rim and risk injuring
>>>>>> myself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why doesn't "jim beam" post a video of the wheel with the spokes
>>>>>> missing being ridden on YouTube (or the equivalent)? (He could
>>>>>> always scramble the image of his head to protect his anonymity.)
>>>>>> Come on "jim", show us that this wheel works!
>>>>>
>>>>> but the ball's in your court big guy - you say it doesn't work.
>>>>> you'll hardly "injure yourself" in the parking lot - from which you
>>>>> will not progress if all you say is true.
>>>>
>>>> Still my money. Buy me an upright road bicycle and I will try the
>>>> experiment.
>>>
>>> but you can get them free of craigslist - money is no excuse.
>>
>> Do you mean free FROM Craigslist? That would be a used bicycle?
>
> yes, a used bicycle /from/ craigslist. craigslist is lower case. look
> it up.

I checked - no free bicycles. Besides, I want a new bicycle to
compensate for potential injury.

>> How would I know what condition the spokes were in without expensive
>> testing? They could be ready to fail from fatigue.
>
> er, you wanted to show that the reduced spoke wheel will collapse didn't
> you? you don't need to worry about fatigue for that experiment, so
> don't get your squirming evasive panties in a bunch.

butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was about to
fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress concentration at
the fatigue crack could cause failure.

>>>>>>>>> how much other stuff do you believe from what you read on the
>>>>>>>>> net btw?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I consider the source - anonymous sock puppets are generally not
>>>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so self-proclaimed "experts" that announce their name and
>>>>>>> credentials /are/ reliable? like jobst brandt? the guy that
>>>>>>> thinks anodizing causes rim cracking?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Citations that anodizing does NOT cause rim cracking?
>>>>>
>>>>> so you /accept/ that dye penetrant proves anodizing causes rim
>>>>> cracks??? wow dude, you really need to get off that sofa some time.
>>>>
>>>> Did I say that? No.
>>>
>>> it's what you imply if you accept jobst's b.s.
>>
>> Only in the logic of beamian world.
>>
>>>> Do you disagree that a sharp notch, such as a crack in the anodizing
>>>> layer, produces a stress concentration?
>>>
>>> so what's the orientation of the crack then bill? if rim cracking
>>> ignores anodizing crack orientation, and it does, clearly [to anyone
>>> that knows fatigue and fracture mechanics at any rate] the anodizing
>>> is not the cause.
>>
>> Who's Bill?
>>
>> Demonstrate why forming the rim into a hoop from a straight extrusion
>> could NOT produce a crack in the anodizing that would be stresses by
>> the spoke/nipple pulling on the rim.
>
> ok, two mistakes.
>
> 1. the assumption that all rims are hooped after anodizing - they're not.
> 2. even if they were, anodizing cracking would /still/ be perpendicular
> to rim cracking - which follows the extrusion axis!!!

Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion axis. What
gives?

>>>> FYI, I have personally run comparison 4-point bending tests on
>>>> notched, large radius notched and sharp radius notched aluminium
>>>> alloy beams, so I do not have to take Jobst's or anyone else words
>>>> on the effect.
>>>
>>> see my comment on orientation big guy. notch your beams lengthwise,
>>> then tell me how much 4-point loading stress gets concentrated at the
>>> root.
>>
>> Where have you proved that cracks could NOT occur in the anodized
>> layer at an orientation that would be loaded?
>
> google the photo evidence i've previously posted!!! cracking is
> strictly following extrusion axis regardless of any potential anodizing
> crack orientation.
>
> and a dye penetrant test /still/ does not prove any connection!!!

I wasn't arguing that it did.

>>>>>>> or that bike bearings don't brinell?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We only have your word for that (and "Dear Carl" imposing loads
>>>>>> with a hammer on a cheap headset that are unlike anything that
>>>>>> would happen on a bicycle in use).
>>>>>
>>>>> buy a headset and try it yourself, sofa king.
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about headsets in bicycles, not one hit with hammers
>>>> - who has their headset impacted the way Carl Fogel did, in real
>>>> world use?
>>>
>>> er, so how much resistance to a blow did fogel's headset have when
>>> rested on a straw mat?
>>
>> I have no idea, since there was no instrumentation to measure the effect.
>
> how much resistance do you /expect/ a straw mat to impart compared to a
> steel frame?
>
>
>>
>>>> Please send me an upright bicycle I can destructively test by
>>>> bashing the front wheel at high speed to see if this causes
>>>> brinneling of the headset bearing races.
>>>
>>> craigslist.
>>
>> Will I find a bicycle with a brand new headset? What would testing on
>> a used headset of unknown history prove?
>
> dude, are you trying to be funny? you take a headset. you examine it.
> then you perform the test. if you can see a difference before and
> after, you have a result. or you can spend ~$12 and repeat fogel's test
> on a new one. you want to make a point? cough up the dough.

Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".

>>>>>>> or that elasto-hydrodynamic separation somehow "protects" bike
>>>>>>> bearings?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Jobst has done real world work in tribology.
>>>>>
>>>>> he has? when? he alludes to owning a book on bearing design, but
>>>>> doesn't appear to have cracked it open or he wouldn't have made
>>>>> such basic mistakes.
>>>
>>> what? no repost? why not make something up rather than be at a loss
>>> for words?
>>
>> What real world work has "jim beam" done in the field. Oh, never mind,
>> how can a sock puppet prove experience.
>>
>>>>>> What "jim beam" has done is a mystery.
>>>>>
>>>>> a mystery indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the life of a sock puppet is poorly documented.
>>>
>>> as is the life of a sofa king.
>>
>> Snappy retort there, "jim".
>
> backatcha. your majesty.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>> or that materials without a fatigue endurance limit can be made
>>>>>>> fatigue proof?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this Jobst's real claim, or is his claim that one spokes are
>>>>>> "stress relieved" the endurance limit is high enough that fatigue
>>>>>> is no longer a PRACTICAL concern?
>>>>>
>>>>> well, since he does no testing, no analysis and makes fundamental
>>>>> mistakes in materials theory, there's not much else he /can/ say to
>>>>> convince the gullible sofa pilots of this world.
>>>>
>>>> And where is "jim beam's" real world testing. Since he is anonymous,
>>>> how can we confirm that his/her/its testing is not imaginary?
>>>
>>> eh? what's wrong with this picture? we have a guy claiming they can
>>> eliminate fatigue from a material with no endurance limit, contrary
>>> to all known materials science, yet he publishes no graphs, no
>>> analysis, no testing, no numbers, but with the use of the magic word
>>> "practical", you swallow that b.s? and the fact that he evidences a
>>> gross misunderstanding of deformation theory [confusing strain aging
>>> and non-strain aging materials] doesn't concern you?
>>
>> Well, I have not accepted Jobst's hypothesis on "stress relief" as
>> being the absolute truth, since no one seems to have done the proper
>> testing to confirm or deny. However, the method of "squeezing spokes"
>> appears to work in the real world, so continuing the practice seems
>> reasonable.
>
> so you /do/ have testing proof? please share!!! seriously, i'd love to
> see the numbers. or are you just making an ineffectual statement
> evidencing being gullible to jobst's taking credit for the effect of
> improved spoke materials?

Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective? Cites?

>>> bottom line, you may not know enough to know you're being bullshitted
>>> bill, but that sure doesn't give you the right to criticize because
>>> you can't be bothered to go to the library and borrow bona-fide
>>> materials texts on the subject. i've even cited if you can be
>>> bothered to google.
>>
>> Again, who is "Bill"?
>>
>> By the way "jim", if you check the archives, I have NOT always agreed
>> with Jobst Brandt in the past, since he has been wrong in a couple of
>> areas where I have more expertise than he does.
>
> indeed. but that's not acceptable in areas where /i/ have expertise
> though apparently.

Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?

>>>>>>> or that spoke gauge has no effect on tensiometer deflection?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No effect, or no significant effect?
>>>>>
>>>>> what does it say in the book tom? you know, the section where
>>>>> spoke gauge is disregarded in the math.
>>>
>>> no witty repost?
>>
>> What should I post that has been posted before?
>>
>>>>>>> what a joke.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a hint "jim". Engineers do not concern themselves with
>>>>>> insignificant effects. Why? Well, because they are insignificant,
>>>>>> and add unnecessary complication to the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> not true big guy. if you want to disregard something, you state
>>>>> what it is and why you're disregarding it. you don't just go ahead
>>>>> and ignore it. people think you don't know what you're doing if
>>>>> you make mistakes like that. and guess what...
>>>>
>>>> By "jim beam's" approach, we could just get rid of engineering. Why
>>>> not approach every problem as one of physics and chemistry, doing
>>>> the analysis at the most fundamental level?
>>>
>>> why not indeed. removes the scope for frauds and impostors.
>>
>> And makes many real world problems to difficult to solve. Something
>> "jim" would realize if he had been a practicing engineer.
>
> typical "engineer" bullshit. one of the problems with you guys is this
> bizarre attitude about science not being relevant. have you ever looked
> down a microscope and witnessed how microscopic properties make
> significant differences to macroscopic "engineering"? if not, then
> you'll forever have this disconnect. "engineering" without proper
> fundamentals is simply hackery.

Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had any
engineering experience, you would realize that many problems are too
complex or have too little information available to solve at a
fundamental level. In these cases an empirical approach is justified,
and is considered to meet the legal requirements for "standard of care"
which you would know if you have ever prepared deliverables for clients.

>> BTW "jim", some of us are financially liable or even criminally liable
>> if our work is not correct. Pretty good incentive to get it right, eh?
>
> of course. so you bother to learn about materials and how to use them
> properly then, right?

Yes, your point being?

>>>> So what if the problems are too complicated to solve - we would want
>>>> to ignore anything, no matter how insignificant, would we?
>>>
>>> not knowing stuff is different to ignoring it. people ignore things
>>> through ignorance, stupidity or fraud - it doesn't suit their purpose.
>>
>> Any if ignoring something produces an acceptably small error, why
>> waste time analyzing it?
>
> because then it's been /determined/ to be insignificant, not simply
> ignored!!!

And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?

>>>>>>>>> did you see the one about the ww2 bomber found on the moon?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about the story of the ex-metallurgist who thought he was an
>>>>>>>> engineer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how about the guy that has opinions on every subject under the
>>>>>>> sun from the comfort and safety of his sofa?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a futon. However, I should get a keyboard mount for my trike. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the guy that feels qualified to condemn stuff he's never used?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see enough examples of other people have problems with foo foo
>>>>>> components,
>>>>>
>>>>> you can form that opinion from the futon?
>>>>>
>>>>>> that I have no wish to waste my limited financial resources on
>>>>>> them (assuming such stuff would even fit my bikes).
>>>>>>
>>>>> craigslist. get all kinds of stuff cheap.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the foo-foo stuff would not work on my bikes, since it is
>>>> intended for upright road bikes.
>>>
>>> so, you can't/won't use it, but you have an opinion? even though you
>>> can pick up stuff for free and get real hands-on experience? tom,
>>> you're ridiculous.
>>
>> Lets see: road bicycle wheels and rims - no use.
>> Tubulars - not made in the sizes and widths I use.
>> Road bicycle handlebars, stems, seat posts, saddles - not much use on
>> a 'bent, eh?
>> Fancy cranks and bottom brackets - possibly, but a couple of bikes use
>> oversize chain rings and the others use MTB chain rings.
>> Hubs - possibly in a few instances if they were 32 or 36-hole.
>
> all of which are perfect for testing rather than bleating from a
> position of ignorance, sofa king.

So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?

>>>>> since you evidently have the time on your hands, use it
>>>>> productively. report your results. or is that harder than just
>>>>> sitting on your ass just punching keys?
>>>>
>>>> And what value should we put to "results" posted by a sock puppet?
>>>> When you argue with a real person who has a reputation at stake, who
>>>> should I find more credible?
>>>>
>>>
>>> because that's a strawman akin to arguing existence of the emperor's
>>> clothes. "only a fool would question the great and wonderful
>>> stanford alumni - you won't disclose your credentials so you must be
>>> wrong".
>>
>> [Yawn] I have questioned Jobst Brandt in the past - DAGS.
>>
>>> thing is tom, i don't /need/ to show credentials - everything is done
>>> for me already. open "the book". we then find that "stress relief
>>> theory" makes no account of known fatigue factors such as material,
>>> surface finish, work hardening [increasing dislocation density],
>>> environment or even miner's cumulative damage rule. and it dismisses
>>> more basic fundamentals such as physical configuration [j-bend
>>> elbows] that even the most rudimentary engineer should address.
>>> instead, we find a work zooming in on just one potential component,
>>> that of residual stress, with no attempt to quantify, enumerate or
>>> even test samples. amazing really since there is more than a century
>>> of very well documented research on this subject.
>>
>> Unfortunately for you "jim", whether the theory is right or not, the
>> practice appears to work in the real world.
>
> how? all we have is some dude taking credit for what is an improvement,
> but not an improvement of his creation, that of better materials, vacuum
> degassed steels.

Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have problems
with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of high end bicycles.

>>> you want to go ahead and accept a credentials decoy argument? i'll
>>> go ahead and witness gullibility of disturbing proportion.
>>
>> I still am curious of what "jim" is so afraid of that he/she needs to
>> hide his/her real identity. To a rational observer, his/her stalking
>> of Brandt goes beyond factual disagreement.
>>
>
> ho hum. still don't get it, do you.

No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:42:51
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
<snip for clarity >
> I checked - no free bicycles.

keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the "free" section.

> Besides, I want a new bicycle to
> compensate for potential injury.

then buy one.

>
<snip >
> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was about to
> fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress concentration at
> the fatigue crack could cause failure.

so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to differentiate
overload from fatigue from examination of the fracture surfaces.

>
<snip >>
> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion axis. What
> gives?

so, do you get it yet?

<snip >>
> I wasn't arguing that it did.

but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof" tendered is
dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.

>
<snip >>
> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".

but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/ pay!
post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.

> <snip>
> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective? Cites?

eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is what needs
proof!

<snip >
> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?

eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?

<snip >
> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had any
> engineering experience, you would realize that many problems are too
> complex or have too little information available to solve at a
> fundamental level. In these cases an empirical approach is justified,
> and is considered to meet the legal requirements for "standard of care"
> which you would know if you have ever prepared deliverables for clients.

then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a continuous
process of mapping the macro, then filling in the gaps between since it
allows much more control of the bits already roughly known. engineers
should try that approach rather than the "i've graduated so i know it
all" approach many seem to have.

>
<snip >
> Yes, your point being?

accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!

<snip >>
> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?

jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e. he
ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight into
residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be worshiped
accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff about "stress
relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or the process he
/calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his own birth so he /cannot/
be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother to show whether he's actually
determined whether something is significant or not.

<snip >>
> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?

why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as you want.

>
<snip >

> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have problems
> with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of high end bicycles.

1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and non-axial
loading causing repeated bending. straight pull spokes are
fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.

2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes, the next
step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these include surface
finish, composition, environment, etc. and eventually residual stress.
but even then, since observed fatigue initiation points are /not/
those regions of the spoke with high residual stress, i.e. the outer and
inner portions of the j-bend curve, residual stress theory is highly
questionable. the next step for someone wanting to hypothesize residual
stress relevance and alleged effectiveness of mitigation is to test and
publish results. credentials pissing matches with those who dare point
out that over a century of fatigue research is being ignored ["ignoring"
again tom] simply don't do it.

>
<snip >>
> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>

no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at least, you
won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 20:39:20
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> <snip for clarity>
>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>
> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the "free" section.
>
>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>
> then buy one.

This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?

> <snip>
>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was about
>> to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress
>> concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>
> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to differentiate
> overload from fatigue from examination of the fracture surfaces.

butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the experiment on.

Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional wheel,
why not post the proof?

> <snip>>
>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion axis.
>> What gives?
>
> so, do you get it yet?

Indefinite pronoun - get what?

> <snip>>
>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>
> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof" tendered is
> dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.

Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more frequently
than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking anodizing?

> <snip>>
>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>
> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/ pay! post
> pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.

Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns strike again?

>> <snip>
>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective? Cites?
>
> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is what needs
> proof!

Did I disagree on that? No.

> <snip>
>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>
> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?

There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults would
help, as would using capital letters.

> <snip>
>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had any
>> engineering experience, you would realize that many problems are too
>> complex or have too little information available to solve at a
>> fundamental level. In these cases an empirical approach is justified,
>> and is considered to meet the legal requirements for "standard of
>> care" which you would know if you have ever prepared deliverables for
>> clients.
>
> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a continuous
> process of mapping the macro, then filling in the gaps between since it
> allows much more control of the bits already roughly known. engineers
> should try that approach rather than the "i've graduated so i know it
> all" approach many seem to have.

What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?

> <snip>
>> Yes, your point being?
>
> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!

No, it a purely a legal matter.

> <snip>>
>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>
> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e. he
> ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight into
> residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be worshiped
> accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff about "stress
> relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or the process he
> /calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his own birth so he /cannot/
> be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother to show whether he's actually
> determined whether something is significant or not.

Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the "ancients".

> <snip>>
>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>
> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as you want.

I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.

> <snip>
>
>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have problems
>> with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of high end bicycles.
>
> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and non-axial
> loading causing repeated bending. straight pull spokes are
> fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.

What about the hubs?

If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with Jobst's
wheel building technique, do we really need anything better?

> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes, the next
> step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these include surface
> finish, composition, environment, etc. and eventually residual stress.
> but even then, since observed fatigue initiation points are /not/ those
> regions of the spoke with high residual stress, i.e. the outer and inner
> portions of the j-bend curve, residual stress theory is highly
> questionable. the next step for someone wanting to hypothesize residual
> stress relevance and alleged effectiveness of mitigation is to test and
> publish results. credentials pissing matches with those who dare point
> out that over a century of fatigue research is being ignored ["ignoring"
> again tom] simply don't do it.
>
>>
> <snip>>
>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>>
>
> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at least, you
> won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.

On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would just go
in circles (sorry Andres).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Aug 2007 20:01:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>>
>> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the "free"
>> section.
>>
>>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>>
>> then buy one.
>
> This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?
>
>> <snip>
>>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was about
>>> to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress
>>> concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>>
>> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to differentiate
>> overload from fatigue from examination of the fracture surfaces.
>
> butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
> cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the experiment on.
>
> Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional wheel,
> why not post the proof?

i don't understand - what more do you want me to post? i've already
posted a pic of me sitting on it. do you want the pic notarized?

>
>> <snip>>
>>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion axis.
>>> What gives?
>>
>> so, do you get it yet?
>
> Indefinite pronoun - get what?

you being evasive?

>
>> <snip>>
>>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>>
>> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof" tendered
>> is dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.
>
> Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more frequently
> than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking anodizing?

who says it does? i run mavic "cd" hard ano rims on my della santa and
my mtb. no rim cracking.

>
>> <snip>>
>>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>>
>> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/ pay!
>> post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.
>
> Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns strike again?

stop being evasive - what do you want other than the tests i've already
posted?

>
>>> <snip>
>>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective? Cites?
>>
>> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is what
>> needs proof!
>
> Did I disagree on that? No.

so say so! jeepers, it's taken how many iterations of beating about the
bush?

>
>> <snip>
>>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>>
>> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?
>
> There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults would
> help, as would using capital letters.

i love that - the irony is so rich. ad hominem is ok, but being direct
is not. ridiculous.

>
>> <snip>
>>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had any
>>> engineering experience, you would realize that many problems are too
>>> complex or have too little information available to solve at a
>>> fundamental level. In these cases an empirical approach is justified,
>>> and is considered to meet the legal requirements for "standard of
>>> care" which you would know if you have ever prepared deliverables for
>>> clients.
>>
>> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a continuous
>> process of mapping the macro, then filling in the gaps between since
>> it allows much more control of the bits already roughly known.
>> engineers should try that approach rather than the "i've graduated so
>> i know it all" approach many seem to have.
>
> What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?

er, disregard of spoke gauge?

>
>> <snip>
>>> Yes, your point being?
>>
>> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!
>
> No, it a purely a legal matter.

not solely. if you want to be legally defendable, you'd better be sure
you can prove you know what you're doing better than the prosecutor's
own expert! and then there's insurance...

>
>> <snip>>
>>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>>
>> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e. he
>> ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight into
>> residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be worshiped
>> accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff about "stress
>> relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or the process he
>> /calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his own birth so he
>> /cannot/ be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother to show whether he's
>> actually determined whether something is significant or not.
>
> Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the "ancients".

but he claims "invention". that is his word.

>
>> <snip>>
>>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>>
>> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
>> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as you want.
>
> I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.

eh? i live in an apartment. i have parts for cars, bikes as well as my
office stuff. you do stuff on the kitchen table, then pack it up when
you're done and put it away. i don't get the problem. unless of course
you wan tto be evasive.

>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have
>>> problems with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of high end
>>> bicycles.
>>
>> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and non-axial
>> loading causing repeated bending. straight pull spokes are
>> fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.
>
> What about the hubs?

what about them?

>
> If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with Jobst's
> wheel building technique, do we really need anything better?

but where's the proof it's "his" technique? i want numbers. and where
to the effects of superior spoke materials come into this picture?

>
>> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes, the
>> next step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these include
>> surface finish, composition, environment, etc. and eventually
>> residual stress. but even then, since observed fatigue initiation
>> points are /not/ those regions of the spoke with high residual stress,
>> i.e. the outer and inner portions of the j-bend curve, residual stress
>> theory is highly questionable. the next step for someone wanting to
>> hypothesize residual stress relevance and alleged effectiveness of
>> mitigation is to test and publish results. credentials pissing
>> matches with those who dare point out that over a century of fatigue
>> research is being ignored ["ignoring" again tom] simply don't do it.
>>
>>>
>> <snip>>
>>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>>>
>>
>> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at least,
>> you won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.
>
> On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would just go
> in circles (sorry Andres).
>

that makes no sense. on one hand, we have an assertion for which there
is no theoretical or even quantitative support, from an author who
evidences fundamental misunderstandings of materials theory. on the
other, we have text book fatigue mitigation based on over 100 years of
research. what is there to disagree about?

Date: 20 Aug 2007 17:49:45
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>>>
>>> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the "free"
>>> section.
>>>
>>>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>>>
>>> then buy one.
>>
>> This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was about
>>>> to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress
>>>> concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>>>
>>> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to differentiate
>>> overload from fatigue from examination of the fracture surfaces.
>>
>> butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
>> cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the experiment on.
>>
>> Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional
>> wheel, why not post the proof?
>
> i don't understand - what more do you want me to post? i've already
> posted a pic of me sitting on it. do you want the pic notarized?

No, I want proof that the wheel with missing spoke will/will not
function as a bicycle wheel. A static test with the wheel in one (1)
position does inform either way.

>>> <snip>>
>>>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion axis.
>>>> What gives?
>>>
>>> so, do you get it yet?
>>
>> Indefinite pronoun - get what?
>
> you being evasive?

Just want to avoid misunderstanding.

>>> <snip>>
>>>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>>>
>>> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof" tendered
>>> is dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.
>>
>> Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more frequently
>> than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking anodizing?
>
> who says it does? i run mavic "cd" hard ano rims on my della santa and
> my mtb. no rim cracking.

Why do so many report more cracking with MA-40's than MA-2's? Does Jobst
sneak into people houses at night and sabotage MA-40 rims? ;)

>>> <snip>>
>>>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>>>
>>> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/ pay!
>>> post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.
>>
>> Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns strike again?
>
> stop being evasive - what do you want other than the tests i've already
> posted?

Are we discussing wheels with missing spokes or headsets?

>>>> <snip>
>>>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective? Cites?
>>>
>>> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is what
>>> needs proof!
>>
>> Did I disagree on that? No.
>
> so say so! jeepers, it's taken how many iterations of beating about the
> bush?

I did say that a while back.

>>> <snip>
>>>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>>>
>>> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?
>>
>> There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults would
>> help, as would using capital letters.
>
> i love that - the irony is so rich. ad hominem is ok, but being direct
> is not. ridiculous.

We need a new course: How to Win Friends and Influence People on Usenet. ;)

>>> <snip>
>>>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had any
>>>> engineering experience, you would realize that many problems are too
>>>> complex or have too little information available to solve at a
>>>> fundamental level. In these cases an empirical approach is
>>>> justified, and is considered to meet the legal requirements for
>>>> "standard of care" which you would know if you have ever prepared
>>>> deliverables for clients.
>>>
>>> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a continuous
>>> process of mapping the macro, then filling in the gaps between since
>>> it allows much more control of the bits already roughly known.
>>> engineers should try that approach rather than the "i've graduated so
>>> i know it all" approach many seem to have.
>>
>> What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?
>
> er, disregard of spoke gauge?

The question that comes to mind is whether the error produced by
ignoring spoke gauge is significant in the range of normal bicycle spoke
diameters (1.5 to 2.0 mm)?

>>> <snip>
>>>> Yes, your point being?
>>>
>>> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!
>>
>> No, it a purely a legal matter.
>
> not solely. if you want to be legally defendable, you'd better be sure
> you can prove you know what you're doing better than the prosecutor's
> own expert! and then there's insurance...

I was referring to accepting liability. The above appears to be about
defending one's self from liability claims.

>>> <snip>>
>>>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>>>
>>> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e. he
>>> ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight into
>>> residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be worshiped
>>> accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff about "stress
>>> relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or the process he
>>> /calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his own birth so he
>>> /cannot/ be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother to show whether he's
>>> actually determined whether something is significant or not.
>>
>> Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the "ancients".
>
> but he claims "invention". that is his word.

I was of the impression Jobst's claim was of first explanation, not
invention.

>>> <snip>>
>>>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>>>
>>> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
>>> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as you
>>> want.
>>
>> I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.
>
> eh? i live in an apartment. i have parts for cars, bikes as well as my
> office stuff. you do stuff on the kitchen table, then pack it up when
> you're done and put it away. i don't get the problem. unless of course
> you wan tto be evasive.

The epoxies are not something I want to deal with without proper
protective equipment. Not to mention the hazard of carbon fiber dust.

>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have
>>>> problems with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of high
>>>> end bicycles.
>>>
>>> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and non-axial
>>> loading causing repeated bending. straight pull spokes are
>>> fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.
>>
>> What about the hubs?
>
> what about them?

Can you make a hub for straight pull spokes that is as inexpensive,
lightweight and durable as one for J-bend spokes? If not, the trade-off
does not seem worth it.

The other consideration is that until (if it happens) straight-pull
spokes become common, spares would be much harder to find.

>> If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with Jobst's
>> wheel building technique, do we really need anything better?
>
> but where's the proof it's "his" technique? i want numbers. and where
> to the effects of superior spoke materials come into this picture?

Many have reported success with the technique. However, I agree that a
formal study would be a good thing, so the argument could be
conclusively settled.

>>> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes, the
>>> next step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these include
>>> surface finish, composition, environment, etc. and eventually
>>> residual stress. but even then, since observed fatigue initiation
>>> points are /not/ those regions of the spoke with high residual
>>> stress, i.e. the outer and inner portions of the j-bend curve,
>>> residual stress theory is highly questionable. the next step for
>>> someone wanting to hypothesize residual stress relevance and alleged
>>> effectiveness of mitigation is to test and publish results.
>>> credentials pissing matches with those who dare point out that over a
>>> century of fatigue research is being ignored ["ignoring" again tom]
>>> simply don't do it.
>>>
>>>>
>>> <snip>>
>>>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>>>>
>>>
>>> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at least,
>>> you won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.
>>
>> On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would just go
>> in circles (sorry Andres).
>>
>
> that makes no sense. on one hand, we have an assertion for which there
> is no theoretical or even quantitative support, from an author who
> evidences fundamental misunderstandings of materials theory. on the
> other, we have text book fatigue mitigation based on over 100 years of
> research. what is there to disagree about?

What there is to disagree about is that all else being equal, a sock
puppet has less credibility that someone using their real identity.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 20 Aug 2007 19:49:57
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>>>>
>>>> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the "free"
>>>> section.
>>>>
>>>>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>>>>
>>>> then buy one.
>>>
>>> This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was
>>>>> about to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress
>>>>> concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>>>>
>>>> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to differentiate
>>>> overload from fatigue from examination of the fracture surfaces.
>>>
>>> butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
>>> cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the experiment
>>> on.
>>>
>>> Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional
>>> wheel, why not post the proof?
>>
>> i don't understand - what more do you want me to post? i've already
>> posted a pic of me sitting on it. do you want the pic notarized?
>
> No, I want proof that the wheel with missing spoke will/will not
> function as a bicycle wheel. A static test with the wheel in one (1)
> position does inform either way.

than take a free wheel, cut some spokes out and test away!

>
>>>> <snip>>
>>>>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion axis.
>>>>> What gives?
>>>>
>>>> so, do you get it yet?
>>>
>>> Indefinite pronoun - get what?
>>
>> you being evasive?
>
> Just want to avoid misunderstanding.
>
>>>> <snip>>
>>>>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>>>>
>>>> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof"
>>>> tendered is dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.
>>>
>>> Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more
>>> frequently than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking anodizing?
>>
>> who says it does? i run mavic "cd" hard ano rims on my della santa
>> and my mtb. no rim cracking.
>
> Why do so many report more cracking with MA-40's than MA-2's? Does Jobst
> sneak into people houses at night and sabotage MA-40 rims? ;)

as i've said many times before, jobst started to advocate spoke tension
"as high as the rim can bear" at about the time the ma40 came out.
excess spoke tension is the cause, not anodizing. personally, i've seen
many /uncracked/ ma40's but nobody ever things to kick up a big fuss
about those. and you also need to understand that ma2's, the allegedly
uncrackable rims, both /do/ crack and /are/ anodized. the green labels
at any rate.

>
>>>> <snip>>
>>>>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>>>>
>>>> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/ pay!
>>>> post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.
>>>
>>> Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns strike again?
>>
>> stop being evasive - what do you want other than the tests i've
>> already posted?
>
> Are we discussing wheels with missing spokes or headsets?

you're being evasive...

>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective?
>>>>> Cites?
>>>>
>>>> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is what
>>>> needs proof!
>>>
>>> Did I disagree on that? No.
>>
>> so say so! jeepers, it's taken how many iterations of beating about
>> the bush?
>
> I did say that a while back.
>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>>>>
>>>> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?
>>>
>>> There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults would
>>> help, as would using capital letters.
>>
>> i love that - the irony is so rich. ad hominem is ok, but being
>> direct is not. ridiculous.
>
> We need a new course: How to Win Friends and Influence People on Usenet. ;)
>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had any
>>>>> engineering experience, you would realize that many problems are
>>>>> too complex or have too little information available to solve at a
>>>>> fundamental level. In these cases an empirical approach is
>>>>> justified, and is considered to meet the legal requirements for
>>>>> "standard of care" which you would know if you have ever prepared
>>>>> deliverables for clients.
>>>>
>>>> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a continuous
>>>> process of mapping the macro, then filling in the gaps between since
>>>> it allows much more control of the bits already roughly known.
>>>> engineers should try that approach rather than the "i've graduated
>>>> so i know it all" approach many seem to have.
>>>
>>> What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?
>>
>> er, disregard of spoke gauge?
>
> The question that comes to mind is whether the error produced by
> ignoring spoke gauge is significant in the range of normal bicycle spoke
> diameters (1.5 to 2.0 mm)?

all the tensiometer manufacturers apart from fsa [which jobst designed]
seem to think so.

>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Yes, your point being?
>>>>
>>>> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!
>>>
>>> No, it a purely a legal matter.
>>
>> not solely. if you want to be legally defendable, you'd better be
>> sure you can prove you know what you're doing better than the
>> prosecutor's own expert! and then there's insurance...
>
> I was referring to accepting liability. The above appears to be about
> defending one's self from liability claims.

but part of accepting liability is being able to avoid/defend liability
claims!!! as anyone in professional practice knows, when someone screws
up, the pointy finger comes out. you got to make sure it's not pointing
at you, or if it does, that you can prove it unwarranted. unless it
/was/ you that screwed up of course, in which case you have professional
indemnity insurance. you /do/ have professional indemnity insurance
don't you?

>
>>>> <snip>>
>>>>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>>>>
>>>> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e. he
>>>> ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight into
>>>> residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be
>>>> worshiped accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff
>>>> about "stress relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or the
>>>> process he /calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his own birth
>>>> so he /cannot/ be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother to show
>>>> whether he's actually determined whether something is significant or
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the "ancients".
>>
>> but he claims "invention". that is his word.
>
> I was of the impression Jobst's claim was of first explanation, not
> invention.

"dags".

>
>>>> <snip>>
>>>>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>>>>
>>>> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
>>>> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as you
>>>> want.
>>>
>>> I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.
>>
>> eh? i live in an apartment. i have parts for cars, bikes as well as
>> my office stuff. you do stuff on the kitchen table, then pack it up
>> when you're done and put it away. i don't get the problem. unless of
>> course you wan tto be evasive.
>
> The epoxies are not something I want to deal with without proper
> protective equipment. Not to mention the hazard of carbon fiber dust.

do you drive a car? do you eat tuna?

>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have
>>>>> problems with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of high
>>>>> end bicycles.
>>>>
>>>> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and
>>>> non-axial loading causing repeated bending. straight pull spokes
>>>> are fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.
>>>
>>> What about the hubs?
>>
>> what about them?
>
> Can you make a hub for straight pull spokes that is as inexpensive,
> lightweight and durable as one for J-bend spokes? If not, the trade-off
> does not seem worth it.

dude, you can buy mavic cosmos front wheels on sale for as little as
$60. why bother to buy stuff and build it when you can get it ready made?

>
> The other consideration is that until (if it happens) straight-pull
> spokes become common, spares would be much harder to find.

eh? if they're more common, they're more common. aren't they?

>
>>> If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with Jobst's
>>> wheel building technique, do we really need anything better?
>>
>> but where's the proof it's "his" technique? i want numbers. and
>> where to the effects of superior spoke materials come into this picture?
>
> Many have reported success with the technique. However, I agree that a
> formal study would be a good thing, so the argument could be
> conclusively settled.
>
>>>> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes, the
>>>> next step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these include
>>>> surface finish, composition, environment, etc. and eventually
>>>> residual stress. but even then, since observed fatigue initiation
>>>> points are /not/ those regions of the spoke with high residual
>>>> stress, i.e. the outer and inner portions of the j-bend curve,
>>>> residual stress theory is highly questionable. the next step for
>>>> someone wanting to hypothesize residual stress relevance and alleged
>>>> effectiveness of mitigation is to test and publish results.
>>>> credentials pissing matches with those who dare point out that over
>>>> a century of fatigue research is being ignored ["ignoring" again
>>>> tom] simply don't do it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>>
>>>>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at least,
>>>> you won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.
>>>
>>> On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would just
>>> go in circles (sorry Andres).
>>>
>>
>> that makes no sense. on one hand, we have an assertion for which
>> there is no theoretical or even quantitative support, from an author
>> who evidences fundamental misunderstandings of materials theory. on
>> the other, we have text book fatigue mitigation based on over 100
>> years of research. what is there to disagree about?
>
> What there is to disagree about is that all else being equal, a sock
> puppet has less credibility that someone using their real identity.
>

ad hominem! the resort of those unwilling to address naked emperors.
and you're still not addressing the fundamental point:

in the blue corner, we have johnny-come-lately with nothing other than
assertion, bluster and something of a credibility problem since he
didn't even realize that strain aging materials cannot be use as fatigue
prevention models for materials that don't strain age.

in the red corner, we have literally millions of hours of published
academic research, and more importantly, _replicable quantified results_.

want to address this now?

Date: 20 Aug 2007 22:18:37
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>>>>>
>>>>> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the "free"
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>>>>>
>>>>> then buy one.
>>>>
>>>> This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was
>>>>>> about to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress
>>>>>> concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to differentiate
>>>>> overload from fatigue from examination of the fracture surfaces.
>>>>
>>>> butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
>>>> cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the
>>>> experiment on.
>>>>
>>>> Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional
>>>> wheel, why not post the proof?
>>>
>>> i don't understand - what more do you want me to post? i've already
>>> posted a pic of me sitting on it. do you want the pic notarized?
>>
>> No, I want proof that the wheel with missing spoke will/will not
>> function as a bicycle wheel. A static test with the wheel in one (1)
>> position does inform either way.
>
> than take a free wheel, cut some spokes out and test away!

And risk damaging myself or one of my bicycles?

>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion axis.
>>>>>> What gives?
>>>>>
>>>>> so, do you get it yet?
>>>>
>>>> Indefinite pronoun - get what?
>>>
>>> you being evasive?
>>
>> Just want to avoid misunderstanding.
>>
>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>>>>>
>>>>> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof"
>>>>> tendered is dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.
>>>>
>>>> Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more
>>>> frequently than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking anodizing?
>>>
>>> who says it does? i run mavic "cd" hard ano rims on my della santa
>>> and my mtb. no rim cracking.
>>
>> Why do so many report more cracking with MA-40's than MA-2's? Does
>> Jobst sneak into people houses at night and sabotage MA-40 rims? ;)
>
> as i've said many times before, jobst started to advocate spoke tension
> "as high as the rim can bear" at about the time the ma40 came out.
> excess spoke tension is the cause, not anodizing. personally, i've seen
> many /uncracked/ ma40's but nobody ever things to kick up a big fuss
> about those. and you also need to understand that ma2's, the allegedly
> uncrackable rims, both /do/ crack and /are/ anodized. the green labels
> at any rate.

As you say...

>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>>>>>
>>>>> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/ pay!
>>>>> post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.
>>>>
>>>> Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns strike
>>>> again?
>>>
>>> stop being evasive - what do you want other than the tests i've
>>> already posted?
>>
>> Are we discussing wheels with missing spokes or headsets?
>
> you're being evasive...

You are being confusing.

>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective?
>>>>>> Cites?
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is what
>>>>> needs proof!
>>>>
>>>> Did I disagree on that? No.
>>>
>>> so say so! jeepers, it's taken how many iterations of beating about
>>> the bush?
>>
>> I did say that a while back.
>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?
>>>>
>>>> There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults
>>>> would help, as would using capital letters.
>>>
>>> i love that - the irony is so rich. ad hominem is ok, but being
>>> direct is not. ridiculous.
>>
>> We need a new course: How to Win Friends and Influence People on
>> Usenet. ;)
>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had
>>>>>> any engineering experience, you would realize that many problems
>>>>>> are too complex or have too little information available to solve
>>>>>> at a fundamental level. In these cases an empirical approach is
>>>>>> justified, and is considered to meet the legal requirements for
>>>>>> "standard of care" which you would know if you have ever prepared
>>>>>> deliverables for clients.
>>>>>
>>>>> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a continuous
>>>>> process of mapping the macro, then filling in the gaps between
>>>>> since it allows much more control of the bits already roughly
>>>>> known. engineers should try that approach rather than the "i've
>>>>> graduated so i know it all" approach many seem to have.
>>>>
>>>> What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?
>>>
>>> er, disregard of spoke gauge?
>>
>> The question that comes to mind is whether the error produced by
>> ignoring spoke gauge is significant in the range of normal bicycle
>> spoke diameters (1.5 to 2.0 mm)?
>
> all the tensiometer manufacturers apart from fsa [which jobst designed]
> seem to think so.

How much is the difference?

>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Yes, your point being?
>>>>>
>>>>> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!
>>>>
>>>> No, it a purely a legal matter.
>>>
>>> not solely. if you want to be legally defendable, you'd better be
>>> sure you can prove you know what you're doing better than the
>>> prosecutor's own expert! and then there's insurance...
>>
>> I was referring to accepting liability. The above appears to be about
>> defending one's self from liability claims.
>
> but part of accepting liability is being able to avoid/defend liability
> claims!!!

Does not follow logically.

> as anyone in professional practice knows, when someone screws
> up, the pointy finger comes out. you got to make sure it's not pointing
> at you, or if it does, that you can prove it unwarranted. unless it
> /was/ you that screwed up of course, in which case you have professional
> indemnity insurance. you /do/ have professional indemnity insurance

Somewhere in the 7 to 8 figure range.

>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>>>>>
>>>>> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e. he
>>>>> ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight into
>>>>> residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be
>>>>> worshiped accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff
>>>>> about "stress relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or
>>>>> the process he /calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his own
>>>>> birth so he /cannot/ be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother to show
>>>>> whether he's actually determined whether something is significant
>>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>> Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the "ancients".
>>>
>>> but he claims "invention". that is his word.
>>
>> I was of the impression Jobst's claim was of first explanation, not
>> invention.
>
> "dags".
>
>
>>
>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>>>>>
>>>>> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
>>>>> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as you
>>>>> want.
>>>>
>>>> I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.
>>>
>>> eh? i live in an apartment. i have parts for cars, bikes as well as
>>> my office stuff. you do stuff on the kitchen table, then pack it up
>>> when you're done and put it away. i don't get the problem. unless
>>> of course you wan tto be evasive.
>>
>> The epoxies are not something I want to deal with without proper
>> protective equipment. Not to mention the hazard of carbon fiber dust.
>
> do you drive a car? do you eat tuna?

And if so?

>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have
>>>>>> problems with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of high
>>>>>> end bicycles.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and
>>>>> non-axial loading causing repeated bending. straight pull spokes
>>>>> are fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.
>>>>
>>>> What about the hubs?
>>>
>>> what about them?
>>
>> Can you make a hub for straight pull spokes that is as inexpensive,
>> lightweight and durable as one for J-bend spokes? If not, the
>> trade-off does not seem worth it.
>
> dude, you can buy mavic cosmos front wheels on sale for as little as
> $60. why bother to buy stuff and build it when you can get it ready made?

Can I get a Mavic Cosmos in ISO 305-mm with single-sided disc brake
mounts? The same in ISO 406-mm? Plain old regular rim brake, fork
mounted wheel in ISO 406-mm size?

>> The other consideration is that until (if it happens) straight-pull
>> spokes become common, spares would be much harder to find.
>
> eh? if they're more common, they're more common. aren't they?

PITA for early adopters, however.

>>>> If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with
>>>> Jobst's wheel building technique, do we really need anything better?
>>>
>>> but where's the proof it's "his" technique? i want numbers. and
>>> where to the effects of superior spoke materials come into this picture?
>>
>> Many have reported success with the technique. However, I agree that a
>> formal study would be a good thing, so the argument could be
>> conclusively settled.
>>
>>>>> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes, the
>>>>> next step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these include
>>>>> surface finish, composition, environment, etc. and eventually
>>>>> residual stress. but even then, since observed fatigue initiation
>>>>> points are /not/ those regions of the spoke with high residual
>>>>> stress, i.e. the outer and inner portions of the j-bend curve,
>>>>> residual stress theory is highly questionable. the next step for
>>>>> someone wanting to hypothesize residual stress relevance and
>>>>> alleged effectiveness of mitigation is to test and publish
>>>>> results. credentials pissing matches with those who dare point out
>>>>> that over a century of fatigue research is being ignored
>>>>> ["ignoring" again tom] simply don't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at
>>>>> least, you won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.
>>>>
>>>> On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would just
>>>> go in circles (sorry Andres).
>>>>
>>>
>>> that makes no sense. on one hand, we have an assertion for which
>>> there is no theoretical or even quantitative support, from an author
>>> who evidences fundamental misunderstandings of materials theory. on
>>> the other, we have text book fatigue mitigation based on over 100
>>> years of research. what is there to disagree about?
>>
>> What there is to disagree about is that all else being equal, a sock
>> puppet has less credibility that someone using their real identity.
>>
>
> ad hominem! the resort of those unwilling to address naked emperors.
> and you're still not addressing the fundamental point:
>
> in the blue corner, we have johnny-come-lately with nothing other than
> assertion, bluster and something of a credibility problem since he
> didn't even realize that strain aging materials cannot be use as fatigue
> prevention models for materials that don't strain age.

Did I ever say just that? No. Stop making silly assumptions.

> in the red corner, we have literally millions of hours of published
> academic research, and more importantly, _replicable quantified results_.
>
> want to address this now?

"jim beam" still doesn't get why he lacks credibility.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 20 Aug 2007 20:59:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the "free"
>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then buy one.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was
>>>>>>> about to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress
>>>>>>> concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to differentiate
>>>>>> overload from fatigue from examination of the fracture surfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
>>>>> cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the
>>>>> experiment on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional
>>>>> wheel, why not post the proof?
>>>>
>>>> i don't understand - what more do you want me to post? i've already
>>>> posted a pic of me sitting on it. do you want the pic notarized?
>>>
>>> No, I want proof that the wheel with missing spoke will/will not
>>> function as a bicycle wheel. A static test with the wheel in one (1)
>>> position does inform either way.
>>
>> than take a free wheel, cut some spokes out and test away!
>
> And risk damaging myself or one of my bicycles?

i've done my bit - now you do yours. free bike - remember? or does
that cause a problem with being evasive?

>
>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion
>>>>>>> axis. What gives?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so, do you get it yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Indefinite pronoun - get what?
>>>>
>>>> you being evasive?
>>>
>>> Just want to avoid misunderstanding.
>>>
>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof"
>>>>>> tendered is dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more
>>>>> frequently than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking anodizing?
>>>>
>>>> who says it does? i run mavic "cd" hard ano rims on my della santa
>>>> and my mtb. no rim cracking.
>>>
>>> Why do so many report more cracking with MA-40's than MA-2's? Does
>>> Jobst sneak into people houses at night and sabotage MA-40 rims? ;)
>>
>> as i've said many times before, jobst started to advocate spoke
>> tension "as high as the rim can bear" at about the time the ma40 came
>> out. excess spoke tension is the cause, not anodizing. personally,
>> i've seen many /uncracked/ ma40's but nobody ever things to kick up a
>> big fuss about those. and you also need to understand that ma2's, the
>> allegedly uncrackable rims, both /do/ crack and /are/ anodized. the
>> green labels at any rate.
>
> As you say...
>
>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/
>>>>>> pay! post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns strike
>>>>> again?
>>>>
>>>> stop being evasive - what do you want other than the tests i've
>>>> already posted?
>>>
>>> Are we discussing wheels with missing spokes or headsets?
>>
>> you're being evasive...
>
> You are being confusing.

you're /still/ being evasive.

>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective?
>>>>>>> Cites?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is what
>>>>>> needs proof!
>>>>>
>>>>> Did I disagree on that? No.
>>>>
>>>> so say so! jeepers, it's taken how many iterations of beating about
>>>> the bush?
>>>
>>> I did say that a while back.
>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults
>>>>> would help, as would using capital letters.
>>>>
>>>> i love that - the irony is so rich. ad hominem is ok, but being
>>>> direct is not. ridiculous.
>>>
>>> We need a new course: How to Win Friends and Influence People on
>>> Usenet. ;)
>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had
>>>>>>> any engineering experience, you would realize that many problems
>>>>>>> are too complex or have too little information available to solve
>>>>>>> at a fundamental level. In these cases an empirical approach is
>>>>>>> justified, and is considered to meet the legal requirements for
>>>>>>> "standard of care" which you would know if you have ever prepared
>>>>>>> deliverables for clients.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a continuous
>>>>>> process of mapping the macro, then filling in the gaps between
>>>>>> since it allows much more control of the bits already roughly
>>>>>> known. engineers should try that approach rather than the "i've
>>>>>> graduated so i know it all" approach many seem to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?
>>>>
>>>> er, disregard of spoke gauge?
>>>
>>> The question that comes to mind is whether the error produced by
>>> ignoring spoke gauge is significant in the range of normal bicycle
>>> spoke diameters (1.5 to 2.0 mm)?
>>
>> all the tensiometer manufacturers apart from fsa [which jobst
>> designed] seem to think so.
>
> How much is the difference?

how hard is it to get some tensiometer tables and look?

>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Yes, your point being?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it a purely a legal matter.
>>>>
>>>> not solely. if you want to be legally defendable, you'd better be
>>>> sure you can prove you know what you're doing better than the
>>>> prosecutor's own expert! and then there's insurance...
>>>
>>> I was referring to accepting liability. The above appears to be about
>>> defending one's self from liability claims.
>>
>> but part of accepting liability is being able to avoid/defend
>> liability claims!!!
>
> Does not follow logically.

eh?

>
>> as anyone in professional practice knows, when someone screws up, the
>> pointy finger comes out. you got to make sure it's not pointing at
>> you, or if it does, that you can prove it unwarranted. unless it
>> /was/ you that screwed up of course, in which case you have
>> professional indemnity insurance. you /do/ have professional
>> indemnity insurance
>
> Somewhere in the 7 to 8 figure range.

good! amazing given that you say you don't understand what it's for.
or you were just being evasive.

>
>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e. he
>>>>>> ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight into
>>>>>> residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be
>>>>>> worshiped accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff
>>>>>> about "stress relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or
>>>>>> the process he /calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his own
>>>>>> birth so he /cannot/ be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother to
>>>>>> show whether he's actually determined whether something is
>>>>>> significant or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the "ancients".
>>>>
>>>> but he claims "invention". that is his word.
>>>
>>> I was of the impression Jobst's claim was of first explanation, not
>>> invention.
>>
>> "dags".
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
>>>>>> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as
>>>>>> you want.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.
>>>>
>>>> eh? i live in an apartment. i have parts for cars, bikes as well
>>>> as my office stuff. you do stuff on the kitchen table, then pack it
>>>> up when you're done and put it away. i don't get the problem.
>>>> unless of course you wan tto be evasive.
>>>
>>> The epoxies are not something I want to deal with without proper
>>> protective equipment. Not to mention the hazard of carbon fiber dust.
>>
>> do you drive a car? do you eat tuna?
>
> And if so?

you're being evasive by bringing up the straw man of chemical hazards.
but if you were genuinely concerned, you'd be able to assess risks and
compare how /alleged/ risks of cfrp stacks up against /real/ risks of
the items i cited.

>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have
>>>>>>> problems with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of high
>>>>>>> end bicycles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and
>>>>>> non-axial loading causing repeated bending. straight pull spokes
>>>>>> are fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about the hubs?
>>>>
>>>> what about them?
>>>
>>> Can you make a hub for straight pull spokes that is as inexpensive,
>>> lightweight and durable as one for J-bend spokes? If not, the
>>> trade-off does not seem worth it.
>>
>> dude, you can buy mavic cosmos front wheels on sale for as little as
>> $60. why bother to buy stuff and build it when you can get it ready
>> made?
>
> Can I get a Mavic Cosmos in ISO 305-mm with single-sided disc brake
> mounts? The same in ISO 406-mm? Plain old regular rim brake, fork
> mounted wheel in ISO 406-mm size?

you're being evasive.

>
>>> The other consideration is that until (if it happens) straight-pull
>>> spokes become common, spares would be much harder to find.
>>
>> eh? if they're more common, they're more common. aren't they?
>
> PITA for early adopters, however.

eh? mavic have been selling complete wheels with straight pull spokes
for /how/ long now? it's over 10 years. so when exactly does "early
adoption" become "old hat"? is there a formula for this logic?

>
>>>>> If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with
>>>>> Jobst's wheel building technique, do we really need anything better?
>>>>
>>>> but where's the proof it's "his" technique? i want numbers. and
>>>> where to the effects of superior spoke materials come into this
>>>> picture?
>>>
>>> Many have reported success with the technique. However, I agree that
>>> a formal study would be a good thing, so the argument could be
>>> conclusively settled.
>>>
>>>>>> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes,
>>>>>> the next step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these
>>>>>> include surface finish, composition, environment, etc. and
>>>>>> eventually residual stress. but even then, since observed fatigue
>>>>>> initiation points are /not/ those regions of the spoke with high
>>>>>> residual stress, i.e. the outer and inner portions of the j-bend
>>>>>> curve, residual stress theory is highly questionable. the next
>>>>>> step for someone wanting to hypothesize residual stress relevance
>>>>>> and alleged effectiveness of mitigation is to test and publish
>>>>>> results. credentials pissing matches with those who dare point
>>>>>> out that over a century of fatigue research is being ignored
>>>>>> ["ignoring" again tom] simply don't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at
>>>>>> least, you won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.
>>>>>
>>>>> On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would just
>>>>> go in circles (sorry Andres).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that makes no sense. on one hand, we have an assertion for which
>>>> there is no theoretical or even quantitative support, from an author
>>>> who evidences fundamental misunderstandings of materials theory. on
>>>> the other, we have text book fatigue mitigation based on over 100
>>>> years of research. what is there to disagree about?
>>>
>>> What there is to disagree about is that all else being equal, a sock
>>> puppet has less credibility that someone using their real identity.
>>>
>>
>> ad hominem! the resort of those unwilling to address naked emperors.
>> and you're still not addressing the fundamental point:
>>
>> in the blue corner, we have johnny-come-lately with nothing other than
>> assertion, bluster and something of a credibility problem since he
>> didn't even realize that strain aging materials cannot be use as
>> fatigue prevention models for materials that don't strain age.
>
> Did I ever say just that? No. Stop making silly assumptions.

eh? try re-reading the whole passage again big guy.

>
>> in the red corner, we have literally millions of hours of published
>> academic research, and more importantly, _replicable quantified results_.
>>
>> want to address this now?
>
> "jim beam" still doesn't get why he lacks credibility.
>

so by that logic, you'd invest your retirement with a mutual fund that
jammed a prestigious alma mater up your ass, disregarding that they'd
consistently lost money every year for 20 years? if you don't think
getting it right matters, you're gonna be working a /long/ old time
there bud!

Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:58:57
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the "free"
>>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then buy one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was
>>>>>>>> about to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and stress
>>>>>>>> concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to differentiate
>>>>>>> overload from fatigue from examination of the fracture surfaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
>>>>>> cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the
>>>>>> experiment on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional
>>>>>> wheel, why not post the proof?
>>>>>
>>>>> i don't understand - what more do you want me to post? i've
>>>>> already posted a pic of me sitting on it. do you want the pic
>>>>> notarized?
>>>>
>>>> No, I want proof that the wheel with missing spoke will/will not
>>>> function as a bicycle wheel. A static test with the wheel in one (1)
>>>> position does inform either way.
>>>
>>> than take a free wheel, cut some spokes out and test away!
>>
>> And risk damaging myself or one of my bicycles?
>
> i've done my bit - now you do yours. free bike - remember? or does
> that cause a problem with being evasive?

No "jimmy", you made the claim that it was a proper wheel. If I have to
(dos)prove it for you, I want the compesation of a new bicycle.

>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion
>>>>>>>> axis. What gives?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so, do you get it yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indefinite pronoun - get what?
>>>>>
>>>>> you being evasive?
>>>>
>>>> Just want to avoid misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof"
>>>>>>> tendered is dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more
>>>>>> frequently than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking
>>>>>> anodizing?
>>>>>
>>>>> who says it does? i run mavic "cd" hard ano rims on my della santa
>>>>> and my mtb. no rim cracking.
>>>>
>>>> Why do so many report more cracking with MA-40's than MA-2's? Does
>>>> Jobst sneak into people houses at night and sabotage MA-40 rims? ;)
>>>
>>> as i've said many times before, jobst started to advocate spoke
>>> tension "as high as the rim can bear" at about the time the ma40 came
>>> out. excess spoke tension is the cause, not anodizing. personally,
>>> i've seen many /uncracked/ ma40's but nobody ever things to kick up a
>>> big fuss about those. and you also need to understand that ma2's,
>>> the allegedly uncrackable rims, both /do/ crack and /are/ anodized.
>>> the green labels at any rate.
>>
>> As you say...
>>
>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/
>>>>>>> pay! post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns strike
>>>>>> again?
>>>>>
>>>>> stop being evasive - what do you want other than the tests i've
>>>>> already posted?
>>>>
>>>> Are we discussing wheels with missing spokes or headsets?
>>>
>>> you're being evasive...
>>
>> You are being confusing.
>
> you're /still/ being evasive.

And you are still being confusing.

>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is ineffective?
>>>>>>>> Cites?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is
>>>>>>> what needs proof!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did I disagree on that? No.
>>>>>
>>>>> so say so! jeepers, it's taken how many iterations of beating
>>>>> about the bush?
>>>>
>>>> I did say that a while back.
>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults
>>>>>> would help, as would using capital letters.
>>>>>
>>>>> i love that - the irony is so rich. ad hominem is ok, but being
>>>>> direct is not. ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> We need a new course: How to Win Friends and Influence People on
>>>> Usenet. ;)
>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had
>>>>>>>> any engineering experience, you would realize that many problems
>>>>>>>> are too complex or have too little information available to
>>>>>>>> solve at a fundamental level. In these cases an empirical
>>>>>>>> approach is justified, and is considered to meet the legal
>>>>>>>> requirements for "standard of care" which you would know if you
>>>>>>>> have ever prepared deliverables for clients.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a continuous
>>>>>>> process of mapping the macro, then filling in the gaps between
>>>>>>> since it allows much more control of the bits already roughly
>>>>>>> known. engineers should try that approach rather than the "i've
>>>>>>> graduated so i know it all" approach many seem to have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?
>>>>>
>>>>> er, disregard of spoke gauge?
>>>>
>>>> The question that comes to mind is whether the error produced by
>>>> ignoring spoke gauge is significant in the range of normal bicycle
>>>> spoke diameters (1.5 to 2.0 mm)?
>>>
>>> all the tensiometer manufacturers apart from fsa [which jobst
>>> designed] seem to think so.
>>
>> How much is the difference?
>
> how hard is it to get some tensiometer tables and look?

Post a link. Scan and have Dear Carl post it.

>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> Yes, your point being?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it a purely a legal matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> not solely. if you want to be legally defendable, you'd better be
>>>>> sure you can prove you know what you're doing better than the
>>>>> prosecutor's own expert! and then there's insurance...
>>>>
>>>> I was referring to accepting liability. The above appears to be
>>>> about defending one's self from liability claims.
>>>
>>> but part of accepting liability is being able to avoid/defend
>>> liability claims!!!
>>
>> Does not follow logically.
>
> eh?

What?

>>> as anyone in professional practice knows, when someone screws up, the
>>> pointy finger comes out. you got to make sure it's not pointing at
>>> you, or if it does, that you can prove it unwarranted. unless it
>>> /was/ you that screwed up of course, in which case you have
>>> professional indemnity insurance. you /do/ have professional
>>> indemnity insurance
>>
>> Somewhere in the 7 to 8 figure range.
>
> good! amazing given that you say you don't understand what it's for. or
> you were just being evasive.

Huh? I know perfectly well what professional liability insurance is for
- damage caused by negligence, as determined by the standard of care.

>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e.
>>>>>>> he ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight
>>>>>>> into residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be
>>>>>>> worshiped accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff
>>>>>>> about "stress relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or
>>>>>>> the process he /calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his
>>>>>>> own birth so he /cannot/ be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother
>>>>>>> to show whether he's actually determined whether something is
>>>>>>> significant or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the "ancients".
>>>>>
>>>>> but he claims "invention". that is his word.
>>>>
>>>> I was of the impression Jobst's claim was of first explanation, not
>>>> invention.
>>>
>>> "dags".
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
>>>>>>> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as
>>>>>>> you want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? i live in an apartment. i have parts for cars, bikes as well
>>>>> as my office stuff. you do stuff on the kitchen table, then pack
>>>>> it up when you're done and put it away. i don't get the problem.
>>>>> unless of course you wan tto be evasive.
>>>>
>>>> The epoxies are not something I want to deal with without proper
>>>> protective equipment. Not to mention the hazard of carbon fiber dust.
>>>
>>> do you drive a car? do you eat tuna?
>>
>> And if so?
>
> you're being evasive by bringing up the straw man of chemical hazards.
> but if you were genuinely concerned, you'd be able to assess risks and
> compare how /alleged/ risks of cfrp stacks up against /real/ risks of
> the items i cited.

It does depend on the amount and type of driving, and the amount of tuna
consumed, does it not. What are these quantities?

>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have
>>>>>>>> problems with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of
>>>>>>>> high end bicycles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and
>>>>>>> non-axial loading causing repeated bending. straight pull spokes
>>>>>>> are fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about the hubs?
>>>>>
>>>>> what about them?
>>>>
>>>> Can you make a hub for straight pull spokes that is as inexpensive,
>>>> lightweight and durable as one for J-bend spokes? If not, the
>>>> trade-off does not seem worth it.
>>>
>>> dude, you can buy mavic cosmos front wheels on sale for as little as
>>> $60. why bother to buy stuff and build it when you can get it ready
>>> made?
>>
>> Can I get a Mavic Cosmos in ISO 305-mm with single-sided disc brake
>> mounts? The same in ISO 406-mm? Plain old regular rim brake, fork
>> mounted wheel in ISO 406-mm size?
>
> you're being evasive.

No "jimmy", Mavic does not serve the needs of those with small wheel
recumbents. I do not own a bicycle with ISO 622-mm, ISO 630-mm or ISO
571-mm wheels.

>>>> The other consideration is that until (if it happens) straight-pull
>>>> spokes become common, spares would be much harder to find.
>>>
>>> eh? if they're more common, they're more common. aren't they?
>>
>> PITA for early adopters, however.
>
> eh? mavic have been selling complete wheels with straight pull spokes
> for /how/ long now? it's over 10 years. so when exactly does "early
> adoption" become "old hat"? is there a formula for this logic?

Yehbut, who else makes these spokes? Can I get them anywhere?

>>>>>> If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with
>>>>>> Jobst's wheel building technique, do we really need anything better?
>>>>>
>>>>> but where's the proof it's "his" technique? i want numbers. and
>>>>> where to the effects of superior spoke materials come into this
>>>>> picture?
>>>>
>>>> Many have reported success with the technique. However, I agree that
>>>> a formal study would be a good thing, so the argument could be
>>>> conclusively settled.
>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes,
>>>>>>> the next step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these
>>>>>>> include surface finish, composition, environment, etc. and
>>>>>>> eventually residual stress. but even then, since observed
>>>>>>> fatigue initiation points are /not/ those regions of the spoke
>>>>>>> with high residual stress, i.e. the outer and inner portions of
>>>>>>> the j-bend curve, residual stress theory is highly questionable.
>>>>>>> the next step for someone wanting to hypothesize residual stress
>>>>>>> relevance and alleged effectiveness of mitigation is to test and
>>>>>>> publish results. credentials pissing matches with those who dare
>>>>>>> point out that over a century of fatigue research is being
>>>>>>> ignored ["ignoring" again tom] simply don't do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at
>>>>>>> least, you won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would
>>>>>> just go in circles (sorry Andres).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> that makes no sense. on one hand, we have an assertion for which
>>>>> there is no theoretical or even quantitative support, from an
>>>>> author who evidences fundamental misunderstandings of materials
>>>>> theory. on the other, we have text book fatigue mitigation based
>>>>> on over 100 years of research. what is there to disagree about?
>>>>
>>>> What there is to disagree about is that all else being equal, a sock
>>>> puppet has less credibility that someone using their real identity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ad hominem! the resort of those unwilling to address naked emperors.
>>> and you're still not addressing the fundamental point:
>>>
>>> in the blue corner, we have johnny-come-lately with nothing other
>>> than assertion, bluster and something of a credibility problem since
>>> he didn't even realize that strain aging materials cannot be use as
>>> fatigue prevention models for materials that don't strain age.
>>
>> Did I ever say just that? No. Stop making silly assumptions.
>
> eh? try re-reading the whole passage again big guy.

Now "jimmy" is being evasive.

>>> in the red corner, we have literally millions of hours of published
>>> academic research, and more importantly, _replicable quantified
>>> results_.
>>>
>>> want to address this now?
>>
>> "jim beam" still doesn't get why he lacks credibility.
>>
>
> so by that logic, you'd invest your retirement with a mutual fund that
> jammed a prestigious alma mater up your ass, disregarding that they'd
> consistently lost money every year for 20 years? if you don't think
> getting it right matters, you're gonna be working a /long/ old time
> there bud!

Should I invest my money with a fund that uses a fake name and fake
contact information?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:59:14
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the
>>>>>>>> "free" section.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then buy one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was
>>>>>>>>> about to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and
>>>>>>>>> stress concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to
>>>>>>>> differentiate overload from fatigue from examination of the
>>>>>>>> fracture surfaces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
>>>>>>> cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the
>>>>>>> experiment on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional
>>>>>>> wheel, why not post the proof?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i don't understand - what more do you want me to post? i've
>>>>>> already posted a pic of me sitting on it. do you want the pic
>>>>>> notarized?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I want proof that the wheel with missing spoke will/will not
>>>>> function as a bicycle wheel. A static test with the wheel in one
>>>>> (1) position does inform either way.
>>>>
>>>> than take a free wheel, cut some spokes out and test away!
>>>
>>> And risk damaging myself or one of my bicycles?
>>
>> i've done my bit - now you do yours. free bike - remember? or does
>> that cause a problem with being evasive?
>
> No "jimmy", you made the claim that it was a proper wheel. If I have to
> (dos)prove it for you, I want the compesation of a new bicycle.

eh? you'll be using a free one - do you want me to /pay/ you to perform
your own experiments as well? you're the disbeliever - you take
responsibility.

>
>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion
>>>>>>>>> axis. What gives?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so, do you get it yet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indefinite pronoun - get what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you being evasive?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just want to avoid misunderstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof"
>>>>>>>> tendered is dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more
>>>>>>> frequently than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking
>>>>>>> anodizing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> who says it does? i run mavic "cd" hard ano rims on my della
>>>>>> santa and my mtb. no rim cracking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do so many report more cracking with MA-40's than MA-2's? Does
>>>>> Jobst sneak into people houses at night and sabotage MA-40 rims? ;)
>>>>
>>>> as i've said many times before, jobst started to advocate spoke
>>>> tension "as high as the rim can bear" at about the time the ma40
>>>> came out. excess spoke tension is the cause, not anodizing.
>>>> personally, i've seen many /uncracked/ ma40's but nobody ever things
>>>> to kick up a big fuss about those. and you also need to understand
>>>> that ma2's, the allegedly uncrackable rims, both /do/ crack and
>>>> /are/ anodized. the green labels at any rate.
>>>
>>> As you say...
>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/
>>>>>>>> pay! post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns strike
>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> stop being evasive - what do you want other than the tests i've
>>>>>> already posted?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we discussing wheels with missing spokes or headsets?
>>>>
>>>> you're being evasive...
>>>
>>> You are being confusing.
>>
>> you're /still/ being evasive.
>
> And you are still being confusing.

eh?

>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is
>>>>>>>>> ineffective? Cites?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is
>>>>>>>> what needs proof!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did I disagree on that? No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so say so! jeepers, it's taken how many iterations of beating
>>>>>> about the bush?
>>>>>
>>>>> I did say that a while back.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults
>>>>>>> would help, as would using capital letters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i love that - the irony is so rich. ad hominem is ok, but being
>>>>>> direct is not. ridiculous.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need a new course: How to Win Friends and Influence People on
>>>>> Usenet. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you had
>>>>>>>>> any engineering experience, you would realize that many
>>>>>>>>> problems are too complex or have too little information
>>>>>>>>> available to solve at a fundamental level. In these cases an
>>>>>>>>> empirical approach is justified, and is considered to meet the
>>>>>>>>> legal requirements for "standard of care" which you would know
>>>>>>>>> if you have ever prepared deliverables for clients.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a
>>>>>>>> continuous process of mapping the macro, then filling in the
>>>>>>>> gaps between since it allows much more control of the bits
>>>>>>>> already roughly known. engineers should try that approach
>>>>>>>> rather than the "i've graduated so i know it all" approach many
>>>>>>>> seem to have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> er, disregard of spoke gauge?
>>>>>
>>>>> The question that comes to mind is whether the error produced by
>>>>> ignoring spoke gauge is significant in the range of normal bicycle
>>>>> spoke diameters (1.5 to 2.0 mm)?
>>>>
>>>> all the tensiometer manufacturers apart from fsa [which jobst
>>>> designed] seem to think so.
>>>
>>> How much is the difference?
>>
>> how hard is it to get some tensiometer tables and look?
>
> Post a link. Scan and have Dear Carl post it.

parktool.com in the tensiometer section.

>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, your point being?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it a purely a legal matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not solely. if you want to be legally defendable, you'd better be
>>>>>> sure you can prove you know what you're doing better than the
>>>>>> prosecutor's own expert! and then there's insurance...
>>>>>
>>>>> I was referring to accepting liability. The above appears to be
>>>>> about defending one's self from liability claims.
>>>>
>>>> but part of accepting liability is being able to avoid/defend
>>>> liability claims!!!
>>>
>>> Does not follow logically.
>>
>> eh?
>
> What?
>
>>>> as anyone in professional practice knows, when someone screws up,
>>>> the pointy finger comes out. you got to make sure it's not pointing
>>>> at you, or if it does, that you can prove it unwarranted. unless it
>>>> /was/ you that screwed up of course, in which case you have
>>>> professional indemnity insurance. you /do/ have professional
>>>> indemnity insurance
>>>
>>> Somewhere in the 7 to 8 figure range.
>>
>> good! amazing given that you say you don't understand what it's for.
>> or you were just being evasive.
>
> Huh? I know perfectly well what professional liability insurance is for
> - damage caused by negligence, as determined by the standard of care.

does it cover evasiveness?

>
>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e.
>>>>>>>> he ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms straight
>>>>>>>> into residual stress because /he/ has the solution and should be
>>>>>>>> worshiped accordingly! to heck with all that inconvenient stuff
>>>>>>>> about "stress relief" being ineffective on low quality spokes or
>>>>>>>> the process he /calls/ "stress relief" actually pre-dating his
>>>>>>>> own birth so he /cannot/ be "the inventor".] he doesn't bother
>>>>>>>> to show whether he's actually determined whether something is
>>>>>>>> significant or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the "ancients".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but he claims "invention". that is his word.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was of the impression Jobst's claim was of first explanation, not
>>>>> invention.
>>>>
>>>> "dags".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
>>>>>>>> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as
>>>>>>>> you want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eh? i live in an apartment. i have parts for cars, bikes as well
>>>>>> as my office stuff. you do stuff on the kitchen table, then pack
>>>>>> it up when you're done and put it away. i don't get the problem.
>>>>>> unless of course you wan tto be evasive.
>>>>>
>>>>> The epoxies are not something I want to deal with without proper
>>>>> protective equipment. Not to mention the hazard of carbon fiber dust.
>>>>
>>>> do you drive a car? do you eat tuna?
>>>
>>> And if so?
>>
>> you're being evasive by bringing up the straw man of chemical hazards.
>> but if you were genuinely concerned, you'd be able to assess risks and
>> compare how /alleged/ risks of cfrp stacks up against /real/ risks of
>> the items i cited.
>
> It does depend on the amount and type of driving, and the amount of tuna
> consumed, does it not. What are these quantities?

how long is a piece of string? stop being evasive. you raised a red
herring about cfrp toxicity. now you go and quantify it if you want to
contend that it's an issue compared to other more commonly encountered
hazards.

>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have
>>>>>>>>> problems with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of
>>>>>>>>> high end bicycles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and
>>>>>>>> non-axial loading causing repeated bending. straight pull
>>>>>>>> spokes are fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about the hubs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what about them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you make a hub for straight pull spokes that is as inexpensive,
>>>>> lightweight and durable as one for J-bend spokes? If not, the
>>>>> trade-off does not seem worth it.
>>>>
>>>> dude, you can buy mavic cosmos front wheels on sale for as little as
>>>> $60. why bother to buy stuff and build it when you can get it ready
>>>> made?
>>>
>>> Can I get a Mavic Cosmos in ISO 305-mm with single-sided disc brake
>>> mounts? The same in ISO 406-mm? Plain old regular rim brake, fork
>>> mounted wheel in ISO 406-mm size?
>>
>> you're being evasive.
>
> No "jimmy", Mavic does not serve the needs of those with small wheel
> recumbents. I do not own a bicycle with ISO 622-mm, ISO 630-mm or ISO
> 571-mm wheels.

that's called "being evasive".

>
>>>>> The other consideration is that until (if it happens) straight-pull
>>>>> spokes become common, spares would be much harder to find.
>>>>
>>>> eh? if they're more common, they're more common. aren't they?
>>>
>>> PITA for early adopters, however.
>>
>> eh? mavic have been selling complete wheels with straight pull spokes
>> for /how/ long now? it's over 10 years. so when exactly does "early
>> adoption" become "old hat"? is there a formula for this logic?
>
> Yehbut, who else makes these spokes? Can I get them anywhere?

who cares who makes them? the question is whether they work. and you
can buy them anywhere that sells mavic wheels.

>
>>>>>>> If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with
>>>>>>> Jobst's wheel building technique, do we really need anything better?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but where's the proof it's "his" technique? i want numbers. and
>>>>>> where to the effects of superior spoke materials come into this
>>>>>> picture?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many have reported success with the technique. However, I agree
>>>>> that a formal study would be a good thing, so the argument could be
>>>>> conclusively settled.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes,
>>>>>>>> the next step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these
>>>>>>>> include surface finish, composition, environment, etc. and
>>>>>>>> eventually residual stress. but even then, since observed
>>>>>>>> fatigue initiation points are /not/ those regions of the spoke
>>>>>>>> with high residual stress, i.e. the outer and inner portions of
>>>>>>>> the j-bend curve, residual stress theory is highly
>>>>>>>> questionable. the next step for someone wanting to hypothesize
>>>>>>>> residual stress relevance and alleged effectiveness of
>>>>>>>> mitigation is to test and publish results. credentials pissing
>>>>>>>> matches with those who dare point out that over a century of
>>>>>>>> fatigue research is being ignored ["ignoring" again tom] simply
>>>>>>>> don't do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks credibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at
>>>>>>>> least, you won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would
>>>>>>> just go in circles (sorry Andres).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that makes no sense. on one hand, we have an assertion for which
>>>>>> there is no theoretical or even quantitative support, from an
>>>>>> author who evidences fundamental misunderstandings of materials
>>>>>> theory. on the other, we have text book fatigue mitigation based
>>>>>> on over 100 years of research. what is there to disagree about?
>>>>>
>>>>> What there is to disagree about is that all else being equal, a
>>>>> sock puppet has less credibility that someone using their real
>>>>> identity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ad hominem! the resort of those unwilling to address naked
>>>> emperors. and you're still not addressing the fundamental point:
>>>>
>>>> in the blue corner, we have johnny-come-lately with nothing other
>>>> than assertion, bluster and something of a credibility problem since
>>>> he didn't even realize that strain aging materials cannot be use as
>>>> fatigue prevention models for materials that don't strain age.
>>>
>>> Did I ever say just that? No. Stop making silly assumptions.
>>
>> eh? try re-reading the whole passage again big guy.
>
> Now "jimmy" is being evasive.

no, you jumped in too soon. read thos paragraphs together. if you can
follow this long fucked-up thread that is.

>
>>>> in the red corner, we have literally millions of hours of published
>>>> academic research, and more importantly, _replicable quantified
>>>> results_.
>>>>
>>>> want to address this now?
>>>
>>> "jim beam" still doesn't get why he lacks credibility.
>>>
>>
>> so by that logic, you'd invest your retirement with a mutual fund that
>> jammed a prestigious alma mater up your ass, disregarding that they'd
>> consistently lost money every year for 20 years? if you don't think
>> getting it right matters, you're gonna be working a /long/ old time
>> there bud!
>
> Should I invest my money with a fund that uses a fake name and fake
> contact information?

what is a "fake name" anyway? how prudential is "prudential"? wtf is
"liberty mutual" supposed to mean? i can't tell you what to do with
your money, but i think you're better off focusing on performance there
big guy.

Date: 22 Aug 2007 19:14:54
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>>>> I checked - no free bicycles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> keep checking. they turn up all the time. they're in the
>>>>>>>>> "free" section.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Besides, I want a new bicycle to compensate for potential injury.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then buy one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not supposed to involve expense on my part, remember?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> butbutbut, what if one or more of the spokes left in place was
>>>>>>>>>> about to fail from fatigue? The reduced cross-section and
>>>>>>>>>> stress concentration at the fatigue crack could cause failure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so take the chance and find out. you'll be able to
>>>>>>>>> differentiate overload from fatigue from examination of the
>>>>>>>>> fracture surfaces.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> butbutbut, even if the failure could be put to existing fatigue
>>>>>>>> cracking, that would mean getting another wheel to run the
>>>>>>>> experiment on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you content your wheel with missing spokes is a functional
>>>>>>>> wheel, why not post the proof?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i don't understand - what more do you want me to post? i've
>>>>>>> already posted a pic of me sitting on it. do you want the pic
>>>>>>> notarized?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I want proof that the wheel with missing spoke will/will not
>>>>>> function as a bicycle wheel. A static test with the wheel in one
>>>>>> (1) position does inform either way.
>>>>>
>>>>> than take a free wheel, cut some spokes out and test away!
>>>>
>>>> And risk damaging myself or one of my bicycles?
>>>
>>> i've done my bit - now you do yours. free bike - remember? or does
>>> that cause a problem with being evasive?
>>
>> No "jimmy", you made the claim that it was a proper wheel. If I have
>> to (dis)prove it for you, I want the compensation of a new bicycle.
>
> eh? you'll be using a free one - do you want me to /pay/ you to perform
> your own experiments as well? you're the disbeliever - you take
> responsibility.
>
"jim" put forth the claim - therefore he should prove that the missing
spoke wheel actually works as a bicycle wheel.
>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gee, I have seen rim cracking perpendicular to the extrusion
>>>>>>>>>> axis. What gives?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so, do you get it yet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indefinite pronoun - get what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you being evasive?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just want to avoid misunderstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't arguing that it did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but you accept the jobstian hypothesis, and the only "proof"
>>>>>>>>> tendered is dye penetrant. ergo, you accept the connection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why does the cracking occur in hard anodized rims much more
>>>>>>>> frequently than in the rims with the same extrusion lacking
>>>>>>>> anodizing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> who says it does? i run mavic "cd" hard ano rims on my della
>>>>>>> santa and my mtb. no rim cracking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do so many report more cracking with MA-40's than MA-2's? Does
>>>>>> Jobst sneak into people houses at night and sabotage MA-40 rims? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> as i've said many times before, jobst started to advocate spoke
>>>>> tension "as high as the rim can bear" at about the time the ma40
>>>>> came out. excess spoke tension is the cause, not anodizing.
>>>>> personally, i've seen many /uncracked/ ma40's but nobody ever
>>>>> things to kick up a big fuss about those. and you also need to
>>>>> understand that ma2's, the allegedly uncrackable rims, both /do/
>>>>> crack and /are/ anodized. the green labels at any rate.
>>>>
>>>> As you say...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope "jim", since you want the testing done, "pay the freight".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but i've already done it!!! /you/ now want to do it, so /you/
>>>>>>>>> pay! post pics when you're done - like fogel and i did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which test are we talking about here - indefinite pronouns
>>>>>>>> strike again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stop being evasive - what do you want other than the tests i've
>>>>>>> already posted?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we discussing wheels with missing spokes or headsets?
>>>>>
>>>>> you're being evasive...
>>>>
>>>> You are being confusing.
>>>
>>> you're /still/ being evasive.
>>
>> And you are still being confusing.
>
> eh?
>
Huh?
>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have proof the method of squeezing spokes is
>>>>>>>>>> ineffective? Cites?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> eh? the hypothesis is that it eliminates fatigue. /that/ is
>>>>>>>>> what needs proof!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did I disagree on that? No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so say so! jeepers, it's taken how many iterations of beating
>>>>>>> about the bush?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did say that a while back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your online behavior has something to do with that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> eh? is there something wrong with calling out bullshitters?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is more than one way to do it. Not using personal insults
>>>>>>>> would help, as would using capital letters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i love that - the irony is so rich. ad hominem is ok, but being
>>>>>>> direct is not. ridiculous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need a new course: How to Win Friends and Influence People on
>>>>>> Usenet. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> Science is relevant at a fundamental level. However, if you
>>>>>>>>>> had any engineering experience, you would realize that many
>>>>>>>>>> problems are too complex or have too little information
>>>>>>>>>> available to solve at a fundamental level. In these cases an
>>>>>>>>>> empirical approach is justified, and is considered to meet the
>>>>>>>>>> legal requirements for "standard of care" which you would know
>>>>>>>>>> if you have ever prepared deliverables for clients.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then you've not studied materials too closely. it's a
>>>>>>>>> continuous process of mapping the macro, then filling in the
>>>>>>>>> gaps between since it allows much more control of the bits
>>>>>>>>> already roughly known. engineers should try that approach
>>>>>>>>> rather than the "i've graduated so i know it all" approach many
>>>>>>>>> seem to have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does the above have to do with spoke tensiometer design?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> er, disregard of spoke gauge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question that comes to mind is whether the error produced by
>>>>>> ignoring spoke gauge is significant in the range of normal bicycle
>>>>>> spoke diameters (1.5 to 2.0 mm)?
>>>>>
>>>>> all the tensiometer manufacturers apart from fsa [which jobst
>>>>> designed] seem to think so.
>>>>
>>>> How much is the difference?
>>>
>>> how hard is it to get some tensiometer tables and look?
>>
>> Post a link. Scan and have Dear Carl post it.
>
> parktool.com in the tensiometer section.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, your point being?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> accepting liability is about knowing what you're doing!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it a purely a legal matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not solely. if you want to be legally defendable, you'd better
>>>>>>> be sure you can prove you know what you're doing better than the
>>>>>>> prosecutor's own expert! and then there's insurance...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was referring to accepting liability. The above appears to be
>>>>>> about defending one's self from liability claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> but part of accepting liability is being able to avoid/defend
>>>>> liability claims!!!
>>>>
>>>> Does not follow logically.
>>>
>>> eh?
>>
>> What?
>>
>>>>> as anyone in professional practice knows, when someone screws up,
>>>>> the pointy finger comes out. you got to make sure it's not
>>>>> pointing at you, or if it does, that you can prove it unwarranted.
>>>>> unless it /was/ you that screwed up of course, in which case you
>>>>> have professional indemnity insurance. you /do/ have professional
>>>>> indemnity insurance
>>>>
>>>> Somewhere in the 7 to 8 figure range.
>>>
>>> good! amazing given that you say you don't understand what it's for.
>>> or you were just being evasive.
>>
>> Huh? I know perfectly well what professional liability insurance is
>> for - damage caused by negligence, as determined by the standard of care.
>
> does it cover evasiveness?
>
Read your policy (if you have one).
>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>>> And isn't this Jobst's contention on the matter at hand?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> jobst simply ignores, often because it's not convenient. [i.e.
>>>>>>>>> he ignores traditional fatigue considerations and zooms
>>>>>>>>> straight into residual stress because /he/ has the solution and
>>>>>>>>> should be worshiped accordingly! to heck with all that
>>>>>>>>> inconvenient stuff about "stress relief" being ineffective on
>>>>>>>>> low quality spokes or the process he /calls/ "stress relief"
>>>>>>>>> actually pre-dating his own birth so he /cannot/ be "the
>>>>>>>>> inventor".] he doesn't bother to show whether he's actually
>>>>>>>>> determined whether something is significant or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jobst has mentioned that spoke squeezing was done by the
>>>>>>>> "ancients".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but he claims "invention". that is his word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was of the impression Jobst's claim was of first explanation,
>>>>>> not invention.
>>>>>
>>>>> "dags".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what - I can get a single data point or two on a CFRP crank?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> why go to that expense? buy the cfrp constituents and pre-made
>>>>>>>>> componentry from a hobby shop and do as much experimentation as
>>>>>>>>> you want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hardly have the facilities for that in my apartment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eh? i live in an apartment. i have parts for cars, bikes as
>>>>>>> well as my office stuff. you do stuff on the kitchen table, then
>>>>>>> pack it up when you're done and put it away. i don't get the
>>>>>>> problem. unless of course you wan tto be evasive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The epoxies are not something I want to deal with without proper
>>>>>> protective equipment. Not to mention the hazard of carbon fiber dust.
>>>>>
>>>>> do you drive a car? do you eat tuna?
>>>>
>>>> And if so?
>>>
>>> you're being evasive by bringing up the straw man of chemical
>>> hazards. but if you were genuinely concerned, you'd be able to assess
>>> risks and compare how /alleged/ risks of cfrp stacks up against
>>> /real/ risks of the items i cited.
>>
>> It does depend on the amount and type of driving, and the amount of
>> tuna consumed, does it not. What are these quantities?
>
> how long is a piece of string? stop being evasive. you raised a red
> herring about cfrp toxicity. now you go and quantify it if you want to
> contend that it's an issue compared to other more commonly encountered
> hazards.
>
Well, it is messy, and I lack the proper space and equipment to use it.
Besides, if I did the manufacturing of the part the wrong way (a
distinct possibility), it would not prove anything other than my lack of
training as a CFRP fabricator.
>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where is the proof of your contention? Why do some still have
>>>>>>>>>> problems with spokes breaking on the machine built wheels of
>>>>>>>>>> high end bicycles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. they still break because of the j-bend configuration and
>>>>>>>>> non-axial loading causing repeated bending. straight pull
>>>>>>>>> spokes are fundamentally /much/ more fatigue resistant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about the hubs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what about them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you make a hub for straight pull spokes that is as
>>>>>> inexpensive, lightweight and durable as one for J-bend spokes? If
>>>>>> not, the trade-off does not seem worth it.
>>>>>
>>>>> dude, you can buy mavic cosmos front wheels on sale for as little
>>>>> as $60. why bother to buy stuff and build it when you can get it
>>>>> ready made?
>>>>
>>>> Can I get a Mavic Cosmos in ISO 305-mm with single-sided disc brake
>>>> mounts? The same in ISO 406-mm? Plain old regular rim brake, fork
>>>> mounted wheel in ISO 406-mm size?
>>>
>>> you're being evasive.
>>
>> No "jimmy", Mavic does not serve the needs of those with small wheel
>> recumbents. I do not own a bicycle with ISO 622-mm, ISO 630-mm or ISO
>> 571-mm wheels.
>
> that's called "being evasive".
>
No "jimmy", that is called not owning an upright road bicycle. Hard to
test things that only fit standard upright road bicycles without a
upright road bicycle, no?
>
>>>>>> The other consideration is that until (if it happens)
>>>>>> straight-pull spokes become common, spares would be much harder to
>>>>>> find.
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? if they're more common, they're more common. aren't they?
>>>>
>>>> PITA for early adopters, however.
>>>
>>> eh? mavic have been selling complete wheels with straight pull
>>> spokes for /how/ long now? it's over 10 years. so when exactly does
>>> "early adoption" become "old hat"? is there a formula for this logic?
>>
>> Yehbut, who else makes these spokes? Can I get them anywhere?
>
> who cares who makes them? the question is whether they work. and you
> can buy them anywhere that sells mavic wheels.
>
Which is n-x, with n being the number of places that sell spokes and x
being the number of places that stock proprietary Mavic spokes.
>
>>>>>>>> If current spokes can be made to last 100,000 plus miles with
>>>>>>>> Jobst's wheel building technique, do we really need anything
>>>>>>>> better?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but where's the proof it's "his" technique? i want numbers. and
>>>>>>> where to the effects of superior spoke materials come into this
>>>>>>> picture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many have reported success with the technique. However, I agree
>>>>>> that a formal study would be a good thing, so the argument could
>>>>>> be conclusively settled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. given that some people still want to use traditional spokes,
>>>>>>>>> the next step is to mitigate known fatigue initiators. these
>>>>>>>>> include surface finish, composition, environment, etc. and
>>>>>>>>> eventually residual stress. but even then, since observed
>>>>>>>>> fatigue initiation points are /not/ those regions of the spoke
>>>>>>>>> with high residual stress, i.e. the outer and inner portions of
>>>>>>>>> the j-bend curve, residual stress theory is highly
>>>>>>>>> questionable. the next step for someone wanting to hypothesize
>>>>>>>>> residual stress relevance and alleged effectiveness of
>>>>>>>>> mitigation is to test and publish results. credentials pissing
>>>>>>>>> matches with those who dare point out that over a century of
>>>>>>>>> fatigue research is being ignored ["ignoring" again tom] simply
>>>>>>>>> don't do it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>>
>>>>>>>>>> No "jim", you still don't get why a sock puppet lacks
>>>>>>>>>> credibility.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no "tom", you don't understand why it's a red herring. or at
>>>>>>>>> least, you won't admit it because it doesn't suit you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On this we have to agree to disagree, since the argument would
>>>>>>>> just go in circles (sorry Andres).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that makes no sense. on one hand, we have an assertion for which
>>>>>>> there is no theoretical or even quantitative support, from an
>>>>>>> author who evidences fundamental misunderstandings of materials
>>>>>>> theory. on the other, we have text book fatigue mitigation based
>>>>>>> on over 100 years of research. what is there to disagree about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What there is to disagree about is that all else being equal, a
>>>>>> sock puppet has less credibility that someone using their real
>>>>>> identity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ad hominem! the resort of those unwilling to address naked
>>>>> emperors. and you're still not addressing the fundamental point:
>>>>>
>>>>> in the blue corner, we have johnny-come-lately with nothing other
>>>>> than assertion, bluster and something of a credibility problem
>>>>> since he didn't even realize that strain aging materials cannot be
>>>>> use as fatigue prevention models for materials that don't strain age.
>>>>
>>>> Did I ever say just that? No. Stop making silly assumptions.
>>>
>>> eh? try re-reading the whole passage again big guy.
>>
>> Now "jimmy" is being evasive.
>
> no, you jumped in too soon. read thos paragraphs together. if you can
> follow this long fucked-up thread that is.
>
Well, don't want people to accuse me of selective editing, do I?
>
>>>>> in the red corner, we have literally millions of hours of published
>>>>> academic research, and more importantly, _replicable quantified
>>>>> results_.
>>>>>
>>>>> want to address this now?
>>>>
>>>> "jim beam" still doesn't get why he lacks credibility.
>>>>
>>>
>>> so by that logic, you'd invest your retirement with a mutual fund
>>> that jammed a prestigious alma mater up your ass, disregarding that
>>> they'd consistently lost money every year for 20 years? if you don't
>>> think getting it right matters, you're gonna be working a /long/ old
>>> time there bud!
>>
>> Should I invest my money with a fund that uses a fake name and fake
>> contact information?
>
> what is a "fake name" anyway? how prudential is "prudential"? wtf is
> "liberty mutual" supposed to mean? i can't tell you what to do with
> your money, but i think you're better off focusing on performance there
> big guy.

Is your legal name "jim beam"?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:29:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
<snip for brevity >
> "jim" put forth the claim - therefore he should prove that the missing
> spoke wheel actually works as a bicycle wheel.

i have. your turn.

> Read your policy (if you have one).

i have. i've had the legal lecture too. that's why i said what i said.

> Well, it is messy, and I lack the proper space and equipment to use it.
> Besides, if I did the manufacturing of the part the wrong way (a
> distinct possibility), it would not prove anything other than my lack of
> training as a CFRP fabricator.

dodge.

>>
> No "jimmy", that is called not owning an upright road bicycle. Hard to
> test things that only fit standard upright road bicycles without a
> upright road bicycle, no?

so get a free upright of craigslist. [why am i getting deja vu?]

>>
> Which is n-x, with n being the number of places that sell spokes and x
> being the number of places that stock proprietary Mavic spokes.

eh? buy mavic spokes from a mavic dealer! problem?

> Well, don't want people to accuse me of selective editing, do I?

how about evasiveness?

> Is your legal name "jim beam"?

not all of it, no. but it's my right to withhold. and it's irrelevant
to what matters - just like investing your money based on who tells you
bedtime stories rather than who actually performs.

Date: 22 Aug 2007 23:47:15
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> <snip for brevity>
>> "jim" put forth the claim - therefore he should prove that the missing
>> spoke wheel actually works as a bicycle wheel.
>
> i have. your turn.

How does a static test prove it works as a wheel? Unless you are talking
about riding on a rear wheel trainer?

>> Read your policy (if you have one).
>
> i have. i've had the legal lecture too. that's why i said what i said.

I know all about "loss prevention". In my field, the "standard of care"
allows the use of many empirical methods and simplifying assumptions
because:

a - they work in the real world
b - the problems would be too difficult to solve and the results would
not be any better due to poorly quantified (by necessity) variables.

>> Well, it is messy, and I lack the proper space and equipment to use
>> it. Besides, if I did the manufacturing of the part the wrong way (a
>> distinct possibility), it would not prove anything other than my lack
>> of training as a CFRP fabricator.
>
> dodge.

Chrysler.

>> No "jimmy", that is called not owning an upright road bicycle. Hard to
>> test things that only fit standard upright road bicycles without a
>> upright road bicycle, no?
>
> so get a free upright of craigslist. [why am i getting deja vu?]

None in my area (I checked). Besides, being that high in the air is scary.

>> Which is n-x, with n being the number of places that sell spokes and x
>> being the number of places that stock proprietary Mavic spokes.
>
> eh? buy mavic spokes from a mavic dealer! problem?

So when I need a spoke in BFE, I can find a Mavic straight pull spoke?

>> Well, don't want people to accuse me of selective editing, do I?
>
> how about evasiveness?

How about lack of clarity with use of indefinite pronouns?

>> Is your legal name "jim beam"?
>
> not all of it, no. but it's my right to withhold. and it's irrelevant
> to what matters - just like investing your money based on who tells you
> bedtime stories rather than who actually performs.

Certainly it is your right to be anonymous, but you must accept (or be
in denial) that it negatively affects your credibility.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 22 Aug 2007 22:15:30
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> <snip for brevity>
>>> "jim" put forth the claim - therefore he should prove that the
>>> missing spoke wheel actually works as a bicycle wheel.
>>
>> i have. your turn.
>
> How does a static test prove it works as a wheel?

it works as a revolving wheel too. it's untrue and ugly, but it
supports weight.

> Unless you are talking
> about riding on a rear wheel trainer?

funny. maybe we should salt it and see if that makes the red herrings
easier to swallow too.

>
>>> Read your policy (if you have one).
>>
>> i have. i've had the legal lecture too. that's why i said what i said.
>
> I know all about "loss prevention". In my field, the "standard of care"
> allows the use of many empirical methods and simplifying assumptions
> because:
>
> a - they work in the real world
> b - the problems would be too difficult to solve and the results would
> not be any better due to poorly quantified (by necessity) variables.
>
>>> Well, it is messy, and I lack the proper space and equipment to use
>>> it. Besides, if I did the manufacturing of the part the wrong way (a
>>> distinct possibility), it would not prove anything other than my lack
>>> of training as a CFRP fabricator.
>>
>> dodge.
>
> Chrysler.
>
>>> No "jimmy", that is called not owning an upright road bicycle. Hard
>>> to test things that only fit standard upright road bicycles without a
>>> upright road bicycle, no?
>>
>> so get a free upright of craigslist. [why am i getting deja vu?]
>
> None in my area (I checked). Besides, being that high in the air is scary.

check again. and keep checking. "free" has the price of vigilance and
prompt action.

>
>>> Which is n-x, with n being the number of places that sell spokes and
>>> x being the number of places that stock proprietary Mavic spokes.
>>
>> eh? buy mavic spokes from a mavic dealer! problem?
>
> So when I need a spoke in BFE, I can find a Mavic straight pull spoke?

about as easily as a 6cm spoke or whatever it is your funny little
wheels use.

>
>>> Well, don't want people to accuse me of selective editing, do I?
>>
>> how about evasiveness?
>
> How about lack of clarity with use of indefinite pronouns?

dodge.

>
>>> Is your legal name "jim beam"?
>>
>> not all of it, no. but it's my right to withhold. and it's
>> irrelevant to what matters - just like investing your money based on
>> who tells you bedtime stories rather than who actually performs.
>
> Certainly it is your right to be anonymous,

right.

> but you must accept (or be
> in denial) that it negatively affects your credibility.

not at all. walking the walk is all that matters. people that simply
talk the talk are worthless. as are the gullible fools that fall for
their emissions.

Date: 23 Aug 2007 00:39:10
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip for brevity>
>>>> "jim" put forth the claim - therefore he should prove that the
>>>> missing spoke wheel actually works as a bicycle wheel.
>>>
>>> i have. your turn.
>>
>> How does a static test prove it works as a wheel?
>
> it works as a revolving wheel too. it's untrue and ugly, but it
> supports weight.

We want video!

>> Unless you are talking about riding on a rear wheel trainer?
>
> funny. maybe we should salt it and see if that makes the red herrings
> easier to swallow too.

I prefer sardines.

>>>> Read your policy (if you have one).
>>>
>>> i have. i've had the legal lecture too. that's why i said what i said.
>>
>> I know all about "loss prevention". In my field, the "standard of
>> care" allows the use of many empirical methods and simplifying
>> assumptions because:
>>
>> a - they work in the real world
>> b - the problems would be too difficult to solve and the results would
>> not be any better due to poorly quantified (by necessity) variables.
>>
>>>> Well, it is messy, and I lack the proper space and equipment to use
>>>> it. Besides, if I did the manufacturing of the part the wrong way (a
>>>> distinct possibility), it would not prove anything other than my
>>>> lack of training as a CFRP fabricator.
>>>
>>> dodge.
>>
>> Chrysler.
>>
>>>> No "jimmy", that is called not owning an upright road bicycle. Hard
>>>> to test things that only fit standard upright road bicycles without
>>>> a upright road bicycle, no?
>>>
>>> so get a free upright of craigslist. [why am i getting deja vu?]
>>
>> None in my area (I checked). Besides, being that high in the air is
>> scary.
>
> check again. and keep checking. "free" has the price of vigilance and
> prompt action.

Maybe if I get the time off work (a decent chance if the recession that
is starting takes hold.)

>>>> Which is n-x, with n being the number of places that sell spokes and
>>>> x being the number of places that stock proprietary Mavic spokes.
>>>
>>> eh? buy mavic spokes from a mavic dealer! problem?
>>
>> So when I need a spoke in BFE, I can find a Mavic straight pull spoke?
>
> about as easily as a 6cm spoke or whatever it is your funny little
> wheels use.

About the same spoke lengths as BMX and children's bicycles (just like I
can find temporary service tires and tubes in about every hardware store
and Sprawl-Mart in the US).

>>>> Well, don't want people to accuse me of selective editing, do I?
>>>
>>> how about evasiveness?
>>
>> How about lack of clarity with use of indefinite pronouns?
>
> dodge.

Plymouth.

>>>> Is your legal name "jim beam"?
>>>
>>> not all of it, no. but it's my right to withhold. and it's
>>> irrelevant to what matters - just like investing your money based on
>>> who tells you bedtime stories rather than who actually performs.
>>
>> Certainly it is your right to be anonymous,
>
> right.
>
>> but you must accept (or be in denial) that it negatively affects your
>> credibility.
>
> not at all. walking the walk is all that matters. people that simply
> talk the talk are worthless. as are the gullible fools that fall for
> their emissions.

You are in denial over this issue.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 23 Aug 2007 05:56:24
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip for brevity>
>>>>> "jim" put forth the claim - therefore he should prove that the
>>>>> missing spoke wheel actually works as a bicycle wheel.
>>>>
>>>> i have. your turn.
>>>
>>> How does a static test prove it works as a wheel?
>>
>> it works as a revolving wheel too. it's untrue and ugly, but it
>> supports weight.
>
> We want video!

do it yourself.

>
>>> Unless you are talking about riding on a rear wheel trainer?
>>
>> funny. maybe we should salt it and see if that makes the red herrings
>> easier to swallow too.
>
> I prefer sardines.
>
>>>>> Read your policy (if you have one).
>>>>
>>>> i have. i've had the legal lecture too. that's why i said what i
>>>> said.
>>>
>>> I know all about "loss prevention". In my field, the "standard of
>>> care" allows the use of many empirical methods and simplifying
>>> assumptions because:
>>>
>>> a - they work in the real world
>>> b - the problems would be too difficult to solve and the results
>>> would not be any better due to poorly quantified (by necessity)
>>> variables.
>>>
>>>>> Well, it is messy, and I lack the proper space and equipment to use
>>>>> it. Besides, if I did the manufacturing of the part the wrong way
>>>>> (a distinct possibility), it would not prove anything other than my
>>>>> lack of training as a CFRP fabricator.
>>>>
>>>> dodge.
>>>
>>> Chrysler.
>>>
>>>>> No "jimmy", that is called not owning an upright road bicycle. Hard
>>>>> to test things that only fit standard upright road bicycles without
>>>>> a upright road bicycle, no?
>>>>
>>>> so get a free upright of craigslist. [why am i getting deja vu?]
>>>
>>> None in my area (I checked). Besides, being that high in the air is
>>> scary.
>>
>> check again. and keep checking. "free" has the price of vigilance
>> and prompt action.
>
> Maybe if I get the time off work (a decent chance if the recession that
> is starting takes hold.)
>
>>>>> Which is n-x, with n being the number of places that sell spokes
>>>>> and x being the number of places that stock proprietary Mavic spokes.
>>>>
>>>> eh? buy mavic spokes from a mavic dealer! problem?
>>>
>>> So when I need a spoke in BFE, I can find a Mavic straight pull spoke?
>>
>> about as easily as a 6cm spoke or whatever it is your funny little
>> wheels use.
>
> About the same spoke lengths as BMX and children's bicycles (just like I
> can find temporary service tires and tubes in about every hardware store
> and Sprawl-Mart in the US).

but those shops rarely sell spokes at all big guy. looks like you'll be
stuck buying a whole wheel. kinda stupid situation for someone that
wants to make a big deal out of alleged parts unavailability.

>
>>>>> Well, don't want people to accuse me of selective editing, do I?
>>>>
>>>> how about evasiveness?
>>>
>>> How about lack of clarity with use of indefinite pronouns?
>>
>> dodge.
>
> Plymouth.
>
>>>>> Is your legal name "jim beam"?
>>>>
>>>> not all of it, no. but it's my right to withhold. and it's
>>>> irrelevant to what matters - just like investing your money based on
>>>> who tells you bedtime stories rather than who actually performs.
>>>
>>> Certainly it is your right to be anonymous,
>>
>> right.
>>
>>> but you must accept (or be in denial) that it negatively affects your
>>> credibility.
>>
>> not at all. walking the walk is all that matters. people that simply
>> talk the talk are worthless. as are the gullible fools that fall for
>> their emissions.
>
> You are in denial over this issue.
>

wow! don't you even feel the /slightest/ twinge of hypocrisy saying that?

Date: 24 Aug 2007 18:12:25
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> <snip for brevity>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Is your legal name "jim beam"?
>>>>>
>>>>> not all of it, no. but it's my right to withhold. and it's
>>>>> irrelevant to what matters - just like investing your money based
>>>>> on who tells you bedtime stories rather than who actually performs.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly it is your right to be anonymous,
>>>
>>> right.
>>>
>>>> but you must accept (or be in denial) that it negatively affects
>>>> your credibility.
>>>
>>> not at all. walking the walk is all that matters. people that
>>> simply talk the talk are worthless. as are the gullible fools that
>>> fall for their emissions.
>>
>> You are in denial over this issue.
>>
>
> wow! don't you even feel the /slightest/ twinge of hypocrisy saying that?

No. I believe you are just refusing to publicly admit that being
anonymous affects your credibility. What are you afraid of?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 25 Aug 2007 06:35:35
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> <snip for brevity>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Is your legal name "jim beam"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not all of it, no. but it's my right to withhold. and it's
>>>>>> irrelevant to what matters - just like investing your money based
>>>>>> on who tells you bedtime stories rather than who actually performs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly it is your right to be anonymous,
>>>>
>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>>> but you must accept (or be in denial) that it negatively affects
>>>>> your credibility.
>>>>
>>>> not at all. walking the walk is all that matters. people that
>>>> simply talk the talk are worthless. as are the gullible fools that
>>>> fall for their emissions.
>>>
>>> You are in denial over this issue.
>>>
>>
>> wow! don't you even feel the /slightest/ twinge of hypocrisy saying
>> that?
>
> No.

well you should because you're avoiding the essential point.

> I believe you are just refusing to publicly admit that being
> anonymous affects your credibility. What are you afraid of?
>

jobstian red herring.

Date: 25 Aug 2007 11:51:44
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:34:10
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

jim beam wrote:

> typical "engineer" bullshit.

What's with you and engineers? Were you abused as a child?

> one of the problems with you guys is this
> bizarre attitude about science not being relevant.

You must be thinking of choo-choo engineers.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:02:31
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> typical "engineer" bullshit.
>
> What's with you and engineers? Were you abused as a child?
>
>> one of the problems with you guys is this bizarre attitude about
>> science not being relevant.
>
> You must be thinking of choo-choo engineers.

no, i'm thinking of "engineers" that hang out on bike groups and don't
check facts.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 18:26:07
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> typical "engineer" bullshit.
>
> What's with you and engineers? Were you abused as a child?
>
>> one of the problems with you guys is this bizarre attitude about
>> science not being relevant.
>
> You must be thinking of choo-choo engineers.

Or "Operating Engineers", i.e. heavy equipment operators.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Aug 2007 00:39:16
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TYVM.

Date: 19 Aug 2007 09:03:19
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

Bill Sornson wrote:
> HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> TYVM.

Hey, we are just honoring Andres Muro's request to have arguments with
"jim beam". ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Aug 2007 15:59:45
From: fart bell
Subject: Re: New hub from Shimano

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com > wrote in message
news:46c759fe$0$20193$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> jim beam wrote:
> > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >> Andrew Muzi mused:
> >>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> >>>>> Great news..at least they are 'listening", I guess. I wonder if the
> >>>>> freehub can be retro-fitted to a 7800 hub??
> >>>>>
http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/news___info/news
/new_dura-ace_freehub.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>> Gee Peter, I thought you would have been excited about the new
> >>>> Shimano low spoke count (16/20 F/R) carbon-alloy composite, scandium
> >>>> and carbon fiber composite rims. ;)
> >>>
> >>> The heck with Peter.
> >>> We're quite excited, these things generate lots of custom handbuilt
> >>> wheel sales for us.
> >>
> >> Replacement wheels for customers who want something less foo-foo than
> >> the OEM wheels?
> >>
> >> Can one even build a wheel with "16 butted (2.0-1.5-2.0), stainless
> >> steel spokes" without a special fixture to deflect the rim at the
> >> spoke that is being tensioned?
> >>
> >
> > of course!!! wow, jobstian fud swallowed hook, line & sinker!!!
>
> So how many low-spoke wheels have you built "jim"? I thought you
> recommended buying them "out of box"?
>

LOL pwned

> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> BEER IS FOOD
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>