bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 12 Sep 2007 15:42:59 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote in message news:... > > <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message > news:46e721e2$0$14069$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >> someone with neither name or email address writes: >> The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the rude >> style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I hope that >> those who have something to offer omit self righteous name calling and >> four letter words. Such posts generally cancel opinions expressed and >> degrade the level of discourse to trash. >> >> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying >> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the >> opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty your own space. > > The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the > difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive enough to > do so. I suspect many others have the same perception > > However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups through > insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more significantly, > allow people like beamboy to continue polluting discussion groups with > impunity. There's something to be said for fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a protagonsit can understand.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 08:13:08 From: andresmuro@aol.com Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Sep 14, 8:44 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <GoqdnViFBPmh8nfbnZ2dnUVZ_jKdn...@comcast.com>, > Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Doug Taylor wrote: > > > > I think what we are seeing is a precursor to Godwin's Law: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law > > > > As often observed at family holiday dinner tables, accelerated > > > there by the fuel of alcohol, what commences as a "discussion," > > > devolves into a "disagreement," descends into an "argument," > > > degenerates into "name calling and insults," and culminates as > > > "fistfight." > > > The disagreement has a turning point when name calling starts. Dies > > it take so much restraint to avoid that? > > Apparently the answer to that is "yes." ;-) Mike J. studiously avoids > descending into name calling, however. Actually, the name calling adds spice to the whole experience. I realize that some don't have the stomach for that, but I find it amusing. I think that jb and jambo going at each other has been pretty entertaining to me. While it does not bother me if someone calls me names, I understand that it may bother others. My suggestion is, just ignore threads where name calling is used, or simply avoid the posts by the name callers. It should be pretty clear for example that, at this point jb and jambo will use explicit language against each other. The will likely not add anything new to the discussion. So, all that people have to do is avoid reading posts between these two characters if they find the exchanges bothersome. OTOH, we can get some balls like the participants in the racing group. Over there they preface everything with dumbass or something like that. So, namecalling pretty much becomes irrelevant once they get over the intro. another alternative is to preface everything a la Carl. Dear so and so. Nobody would dare insult Carl, no matter how much we disagree with him. He is always so F----g polite and F----g helpful that it is almost disturbing. something else to note is that we can be sometimes very offensive, be- littleing without any name calling. Jobst is clearly the master at that. He can tell people that they are stupid and ignorant in many different ways without ever using foul language. It must be the standford connection. Those northern Californians are so pc. Andres   Date: 13 Sep 2007 17:10:57 From: damyth Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Sep 13, 2:18 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com > wrote: > >> I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what > >> theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, > >> there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the > >> original photo and description that started this thread even happened = in > >> the > >> first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else > >> to > >> say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an > >> extraordinarily low standard of proof. > > > Wow, now you're questioning whether the photos are doctored?? Later > > on in your post you write "people aren't dying left and right due to > > failing frames." Why are you trying so hard to SPIN this? > > I am doing nothing more than pointing out there is virtually nothing, in = the > information provided, to ascertain what actually happened. Nothing I have > said contradicts that position. I have provided other possibilities, but I > have never said that's what happened. > > Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. That > annoys the heck out of me. And that's why I'm still in this thread. You c= an > try to rationalize my position as worthless because you think I want to > "spin" it. Fine. Just please get me more information about this crash. Sh= ow > me something beyond that photo and the one paragraph description of the > accident. > > Take me to the scene of the crime. Tell me where it is. Tell me about oth= ers > who went out there and inspected the area, to reconstruct it. Tell me how > the person involved responded when asked more questions about the inciden= t=2E > > Tell me. Show me. > > --Mike Jacoubowsky > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA > > "damyth" <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message > > news:1189707361.175779.9470@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On Sep 12, 8:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the > >> > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credential= ed > >> > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that > >> > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured > >> > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. > >> > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," > >> > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory > >> > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is > >> > "manufacturing defect." > > >> I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what > >> theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, > >> there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the > >> original photo and description that started this thread even happened = in > >> the > >> first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else > >> to > >> say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an > >> extraordinarily low standard of proof. > > > Wow, now you're questioning whether the photos are doctored?? Later > > on in your post you write "people aren't dying left and right due to > > failing frames." Why are you trying so hard to SPIN this? > > > In the original "CF Shatters" thread various people advanced various > > theories as to what might have happened: > > > 1. prior crash > > 2. overzealous clamping of down tube with roof rack > > 3. head on hit to the curb/or some other cause for sudden stop > > 4. owner neglect > > 5. manufacturing defect > > > Basically theories 1-4 belong in the class "I've never seen stuff like > > this happen before, therefore the owner MUST have done something > > wrong, surely this is more than JRA." Mr. Muzi, despite all his "I > > don't know, seek legal counsel" posts, was cheerleading this view > > advanced in a post by Mr. McNamara: > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2cea1029cb04d897 > > > You (Mr. Jacoubowsky) advanced theory number 3: > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a1dd8c407cf72fc5 > > > I then explained in subsequent posts that a well-manufactured CF tube > > was extremely unlike to shatter transversely in two places on the same > > ride, none of the theories 1-4 accounts for the down tube shattering > > in 2 places : > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6e4a1cc03d7b1bd5 > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/45d71a93f29108f7 > > > If you've been technically trained, you'd understand the concept of > > hypothesis testing, nothing can be proved to 100% certainty, in most > > cases you advance various hypotheses, and essentially use a process of > > elimination (proof by contradiction), by showing all hypotheses to be > > false except one. Since none of theories account for the down tube > > shattering in two places, they're "disproven," especially when the > > rest of the bike is pristine, and presumably the owner didn't have the > > bike more than two months. The OP's actual words were "I ride a SCOTT > > CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month." > > >> > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to kn= ow > >> > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves > >> > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough > >> > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames a= re > >> > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the cr= ap > >> > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a > >> > justifiable risk? > > >> There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame mater= ial > >> that has ever been brought to cycling. Carbon fiber is little different > >> from > >> any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrib= le > >> frame. You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or > >> inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, aft= er > >> the > >> fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, > >> sometimes > >> intentionally. > > >> And why are you bringing China into this? As if the fact that they poi= son > >> our kids with lead paint has anything to do with high tech and not > >> everything to do with simple greed? We could get into a lengthy > >> discussion > >> about the pitfalls of offshoring manufacturing to a culture with > >> different > >> standards and ways of dealing with things than our own, but I don't th= ink > >> that's really rec.bicycles.tech material. But I'll contribute something > >> anyway. Trek learned ages ago, as has most every manufacturer (probably > >> including Scott), that if you want something done right (by our > >> standards) > >> in China, you have to have one of your own people there supervising. > >> That's > >> just the way it is. This might be more practical for a bicycle company > >> than > >> a toy company, since manufacturing is more centralized (factories aren= 't > >> spread throughout the country, due to the need for relatively high-tech > >> tooling and skills), and the cost of each individual piece is higher. > > > I bring China into this because I suspect the Scott frames are made > > there. I don't know, this is something you as a bike dealer can > > easily verify. In a country where there's not been a tradition or > > internalization of QA, using CF manufactured there for bikes is indeed > > Russian Roulette. > > >> > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note th= at > >> > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his > >> > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wi= sh > >> > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been > >> > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you > >> > *still* think the risk is justifiable? > > >> My apologies if I said that "nobody died" riding a carbon fiber bike. I > >> doubt that's the case; there are enough of them out there that it's a > >> near > >> certainty that people have died riding carbon fiber bikes, and it's ev= en > >> likely, given the numbers, that somebody might have died due to someth= ing > >> defective. That's certainly been the case with aluminum, steel & titan= ium > >> bikes, and I have no reason to believe there's something so magical ab= out > >> carbon fiber that it can't be screwed up in a fashion that couldn't > >> seriously injure or kill someone. Manufacturing itself is a flawed > >> process, > >> because perfection is not sustainable in the long run. Too many > >> variables. > >> Aluminum frames have had their front ends literally fall off at the > >> welds. > >> Steel forks have collapsed because they weren't brazed properly, or > >> somebody > >> screwed up and thought long welded tangs on the inside of the blades w= ere > >> a > >> good idea. Titanium frames have failed at welds. > > >> All of which proves nothing whatsoever in terms of suitability of a > >> material > >> to build a bicycle. > > > Right. And because CF manufacturing is so labor intensive, and has so > > many additional variables compared to metals, why take the additional > > risk? This is the flip side of the China question earlier. > > >> And again, as I pointed out previously, I've had multiple stem failure= s=2E > >> Both failed at times I'd rather they hadn't (during sprints). Both were > >> just > >> as capable of putting me down on the ground as any frame failure > >> imaginable, > >> although it's difficult to imagine a frame failure that would give > >> absolutely zero warning, as the stems did. So, do I think about that w= hen > >> descending Old La Honda (why would you do that, by the way? 84 is much > >> safer) or Kings Mtn? No. Because I've put a zillion miles on bicycles > >> over > >> the years, and such failures are exceptionally rare. > > >> So what is a justifiable risk to you? Is any risk whatsoever justifiab= le? > >> I > >> take a risk every time I ride my bike, especially descending. But I'm = not > >> concerned about the sort of failure we've dealt with in this thread. I= 'm > >> concerned there could be a piece of glass with my name on it, causing a > >> blowout in a corner through which I cannot > > ... > > read more =BB And what makes you qualified to judge what constitutes "sufficient information" to make an informed judgment regarding exactly what transpired in the case of the Scott frame? Let me give you some hints: 1=2E Calculate the force required to shatter a well-manufactured CF tube of similar diameter, wall thickness, and plies of CF. Do this empirically (i.e. destructive testing), if you don't have the required data necessary to calculate this. 2=2E Calculate, as an example, what speed an (average) passenger car would have to be traveling towards a stationary wall to generate this force, in a head on collision. 3=2E Now calculate the force required, as in (1), the force required to shatter the CF tube twice within a 12 foot span, simultaneously. Get my drift? I'm sure if you contact the OP's lawyers, they would be happy to share the information you request. ScottUSA, on the other hand.....     Date: 13 Sep 2007 20:32:09 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued damyth wrote: > On Sep 13, 2:18 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> > wrote: >>>> I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what >>>> theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, >>>> there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the >>>> original photo and description that started this thread even happened in >>>> the >>>> first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else >>>> to >>>> say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an >>>> extraordinarily low standard of proof. >>> Wow, now you're questioning whether the photos are doctored?? Later >>> on in your post you write "people aren't dying left and right due to >>> failing frames." Why are you trying so hard to SPIN this? >> I am doing nothing more than pointing out there is virtually nothing, in the >> information provided, to ascertain what actually happened. Nothing I have >> said contradicts that position. I have provided other possibilities, but I >> have never said that's what happened. >> >> Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. That >> annoys the heck out of me. And that's why I'm still in this thread. You can >> try to rationalize my position as worthless because you think I want to >> "spin" it. Fine. Just please get me more information about this crash. Show >> me something beyond that photo and the one paragraph description of the >> accident. >> >> Take me to the scene of the crime. Tell me where it is. Tell me about others >> who went out there and inspected the area, to reconstruct it. Tell me how >> the person involved responded when asked more questions about the incident. >> >> Tell me. Show me. >> >> --Mike Jacoubowsky >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com >> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA >> >> "damyth" <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189707361.175779.9470@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >>> On Sep 12, 8:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the >>>>> original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed >>>>> technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that >>>>> manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured >>>>> Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. >>>>> Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," >>>>> offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory >>>>> proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is >>>>> "manufacturing defect." >>>> I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what >>>> theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, >>>> there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the >>>> original photo and description that started this thread even happened in >>>> the >>>> first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else >>>> to >>>> say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an >>>> extraordinarily low standard of proof. >>> Wow, now you're questioning whether the photos are doctored?? Later >>> on in your post you write "people aren't dying left and right due to >>> failing frames." Why are you trying so hard to SPIN this? >>> In the original "CF Shatters" thread various people advanced various >>> theories as to what might have happened: >>> 1. prior crash >>> 2. overzealous clamping of down tube with roof rack >>> 3. head on hit to the curb/or some other cause for sudden stop >>> 4. owner neglect >>> 5. manufacturing defect >>> Basically theories 1-4 belong in the class "I've never seen stuff like >>> this happen before, therefore the owner MUST have done something >>> wrong, surely this is more than JRA." Mr. Muzi, despite all his "I >>> don't know, seek legal counsel" posts, was cheerleading this view >>> advanced in a post by Mr. McNamara: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2cea1029cb04d897 >>> You (Mr. Jacoubowsky) advanced theory number 3: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a1dd8c407cf72fc5 >>> I then explained in subsequent posts that a well-manufactured CF tube >>> was extremely unlike to shatter transversely in two places on the same >>> ride, none of the theories 1-4 accounts for the down tube shattering >>> in 2 places : >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6e4a1cc03d7b1bd5 >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/45d71a93f29108f7 >>> If you've been technically trained, you'd understand the concept of >>> hypothesis testing, nothing can be proved to 100% certainty, in most >>> cases you advance various hypotheses, and essentially use a process of >>> elimination (proof by contradiction), by showing all hypotheses to be >>> false except one. Since none of theories account for the down tube >>> shattering in two places, they're "disproven," especially when the >>> rest of the bike is pristine, and presumably the owner didn't have the >>> bike more than two months. The OP's actual words were "I ride a SCOTT >>> CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month." >>>>> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know >>>>> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves >>>>> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough >>>>> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are >>>>> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap >>>>> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a >>>>> justifiable risk? >>>> There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material >>>> that has ever been brought to cycling. Carbon fiber is little different >>>> from >>>> any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible >>>> frame. You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or >>>> inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after >>>> the >>>> fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, >>>> sometimes >>>> intentionally. >>>> And why are you bringing China into this? As if the fact that they poison >>>> our kids with lead paint has anything to do with high tech and not >>>> everything to do with simple greed? We could get into a lengthy >>>> discussion >>>> about the pitfalls of offshoring manufacturing to a culture with >>>> different >>>> standards and ways of dealing with things than our own, but I don't think >>>> that's really rec.bicycles.tech material. But I'll contribute something >>>> anyway. Trek learned ages ago, as has most every manufacturer (probably >>>> including Scott), that if you want something done right (by our >>>> standards) >>>> in China, you have to have one of your own people there supervising. >>>> That's >>>> just the way it is. This might be more practical for a bicycle company >>>> than >>>> a toy company, since manufacturing is more centralized (factories aren't >>>> spread throughout the country, due to the need for relatively high-tech >>>> tooling and skills), and the cost of each individual piece is higher. >>> I bring China into this because I suspect the Scott frames are made >>> there. I don't know, this is something you as a bike dealer can >>> easily verify. In a country where there's not been a tradition or >>> internalization of QA, using CF manufactured there for bikes is indeed >>> Russian Roulette. >>>>> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that >>>>> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his >>>>> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish >>>>> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been >>>>> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you >>>>> *still* think the risk is justifiable? >>>> My apologies if I said that "nobody died" riding a carbon fiber bike. I >>>> doubt that's the case; there are enough of them out there that it's a >>>> near >>>> certainty that people have died riding carbon fiber bikes, and it's even >>>> likely, given the numbers, that somebody might have died due to something >>>> defective. That's certainly been the case with aluminum, steel & titanium >>>> bikes, and I have no reason to believe there's something so magical about >>>> carbon fiber that it can't be screwed up in a fashion that couldn't >>>> seriously injure or kill someone. Manufacturing itself is a flawed >>>> process, >>>> because perfection is not sustainable in the long run. Too many >>>> variables. >>>> Aluminum frames have had their front ends literally fall off at the >>>> welds. >>>> Steel forks have collapsed because they weren't brazed properly, or >>>> somebody >>>> screwed up and thought long welded tangs on the inside of the blades were >>>> a >>>> good idea. Titanium frames have failed at welds. >>>> All of which proves nothing whatsoever in terms of suitability of a >>>> material >>>> to build a bicycle. >>> Right. And because CF manufacturing is so labor intensive, and has so >>> many additional variables compared to metals, why take the additional >>> risk? This is the flip side of the China question earlier. >>>> And again, as I pointed out previously, I've had multiple stem failures. >>>> Both failed at times I'd rather they hadn't (during sprints). Both were >>>> just >>>> as capable of putting me down on the ground as any frame failure >>>> imaginable, >>>> although it's difficult to imagine a frame failure that would give >>>> absolutely zero warning, as the stems did. So, do I think about that when >>>> descending Old La Honda (why would you do that, by the way? 84 is much >>>> safer) or Kings Mtn? No. Because I've put a zillion miles on bicycles >>>> over >>>> the years, and such failures are exceptionally rare. >>>> So what is a justifiable risk to you? Is any risk whatsoever justifiable? >>>> I >>>> take a risk every time I ride my bike, especially descending. But I'm not >>>> concerned about the sort of failure we've dealt with in this thread. I'm >>>> concerned there could be a piece of glass with my name on it, causing a >>>> blowout in a corner through which I cannot >> ... >> >> read more � > > And what makes you qualified to judge what constitutes "sufficient > information" to make an informed judgment regarding exactly what > transpired in the case of the Scott frame? experience. > > Let me give you some hints: > 1. Calculate the force required to shatter a well-manufactured CF tube > of similar diameter, wall thickness, and plies of CF. Do this > empirically (i.e. destructive testing), if you don't have the required > data necessary to calculate this. failure analysis doesn't work like that - you work backwards, not forwards. > 2. Calculate, as an example, what speed an (average) passenger car > would have to be traveling towards a stationary wall to generate this > force, in a head on collision. > 3. Now calculate the force required, as in (1), the force required to > shatter the CF tube twice within a 12 foot span, simultaneously. > > Get my drift? no, you're a-drift. > > I'm sure if you contact the OP's lawyers, they would be happy to share > the information you request. ScottUSA, on the other hand..... you're underinformed and being sensationalistic.       Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:34:20 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:0bKdnUC4jPMknXfbnZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@speakeasy.net... > damyth wrote: >> And what makes you qualified to judge what constitutes "sufficient >> information" to make an informed judgment regarding exactly what >> transpired in the case of the Scott frame? > > experience. And of course you know this to be true, don't you? Or you're just siding with the other camp, because it agrees with your own mythical belief of CF's magical powers. >> >> Let me give you some hints: >> 1. Calculate the force required to shatter a well-manufactured CF tube >> of similar diameter, wall thickness, and plies of CF. Do this >> empirically (i.e. destructive testing), if you don't have the required >> data necessary to calculate this. > > failure analysis doesn't work like that - you work backwards, not > forwards. Says someone who has no basic scientific training whatsoever. Here we go again. In the absence of the actual components, failure analysis also involves parallel testing of similar components and circumstances. >> 2. Calculate, as an example, what speed an (average) passenger car >> would have to be traveling towards a stationary wall to generate this >> force, in a head on collision. >> 3. Now calculate the force required, as in (1), the force required to >> shatter the CF tube twice within a 12 foot span, simultaneously. >> >> Get my drift? > > no, you're a-drift. What a devastating retort from beamboy, CF Whisperer extraordinaire. >> I'm sure if you contact the OP's lawyers, they would be happy to share >> the information you request. ScottUSA, on the other hand..... > > you're underinformed and being sensationalistic. Coming from you, that means absolutely nothing.         Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:36:14 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:0bKdnUC4jPMknXfbnZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> damyth wrote: >>> And what makes you qualified to judge what constitutes "sufficient >>> information" to make an informed judgment regarding exactly what >>> transpired in the case of the Scott frame? >> experience. > > And of course you know this to be true, don't you? Or you're just siding > with the other camp, because it agrees with your own mythical belief of CF's > magical powers. > >>> Let me give you some hints: >>> 1. Calculate the force required to shatter a well-manufactured CF tube >>> of similar diameter, wall thickness, and plies of CF. Do this >>> empirically (i.e. destructive testing), if you don't have the required >>> data necessary to calculate this. >> failure analysis doesn't work like that - you work backwards, not >> forwards. > > Says someone who has no basic scientific training whatsoever. Here we go > again. > > In the absence of the actual components, failure analysis also involves > parallel testing of similar components and circumstances. > >>> 2. Calculate, as an example, what speed an (average) passenger car >>> would have to be traveling towards a stationary wall to generate this >>> force, in a head on collision. >>> 3. Now calculate the force required, as in (1), the force required to >>> shatter the CF tube twice within a 12 foot span, simultaneously. >>> >>> Get my drift? >> no, you're a-drift. > > What a devastating retort from beamboy, CF Whisperer extraordinaire. > >>> I'm sure if you contact the OP's lawyers, they would be happy to share >>> the information you request. ScottUSA, on the other hand..... >> you're underinformed and being sensationalistic. > > Coming from you, that means absolutely nothing. > > you're a fucking moron. you shoot your freakin' mouth off like you think you're some hot scientific shit, yet you don't know the most basic of basic engineering principles. dude, not only are you a moron, you're a fraud.   Date: 13 Sep 2007 11:16:01 From: damyth Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Sep 12, 8:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote: > > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the > > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed > > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that > > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured > > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. > > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," > > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory > > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is > > "manufacturing defect." > > I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what > theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, > there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the > original photo and description that started this thread even happened in the > first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else to > say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an > extraordinarily low standard of proof. > Wow, now you're questioning whether the photos are doctored?? Later on in your post you write "people aren't dying left and right due to failing frames." Why are you trying so hard to SPIN this? In the original "CF Shatters" thread various people advanced various theories as to what might have happened: 1. prior crash 2. overzealous clamping of down tube with roof rack 3. head on hit to the curb/or some other cause for sudden stop 4. owner neglect 5. manufacturing defect Basically theories 1-4 belong in the class "I've never seen stuff like this happen before, therefore the owner MUST have done something wrong, surely this is more than JRA." Mr. Muzi, despite all his "I don't know, seek legal counsel" posts, was cheerleading this view advanced in a post by Mr. McNamara: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2cea1029cb04d897 You (Mr. Jacoubowsky) advanced theory number 3: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a1dd8c407cf72fc5 I then explained in subsequent posts that a well-manufactured CF tube was extremely unlike to shatter transversely in two places on the same ride, none of the theories 1-4 accounts for the down tube shattering in 2 places : http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6e4a1cc03d7b1bd5 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/45d71a93f29108f7 If you've been technically trained, you'd understand the concept of hypothesis testing, nothing can be proved to 100% certainty, in most cases you advance various hypotheses, and essentially use a process of elimination (proof by contradiction), by showing all hypotheses to be false except one. Since none of theories account for the down tube shattering in two places, they're "disproven," especially when the rest of the bike is pristine, and presumably the owner didn't have the bike more than two months. The OP's actual words were "I ride a SCOTT CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month." > > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know > > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves > > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough > > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are > > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap > > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a > > justifiable risk? > > There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material > that has ever been brought to cycling. Carbon fiber is little different from > any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible > frame. You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or > inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after the > fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, sometimes > intentionally. > > And why are you bringing China into this? As if the fact that they poison > our kids with lead paint has anything to do with high tech and not > everything to do with simple greed? We could get into a lengthy discussion > about the pitfalls of offshoring manufacturing to a culture with different > standards and ways of dealing with things than our own, but I don't think > that's really rec.bicycles.tech material. But I'll contribute something > anyway. Trek learned ages ago, as has most every manufacturer (probably > including Scott), that if you want something done right (by our standards) > in China, you have to have one of your own people there supervising. That's > just the way it is. This might be more practical for a bicycle company than > a toy company, since manufacturing is more centralized (factories aren't > spread throughout the country, due to the need for relatively high-tech > tooling and skills), and the cost of each individual piece is higher. > I bring China into this because I suspect the Scott frames are made there. I don't know, this is something you as a bike dealer can easily verify. In a country where there's not been a tradition or internalization of QA, using CF manufactured there for bikes is indeed Russian Roulette. > > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that > > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his > > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish > > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been > > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you > > *still* think the risk is justifiable? > > My apologies if I said that "nobody died" riding a carbon fiber bike. I > doubt that's the case; there are enough of them out there that it's a near > certainty that people have died riding carbon fiber bikes, and it's even > likely, given the numbers, that somebody might have died due to something > defective. That's certainly been the case with aluminum, steel & titanium > bikes, and I have no reason to believe there's something so magical about > carbon fiber that it can't be screwed up in a fashion that couldn't > seriously injure or kill someone. Manufacturing itself is a flawed process, > because perfection is not sustainable in the long run. Too many variables. > Aluminum frames have had their front ends literally fall off at the welds. > Steel forks have collapsed because they weren't brazed properly, or somebody > screwed up and thought long welded tangs on the inside of the blades were a > good idea. Titanium frames have failed at welds. > > All of which proves nothing whatsoever in terms of suitability of a material > to build a bicycle. > Right. And because CF manufacturing is so labor intensive, and has so many additional variables compared to metals, why take the additional risk? This is the flip side of the China question earlier. > And again, as I pointed out previously, I've had multiple stem failures. > Both failed at times I'd rather they hadn't (during sprints). Both were just > as capable of putting me down on the ground as any frame failure imaginable, > although it's difficult to imagine a frame failure that would give > absolutely zero warning, as the stems did. So, do I think about that when > descending Old La Honda (why would you do that, by the way? 84 is much > safer) or Kings Mtn? No. Because I've put a zillion miles on bicycles over > the years, and such failures are exceptionally rare. > > So what is a justifiable risk to you? Is any risk whatsoever justifiable? I > take a risk every time I ride my bike, especially descending. But I'm not > concerned about the sort of failure we've dealt with in this thread. I'm > concerned there could be a piece of glass with my name on it, causing a > blowout in a corner through which I cannot recover, and possibly sending me > into the path of an oncoming car. I think the risk of high-quality equipment > failing is insignificant in comparison. > The issue is not failure per se, the issue is catastrophic failure. I don't know what happened in the case of your (presumably aluminum) stems, but metal gives users plenty of warning before failing. The issue with CF is that it doesn't. > > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may > > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why > > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? > > Spin that one for me. > > Why? > Because you're spinning (and I don't mean that in a good way). See the first paragraph in my reply. > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com > > "damyth" <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message > > news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> > > wrote: > >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs > >> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share > >> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense > >> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. > > >> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when > >> somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited > >> about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a > >> single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical > >> usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly > >> what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next > >> week > >> coming up with ways to defend that initial position. > > >> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet > >> another > >> thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python > >> "witch" > >> sketch. > > >> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world, > >> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they > >> *should* be, I guess. > > >> --Mike Jacoubowsky > >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com > >> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA > > >> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > >>news:B9WdnafJ5eML_HXbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> >> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message news:... > >> >>> <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message > > >> >>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate > >> >>>> replying > >> >>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the > >> >>>> opponent. > > >> >>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups > >> >>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more > >> >>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting > >> >>> discussion groups with impunity. > > >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs > >> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share > >> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense > >> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. > > >> > I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully > >> > get pushed back every once in a while. > > > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the > > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed > > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that > > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured > > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. > > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," > > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory > > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is > > "manufacturing defect." > > > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know > > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves > > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough > > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are > > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap > > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a > > justifiable risk? > > > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that > > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his > > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish > > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been > > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you > > *still* think the risk is justifiable? > > > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may > > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why > > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? > > Spin that one for me.     Date: 13 Sep 2007 19:50:27 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued -snip carbon tube in 2 places- damyth wrote: > Basically theories 1-4 belong in the class "I've never seen stuff like > this happen before, therefore the owner MUST have done something > wrong, surely this is more than JRA." Mr. Muzi, despite all his "I > don't know, seek legal counsel" posts, was cheerleading this view > advanced in a post by Mr. McNamara: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2cea1029cb04d897 My comment "Gold star for Tim" in response to his "JRA may mean much more" was to note that there very may well be much more than we can know. And likely is. Simplistic "defective material" as well as "abused frame" are outlandishly hasty conclusions based on what we saw. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971     Date: 13 Sep 2007 17:28:02 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <1189707361.175779.9470@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote: > On Sep 12, 8:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the > > > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the > > > credentialed technologists (myself included) came forward and > > > stated that manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case > > > of the pictured Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially > > > bike shop owners, A. Muzi, yourself come to mind) were > > > speculating "more than JRA," offering theories that were easily > > > disproven. The only theory proposed so far in that thread that > > > has NOT yet been disproven is "manufacturing defect." > > > > I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing > > what theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I > > can tell, there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even > > proof that the original photo and description that started this > > thread even happened in the first place. I believe something did > > happen, but for you or anyone else to say there's proof of anything > > thus far can only be an indication of an extraordinarily low > > standard of proof. > > Wow, now you're questioning whether the photos are doctored?? Later > on in your post you write "people aren't dying left and right due to > failing frames." Why are you trying so hard to SPIN this? Wow, you are leaping to some spectacularly unfounded conclusions. > In the original "CF Shatters" thread various people advanced various > theories as to what might have happened: > > 1. prior crash > 2. overzealous clamping of down tube with roof rack > 3. head on hit to the curb/or some other cause for sudden stop > 4. owner neglect > 5. manufacturing defect > > Basically theories 1-4 belong in the class "I've never seen stuff like > this happen before, therefore the owner MUST have done something > wrong, surely this is more than JRA." So, in your credentialed opinion ideas 1-4 are simply impossible? Can't happen? > I then explained in subsequent posts that a well-manufactured CF tube > was extremely unlike to shatter transversely in two places on the same > ride, none of the theories 1-4 accounts for the down tube shattering > in 2 places : > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6e4a1cc03d7b1bd5 > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/45d71a93f29108f7 And as was pointed out to you at the time, your conclusion was based on assumptions rather than a foundation in fact. > If you've been technically trained, you'd understand the concept of > hypothesis testing, nothing can be proved to 100% certainty, in most > cases you advance various hypotheses, and essentially use a process of > elimination (proof by contradiction), by showing all hypotheses to be > false except one. Since none of theories account for the down tube > shattering in two places, they're "disproven," especially when the > rest of the bike is pristine, and presumably the owner didn't have the > bike more than two months. The OP's actual words were "I ride a SCOTT > CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month." You're the one trying hard to "SPIN" this, as you accuse others of doing. The rest of us have pointed out that there are several options, that the cause is undiagnosable over the Internet, and that the OP should get expert counsel. You've chosen to walk out onto a limb with a saw in hand. That, of course, is your prerogative. > > > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to > > > know that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek > > > themselves admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur > > > frequently enough compared to metal frames. I don't know where > > > the Scott CF frames are made (I assume China, but don't actually > > > know), but given all the crap that been happening to Chinese > > > products, are you saying this is a justifiable risk? > > > > There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame > > material that has ever been brought to cycling. Carbon fiber is > > little different from any other material. You can build a great > > frame out of it, or a terrible frame. You can build a frame > > appropriate for a given purpose, or inappropriate. And > > unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after the fact, to > > subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, sometimes > > intentionally. > > > > And why are you bringing China into this? As if the fact that they > > poison our kids with lead paint has anything to do with high tech > > and not everything to do with simple greed? We could get into a > > lengthy discussion about the pitfalls of offshoring manufacturing > > to a culture with different standards and ways of dealing with > > things than our own, but I don't think that's really > > rec.bicycles.tech material. But I'll contribute something anyway. > > Trek learned ages ago, as has most every manufacturer (probably > > including Scott), that if you want something done right (by our > > standards) in China, you have to have one of your own people there > > supervising. That's just the way it is. This might be more > > practical for a bicycle company than a toy company, since > > manufacturing is more centralized (factories aren't spread > > throughout the country, due to the need for relatively high-tech > > tooling and skills), and the cost of each individual piece is > > higher. > > > I bring China into this because I suspect the Scott frames are made > there. I don't know, this is something you as a bike dealer can > easily verify. In a country where there's not been a tradition or > internalization of QA, using CF manufactured there for bikes is > indeed Russian Roulette. And thereby perpetuating your house of cards even further. Good grief, in the "credentialing" process didn't your education require a class in formal logic? <snip > Jeez, man, you're not even convincing me and I'm the knuckle-dragging retrogrouch mouth breather (just ask Doug Taylor) who thinks that CF is an unsuitable material from which to make bikes. If you can't even convince the people who are prejudicially disposed to agree with you, you've really made a weak argument. I have no expectation that you will be able to understand why that is, however.     Date: 13 Sep 2007 21:18:24 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued >> I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what >> theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, >> there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the >> original photo and description that started this thread even happened in >> the >> first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else >> to >> say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an >> extraordinarily low standard of proof. >> > > Wow, now you're questioning whether the photos are doctored?? Later > on in your post you write "people aren't dying left and right due to > failing frames." Why are you trying so hard to SPIN this? I am doing nothing more than pointing out there is virtually nothing, in the information provided, to ascertain what actually happened. Nothing I have said contradicts that position. I have provided other possibilities, but I have never said that's what happened. Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. That annoys the heck out of me. And that's why I'm still in this thread. You can try to rationalize my position as worthless because you think I want to "spin" it. Fine. Just please get me more information about this crash. Show me something beyond that photo and the one paragraph description of the accident. Take me to the scene of the crime. Tell me where it is. Tell me about others who went out there and inspected the area, to reconstruct it. Tell me how the person involved responded when asked more questions about the incident. Tell me. Show me. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote in message news:1189707361.175779.9470@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 12, 8:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the >> > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed >> > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that >> > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured >> > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. >> > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," >> > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory >> > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is >> > "manufacturing defect." >> >> I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what >> theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, >> there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the >> original photo and description that started this thread even happened in >> the >> first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else >> to >> say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an >> extraordinarily low standard of proof. >> > > Wow, now you're questioning whether the photos are doctored?? Later > on in your post you write "people aren't dying left and right due to > failing frames." Why are you trying so hard to SPIN this? > > In the original "CF Shatters" thread various people advanced various > theories as to what might have happened: > > 1. prior crash > 2. overzealous clamping of down tube with roof rack > 3. head on hit to the curb/or some other cause for sudden stop > 4. owner neglect > 5. manufacturing defect > > Basically theories 1-4 belong in the class "I've never seen stuff like > this happen before, therefore the owner MUST have done something > wrong, surely this is more than JRA." Mr. Muzi, despite all his "I > don't know, seek legal counsel" posts, was cheerleading this view > advanced in a post by Mr. McNamara: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2cea1029cb04d897 > > You (Mr. Jacoubowsky) advanced theory number 3: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a1dd8c407cf72fc5 > > I then explained in subsequent posts that a well-manufactured CF tube > was extremely unlike to shatter transversely in two places on the same > ride, none of the theories 1-4 accounts for the down tube shattering > in 2 places : > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6e4a1cc03d7b1bd5 > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/45d71a93f29108f7 > > If you've been technically trained, you'd understand the concept of > hypothesis testing, nothing can be proved to 100% certainty, in most > cases you advance various hypotheses, and essentially use a process of > elimination (proof by contradiction), by showing all hypotheses to be > false except one. Since none of theories account for the down tube > shattering in two places, they're "disproven," especially when the > rest of the bike is pristine, and presumably the owner didn't have the > bike more than two months. The OP's actual words were "I ride a SCOTT > CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month." > >> > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know >> > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves >> > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough >> > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are >> > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap >> > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a >> > justifiable risk? >> >> There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material >> that has ever been brought to cycling. Carbon fiber is little different >> from >> any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible >> frame. You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or >> inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after >> the >> fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, >> sometimes >> intentionally. >> >> And why are you bringing China into this? As if the fact that they poison >> our kids with lead paint has anything to do with high tech and not >> everything to do with simple greed? We could get into a lengthy >> discussion >> about the pitfalls of offshoring manufacturing to a culture with >> different >> standards and ways of dealing with things than our own, but I don't think >> that's really rec.bicycles.tech material. But I'll contribute something >> anyway. Trek learned ages ago, as has most every manufacturer (probably >> including Scott), that if you want something done right (by our >> standards) >> in China, you have to have one of your own people there supervising. >> That's >> just the way it is. This might be more practical for a bicycle company >> than >> a toy company, since manufacturing is more centralized (factories aren't >> spread throughout the country, due to the need for relatively high-tech >> tooling and skills), and the cost of each individual piece is higher. >> > I bring China into this because I suspect the Scott frames are made > there. I don't know, this is something you as a bike dealer can > easily verify. In a country where there's not been a tradition or > internalization of QA, using CF manufactured there for bikes is indeed > Russian Roulette. > >> > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that >> > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his >> > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish >> > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been >> > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you >> > *still* think the risk is justifiable? >> >> My apologies if I said that "nobody died" riding a carbon fiber bike. I >> doubt that's the case; there are enough of them out there that it's a >> near >> certainty that people have died riding carbon fiber bikes, and it's even >> likely, given the numbers, that somebody might have died due to something >> defective. That's certainly been the case with aluminum, steel & titanium >> bikes, and I have no reason to believe there's something so magical about >> carbon fiber that it can't be screwed up in a fashion that couldn't >> seriously injure or kill someone. Manufacturing itself is a flawed >> process, >> because perfection is not sustainable in the long run. Too many >> variables. >> Aluminum frames have had their front ends literally fall off at the >> welds. >> Steel forks have collapsed because they weren't brazed properly, or >> somebody >> screwed up and thought long welded tangs on the inside of the blades were >> a >> good idea. Titanium frames have failed at welds. >> >> All of which proves nothing whatsoever in terms of suitability of a >> material >> to build a bicycle. >> > Right. And because CF manufacturing is so labor intensive, and has so > many additional variables compared to metals, why take the additional > risk? This is the flip side of the China question earlier. > >> And again, as I pointed out previously, I've had multiple stem failures. >> Both failed at times I'd rather they hadn't (during sprints). Both were >> just >> as capable of putting me down on the ground as any frame failure >> imaginable, >> although it's difficult to imagine a frame failure that would give >> absolutely zero warning, as the stems did. So, do I think about that when >> descending Old La Honda (why would you do that, by the way? 84 is much >> safer) or Kings Mtn? No. Because I've put a zillion miles on bicycles >> over >> the years, and such failures are exceptionally rare. >> >> So what is a justifiable risk to you? Is any risk whatsoever justifiable? >> I >> take a risk every time I ride my bike, especially descending. But I'm not >> concerned about the sort of failure we've dealt with in this thread. I'm >> concerned there could be a piece of glass with my name on it, causing a >> blowout in a corner through which I cannot recover, and possibly sending >> me >> into the path of an oncoming car. I think the risk of high-quality >> equipment >> failing is insignificant in comparison. >> > The issue is not failure per se, the issue is catastrophic failure. I > don't know what happened in the case of your (presumably aluminum) > stems, but metal gives users plenty of warning before failing. The > issue with CF is that it doesn't. > >> > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may >> > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why >> > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? >> > Spin that one for me. >> >> Why? >> > Because you're spinning (and I don't mean that in a good way). See > the first paragraph in my reply. > >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com >> >> "damyth" <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> >> > wrote: >> >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs >> >> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who >> >> > share >> >> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common >> >> > sense >> >> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. >> >> >> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on >> >> when >> >> somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets >> >> excited >> >> about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture >> >> of a >> >> single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in >> >> typical >> >> usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know >> >> exactly >> >> what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next >> >> week >> >> coming up with ways to defend that initial position. >> >> >> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet >> >> another >> >> thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python >> >> "witch" >> >> sketch. >> >> >> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real >> >> world, >> >> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they >> >> *should* be, I guess. >> >> >> --Mike Jacoubowsky >> >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com >> >> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA >> >> >> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> >>news:B9WdnafJ5eML_HXbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> >> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message news:... >> >> >>> <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message >> >> >> >>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate >> >> >>>> replying >> >> >>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of >> >> >>>> the >> >> >>>> opponent. >> >> >> >>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups >> >> >>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and >> >> >>> more >> >> >>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting >> >> >>> discussion groups with impunity. >> >> >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs >> >> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who >> >> > share >> >> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common >> >> > sense >> >> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. >> >> >> > I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal >> >> > bully >> >> > get pushed back every once in a while. >> >> > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the >> > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed >> > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that >> > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured >> > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. >> > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," >> > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory >> > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is >> > "manufacturing defect." >> >> > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know >> > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves >> > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough >> > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are >> > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap >> > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a >> > justifiable risk? >> >> > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that >> > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his >> > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish >> > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been >> > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you >> > *still* think the risk is justifiable? >> >> > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may >> > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why >> > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? >> > Spin that one for me. > >       Date: 13 Sep 2007 21:05:00 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <AOhGi.26675$eY.6446@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net >, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote: > Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation makes you look like a mud slinger and a cheerleader for a faction. > That > annoys the heck out of me. And that's why I'm still in this thread. You can > try to rationalize my position as worthless because you think I want to > "spin" it. Fine. Just please get me more information about this crash. Show > me something beyond that photo and the one paragraph description of the > accident. -- Michael Press         Date: 13 Sep 2007 23:30:54 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued >> Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. > > Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to > you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation > makes you look like a mud slinger and a cheerleader for > a faction. Yeah, I know. Must resist responding too often; I should wait until relevant new material presents itself. Given the history of this thread, the most appropriate action would simply be to kill-file it. So why do *you* hang around? What's in it for you? What's in it for me? Maybe it's that watching-a-train-wreck thing. Only worse, 'cuz in person you only see it once. This is the you-tube version, where you get to see it again, and again, and again. This thread really *is* designed to bring out the worst in us! : >) --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-C63794.21050013092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <AOhGi.26675$eY.6446@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote: > >> Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. > > Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to > you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation > makes you look like a mud slinger and a cheerleader for > a faction. > >> That >> annoys the heck out of me. And that's why I'm still in this thread. You >> can >> try to rationalize my position as worthless because you think I want to >> "spin" it. Fine. Just please get me more information about this crash. >> Show >> me something beyond that photo and the one paragraph description of the >> accident. > > -- > Michael Press           Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:14:02 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <zUpGi.2987$Sd4.589@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com >, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote: > >> Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. > > > > Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to > > you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation > > makes you look like a mud slinger and a cheerleader for > > a faction. > > > Yeah, I know. Must resist responding too often; I should wait until relevant > new material presents itself. Given the history of this thread, the most > appropriate action would simply be to kill-file it. When I used `citation' I was not clear. I meant cite a message by a poster here that manifests the activity you consider ill advised. Saying that a thread manifests some activity tars everyone with the same brush. > So why do *you* hang around? What's in it for you? What's in it for me? > Maybe it's that watching-a-train-wreck thing. Only worse, 'cuz in person you > only see it once. This is the you-tube version, where you get to see it > again, and again, and again. > > This thread really *is* designed to bring out the worst in us! :>) Smiley noted. -- Michael Press           Date: 14 Sep 2007 09:46:44 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <zUpGi.2987$Sd4.589@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com >, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote: > So why do *you* hang around? What's in it for you? What's in it for > me? Maybe it's that watching-a-train-wreck thing. Only worse, 'cuz in > person you only see it once. This is the you-tube version, where you > get to see it again, and again, and again. That made me laugh. I hand around because I have actually learned a lot about bikes. There's a lot of chaff to be separated from the wheat, to be sure, but there is some very good quality wheat to be found.         Date: 13 Sep 2007 21:56:08 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Michael Press wrote: > In article > <AOhGi.26675$eY.6446@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote: > >> Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. > > Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to > you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article if the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply dismiss it as mumbo jumbo? just get straight to the point and start the abuse. unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally incapable actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, i see no point wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. are not here for any damned thing other than to have fight, so let them have it. > makes you look like a mud slinger and a cheerleader for > a faction. and those incapable of learning look like what? > >> That >> annoys the heck out of me. And that's why I'm still in this thread. You can >> try to rationalize my position as worthless because you think I want to >> "spin" it. Fine. Just please get me more information about this crash. Show >> me something beyond that photo and the one paragraph description of the >> accident. >           Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:37:09 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:NcOdnZJGKZP0iXfbnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Michael Press wrote: >> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to >> you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation > > er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article if the > underinformed, under i.q.ed and and > terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply dismiss it as > mumbo jumbo? just get straight to the point and start the abuse. Yes, we all understand your M.O, beamboy. Sadly though, it's made you look the incredible fool that you are. Now don't go about trying to get people to join your band - stand up for yourself, CF Whisperer! >> makes you look like a mud slinger and a cheerleader for >> a faction. > > and those incapable of learning look like what? Why, like YOU, beamboy!           Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:02:53 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <NcOdnZJGKZP0iXfbnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Michael Press wrote: > > In article > > <AOhGi.26675$eY.6446@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote: > > > >> Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. > > > > Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to > > you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation > > er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article if Cite a posting where the undesirable activity transpires. You did not read what I wrote at all closely. -- Michael Press             Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:46:36 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Michael Press wrote: > In article > <NcOdnZJGKZP0iXfbnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Michael Press wrote: >>> In article >>> <AOhGi.26675$eY.6446@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, >>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Again, this thread makes wild extrapolations based upon minimal data. >>> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to >>> you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation >> er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article if > > Cite a posting where the undesirable activity transpires. > You did not read what I wrote at all closely. > eh? you snip context yet accuse of not reading closely? that's ridiculous.           Date: 14 Sep 2007 08:25:34 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued jim beam wrote: > Michael Press wrote: >> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to >> you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation > > er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article if > the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and > terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply dismiss it > as mumbo jumbo? just get straight to the point and start the abuse. So, abuse is the point? > unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally incapable > actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, i see no point > wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. are not here for any > damned thing other than to have fight, so let them have it. Right, just start insulting people immediately, because you're smarter than all of them. You are such an asset to this NG.             Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:39:56 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message news:n9qdnSxlsa4i4HfbnZ2dnUVZ_vihnZ2d@comcast.com... > jim beam wrote: >> Michael Press wrote: > >>> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to >>> you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation >> >> er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article if >> the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and >> terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply dismiss it >> as mumbo jumbo? just get straight to the point and start the abuse. > > So, abuse is the point? In beamboy's case, due to his absence of scientific training and absolute lack of scientific principles and credible technical arguments, a resounding YES! >> unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally incapable >> actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, i see no point >> wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. are not here for any >> damned thing other than to have fight, so let them have it. > > Right, just start insulting people immediately, because you're smarter > than all of them. You are such an asset to this NG. Except that he's not "smarter than all of them", he's just deluded in thinking so. The worst kind of delusional.             Date: 14 Sep 2007 10:40:41 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <n9qdnSxlsa4i4HfbnZ2dnUVZ_vihnZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > jim beam wrote: > > Michael Press wrote: > > >> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to you. > >> Editorializing and generalizing without citation > > > > er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article > > if the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and > > terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply > > dismiss it as mumbo jumbo? And yet when others post references, many if not most of us go and check it out. Being that the Internets about with resources that are easy to find thanks to the Google, the resistance is not to new information but to accepting declarations based on the arrogated authority of an anonymous sock puppet. Especially when the available literature in the field of said anonymous sock puppet's claimed field of expertise contradicts the claims of said anonymous sock puppet. > > just get straight to the point and start the abuse. > > So, abuse is the point? It does seem to be for jim. He has long since stopped providing any actual information. > > unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally incapable > > actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, i see no > > point wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. are not > > here for any damned thing other than to have fight, so let them > > have it. > > Right, just start insulting people immediately, because you're > smarter than all of them. You are such an asset to this NG. That about sums it up. As Mike points out in another post, "jim beam" like many on Usenet (myself included) is probably not near as arrogant and stupidly vicious in person. Nobody would have anything to do with such a person- they'd be unemployable and would have no friends. Anonymity tends to increase aggression; even when we use our real names we remain fairly anonymous to each other because we don't see a person, we just see the writing on the screen. The more anonymous we are, the more likely we are to be aggressive. We probably develop context-specific "aggressive scripts" as a way of functioning in the world in general and with repetition these scripts become activated much more easily. Usenet and the Internet in general provide a number of conditions conducive to aggressive behavior (e.g., anonymity as already noted, ambiguous social cues, impoverishment of information [no nonverbal cues such as tone of voice, facial expression, movements or posture which carry a large part of the meaning of a statement], low risk of adverse consequences from aggressive behavior, frequent frustration as one comes up against hardened positions taken by others, etc.). Most of the aggressive behavior on the Internet would be characterized as "instrumental aggression," in which the aggression is not intended to injure or kill but as a way to achieve some other goal. Some of us do a better job than the rest of managing our base impulses. Most of us should do a better job of it.               Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:21:38 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <n9qdnSxlsa4i4HfbnZ2dnUVZ_vihnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> jim beam wrote: >>> Michael Press wrote: >>>> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to you. >>>> Editorializing and generalizing without citation >>> er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article >>> if the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and >>> terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply >>> dismiss it as mumbo jumbo? > > And yet when others post references, many if not most of us go and check > it out. Being that the Internets about with resources that are easy to > find thanks to the Google, the resistance is not to new information but > to accepting declarations based on the arrogated authority of an > anonymous sock puppet. Especially when the available literature in the > field of said anonymous sock puppet's claimed field of expertise > contradicts the claims of said anonymous sock puppet. > >>> just get straight to the point and start the abuse. >> So, abuse is the point? > > It does seem to be for jim. He has long since stopped providing any > actual information. > >>> unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally incapable >>> actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, i see no >>> point wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. are not >>> here for any damned thing other than to have fight, so let them >>> have it. >> Right, just start insulting people immediately, because you're >> smarter than all of them. You are such an asset to this NG. > > That about sums it up. > > As Mike points out in another post, "jim beam" like many on Usenet > (myself included) is probably not near as arrogant and stupidly vicious > in person. Nobody would have anything to do with such a person- they'd > be unemployable and would have no friends. Anonymity tends to increase > aggression; even when we use our real names we remain fairly anonymous > to each other because we don't see a person, we just see the writing on > the screen. The more anonymous we are, the more likely we are to be > aggressive. > > We probably develop context-specific "aggressive scripts" as a way of > functioning in the world in general and with repetition these scripts > become activated much more easily. Usenet and the Internet in general > provide a number of conditions conducive to aggressive behavior (e.g., > anonymity as already noted, ambiguous social cues, impoverishment of > information [no nonverbal cues such as tone of voice, facial expression, > movements or posture which carry a large part of the meaning of a > statement], low risk of adverse consequences from aggressive behavior, > frequent frustration as one comes up against hardened positions taken by > others, etc.). Most of the aggressive behavior on the Internet would be > characterized as "instrumental aggression," in which the aggression is > not intended to injure or kill but as a way to achieve some other goal. > > Some of us do a better job than the rest of managing our base impulses. > Most of us should do a better job of it. You raise some interesting points. I guess the question for me is which of our "personas" is the "real" us -- face to face, or virtual. I'm more inclined to believe that people inhibit their real reactions/prejudices in face to face as opposed to the anonymity of the Internet. My mother used to say "Always believe a drunk.", suggesting that loss of inhibitions allowed true feelings to emerge. I know (in the real world) I appear somewhat opinionated and blunt, but people often seek me out for honest opinions. In juxtaposition to that, I'm a very amiable drunk. Besides the learning opportunities, this kind of forum provides something that an ad hoc discussion at the coffee shop doesn't -- a transcript. If you're at all a student of interpersonal dynamics, reviewing threads can be fascinating. In theory, the facelessness of the virtual world should let us form impressions via content rather than appearance; in actuality, perhaps it only serves to allow us to project our own biases easier. I don't know. The only person I've known under both personas seems pretty much the same in both worlds. Perhaps conversations don't get as fractious at Starbucks, but they're rarely as substantial, either. Perhaps the discussions here get heated because they're really to hot to handle in the real world. Besides all the "he said, she said", there is the reality that a good argument forces you to go digging and actually learn some new stuff. The input of resident or visiting experts is a unique resource. This is the only NG I post on, but I've done many projects where I've Googled NG archives and dug up leads or answers that I wouldn't have found any other way. I rebuilt a car engine this winter, for instance. I was saved many "gotchas".                 Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:02:28 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <nZOdnXwAVM-vTHfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <n9qdnSxlsa4i4HfbnZ2dnUVZ_vihnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> jim beam wrote: > >>> Michael Press wrote: > >>>> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to you. > >>>> Editorializing and generalizing without citation > >>> er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical > >>> article if the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and > >>> terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply > >>> dismiss it as mumbo jumbo? > > > > And yet when others post references, many if not most of us go and > > check it out. Being that the Internets about with resources that > > are easy to find thanks to the Google, the resistance is not to new > > information but to accepting declarations based on the arrogated > > authority of an anonymous sock puppet. Especially when the > > available literature in the field of said anonymous sock puppet's > > claimed field of expertise contradicts the claims of said anonymous > > sock puppet. > > > >>> just get straight to the point and start the abuse. > >> So, abuse is the point? > > > > It does seem to be for jim. He has long since stopped providing > > any actual information. > > > >>> unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally > >>> incapable actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, > >>> i see no point wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. > >>> are not here for any damned thing other than to have fight, so > >>> let them have it. > >> Right, just start insulting people immediately, because you're > >> smarter than all of them. You are such an asset to this NG. > > > > That about sums it up. > > > > As Mike points out in another post, "jim beam" like many on Usenet > > (myself included) is probably not near as arrogant and stupidly > > vicious in person. Nobody would have anything to do with such a > > person- they'd be unemployable and would have no friends. > > Anonymity tends to increase aggression; even when we use our real > > names we remain fairly anonymous to each other because we don't see > > a person, we just see the writing on the screen. The more > > anonymous we are, the more likely we are to be aggressive. > > > > We probably develop context-specific "aggressive scripts" as a way > > of functioning in the world in general and with repetition these > > scripts become activated much more easily. Usenet and the Internet > > in general provide a number of conditions conducive to aggressive > > behavior (e.g., anonymity as already noted, ambiguous social cues, > > impoverishment of information [no nonverbal cues such as tone of > > voice, facial expression, movements or posture which carry a large > > part of the meaning of a statement], low risk of adverse > > consequences from aggressive behavior, frequent frustration as one > > comes up against hardened positions taken by others, etc.). Most > > of the aggressive behavior on the Internet would be characterized > > as "instrumental aggression," in which the aggression is not > > intended to injure or kill but as a way to achieve some other goal. > > > > Some of us do a better job than the rest of managing our base > > impulses. Most of us should do a better job of it. > > You raise some interesting points. I guess the question for me is > which of our "personas" is the "real" us -- face to face, or virtual. > I'm more inclined to believe that people inhibit their real > reactions/prejudices in face to face as opposed to the anonymity of > the Internet. My mother used to say "Always believe a drunk.", > suggesting that loss of inhibitions allowed true feelings to emerge. > I know (in the real world) I appear somewhat opinionated and blunt, > but people often seek me out for honest opinions. In juxtaposition to > that, I'm a very amiable drunk. Well, from a sort-of Freudian perspective that might be true, but only if you define people as a primitive covered by a veneer of civilization and further define the primitive as the "real" person." I think that there is no one "real" person for any of us- who we are is always in context and as contexts change and shift who we are changes and shifts too. And yet we also have traits and behavioral habits that tend to be relatively persistent (e.g., "personality"). Disinhibition (whether through anonymity, alcohol etc.) probably reveals much about us but so do the choices we make in being civil and cooperative. Competition may improve the breed in Darwinian terms but in social terms it is cooperation that has allowed the human race to accomplish anything worth a damn. > Besides the learning opportunities, this kind of forum provides > something that an ad hoc discussion at the coffee shop doesn't -- a > transcript. If you're at all a student of interpersonal dynamics, > reviewing threads can be fascinating. In theory, the facelessness of > the virtual world should let us form impressions via content rather > than appearance; in actuality, perhaps it only serves to allow us to > project our own biases easier. I don't know. The only person I've > known under both personas seems pretty much the same in both worlds. > Perhaps conversations don't get as fractious at Starbucks, but > they're rarely as substantial, either. Perhaps the discussions here > get heated because they're really to hot to handle in the real world. I hadn't thought of Usenet as a collection of transcripts but of course that is exactly what it is. As a psychologist in my working life I am always interested in interpersonal dynamics, and that does add a certain interest to reading these threads. It can become too much, though- I stopped reading r.b.r. some years ago for that reason. I think that it's likely there are some similarities between one's online persona and one's flesh-and-blood personality but there are differences too. The only regular r.b.t.-er I have met in person is Andrew Muzi, whom I found to be very likeable and not at all what I expected in terms of appearance. We didn't discuss politics so I don't know if he would be as firm on that topic as he is on Usenet (I know I tend to tone it down in person unless I know the person well). And not only is Andrew well versed in bikes- he was extremely helpful in finding me someone near his shop to fix my Volvo on short notice. I've met a few local folks who read but don't post much, whose response on introduction was "Oh, you're *that* Tim McNamara?" Not sure what that meant... :-P > Besides all the "he said, she said", there is the reality that a good > argument forces you to go digging and actually learn some new stuff. > The input of resident or visiting experts is a unique resource. This > is the only NG I post on, but I've done many projects where I've > Googled NG archives and dug up leads or answers that I wouldn't have > found any other way. I rebuilt a car engine this winter, for > instance. I was saved many "gotchas". Usenet is an amazing repository of collective wisdom mixed with collective stupidity. With a bit of sifting and a careful eye there is much to be learned.                   Date: 15 Sep 2007 10:34:29 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <nZOdnXwAVM-vTHfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com>, > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> You raise some interesting points. I guess the question for me is >> which of our "personas" is the "real" us -- face to face, or virtual. >> I'm more inclined to believe that people inhibit their real >> reactions/prejudices in face to face as opposed to the anonymity of >> the Internet. > > Well, from a sort-of Freudian perspective that might be true, but only > if you define people as a primitive covered by a veneer of civilization > and further define the primitive as the "real" person." I think that > there is no one "real" person for any of us- who we are is always in > context and as contexts change and shift who we are changes and shifts > too. And yet we also have traits and behavioral habits that tend to be > relatively persistent (e.g., "personality"). Disinhibition (whether > through anonymity, alcohol etc.) probably reveals much about us but so > do the choices we make in being civil and cooperative. Competition may > improve the breed in Darwinian terms but in social terms it is > cooperation that has allowed the human race to accomplish anything worth > a damn. I think this question is much like the same one about auto driving -- do cars make us jerks or just reveal the inner jerk in us. I don't think you need to go as far as Freud to support the latter position. I agree with the comment on social Darwinism, there's an unfortunate tendency to oversimplify "hard" science and apply it to "soft" science. That said, I don't have a problem with competition in the context of learning/investigation, but competition without rules leads to chaos. The lack of "external" rules in venues like this means that we have to rely more on "internal" rules (self regulation) to keep the signal:noise ratio from declining to zero. As satisfying as name-calling might be, it is selfish, because indulgence brings everything down. I compliment your restraint. In normal social interactions people usually observe the "avoid politics and religion" rule. Here, we get into both, as cycling is sort of a religion to some. The consequences are predictable.                     Date: 15 Sep 2007 18:59:16 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <44WdnTZZrpLqcHbbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <nZOdnXwAVM-vTHfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> You raise some interesting points. I guess the question for me is > >> which of our "personas" is the "real" us -- face to face, or > >> virtual. I'm more inclined to believe that people inhibit their > >> real reactions/prejudices in face to face as opposed to the > >> anonymity of the Internet. > > > > > Well, from a sort-of Freudian perspective that might be true, but > > only if you define people as a primitive covered by a veneer of > > civilization and further define the primitive as the "real" > > person." I think that there is no one "real" person for any of us- > > who we are is always in context and as contexts change and shift > > who we are changes and shifts too. And yet we also have traits and > > behavioral habits that tend to be relatively persistent (e.g., > > "personality"). Disinhibition (whether through anonymity, alcohol > > etc.) probably reveals much about us but so do the choices we make > > in being civil and cooperative. Competition may improve the breed > > in Darwinian terms but in social terms it is cooperation that has > > allowed the human race to accomplish anything worth a damn. > > I think this question is much like the same one about auto driving -- > do cars make us jerks or just reveal the inner jerk in us. I don't > think you need to go as far as Freud to support the latter position. Well, I wasn't supporting the latter position, which is essentially rather Romantic in that it presupposes an "inner" or "core" or "essential" person which is the "true" person, the "noble savage" untrammeled by society. I don't see any reason to assume there is a core self- at least not a self with permanence. > I agree with the comment on social Darwinism, there's an unfortunate > tendency to oversimplify "hard" science and apply it to "soft" > science. That said, I don't have a problem with competition in the > context of learning/investigation, but competition without rules > leads to chaos. Competition within cooperation. However the Republicans keep telling us that regulation is wrong and it should be a free-for-all; but only in the business sector. Private lives should be regulated by the government to ensure morality according to God's police force in Washington. > The lack of "external" rules in venues like this means that we have > to rely more on "internal" rules (self regulation) to keep the > signal:noise ratio from declining to zero. As satisfying as > name-calling might be, it is selfish, because indulgence brings > everything down. That's quite true. Usenet has conventions but cooperation with those conventions if pretty voluntary, as there are really few ways to enforce "rules" in this setting. > I compliment your restraint. Wow. That's a first. :-) > In normal social interactions people usually observe the "avoid > politics and religion" rule. Here, we get into both, as cycling is > sort of a religion to some. The consequences are predictable. Yup. And in every other newsgroup, too.             Date: 14 Sep 2007 06:11:00 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Michael Press wrote: > >>> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to >>> you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation >> >> er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article if >> the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and >> terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply dismiss >> it as mumbo jumbo? just get straight to the point and start the abuse. > > So, abuse is the point? > > >> unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally incapable >> actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, i see no point >> wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. are not here for >> any damned thing other than to have fight, so let them have it. > > Right, just start insulting people immediately, because you're smarter > than all of them. You are such an asset to this NG. are you just too stupid to notice correlation between the negativity and bullshit you inject with your perverted need to argue, and the abuse you receive in return? or are you just such an abused child you think /everyone/ is out to ram a stick up your ass so you'd better get there first? engage brain. analyze. consider that others may just have a point, may just have checked facts, and may just have experience /you don't have/. calling people liars when they're not is going to produce guaranteed results. and it isn't knowledge growth.               Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:42:13 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:CZCdnTSX4t_4FXfbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > engage brain. analyze. consider that others may just have a point, may > just have checked facts, and may just have experience /you don't have/. > calling people liars when they're not is going to produce guaranteed > results. and it isn't knowledge growth. Wow, I couldn't have lectured you in those words better myself, beamboy. Are you really going to follow that preaching?               Date: 14 Sep 2007 10:14:43 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Michael Press wrote: >> >>>> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to >>>> you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation >>> >>> er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article >>> if the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and >>> terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply dismiss >>> it as mumbo jumbo? just get straight to the point and start the abuse. >> >> So, abuse is the point? >> >> >>> unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally incapable >>> actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, i see no point >>> wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. are not here for >>> any damned thing other than to have fight, so let them have it. >> >> Right, just start insulting people immediately, because you're smarter >> than all of them. You are such an asset to this NG. > > are you just too stupid to notice correlation between the negativity and > bullshit you inject with your perverted need to argue, and the abuse > you receive in return? or are you just such an abused child you think > /everyone/ is out to ram a stick up your ass so you'd better get there > first? I have not abused anyone. You are, by a large margin, the most abusive presence on this NG. > engage brain. analyze. consider that others may just have a point, may > just have checked facts, and may just have experience /you don't have/. > calling people liars when they're not is going to produce guaranteed > results. and it isn't knowledge growth. I have not called anyone a liar. I have spent many hours "checking facts". I have cited many of the facts I have found. I have found many/most of your assertions to be false. I can't recall a citation you've made to back your point up. I have not called you a liar (or any other abusive term). I do think you are a verbal bully and hide behind anonymity. You single me out as having divergent views. In truth, most of my views were majority views, I can't recall one that was solitary. I don't think the same thing can be said for you.                 Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:44:25 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Michael Press wrote: >>> >>>>> Address matters as they arise when it matters enough to >>>>> you. Editorializing and generalizing without citation >>>> >>>> er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article >>>> if the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and >>>> terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply dismiss >>>> it as mumbo jumbo? just get straight to the point and start the abuse. >>> >>> So, abuse is the point? >>> >>> >>>> unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally incapable >>>> actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, i see no >>>> point wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. are not >>>> here for any damned thing other than to have fight, so let them have >>>> it. >>> >>> Right, just start insulting people immediately, because you're >>> smarter than all of them. You are such an asset to this NG. >> >> are you just too stupid to notice correlation between the negativity >> and bullshit you inject with your perverted need to argue, and the >> abuse you receive in return? or are you just such an abused child you >> think /everyone/ is out to ram a stick up your ass so you'd better get >> there first? > > I have not abused anyone. You are, by a large margin, the most abusive > presence on this NG. > > >> engage brain. analyze. consider that others may just have a point, >> may just have checked facts, and may just have experience /you don't >> have/. calling people liars when they're not is going to produce >> guaranteed results. and it isn't knowledge growth. > > I have not called anyone a liar. > > I have spent many hours "checking facts". I have cited many of the facts > I have found. I have found many/most of your assertions to be false. wow, that's a pretty dumb assertion from a guy that thinks stainless steel has an endurance limit and doesn't even understand the distinction between elasticity and plasticity. i mean, it's not like you can't look that stuff up in 5 minutes so you can get it right. > I > can't recall a citation you've made to back your point up. I have not > called you a liar (or any other abusive term). I do think you are a > verbal bully and hide behind anonymity. poor peter - you gainsay and contest, regardless of facts, freely spreading bullshit as you go, yet i am the one with the problem - just because i call you for what you are. oh well, then i am abusive. and i'll keep on being so as long as you keep on bullshitting. > > You single me out as having divergent views. no, i single you out as a bullshitter!!! > In truth, most of my views > were majority views, but you contradict fact! if that's a "majority view" in your mind, you need therapy! > I can't recall one that was solitary. er, plasticity is not elasticity. damned convenient if you can't recall that. > I don't think > the same thing can be said for you. that's your selective memory. see above.                   Date: 15 Sep 2007 10:08:29 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> I have not abused anyone. You are, by a large margin, the most abusive >> presence on this NG. >> >> >>> engage brain. analyze. consider that others may just have a point, >>> may just have checked facts, and may just have experience /you don't >>> have/. calling people liars when they're not is going to produce >>> guaranteed results. and it isn't knowledge growth. >> >> I have not called anyone a liar. >> >> I have spent many hours "checking facts". I have cited many of the >> facts I have found. I have found many/most of your assertions to be >> false. > > wow, that's a pretty dumb assertion from a guy that thinks stainless > steel has an endurance limit and doesn't even understand the distinction > between elasticity and plasticity. I do, and have at least since studying materials in college, understand the "difference between elasticity and plasticity". I have never confused the two except in your mind. Stainless steel does have an endurance limit. I have posted numerous cites that say so. Anybody who wishes to confirm this can just Google it themselves. You have rejected this in the past because you didn't recognize the mechanism, therefore it can't happen. You seem to be alone in this (lack of) belief. I can't reconcile this with a claimed expertise in metallurgy.                     Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:40:09 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: > >>> I have not abused anyone. You are, by a large margin, the most >>> abusive presence on this NG. >>> >>> >>>> engage brain. analyze. consider that others may just have a point, >>>> may just have checked facts, and may just have experience /you don't >>>> have/. calling people liars when they're not is going to produce >>>> guaranteed results. and it isn't knowledge growth. >>> >>> I have not called anyone a liar. >>> >>> I have spent many hours "checking facts". I have cited many of the >>> facts I have found. I have found many/most of your assertions to be >>> false. >> >> wow, that's a pretty dumb assertion from a guy that thinks stainless >> steel has an endurance limit and doesn't even understand the >> distinction between elasticity and plasticity. > > I do, and have at least since studying materials in college, understand > the "difference between elasticity and plasticity". I have never > confused the two except in your mind. so what was your intent in citing plastic elongation in comparison to elastic elongation? if you /do/ understand the distinction, we can only conclude that your intent was to deceive since you /know/ then to be different. > > Stainless steel does have an endurance limit. I have posted numerous > cites that say so. Anybody who wishes to confirm this can just Google it > themselves. no it doesn't - it has a fatigue limit. and a fatigue limit is not an endurance limit. i have posted numerous cites that say so. anybody who wishes to confirm this can just google it themselves. > You have rejected this in the past because you didn't > recognize the mechanism, therefore it can't happen. You seem to be alone > in this (lack of) belief. I can't reconcile this with a claimed > expertise in metallurgy. as discussed before, and apparently requiring repetition since you either don't read or want to ignore what is inconvenient, here is some metallurgy for you: endurance limit is a function of dislocation locking. it happens in alloy systems where small migratory solutes, carbon in mild steel and oxygen in titanium, can easily diffuse into the "atmosphere" created by dislocations. this raises the energy necessary to activate them on deformation. this is why, on deformation of mild steel, the commonly cited structural material, there is an initial yield stress which is higher than the subsequent deformation stress. no small migratory solutes, no fatigue endurance - and stainless steel, particularly the common structural grades, doesn't have them. now, you did once cite a stainless steel apparently showing fatigue endurance at elevated temperatures, and that is consistent with thermal activation of a dislocation locking mechanism of other larger elements, but it is NOT a mechanism present in stainless steels at room temperature!!! again, look at stress/strain graphs for stainless steels - there are some for spokes in the back of "the book". there is no horizontal region of deformation being lower than yield that evidences strain aging, and consequently, no fatigue endurance.                       Date: 15 Sep 2007 14:49:15 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >> >>>> I have not abused anyone. You are, by a large margin, the most >>>> abusive presence on this NG. >>>> >>>> >>>>> engage brain. analyze. consider that others may just have a >>>>> point, may just have checked facts, and may just have experience >>>>> /you don't have/. calling people liars when they're not is going to >>>>> produce guaranteed results. and it isn't knowledge growth. >>>> >>>> I have not called anyone a liar. >>>> >>>> I have spent many hours "checking facts". I have cited many of the >>>> facts I have found. I have found many/most of your assertions to be >>>> false. >>> >>> wow, that's a pretty dumb assertion from a guy that thinks stainless >>> steel has an endurance limit and doesn't even understand the >>> distinction between elasticity and plasticity. >> >> I do, and have at least since studying materials in college, >> understand the "difference between elasticity and plasticity". I have >> never confused the two except in your mind. > > so what was your intent in citing plastic elongation in comparison to > elastic elongation? if you /do/ understand the distinction, we can only > conclude that your intent was to deceive since you /know/ then to be > different. > > >> >> Stainless steel does have an endurance limit. I have posted numerous >> cites that say so. Anybody who wishes to confirm this can just Google >> it themselves. > > no it doesn't - it has a fatigue limit. and a fatigue limit is not an > endurance limit. i have posted numerous cites that say so. anybody who > wishes to confirm this can just google it themselves. > > >> You have rejected this in the past because you didn't recognize the >> mechanism, therefore it can't happen. You seem to be alone in this >> (lack of) belief. I can't reconcile this with a claimed expertise in >> metallurgy. > > as discussed before, and apparently requiring repetition since you > either don't read or want to ignore what is inconvenient, here is some > metallurgy for you: > > endurance limit is a function of dislocation locking. it happens in > alloy systems where small migratory solutes, carbon in mild steel and > oxygen in titanium, can easily diffuse into the "atmosphere" created by > dislocations. this raises the energy necessary to activate them on > deformation. this is why, on deformation of mild steel, the commonly > cited structural material, there is an initial yield stress which is > higher than the subsequent deformation stress. no small migratory > solutes, no fatigue endurance - and stainless steel, particularly the > common structural grades, doesn't have them. > > now, you did once cite a stainless steel apparently showing fatigue > endurance at elevated temperatures, and that is consistent with thermal > activation of a dislocation locking mechanism of other larger elements, > but it is NOT a mechanism present in stainless steels at room > temperature!!! again, look at stress/strain graphs for stainless steels > - there are some for spokes in the back of "the book". there is no > horizontal region of deformation being lower than yield that evidences > strain aging, and consequently, no fatigue endurance. Whatever. You are splitting hairs. The commonly cited "endurance limit" for stainless steels (like 302, spoke steel) is 10^7 cycles. As for why 10^7 is chosen, the Sandvik site (maker of lots of SS, including spokes) says: "The Wöhler S-N curve is the classical way of presenting the fatigue strength of a material, see diagram below. For steel there normally exists a fatigue limit below which failure will not occur since the Wöhler S-N curve is practically horizontal above about 2 million load cycles." 10^7 cycles is around 13,000 miles for a wheel spoke. If you want to go to 130,000, the maximum stress for 10^8 will be nearly identical. The published "endurance limit" for 302 is, for all intents, representative of infinite spoke life -- as Jobst has reported from the real world. I (and many others here) can only report to 10^7 cycles, but if you understand materials, you'll realize that's the same thing.                         Date: 15 Sep 2007 12:33:08 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>> >>>>> I have not abused anyone. You are, by a large margin, the most >>>>> abusive presence on this NG. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> engage brain. analyze. consider that others may just have a >>>>>> point, may just have checked facts, and may just have experience >>>>>> /you don't have/. calling people liars when they're not is going >>>>>> to produce guaranteed results. and it isn't knowledge growth. >>>>> >>>>> I have not called anyone a liar. >>>>> >>>>> I have spent many hours "checking facts". I have cited many of the >>>>> facts I have found. I have found many/most of your assertions to be >>>>> false. >>>> >>>> wow, that's a pretty dumb assertion from a guy that thinks stainless >>>> steel has an endurance limit and doesn't even understand the >>>> distinction between elasticity and plasticity. >>> >>> I do, and have at least since studying materials in college, >>> understand the "difference between elasticity and plasticity". I have >>> never confused the two except in your mind. >> >> so what was your intent in citing plastic elongation in comparison to >> elastic elongation? if you /do/ understand the distinction, we can >> only conclude that your intent was to deceive since you /know/ then to >> be different. >> >> >>> >>> Stainless steel does have an endurance limit. I have posted numerous >>> cites that say so. Anybody who wishes to confirm this can just Google >>> it themselves. >> >> no it doesn't - it has a fatigue limit. and a fatigue limit is not an >> endurance limit. i have posted numerous cites that say so. anybody >> who wishes to confirm this can just google it themselves. >> >> >>> You have rejected this in the past because you didn't recognize the >>> mechanism, therefore it can't happen. You seem to be alone in this >>> (lack of) belief. I can't reconcile this with a claimed expertise in >>> metallurgy. >> >> as discussed before, and apparently requiring repetition since you >> either don't read or want to ignore what is inconvenient, here is some >> metallurgy for you: >> >> endurance limit is a function of dislocation locking. it happens in >> alloy systems where small migratory solutes, carbon in mild steel and >> oxygen in titanium, can easily diffuse into the "atmosphere" created >> by dislocations. this raises the energy necessary to activate them on >> deformation. this is why, on deformation of mild steel, the commonly >> cited structural material, there is an initial yield stress which is >> higher than the subsequent deformation stress. no small migratory >> solutes, no fatigue endurance - and stainless steel, particularly the >> common structural grades, doesn't have them. >> >> now, you did once cite a stainless steel apparently showing fatigue >> endurance at elevated temperatures, and that is consistent with >> thermal activation of a dislocation locking mechanism of other larger >> elements, but it is NOT a mechanism present in stainless steels at >> room temperature!!! again, look at stress/strain graphs for stainless >> steels - there are some for spokes in the back of "the book". there >> is no horizontal region of deformation being lower than yield that >> evidences strain aging, and consequently, no fatigue endurance. > > Whatever. You are splitting hairs. is that all you can say? all that abuse and bullshit, and you just walk away with "whatever"??? this is not a split hair. this is rocket science. the lifetime research of cottrill, bilby and nabarro [and others] have been cited in literature hundreds of times for their illumination of this kind of stuff, and you walk away with "whatever"? what a prick! > The commonly cited "endurance limit" > for stainless steels (like 302, spoke steel) is 10^7 cycles. As for why > 10^7 is chosen, the Sandvik site (maker of lots of SS, including spokes) > says: > > "The Wöhler S-N curve is the classical way of presenting the fatigue > strength of a material, see diagram below. For steel there normally > exists a fatigue limit below which failure will not occur since the > Wöhler S-N curve is practically horizontal above about 2 million load > cycles." fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance limit - for the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". "engineers" however need a practical limit within which to design, and that is where 10^7 comes from. > > 10^7 cycles is around 13,000 miles for a wheel spoke. If you want to go > to 130,000, the maximum stress for 10^8 will be nearly identical. The > published "endurance limit" for 302 is, for all intents, representative > of infinite spoke life -- as Jobst has reported from the real world. I > (and many others here) can only report to 10^7 cycles, but if you > understand materials, you'll realize that's the same thing. fuck you. you endorse bullshit "stress relief" based on ignorance. then you "whatever" dismiss the base science that would enlighten. what a complete cockmaster.                           Date: 15 Sep 2007 16:47:16 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >>>> Stainless steel does have an endurance limit. I have posted numerous >>>> cites that say so. Anybody who wishes to confirm this can just >>>> Google it themselves. >>> >>> no it doesn't - it has a fatigue limit. and a fatigue limit is not >>> an endurance limit. i have posted numerous cites that say so. >>> anybody who wishes to confirm this can just google it themselves. >>> >>> >>>> You have rejected this in the past because you didn't recognize the >>>> mechanism, therefore it can't happen. You seem to be alone in this >>>> (lack of) belief. I can't reconcile this with a claimed expertise in >>>> metallurgy. >>> >>> as discussed before, and apparently requiring repetition since you >>> either don't read or want to ignore what is inconvenient, here is >>> some metallurgy for you: >> Whatever. You are splitting hairs. > > is that all you can say? all that abuse and bullshit, and you just walk > away with "whatever"??? this is not a split hair. this is rocket > science. the lifetime research of cottrill, bilby and nabarro [and > others] have been cited in literature hundreds of times for their > illumination of this kind of stuff, and you walk away with "whatever"? > what a prick! Whatever, "Rocket Scientist". Happy? > > >> The commonly cited "endurance limit" for stainless steels (like 302, >> spoke steel) is 10^7 cycles. As for why 10^7 is chosen, the Sandvik >> site (maker of lots of SS, including spokes) says: >> >> "The Wöhler S-N curve is the classical way of presenting the fatigue >> strength of a material, see diagram below. For steel there normally >> exists a fatigue limit below which failure will not occur since the >> Wöhler S-N curve is practically horizontal above about 2 million load >> cycles." > > fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance limit - for > the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". "engineers" however > need a practical limit within which to design, and that is where 10^7 > comes from. So you say, the rest of the world is on a different page. >> 10^7 cycles is around 13,000 miles for a wheel spoke. If you want to >> go to 130,000, the maximum stress for 10^8 will be nearly identical. >> The published "endurance limit" for 302 is, for all intents, >> representative of infinite spoke life -- as Jobst has reported from >> the real world. I (and many others here) can only report to 10^7 >> cycles, but if you understand materials, you'll realize that's the >> same thing. > > fuck you. you endorse bullshit "stress relief" based on ignorance. then > you "whatever" dismiss the base science that would enlighten. what a > complete cockmaster. Whatever. It doesn't matter. If the S:N is flat after 10^6, it's flat. Call it whatever you want. Call me whatever you want. It's a limit. Get over it.                             Date: 16 Sep 2007 08:28:20 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: > >>>>> Stainless steel does have an endurance limit. I have posted >>>>> numerous cites that say so. Anybody who wishes to confirm this can >>>>> just Google it themselves. >>>> >>>> no it doesn't - it has a fatigue limit. and a fatigue limit is not >>>> an endurance limit. i have posted numerous cites that say so. >>>> anybody who wishes to confirm this can just google it themselves. >>>> >>>> >>>>> You have rejected this in the past because you didn't recognize the >>>>> mechanism, therefore it can't happen. You seem to be alone in this >>>>> (lack of) belief. I can't reconcile this with a claimed expertise >>>>> in metallurgy. >>>> >>>> as discussed before, and apparently requiring repetition since you >>>> either don't read or want to ignore what is inconvenient, here is >>>> some metallurgy for you: > >>> Whatever. You are splitting hairs. >> >> is that all you can say? all that abuse and bullshit, and you just >> walk away with "whatever"??? this is not a split hair. this is >> rocket science. the lifetime research of cottrill, bilby and nabarro >> [and others] have been cited in literature hundreds of times for their >> illumination of this kind of stuff, and you walk away with "whatever"? >> what a prick! > > Whatever, "Rocket Scientist". Happy? > >> >> >>> The commonly cited "endurance limit" for stainless steels (like 302, >>> spoke steel) is 10^7 cycles. As for why 10^7 is chosen, the Sandvik >>> site (maker of lots of SS, including spokes) says: >>> >>> "The Wöhler S-N curve is the classical way of presenting the fatigue >>> strength of a material, see diagram below. For steel there normally >>> exists a fatigue limit below which failure will not occur since the >>> Wöhler S-N curve is practically horizontal above about 2 million load >>> cycles." >> >> fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance limit - >> for the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". "engineers" >> however need a practical limit within which to design, and that is >> where 10^7 comes from. > > So you say, the rest of the world is on a different page. > >>> 10^7 cycles is around 13,000 miles for a wheel spoke. If you want to >>> go to 130,000, the maximum stress for 10^8 will be nearly identical. >>> The published "endurance limit" for 302 is, for all intents, >>> representative of infinite spoke life -- as Jobst has reported from >>> the real world. I (and many others here) can only report to 10^7 >>> cycles, but if you understand materials, you'll realize that's the >>> same thing. >> >> fuck you. you endorse bullshit "stress relief" based on ignorance. >> then you "whatever" dismiss the base science that would enlighten. >> what a complete cockmaster. > > Whatever. > > It doesn't matter. If the S:N is flat after 10^6, it's flat. Call it > whatever you want. Call me whatever you want. It's a limit. Get over it. but it's not flat! you want it to be because it suits your contrarian position, but it's not observed - and there's no mechanism to support it! how many more times do you need to be told? how many graphs do you need to see before you get it? do you even /understand/ what you see? despite your claims of being an engineer, you're doing nothing to evidence a grasp of engineering basics.                             Date: 15 Sep 2007 17:20:39 From: Ben C Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > jim beam wrote: [...] >> fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance limit - for >> the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". "engineers" however >> need a practical limit within which to design, and that is where 10^7 >> comes from. > > So you say, the rest of the world is on a different page. In what way? That is how you design things that you're going to make out of, say, aluminium, isn't it? It will always fatigue eventually, so you have to decide how long is long enough.                               Date: 15 Sep 2007 18:47:04 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Ben C wrote: > On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> jim beam wrote: > [...] >>> fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance limit - for >>> the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". "engineers" however >>> need a practical limit within which to design, and that is where 10^7 >>> comes from. >> So you say, the rest of the world is on a different page. > > In what way? That is how you design things that you're going to make out > of, say, aluminium, isn't it? It will always fatigue eventually, so you > have to decide how long is long enough. The Sandvik site spells it out. They do a better job of explaining it than I could (diagrams, etc.).                                 Date: 16 Sep 2007 08:11:37 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > Ben C wrote: >> On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >> [...] >>>> fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance limit - >>>> for the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". "engineers" >>>> however need a practical limit within which to design, and that is >>>> where 10^7 comes from. >>> So you say, the rest of the world is on a different page. >> >> In what way? That is how you design things that you're going to make out >> of, say, aluminium, isn't it? It will always fatigue eventually, so you >> have to decide how long is long enough. > > The Sandvik site spells it out. They do a better job of explaining it > than I could (diagrams, etc.). but they don't say the graph is flat - that's the misinterpretation you're projecting to support your entrenched refusal to acknowledge the truth!                                   Date: 16 Sep 2007 11:20:30 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Ben C wrote: >>> On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> jim beam wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance limit >>>>> - for the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". "engineers" >>>>> however need a practical limit within which to design, and that is >>>>> where 10^7 comes from. >>>> So you say, the rest of the world is on a different page. >>> >>> In what way? That is how you design things that you're going to make out >>> of, say, aluminium, isn't it? It will always fatigue eventually, so you >>> have to decide how long is long enough. >> >> The Sandvik site spells it out. They do a better job of explaining it >> than I could (diagrams, etc.). > > but they don't say the graph is flat - that's the misinterpretation > you're projecting to support your entrenched refusal to acknowledge the > truth! OK, split hairs, it makes no practical difference: "the Wöhler S-N curve is practically horizontal above about 2 million load cycles" Whatever.                                     Date: 16 Sep 2007 08:46:55 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> Ben C wrote: >>>> On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance limit >>>>>> - for the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". >>>>>> "engineers" however need a practical limit within which to design, >>>>>> and that is where 10^7 comes from. >>>>> So you say, the rest of the world is on a different page. >>>> >>>> In what way? That is how you design things that you're going to make >>>> out >>>> of, say, aluminium, isn't it? It will always fatigue eventually, so you >>>> have to decide how long is long enough. >>> >>> The Sandvik site spells it out. They do a better job of explaining it >>> than I could (diagrams, etc.). >> >> but they don't say the graph is flat - that's the misinterpretation >> you're projecting to support your entrenched refusal to acknowledge >> the truth! > > OK, split hairs, it makes no practical difference: > "the Wöhler S-N curve is practically horizontal above about 2 million > load cycles" > > Whatever. it's not flat peter. get over it. and don't bullshit like you can change the facts.                                       Date: 16 Sep 2007 15:32:27 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> Ben C wrote: >>>>> On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>>> fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance >>>>>>> limit - for the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". >>>>>>> "engineers" however need a practical limit within which to >>>>>>> design, and that is where 10^7 comes from. >>>>>> So you say, the rest of the world is on a different page. >>>>> >>>>> In what way? That is how you design things that you're going to >>>>> make out >>>>> of, say, aluminium, isn't it? It will always fatigue eventually, so >>>>> you >>>>> have to decide how long is long enough. >>>> >>>> The Sandvik site spells it out. They do a better job of explaining >>>> it than I could (diagrams, etc.). >>> >>> but they don't say the graph is flat - that's the misinterpretation >>> you're projecting to support your entrenched refusal to acknowledge >>> the truth! >> >> OK, split hairs, it makes no practical difference: >> "the Wöhler S-N curve is practically horizontal above about 2 million >> load cycles" >> >> Whatever. > > it's not flat peter. get over it. and don't bullshit like you can > change the facts. OK "practically horizontal" isn't flat, whatever. It doesn't matter.                                         Date: 16 Sep 2007 13:27:02 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>> Ben C wrote: >>>>>> On 2007-09-15, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> fatigue strength, fatigue limit, etc. are /not/ an endurance >>>>>>>> limit - for the reasons you so glibly dismiss as "whatever". >>>>>>>> "engineers" however need a practical limit within which to >>>>>>>> design, and that is where 10^7 comes from. >>>>>>> So you say, the rest of the world is on a different page. >>>>>> >>>>>> In what way? That is how you design things that you're going to >>>>>> make out >>>>>> of, say, aluminium, isn't it? It will always fatigue eventually, >>>>>> so you >>>>>> have to decide how long is long enough. >>>>> >>>>> The Sandvik site spells it out. They do a better job of explaining >>>>> it than I could (diagrams, etc.). >>>> >>>> but they don't say the graph is flat - that's the misinterpretation >>>> you're projecting to support your entrenched refusal to acknowledge >>>> the truth! >>> >>> OK, split hairs, it makes no practical difference: >>> "the Wöhler S-N curve is practically horizontal above about 2 million >>> load cycles" >>> >>> Whatever. >> >> it's not flat peter. get over it. and don't bullshit like you can >> change the facts. > > OK "practically horizontal" isn't flat, whatever. It doesn't matter. it does matter if it's being used in defense of an untruth. but maybe we can now move beyond that.           Date: 14 Sep 2007 03:05:47 From: Ben C Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On 2007-09-14, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: [...] > er, how often are /you/ going to bother to cite a technical article if > the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and > terminally-incapable-of-being-open-to-new-information simply dismiss it > as mumbo jumbo? just get straight to the point and start the abuse. > > unless the underinformed, under i.q.ed and and terminally incapable > actually evidence wanting to /try/ to learn something, i see no point > wasting time. most of those idiots, retards, etc. are not here for any > damned thing other than to have fight, so let them have it. It's better not to let them have a fight, and either write good (or at least sincere) stuff or nothing at all. No-one remembers or cares who started the fights, just that they go on and on and are a waste of time. Certainly no-one cares who wins them, they've probably killed the thread by then anyway. If you are worried that someone who looks like they're asking a real question is really picking a fight, you might as well just answer the question properly anyway, if that's what you were going to do, since it's not just them you're addressing. That way you can sometimes turn an incipient fight back into a decent discussion. If it looks remotely like a real question, even if asked by a known idiot or retard, it will do. There's also going to be a percentage of times when it _was_ a real question and then the OP is going to be quite angry at having been snapped at, and so naturally things are going to escalate. It's not my business to tell you what to do but this is just a suggestion for a way to end up wasting less time.             Date: 14 Sep 2007 07:21:52 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Ben C wrote: > If it looks remotely like > a real question, even if asked by a known idiot or retard, it will do. I haven't noticed any "idiots" or "retards", just people who call those names. Are you one of those, too?               Date: 14 Sep 2007 08:22:22 From: Ben C Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On 2007-09-14, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Ben C wrote: > > > If it looks remotely like >> a real question, even if asked by a known idiot or retard, it will do. > > I haven't noticed any "idiots" or "retards", just people who call those > names. Are you one of those, too? Of course not. I said "if" not "when".                 Date: 14 Sep 2007 10:27:41 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Ben C wrote: > On 2007-09-14, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> Ben C wrote: >> >>> If it looks remotely like >>> a real question, even if asked by a known idiot or retard, it will do. >> I haven't noticed any "idiots" or "retards", just people who call those >> names. Are you one of those, too? > > Of course not. I said "if" not "when". OK, you think it's a hypothetical question, i.e. what to do *if* a "known idiot" or "retard" asks a question. That clears it up. "jim beam" has several "known idiots" and "retards". Were you aware of that? Perhaps, to be less ambiguous, you should have said: answer the question regardless of whether *you think* the person is a "known idiot" or "retard". No opinion on the existence of "known retards" and "idiots" or the practice of using those names?                   Date: 14 Sep 2007 10:16:01 From: Ben C Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On 2007-09-14, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: [...] > No opinion on the existence of "known retards" and "idiots" or the > practice of using those names? I don't believe any of the posters here to be idiots or retards myself. But the question is irrelevant. If you [I don't mean you personally] want proper discussions and not fights, don't call people names or make personal remarks whatever you think of them. If on the other hand you do want fights, then do call them names, whatever you think of them. It's a simple point but I made it because I thought jim beam was complaining about people picking fights. But that may have been my misinterpretation.                 Date: 14 Sep 2007 06:34:54 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Ben C wrote: > On 2007-09-14, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> Ben C wrote: >> >>> If it looks remotely like >>> a real question, even if asked by a known idiot or retard, it will do. >> I haven't noticed any "idiots" or "retards", just people who call those >> names. Are you one of those, too? > > Of course not. I said "if" not "when". p.c. always misperceives the need to fight.   Date: 12 Sep 2007 22:21:27 From: damyth Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Sep 12, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote: > >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know > >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves > >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough > >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are > >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap > >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a > >> justifiable risk? > > > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what > > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment > > recommendations between CF and metal frames. > > I don't refuse to answer the question; rather, I don't know of a generic > answer to that question. My experience in that regard is with what I sell. > Trek has gone to great lengths to educate people about the differences > between carbon fiber and "metal" frames, explaining in the owner's manual, > as well as on their website, that it may be difficult to tell if a carbon > fiber component has been damaged in a crash. They list ways to try and find > the damage, while for "metal" frames, they don't bother giving such > instructions (they just say to inspect it for damage). I find that, > personally, unfortunate... because I come across quite a few damaged steel & > aluminum frames that are in danger of failure, and some after they have > already failed. As you would so strongly insist, at least some of these > frames probably provided warning prior to failure, but nobody bothered to > look them over (after a crash or impact). > > It must be stressed that I am not a manufacturer, and that I am somewhat at > odds with what some manufacturers would suggest. I am basically the final > link in the chain. I'm the person who sees, directly, what happens to the > product in the real world. I'm not an engineer, I'm an observer. I observe > and, when I have questions, have access to intelligent people involved with > the design and manufacture of the product. As an observer, I also get to see > & hear many stories about JRAs (mysterious "just riding along" failures), > and, by being patient, get to hear such stories sometimes change & evolve. > Gets back to that thing I mentioned previously- that question- "What do you > think *really* happened?" Sometimes it's exactly as presented, and sometimes > not. Sometimes I go out to the scene and try to piece things together. It's > interesting what you can find that way. > > But I've gotten away from your specific question. On a macro level, I, > personally, see no difference in the need to inspect a carbon fiber bike > after impact vs any other bike. On a micro level, you're looking for > different things on a carbon fiber bike than steel or aluminum or titanium. > But I'm not a manufacturer. Those are my recommendations. Common sense. > > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com > > "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message > > news:46e8b0ec$0$18910$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > > > > "damyth" <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message > >news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> > >> wrote: > >>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real > >>> world, > >>> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they > >>> *should* be, I guess. > > >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know > >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves > >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough > >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are > >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap > >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a > >> justifiable risk? > > > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what > > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment > > recommendations between CF and metal frames. > > >> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that > >> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his > >> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish > >> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been > >> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you > >> *still* think the risk is justifiable? > > > Therein also lies the justifications for the black and white mentality > > that people go into in their emotional perpsectives. Either CF will break > > like glass, or CF is indestructible. Either there is an epidemic of > > people getting killed in CF frames, or there are no CF frame breakages > > ever. Very few actually understand that in terms of carbon fiber > > components, we can all look to the aerospace industry for experience. The > > fact that there are a lot more rigorous testing and inspection for CFRPs > > compared to metals is a recognition of CF characteristics. In fact, > > aircraft manufacturers do want to use CF on their planes, BUT they > > recognise its testing, handling and inspection requirements AND the > > consequences of failing to do so. > > > Now we have bicycle shop owners who obviously want to flog what they can > > sell for higher profit (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that), > > but only rely on the manufacturers' word as far as the characteristics of > > their products go. Not many bike shop owners have scientific nor > > technical backgrounds, yet they sell high technology products and only > > have their own, somewhat limited experience (and that's not a put-down, > > just fact) to either support or repudiate manufacturer claims. > > >> For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may > >> elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why > >> don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? > >> Spin that one for me. > > > It would be good if he can just answer the question, what the difference > > is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment recommendations > > between CF and metal frames. While you are indeed in a better position than the rest of us to observe "field failures" of bike components than the rest of the general population, with all due respect & by your own admission, you've got no technical training and rely almost exclusively on Trek's explanations (in your case) for "anomalies." To anyone with solid engineering experience with composites, two transverse breaks of CFRP tube would have screamed "manufacturing defect." ( or hacksaw blade :) ) Especially when juxtaposed with otherwise pristine & damage-free components such as wheels, forks, stem, bars, etc., in the case of the OP's Scott CF bike. Even now in this post you bring up JRA. You're like a losing compulsive gambler who thinks his run of bad luck MUST change, who doesn't realize each incident of frame breakage must be treated as an independent event. You _still_ don't understand two breaks in a down tube on a single ride represent a singular event. In other words, your experience (regarding frame failure) does not apply. Better take Mr. Muzi's position and just say: "I don't know, seek legal counsel." I don't mean this as a put down and I say this with all due respect, but bike shop owners & mechanics are not qualified to evaluate high technology. Heck, that might apply even to manufacturers. Jobst has implied as much regarding Shimano and Octalink.     Date: 12 Sep 2007 23:04:14 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued > Even now in this post you bring up JRA. You're like a losing > compulsive gambler who thinks his run of bad luck MUST change, who > doesn't realize each incident of frame breakage must be treated as an > independent event. You _still_ don't understand two breaks in a down > tube on a single ride represent a singular event. In other words, > your experience (regarding frame failure) does not apply. Better take > Mr. Muzi's position and just say: "I don't know, seek legal counsel." Here's the ONLY source of information I've seen regarding the specifics of the incident- ======================= Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. The front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on the road and the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the bike split into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all to react. Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable severity. ======================= If you've got some links with more information, please, post them. I missed them if they're out there. Maybe there's something you've come across that puts you in a better position than I to know what went on. All I've seen are the photos and that description of the incident. It's not enough, in my opinion, to jump to all the conclusions found here. If that were my customer, I'd be out there at the scene of the accident almost immediately. There's useful information there, for example, the size of the "divot/small hole" which the rider assumes was there but, apparently, hasn't gone back out to check for. Seriously, this incident needs to be reconstructed before jumping to all manner of conclusions. And if reconstruction requires a bunch of attorneys to do so, fine. Few people here seem interested in what caused the incident (which, admitted by the person involved, didn't happen by itself). But if we start at the beginning, we can better learn of the forces involved. What if the front wheel had fallen into a drainage grate? The end result to the rider would have been the same, regardless of frame material or the manner in which it had failed. What if a lot of things? We've seen a ton of conclusions based upon nothing but a photo and that description I included above. If this happened anywhere on the SF Peninsula, I'd be willing to head out and check it out. I'd even make it a public thing if people wanted, and we could try to reconstruct things in-person. If not for the fact that a serious injury had been involved, it would be fun to try to work through it. This sort of thing is not new to me; thankfully, it doesn't involve someone's death this time (reconstructing a bike/car collision on Kings Mtn Road some years ago was both enlightening and horribly painful... and led to some changes in the way the gutters were constructed, which might keep cars in the future from going out of control). --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote in message news:1189660887.214449.138860@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 12, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know >> >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves >> >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough >> >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are >> >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap >> >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a >> >> justifiable risk? >> >> > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of >> > what >> > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment >> > recommendations between CF and metal frames. >> >> I don't refuse to answer the question; rather, I don't know of a generic >> answer to that question. My experience in that regard is with what I >> sell. >> Trek has gone to great lengths to educate people about the differences >> between carbon fiber and "metal" frames, explaining in the owner's >> manual, >> as well as on their website, that it may be difficult to tell if a >> carbon >> fiber component has been damaged in a crash. They list ways to try and >> find >> the damage, while for "metal" frames, they don't bother giving such >> instructions (they just say to inspect it for damage). I find that, >> personally, unfortunate... because I come across quite a few damaged >> steel & >> aluminum frames that are in danger of failure, and some after they have >> already failed. As you would so strongly insist, at least some of these >> frames probably provided warning prior to failure, but nobody bothered to >> look them over (after a crash or impact). >> >> It must be stressed that I am not a manufacturer, and that I am somewhat >> at >> odds with what some manufacturers would suggest. I am basically the final >> link in the chain. I'm the person who sees, directly, what happens to the >> product in the real world. I'm not an engineer, I'm an observer. I >> observe >> and, when I have questions, have access to intelligent people involved >> with >> the design and manufacture of the product. As an observer, I also get to >> see >> & hear many stories about JRAs (mysterious "just riding along" failures), >> and, by being patient, get to hear such stories sometimes change & >> evolve. >> Gets back to that thing I mentioned previously- that question- "What do >> you >> think *really* happened?" Sometimes it's exactly as presented, and >> sometimes >> not. Sometimes I go out to the scene and try to piece things together. >> It's >> interesting what you can find that way. >> >> But I've gotten away from your specific question. On a macro level, I, >> personally, see no difference in the need to inspect a carbon fiber bike >> after impact vs any other bike. On a micro level, you're looking for >> different things on a carbon fiber bike than steel or aluminum or >> titanium. >> But I'm not a manufacturer. Those are my recommendations. Common sense. >> >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com >> >> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message >> >> news:46e8b0ec$0$18910$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> >> >> > "damyth" <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message >> >news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real >> >>> world, >> >>> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they >> >>> *should* be, I guess. >> >> >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know >> >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves >> >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough >> >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are >> >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap >> >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a >> >> justifiable risk? >> >> > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of >> > what >> > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment >> > recommendations between CF and metal frames. >> >> >> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that >> >> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his >> >> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish >> >> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been >> >> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you >> >> *still* think the risk is justifiable? >> >> > Therein also lies the justifications for the black and white mentality >> > that people go into in their emotional perpsectives. Either CF will >> > break >> > like glass, or CF is indestructible. Either there is an epidemic of >> > people getting killed in CF frames, or there are no CF frame breakages >> > ever. Very few actually understand that in terms of carbon fiber >> > components, we can all look to the aerospace industry for experience. >> > The >> > fact that there are a lot more rigorous testing and inspection for >> > CFRPs >> > compared to metals is a recognition of CF characteristics. In fact, >> > aircraft manufacturers do want to use CF on their planes, BUT they >> > recognise its testing, handling and inspection requirements AND the >> > consequences of failing to do so. >> >> > Now we have bicycle shop owners who obviously want to flog what they >> > can >> > sell for higher profit (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with >> > that), >> > but only rely on the manufacturers' word as far as the characteristics >> > of >> > their products go. Not many bike shop owners have scientific nor >> > technical backgrounds, yet they sell high technology products and only >> > have their own, somewhat limited experience (and that's not a put-down, >> > just fact) to either support or repudiate manufacturer claims. >> >> >> For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may >> >> elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why >> >> don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? >> >> Spin that one for me. >> >> > It would be good if he can just answer the question, what the >> > difference >> > is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment recommendations >> > between CF and metal frames. > > While you are indeed in a better position than the rest of us to > observe "field failures" of bike components than the rest of the > general population, with all due respect & by your own admission, > you've got no technical training and rely almost exclusively on Trek's > explanations (in your case) for "anomalies." To anyone with solid > engineering experience with composites, two transverse breaks of CFRP > tube would have screamed "manufacturing defect." ( or hacksaw > blade :) ) Especially when juxtaposed with otherwise pristine & > damage-free components such as wheels, forks, stem, bars, etc., in the > case of the OP's Scott CF bike. > > Even now in this post you bring up JRA. You're like a losing > compulsive gambler who thinks his run of bad luck MUST change, who > doesn't realize each incident of frame breakage must be treated as an > independent event. You _still_ don't understand two breaks in a down > tube on a single ride represent a singular event. In other words, > your experience (regarding frame failure) does not apply. Better take > Mr. Muzi's position and just say: "I don't know, seek legal counsel." > > I don't mean this as a put down and I say this with all due respect, > but bike shop owners & mechanics are not qualified to evaluate high > technology. Heck, that might apply even to manufacturers. Jobst has > implied as much regarding Shimano and Octalink. >       Date: 13 Sep 2007 17:32:52 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <zp4Gi.4245$7P7.3576@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote: > > Even now in this post you bring up JRA. You're like a losing > > compulsive gambler who thinks his run of bad luck MUST change, who > > doesn't realize each incident of frame breakage must be treated as > > an independent event. You _still_ don't understand two breaks in a > > down tube on a single ride represent a singular event. In other > > words, your experience (regarding frame failure) does not apply. > > Better take Mr. Muzi's position and just say: "I don't know, seek > > legal counsel." > > Here's the ONLY source of information I've seen regarding the > specifics of the incident- > > ======================= > > Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a > small stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the > curb. The front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on > the road and the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the > bike split into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all > to react. Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable > severity. > > ======================= > > If you've got some links with more information, please, post them. I > missed them if they're out there. Maybe there's something you've come > across that puts you in a better position than I to know what went > on. All I've seen are the photos and that description of the > incident. It's not enough, in my opinion, to jump to all the > conclusions found here. Well, the other information we have is a few inadequate photos of the bike laying on the ground. Taken in total, there is just not enough reliable data to come to any conclusion except that there isn't enough data. damyth seems convinced of his/her clairvoyance and superior knowledge to the extent of surety that there was a manufacturing defect. I see no reason to rule that out, but also no reason to conclude that it is the cause.         Date: 13 Sep 2007 20:38:52 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <zp4Gi.4245$7P7.3576@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>> Even now in this post you bring up JRA. You're like a losing >>> compulsive gambler who thinks his run of bad luck MUST change, who >>> doesn't realize each incident of frame breakage must be treated as >>> an independent event. You _still_ don't understand two breaks in a >>> down tube on a single ride represent a singular event. In other >>> words, your experience (regarding frame failure) does not apply. >>> Better take Mr. Muzi's position and just say: "I don't know, seek >>> legal counsel." >> Here's the ONLY source of information I've seen regarding the >> specifics of the incident- >> >> ======================= >> >> Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a >> small stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the >> curb. The front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on >> the road and the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the >> bike split into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all >> to react. Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable >> severity. >> >> ======================= >> >> If you've got some links with more information, please, post them. I >> missed them if they're out there. Maybe there's something you've come >> across that puts you in a better position than I to know what went >> on. All I've seen are the photos and that description of the >> incident. It's not enough, in my opinion, to jump to all the >> conclusions found here. > > Well, the other information we have is a few inadequate photos of the > bike laying on the ground. Taken in total, there is just not enough > reliable data to come to any conclusion except that there isn't enough > data. damyth seems convinced of his/her clairvoyance and superior > knowledge to the extent of surety that there was a manufacturing defect. > I see no reason to rule that out, but also no reason to conclude that it > is the cause. that's because you have no experience! if you did, you'd be familiar with failure modes and immediately have an idea of /exactly/ where the problem lies!!!           Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:43:38 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:-cydnXQXppXRn3fbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > > that's because you have no experience! if you did, you'd be familiar with > failure modes and immediately have an idea of /exactly/ where the problem > lies!!! beamboy, you're over. With your fake credentials, poor understanding of basic science, pretensions to being a "former metallurgist", and your leg-humping of posters who've tweaked on to you, it's time to go.             Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:45:45 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: "Fake credentials?" Here? >> that's because you have no experience! if you did, you'd be familiar >> with failure modes and immediately have an idea of /exactly/ where the >> problem lies!!! > > beamboy, you're over. With your fake credentials, poor understanding of > basic science, pretensions to being a "former metallurgist", and your > leg-humping of posters who've tweaked on to you, it's time to go. Fake credentials. OK, I don't usually play this card, because I understand why some people think that having their real name out on the 'net is a bad thing from a privacy standpoint, but how am I supposed to reconcile a thread in which "fake credentials" is promoted so vigorously by people posting under assumed names? --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote in message news:46eaf24d$0$32527$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:-cydnXQXppXRn3fbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> >> that's because you have no experience! if you did, you'd be familiar >> with failure modes and immediately have an idea of /exactly/ where the >> problem lies!!! > > beamboy, you're over. With your fake credentials, poor understanding of > basic science, pretensions to being a "former metallurgist", and your > leg-humping of posters who've tweaked on to you, it's time to go. >               Date: 16 Sep 2007 22:39:33 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "Fake credentials?" Here? "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message news:J2FGi.9445$924.6512@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > Fake credentials. OK, I don't usually play this card, because I understand > why some people think that having their real name out on the 'net is a bad > thing from a privacy standpoint, but how am I supposed to reconcile a > thread in which "fake credentials" is promoted so vigorously by people > posting under assumed names? I guess when you get people like beamboy trying to strengthen his bullshit pseudo-techno arguments by repeatedly lying "I'm a metallurgist", "I'm a former metallurgist", "I went to materials school", I was trained in failure analysis", etc., and then proving, quite obviously by his posts, that he has nothing of the sort. Now if you're referring to my posts, you can look at the technical arguments and references provided - I've made no claims to credentials, since merely saying so does not increase the strength of any argument. I've met pelicans with PhDs.         Date: 13 Sep 2007 23:33:56 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued >> If you've got some links with more information, please, post them. I >> missed them if they're out there. Maybe there's something you've come >> across that puts you in a better position than I to know what went >> on. All I've seen are the photos and that description of the >> incident. It's not enough, in my opinion, to jump to all the >> conclusions found here. > > Well, the other information we have is a few inadequate photos of the > bike laying on the ground. Taken in total, there is just not enough > reliable data to come to any conclusion except that there isn't enough > data. damyth seems convinced of his/her clairvoyance and superior > knowledge to the extent of surety that there was a manufacturing defect. > I see no reason to rule that out, but also no reason to conclude that it > is the cause. Nor have I ruled out the possibility that it was a defective bike. If I really wanted to put a pro-my-business "spin" on it, I'd be talking about the infamous China connection, the superiority of the product I sell, Treks wonderful warranty, yada yada yada. But that's not what I do. I'm absolutely serious when I say I really want to know what happened. I want more information. I'm not an engineer, "credentialed technologist" or whatever. But I'm an information junkie, and I love to reconstruct events. When I ride through an underpass and see car tire marks way up high on the wall, I try to figure out how they got there. I look for clues to what happened. When somebody comes in with a broken derailleur hanger and says it was a JRA, I have my work cut out for me. Where are the scratches on the derailleur? What does the chain look like? How about the spokes in the rear wheel? So many things to check over, and sometimes you come up with a conclusion that's quite different from the customer story (and the customer will typically then say yes, they did take quite a spill last week, and the derailleur wasn't shifting right...). But sometimes the failure was caused by a defective or mis-installed connecting pin on the chain. And there are clues for that as well... clues that an alarming number of mechanics fail to miss, because they rush to incorrect conclusions. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message news:timmcn-883020.17325213092007@news.iphouse.com... > In article <zp4Gi.4245$7P7.3576@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > Even now in this post you bring up JRA. You're like a losing >> > compulsive gambler who thinks his run of bad luck MUST change, who >> > doesn't realize each incident of frame breakage must be treated as >> > an independent event. You _still_ don't understand two breaks in a >> > down tube on a single ride represent a singular event. In other >> > words, your experience (regarding frame failure) does not apply. >> > Better take Mr. Muzi's position and just say: "I don't know, seek >> > legal counsel." >> >> Here's the ONLY source of information I've seen regarding the >> specifics of the incident- >> >> ======================= >> >> Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a >> small stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the >> curb. The front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on >> the road and the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the >> bike split into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all >> to react. Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable >> severity. >> >> ======================= >> >> If you've got some links with more information, please, post them. I >> missed them if they're out there. Maybe there's something you've come >> across that puts you in a better position than I to know what went >> on. All I've seen are the photos and that description of the >> incident. It's not enough, in my opinion, to jump to all the >> conclusions found here. > > Well, the other information we have is a few inadequate photos of the > bike laying on the ground. Taken in total, there is just not enough > reliable data to come to any conclusion except that there isn't enough > data. damyth seems convinced of his/her clairvoyance and superior > knowledge to the extent of surety that there was a manufacturing defect. > I see no reason to rule that out, but also no reason to conclude that it > is the cause.   Date: 12 Sep 2007 19:46:46 From: damyth Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Sep 12, 6:35 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote: > > > You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on > > when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone > > gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real information. We > > see a picture of a single broken frame and build an entire world > > around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some want to rush in and > > exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong before somebody else can, > > and then have to spend the next week coming up with ways to defend > > that initial position. > > The initial position taken by most of us was that we couldn't conclude > what happened with the Scott frame that broke in a crash. Most of us > took that position except for a very few people who wanted to blame > Scott. Most of us felt that we simply didn't have enough information > about the crash, the frame and its history. It is the conservative > approach and really the only one open to us given the dearth of data > about the specifics of the incident. > > The conversation has long since moved on from that, with I suspect the > OP not getting the support he wanted and disappearing. The conversation > has basically been about the impact resistance of CF composites, pulled > adrift occasionally by jim beam's pseudoscience spew and Doug Taylor's > "retrogrouch" name-calling and a few people (myself included) rising to > the bait, and about the consequences of impact damage on longevity and > the risk of catastrophic failures in CF as compared to other materials. > This has required some discussion of the nature of CF composites. > > While wood can be described as a composite, it is generally a poor > analogy for CF composites. CF is designed, wood just grows. There are > enough broken trees after any storm to show that spontaneous organic > growth does not necessarily result in optimal strength. > > As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF > frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough > failures to make me very concerned. The "OP" didn't disappear. He was never "here" to begin with. The person who started of the "CF shatters" thread (on usenet) was quoting a post originally made on another internet forum. Read the original post to refresh your memory.     Date: 13 Sep 2007 17:39:24 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <1189651606.164762.293360@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote: > On Sep 12, 6:35 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > In article <Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote: > > > > > You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes > > > on when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and > > > everyone gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real > > > information. We see a picture of a single broken frame and build > > > an entire world around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some > > > want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong > > > before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week > > > coming up with ways to defend that initial position. > > > > The initial position taken by most of us was that we couldn't > > conclude what happened with the Scott frame that broke in a crash. > > Most of us took that position except for a very few people who > > wanted to blame Scott. Most of us felt that we simply didn't have > > enough information about the crash, the frame and its history. It > > is the conservative approach and really the only one open to us > > given the dearth of data about the specifics of the incident. > > > > The conversation has long since moved on from that, with I suspect > > the OP not getting the support he wanted and disappearing. The > > conversation has basically been about the impact resistance of CF > > composites, pulled adrift occasionally by jim beam's pseudoscience > > spew and Doug Taylor's "retrogrouch" name-calling and a few people > > (myself included) rising to the bait, and about the consequences of > > impact damage on longevity and the risk of catastrophic failures in > > CF as compared to other materials. This has required some > > discussion of the nature of CF composites. > > > > While wood can be described as a composite, it is generally a poor > > analogy for CF composites. CF is designed, wood just grows. There > > are enough broken trees after any storm to show that spontaneous > > organic growth does not necessarily result in optimal strength. > > > > As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing > > CF frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been > > enough failures to make me very concerned. > > The "OP" didn't disappear. He was never "here" to begin with. The > person who started of the "CF shatters" thread (on usenet) was > quoting a post originally made on another internet forum. Read the > original post to refresh your memory. That is immaterial.       Date: 13 Sep 2007 20:38:58 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <1189651606.164762.293360@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 12, 6:35 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> In article <Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, >>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote: >>> >>>> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes >>>> on when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and >>>> everyone gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real >>>> information. We see a picture of a single broken frame and build >>>> an entire world around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some >>>> want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong >>>> before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week >>>> coming up with ways to defend that initial position. >>> The initial position taken by most of us was that we couldn't >>> conclude what happened with the Scott frame that broke in a crash. >>> Most of us took that position except for a very few people who >>> wanted to blame Scott. Most of us felt that we simply didn't have >>> enough information about the crash, the frame and its history. It >>> is the conservative approach and really the only one open to us >>> given the dearth of data about the specifics of the incident. >>> >>> The conversation has long since moved on from that, with I suspect >>> the OP not getting the support he wanted and disappearing. The >>> conversation has basically been about the impact resistance of CF >>> composites, pulled adrift occasionally by jim beam's pseudoscience >>> spew and Doug Taylor's "retrogrouch" name-calling and a few people >>> (myself included) rising to the bait, and about the consequences of >>> impact damage on longevity and the risk of catastrophic failures in >>> CF as compared to other materials. This has required some >>> discussion of the nature of CF composites. >>> >>> While wood can be described as a composite, it is generally a poor >>> analogy for CF composites. CF is designed, wood just grows. There >>> are enough broken trees after any storm to show that spontaneous >>> organic growth does not necessarily result in optimal strength. >>> >>> As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing >>> CF frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been >>> enough failures to make me very concerned. >> The "OP" didn't disappear. He was never "here" to begin with. The >> person who started of the "CF shatters" thread (on usenet) was >> quoting a post originally made on another internet forum. Read the >> original post to refresh your memory. > > That is immaterial. what, like 5000 > 1600?         Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:37:03 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:-cydnXcXppXPn3fbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > what, like 5000 > 1600? No, like "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."   Date: 12 Sep 2007 19:41:06 From: damyth Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com > wrote: > > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs > > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share > > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense > > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. > > You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when > somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited > about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a > single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical > usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly > what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week > coming up with ways to defend that initial position. > > And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet another > thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python "witch" > sketch. > > All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world, > people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they > *should* be, I guess. > > --Mike Jacoubowsky > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA > > "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:B9WdnafJ5eML_HXbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message news:... > >>> <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message > > >>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying > >>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the > >>>> opponent. > > >>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups > >>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more > >>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting > >>> discussion groups with impunity. > > > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs > > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share > > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense > > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. > > > I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully > > get pushed back every once in a while. I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is "manufacturing defect." I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a justifiable risk? While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you *still* think the risk is justifiable? For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? Spin that one for me.     Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:54:03 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is > "manufacturing defect." I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the original photo and description that started this thread even happened in the first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else to say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an extraordinarily low standard of proof. > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a > justifiable risk? There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material that has ever been brought to cycling. Carbon fiber is little different from any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible frame. You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after the fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, sometimes intentionally. And why are you bringing China into this? As if the fact that they poison our kids with lead paint has anything to do with high tech and not everything to do with simple greed? We could get into a lengthy discussion about the pitfalls of offshoring manufacturing to a culture with different standards and ways of dealing with things than our own, but I don't think that's really rec.bicycles.tech material. But I'll contribute something anyway. Trek learned ages ago, as has most every manufacturer (probably including Scott), that if you want something done right (by our standards) in China, you have to have one of your own people there supervising. That's just the way it is. This might be more practical for a bicycle company than a toy company, since manufacturing is more centralized (factories aren't spread throughout the country, due to the need for relatively high-tech tooling and skills), and the cost of each individual piece is higher. > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you > *still* think the risk is justifiable? My apologies if I said that "nobody died" riding a carbon fiber bike. I doubt that's the case; there are enough of them out there that it's a near certainty that people have died riding carbon fiber bikes, and it's even likely, given the numbers, that somebody might have died due to something defective. That's certainly been the case with aluminum, steel & titanium bikes, and I have no reason to believe there's something so magical about carbon fiber that it can't be screwed up in a fashion that couldn't seriously injure or kill someone. Manufacturing itself is a flawed process, because perfection is not sustainable in the long run. Too many variables. Aluminum frames have had their front ends literally fall off at the welds. Steel forks have collapsed because they weren't brazed properly, or somebody screwed up and thought long welded tangs on the inside of the blades were a good idea. Titanium frames have failed at welds. All of which proves nothing whatsoever in terms of suitability of a material to build a bicycle. And again, as I pointed out previously, I've had multiple stem failures. Both failed at times I'd rather they hadn't (during sprints). Both were just as capable of putting me down on the ground as any frame failure imaginable, although it's difficult to imagine a frame failure that would give absolutely zero warning, as the stems did. So, do I think about that when descending Old La Honda (why would you do that, by the way? 84 is much safer) or Kings Mtn? No. Because I've put a zillion miles on bicycles over the years, and such failures are exceptionally rare. So what is a justifiable risk to you? Is any risk whatsoever justifiable? I take a risk every time I ride my bike, especially descending. But I'm not concerned about the sort of failure we've dealt with in this thread. I'm concerned there could be a piece of glass with my name on it, causing a blowout in a corner through which I cannot recover, and possibly sending me into the path of an oncoming car. I think the risk of high-quality equipment failing is insignificant in comparison. > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? > Spin that one for me. Why? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote in message news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> > wrote: >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs >> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share >> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense >> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. >> >> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when >> somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited >> about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a >> single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical >> usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly >> what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next >> week >> coming up with ways to defend that initial position. >> >> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet >> another >> thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python >> "witch" >> sketch. >> >> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world, >> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they >> *should* be, I guess. >> >> --Mike Jacoubowsky >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com >> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA >> >> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:B9WdnafJ5eML_HXbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message news:... >> >>> <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message >> >> >>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate >> >>>> replying >> >>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the >> >>>> opponent. >> >> >>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups >> >>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more >> >>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting >> >>> discussion groups with impunity. >> >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs >> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share >> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense >> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. >> >> > I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully >> > get pushed back every once in a while. > > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is > "manufacturing defect." > > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a > justifiable risk? > > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you > *still* think the risk is justifiable? > > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? > Spin that one for me. >       Date: 13 Sep 2007 17:14:25 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <wv2Gi.2855$Sd4.436@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com >, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote: > "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message > news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> > > wrote: > >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech > >> > vs religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those > >> > who share that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with > >> > any common sense realize he gets nastier as the ice gets > >> > thinner. > >> > > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the > > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the > > credentialed technologists (myself included) came forward and > > stated that manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case > > of the pictured Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike > > shop owners, A. Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more > > than JRA," offering theories that were easily disproven. The only > > theory proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been > > disproven is "manufacturing defect." > > I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what > theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, > there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the > original photo and description that started this thread even happened > in the first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or > anyone else to say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an > indication of an extraordinarily low standard of proof. Which is pretty much where the thread has been at. With a couple of exceptions, everyone noted that there just wasn't enough information to come to a reliable and/or valid conclusion. There were a couple of people who wanted to jump on the "manufacturing defect" bandwagon but that didn't really go anywhere because there's just not enough information. We don't know the prior condition of the bike and we don;t know the specifics of the crash. For a "credentialed technologist" to take such a low standard of proof is disturbing to me. The "credentialed technologist" also needs to learn something about formal logic, proofs and disproofs, it would seem.         Date: 13 Sep 2007 20:29:12 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <wv2Gi.2855$Sd4.436@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message >> news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>> On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech >>>>> vs religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those >>>>> who share that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with >>>>> any common sense realize he gets nastier as the ice gets >>>>> thinner. >>> I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the >>> original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the >>> credentialed technologists (myself included) came forward and >>> stated that manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case >>> of the pictured Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike >>> shop owners, A. Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more >>> than JRA," offering theories that were easily disproven. The only >>> theory proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been >>> disproven is "manufacturing defect." >> I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what >> theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell, >> there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the >> original photo and description that started this thread even happened >> in the first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or >> anyone else to say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an >> indication of an extraordinarily low standard of proof. > > Which is pretty much where the thread has been at. With a couple of > exceptions, everyone noted that there just wasn't enough information to > come to a reliable and/or valid conclusion. There were a couple of > people who wanted to jump on the "manufacturing defect" bandwagon but > that didn't really go anywhere because there's just not enough > information. We don't know the prior condition of the bike and we don;t > know the specifics of the crash. > > For a "credentialed technologist" to take such a low standard of proof > is disturbing to me. The "credentialed technologist" also needs to > learn something about formal logic, proofs and disproofs, it would seem. that's a retarded bullshit argument if ever there was one. i know a fatigue failure when i see one - because i'm trained and experienced in that stuff. i will want to examine under a microscope to confirm and look for peculiarities as part of formal analysis, but expertise allows highly accurate conclusions in very short order. now, you go back to school and study composites, then work for a few years in the biz. then tell us you have no idea what's going on at first sight. retard.           Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:28:15 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:0bKdnUG4jPOVnXfbnZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Tim McNamara wrote: >> For a "credentialed technologist" to take such a low standard of proof is >> disturbing to me. The "credentialed technologist" also needs to learn >> something about formal logic, proofs and disproofs, it would seem. > > that's a retarded bullshit argument if ever there was one. i know a > fatigue failure when i see one - because i'm trained and experienced in > that stuff. Just like you had that "materials lecture more than 30 years ago" on "sikorski" helo composite rotors, right? Just like your "training" and "experience" with CF that sings to "embedded" microphones before they fail? Just like your "experience" with CF talking to you vefore they fail? Just like your "training" that "a typical yield limit on quality carbon bike componentry is ~3x that of steel" Just like your experience of "almost every bike uses a CF fork", and "quarter" tapping is all you need to check CFRPs > i will want to examine under a microscope to confirm and look for > peculiarities as part of formal analysis, but expertise allows highly > accurate conclusions in very short order. HAHAHAHA! You're too funny. > now, you go back to school and study composites, then work for a few years > in the biz. Oh, as if you have done these? When it's clear your "former metallurgist" background is fraudulent, just like your "materials lecture more than 30 years ago"? > then tell us you have no idea what's going on at first sight. retard. Well, YOU don't have to tell us you have no idea what's going on. It is OBVIOUS from your posts.       Date: 13 Sep 2007 09:53:43 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <wv2Gi.2855$Sd4.436@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com >, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote: > There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material > that has ever been brought to cycling. I dispute your claim "failure in every technology and frame material that has ever been brought to cycling." Steel frames do not fail because of the material, they fail because of manufacturing defects. CF fails as a material because it is brittle, hides damage, and because of its failure mode. By failure mode I mean that when it fails it fails all the way, where metals fail a little bit at a time, the little bits perceptible to the bicycle rider. > Carbon fiber is little different from > any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible > frame. I do not see how this is different from metal frames. > You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or > inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after the > fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, sometimes > intentionally. I ride steel for various unimportant reasons. If I wanted an ultra-high performance frame I would buy Al. -- Michael Press         Date: 13 Sep 2007 20:37:52 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Michael Press wrote: > In article <wv2Gi.2855$Sd4.436@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material >> that has ever been brought to cycling. > > I dispute your claim "failure in every technology and > frame material that has ever been brought to cycling." > Steel frames do not fail because of the material, they > fail because of manufacturing defects. that's completely untrue. there can /most definitely/ be material defects that cause failure. > CF fails as a > material because it is brittle, it is not plastic like metal, but it can be extremely tough and damage resistant - much more so than metal. and significantly more fatigue resistant. > hides damage, or resist damage in the first place. and metal fatigue is not always apparent until failure. > and > because of its failure mode. By failure mode I mean > that when it fails it fails all the way, where metals > fail a little bit at a time, the little bits > perceptible to the bicycle rider. again, that's untrue. like a piece of wood, carbon can fail a little bit at a time - and make a lot of noise doing it. unless you have hearing problems, it's most /definitely/ perceptible to the rider. > >> Carbon fiber is little different from >> any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible >> frame. > > I do not see how this is different from metal frames. > >> You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or >> inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after the >> fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, sometimes >> intentionally. > > I ride steel for various unimportant reasons. If I > wanted an ultra-high performance frame I would buy Al. >           Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:35:37 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:-cydnXUXppWMn3fbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Michael Press wrote: >> CF fails as a >> material because it is brittle, > > it is not plastic like metal, Metal is not plastic, moron. > but it can be extremely tough and damage resistant - much more so than > metal. "Can be". Doesn't equal to "always is". >> hides damage, > > or resist damage in the first place. And so how do you know? Listen to CF talk to you? > and metal fatigue is not always apparent until failure. But damage tolerance is much higher for metals, "former metallurgist". >> and >> because of its failure mode. By failure mode I mean >> that when it fails it fails all the way, where metals >> fail a little bit at a time, the little bits >> perceptible to the bicycle rider. > > again, that's untrue. like a piece of wood, carbon can fail a little bit > at a time - and make a lot of noise doing it. Rubbish. Carbon ALWAYS fails catastrophically. The matrix can exhibit plasticity but the matrix itself cannot handle the duty load, ESPECIALLY if it's cyclic. > unless you have hearing problems, it's most /definitely/ perceptible to > the rider. Just before catastrophic failure. >>> Carbon fiber is little different from any other material. You can build >>> a great frame out of it, or a terrible frame. >> >> I do not see how this is different from metal frames. Then you know jack shit about composites, as proven already.             Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:33:40 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:-cydnXUXppWMn3fbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> Michael Press wrote: >>> CF fails as a >>> material because it is brittle, >> it is not plastic like metal, > > Metal is not plastic, moron. er, "plastic" is a deformation mode, you fucking moron. geeze...               Date: 16 Sep 2007 22:53:21 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:AvednbKSXpHoq3bbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Jambo wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:-cydnXUXppWMn3fbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>> Michael Press wrote: >>>> CF fails as a >>>> material because it is brittle, >>> it is not plastic like metal, >> >> Metal is not plastic, moron. > > er, "plastic" is a deformation mode, you fucking moron. geeze... Metal is not plastic, idiot.                 Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:29:47 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:AvednbKSXpHoq3bbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> Jambo wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:-cydnXUXppWMn3fbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... >>>> Michael Press wrote: >>>>> CF fails as a >>>>> material because it is brittle, >>>> it is not plastic like metal, >>> Metal is not plastic, moron. >> er, "plastic" is a deformation mode, you fucking moron. geeze... > > Metal is not plastic, idiot. > > er, yes it is. it's not a polymer, but metal is most definitely "plastic" - if you know what the word really means. fucking moron.     Date: 12 Sep 2007 23:40:11 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote in message news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> > wrote: >> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world, >> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they >> *should* be, I guess. > > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a > justifiable risk? It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment recommendations between CF and metal frames. > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you > *still* think the risk is justifiable? Therein also lies the justifications for the black and white mentality that people go into in their emotional perpsectives. Either CF will break like glass, or CF is indestructible. Either there is an epidemic of people getting killed in CF frames, or there are no CF frame breakages ever. Very few actually understand that in terms of carbon fiber components, we can all look to the aerospace industry for experience. The fact that there are a lot more rigorous testing and inspection for CFRPs compared to metals is a recognition of CF characteristics. In fact, aircraft manufacturers do want to use CF on their planes, BUT they recognise its testing, handling and inspection requirements AND the consequences of failing to do so. Now we have bicycle shop owners who obviously want to flog what they can sell for higher profit (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that), but only rely on the manufacturers' word as far as the characteristics of their products go. Not many bike shop owners have scientific nor technical backgrounds, yet they sell high technology products and only have their own, somewhat limited experience (and that's not a put-down, just fact) to either support or repudiate manufacturer claims. > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? > Spin that one for me. It would be good if he can just answer the question, what the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment recommendations between CF and metal frames.       Date: 12 Sep 2007 21:28:51 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a >> justifiable risk? > > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment > recommendations between CF and metal frames. I don't refuse to answer the question; rather, I don't know of a generic answer to that question. My experience in that regard is with what I sell. Trek has gone to great lengths to educate people about the differences between carbon fiber and "metal" frames, explaining in the owner's manual, as well as on their website, that it may be difficult to tell if a carbon fiber component has been damaged in a crash. They list ways to try and find the damage, while for "metal" frames, they don't bother giving such instructions (they just say to inspect it for damage). I find that, personally, unfortunate... because I come across quite a few damaged steel & aluminum frames that are in danger of failure, and some after they have already failed. As you would so strongly insist, at least some of these frames probably provided warning prior to failure, but nobody bothered to look them over (after a crash or impact). It must be stressed that I am not a manufacturer, and that I am somewhat at odds with what some manufacturers would suggest. I am basically the final link in the chain. I'm the person who sees, directly, what happens to the product in the real world. I'm not an engineer, I'm an observer. I observe and, when I have questions, have access to intelligent people involved with the design and manufacture of the product. As an observer, I also get to see & hear many stories about JRAs (mysterious "just riding along" failures), and, by being patient, get to hear such stories sometimes change & evolve. Gets back to that thing I mentioned previously- that question- "What do you think *really* happened?" Sometimes it's exactly as presented, and sometimes not. Sometimes I go out to the scene and try to piece things together. It's interesting what you can find that way. But I've gotten away from your specific question. On a macro level, I, personally, see no difference in the need to inspect a carbon fiber bike after impact vs any other bike. On a micro level, you're looking for different things on a carbon fiber bike than steel or aluminum or titanium. But I'm not a manufacturer. Those are my recommendations. Common sense. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote in message news:46e8b0ec$0$18910$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message > news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> >> wrote: >>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real >>> world, >>> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they >>> *should* be, I guess. >> >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a >> justifiable risk? > > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment > recommendations between CF and metal frames. > >> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that >> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his >> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish >> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been >> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you >> *still* think the risk is justifiable? > > Therein also lies the justifications for the black and white mentality > that people go into in their emotional perpsectives. Either CF will break > like glass, or CF is indestructible. Either there is an epidemic of > people getting killed in CF frames, or there are no CF frame breakages > ever. Very few actually understand that in terms of carbon fiber > components, we can all look to the aerospace industry for experience. The > fact that there are a lot more rigorous testing and inspection for CFRPs > compared to metals is a recognition of CF characteristics. In fact, > aircraft manufacturers do want to use CF on their planes, BUT they > recognise its testing, handling and inspection requirements AND the > consequences of failing to do so. > > Now we have bicycle shop owners who obviously want to flog what they can > sell for higher profit (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that), > but only rely on the manufacturers' word as far as the characteristics of > their products go. Not many bike shop owners have scientific nor > technical backgrounds, yet they sell high technology products and only > have their own, somewhat limited experience (and that's not a put-down, > just fact) to either support or repudiate manufacturer claims. > >> For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may >> elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why >> don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? >> Spin that one for me. > > It would be good if he can just answer the question, what the difference > is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment recommendations > between CF and metal frames. > >         Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:40:20 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message news:803Gi.2857$Sd4.2146@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com... >> It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what >> the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment >> recommendations between CF and metal frames. > > I don't refuse to answer the question; rather, I don't know of a generic > answer to that question. It's a straightforward question with a simple answer, and the generic answer you gave below is adequate. > My experience in that regard is with what I sell. Trek has gone to great > lengths to educate people about the differences between carbon fiber and > "metal" frames, explaining in the owner's manual, as well as on their > website, that it may be difficult to tell if a carbon fiber component has > been damaged in a crash. They list ways to try and find the damage, while > for "metal" frames, they don't bother giving such instructions (they just > say to inspect it for damage). And therein lies the validation of one of the critical points behind my posts on CF. Nothing doomsday about it, people aren't melting or growing extra arms because of CF frames, just that CF requires more attention, more rigorous inspection than metal frames as acknowledged "to great lengths" by at least one bike manufacturer. This doesn't mean that the material should be banned: rather users and manufacturers need to be aware of the requirements of using the material, and the consequences of not doing so. However, it seems that somehow this difference in Trek's attitude to CF compared to metal frames does not make an impression on you on how CF is different from metals. > I find that, personally, unfortunate... because I come across quite a few > damaged steel & aluminum frames that are in danger of failure, and some > after they have already failed. As you would so strongly insist, at least > some of these frames probably provided warning prior to failure, but > nobody bothered to look them over (after a crash or impact). > But I've gotten away from your specific question. On a macro level, I, > personally, see no difference in the need to inspect a carbon fiber bike > after impact vs any other bike. Agreed, but that's not the issue flagged. No one suggested bikes frames of any other material don't need inspection after crashes. > On a micro level, you're looking for different things on a carbon fiber > bike than steel or aluminum or titanium. But I'm not a manufacturer. Those > are my recommendations. Common sense. Exactly. And all of the above agree with the underlying reasons and intentions of my posts.     Date: 12 Sep 2007 22:34:12 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued -snip carbon downtube. in two- damyth wrote: > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A. > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA," > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is > "manufacturing defect." > > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a > justifiable risk? > > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you > *still* think the risk is justifiable? > > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction? > Spin that one for me. I was among the first to reply to the OP and, based on my experience, advised him to seek competent counsel. That's all. I maintained, and still do, that given a couple of photos and a paragraph, versus the stakes involved, I certainly was not competent to advise. Nor do I think any of us here could advise with certainty. Speculation is fine when recognized as such and I found some of the discussion elucidating. (it's easy to overlook the pissy attention-seeking 8 year olds and their provocative/ vile comments) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971   Date: 12 Sep 2007 18:00:51 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued > "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote in message news:... >> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message >>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying >>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the >>> opponent. >> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups through >> insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more significantly, >> allow people like beamboy to continue polluting discussion groups with >> impunity. There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully get pushed back every once in a while.     Date: 13 Sep 2007 00:08:00 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week coming up with ways to defend that initial position. And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet another thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python "witch" sketch. All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world, people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they *should* be, I guess. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message news:B9WdnafJ5eML_HXbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com... >> "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote in message news:... >>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message > >>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying >>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the >>>> opponent. > >>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups >>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more >>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting >>> discussion groups with impunity. > > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. > > I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully > get pushed back every once in a while.       Date: 13 Sep 2007 08:10:06 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: >> There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs >> religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share >> that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense >> realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. > > > You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when > somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited > about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a > single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical > usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly > what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week > coming up with ways to defend that initial position. I might be wrong, but I think that's an exaggeration of these threads. I recall 2 incidents. The first was the JRA frame failure. Maybe it wasn't JRA, maybe it was. If it was JRA, then it must have been a QC problem, which is one of my concerns for cheap CF -- corners get cut. Sure corners get cut with other materials, but it seems CF if more problematic in that way for a number of reasons. If it wasn't JRA, then it was like the second incident, where the steerer blew out the head tube in a crash. In neither case would anyone know the forces involved, so nothing quantitative could be said. All the 2 descriptions reveal is the different failure mode of CF from metals. Perhaps these incidents just served as a starting point for a general discussion of the pros/cons of CF. The CF fans seem to be very extreme in their support of the material without qualifications. If others point out real world issues like QC on cheap CF, the difficulties of detecting damage, the propensity of end users to inadvertently damage CF components and the lack of suitability of CF for some bike components -- all valid issues -- they're subjected to abusive tirades. As a seller of CF, I'd expect you to rise to its defense. I don't have a similar stake in it. The fact that I don't own any doesn't give me a negative stake -- as others have opined. I don't have any Ti either, and don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I'd put CF in the same category -- good for some apps, not so good for others, pricey, larger potential for QC problems, etc. The issues about damage -- detection and user misuse -- I think are legit and I'm a bit skeptical that they can be "educated away". I don't think that's an extreme position. > And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet another > thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python "witch" > sketch. The bits about wood are relevant, as examples of anisotropy. Wood isn't strong in all directions. It can be made so via laminations (plywood), if the laminations are staggered in fiber angle. A tree can exploit anisotropy by growing fibers in the optimal direction. This can be efficient where anisotropy is the way to go. Both principles are used in composite component design. > All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world, > people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they > *should* be, I guess. Statements like that aren't helpful.         Date: 13 Sep 2007 06:01:10 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: >>> There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs >>> religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who >>> share that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common >>> sense realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner. >> >> >> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on >> when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets >> excited about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a >> picture of a single broken frame and build an entire world around it. >> And, in typical usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that >> they know exactly what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have >> to spend the next week coming up with ways to defend that initial >> position. > > I might be wrong, but I think that's an exaggeration of these threads. > > I recall 2 incidents. The first was the JRA frame failure. Maybe it > wasn't JRA, maybe it was. If it was JRA, then it must have been a QC > problem, which is one of my concerns for cheap CF -- corners get cut. > Sure corners get cut with other materials, but it seems CF if more > problematic in that way for a number of reasons. If it wasn't JRA, then > it was like the second incident, where the steerer blew out the head > tube in a crash. In neither case would anyone know the forces involved, > so nothing quantitative could be said. All the 2 descriptions reveal is > the different failure mode of CF from metals. > > Perhaps these incidents just served as a starting point for a general > discussion of the pros/cons of CF. The CF fans seem to be very extreme > in their support of the material without qualifications. If others point > out real world issues like QC on cheap CF, the difficulties of detecting > damage, the propensity of end users to inadvertently damage CF > components and the lack of suitability of CF for some bike components -- > all valid issues -- they're subjected to abusive tirades. > > As a seller of CF, I'd expect you to rise to its defense. I don't have a > similar stake in it. The fact that I don't own any doesn't give me a > negative stake -- as others have opined. I don't have any Ti either, and > don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I'd put CF in > the same category -- good for some apps, not so good for others, pricey, > larger potential for QC problems, etc. The issues about damage -- > detection and user misuse -- I think are legit and I'm a bit skeptical > that they can be "educated away". I don't think that's an extreme position. > > >> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet >> another thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty >> Python "witch" sketch. > > The bits about wood are relevant, as examples of anisotropy. Wood isn't > strong in all directions. It can be made so via laminations (plywood), > if the laminations are staggered in fiber angle. A tree can exploit > anisotropy by growing fibers in the optimal direction. This can be > efficient where anisotropy is the way to go. Both principles are used in > composite component design. > >> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real >> world, people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because >> they *should* be, I guess. > > Statements like that aren't helpful. oh dear!!! naughty man doesn't agree with you! why not call him a liar? oh, you just question competence and trivialize experience instead - typical peter cole.           Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:48:38 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:grednS_z9_YLqXTbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@speakeasy.net... > oh dear!!! naughty man doesn't agree with you! why not call him a liar? Okay. You're a fucktard liar, beamboy. > oh, you just question competence and trivialize experience instead - > typical peter cole. Yeah, people should have more respect for your "materials lecture more than 30 years ago" on combat performance of composite helicopter rotors. And people should really respect you more for your scientific "competence" in terms of, (a small sample): 1. specific modulus = Young's modulus 2. for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%. 3. CF forks talk to people before breaking 4. In the aerospace industry, CF composites sing to embedded microphones before breaking 5. metal fatigue is the same as CF damage tolerance 6. NDT is the same as NDI 7. stress does not figure in spoke fatigue             Date: 14 Sep 2007 19:27:29 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Jambo wrote: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:grednS_z9_YLqXTbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@speakeasy.net... > >> oh dear!!! naughty man doesn't agree with you! why not call him a liar? > > Okay. You're a fucktard liar, beamboy. > >> oh, you just question competence and trivialize experience instead - >> typical peter cole. > > Yeah, people should have more respect for your "materials lecture more than > 30 years ago" on combat performance of composite helicopter rotors. And > people should really respect you more for your scientific "competence" in > terms of, (a small sample): > 1. specific modulus = Young's modulus er, that's /your/ mistake, moron, not mine. > 2. for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic > deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%. that's a typo, moron. > 3. CF forks talk to people before breaking they make cracking noises, moron. > 4. In the aerospace industry, CF composites sing to embedded microphones > before breaking they make cracking noises, moron. > 5. metal fatigue is the same as CF damage tolerance eh? that makes no sense, moron. > 6. NDT is the same as NDI it effectively /is/, moron. > 7. stress does not figure in spoke fatigue eh? that makes no sense, moron. oh, you're trying to attribute that to me?!! 10/10 for gall buddy. shame you have to resort to bullshit though. p.s. you figured out the difference between weight and density yet?               Date: 16 Sep 2007 22:58:56 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:r9idneXhPOmP3nbbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > Jambo wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:grednS_z9_YLqXTbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@speakeasy.net... >> >>> oh dear!!! naughty man doesn't agree with you! why not call him a >>> liar? >> >> Okay. You're a fucktard liar, beamboy. >> >>> oh, you just question competence and trivialize experience instead - >>> typical peter cole. >> >> Yeah, people should have more respect for your "materials lecture more >> than 30 years ago" on combat performance of composite helicopter rotors. >> And people should really respect you more for your scientific >> "competence" in terms of, (a small sample): >> 1. specific modulus = Young's modulus > > er, that's /your/ mistake, moron, not mine. No, it's yours, beamboy. Google shows that to everyone. >> 2. for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic >> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%. > > that's a typo, moron. No, that's poor understanding of the science, idiot. >> 3. CF forks talk to people before breaking > > they make cracking noises, moron. Immediately just before they break. But they talk to you long before that, don't they, idiot? >> 4. In the aerospace industry, CF composites sing to embedded microphones >> before breaking > > they make cracking noises, moron. Immediately just before they break. But they sing to you too long before that, don't they, idiot? > >> 5. metal fatigue is the same as CF damage tolerance > > eh? that makes no sense, moron. Exactly, idiot. >> 6. NDT is the same as NDI > > it effectively /is/, moron. No it's not, idiot. >> 7. stress does not figure in spoke fatigue > > eh? that makes no sense, moron. oh, you're trying to attribute that to > me?!! Yes, you said that, idiot. > 10/10 for gall buddy. shame you have to resort to bullshit though. Yes, all that bullshit are quotations from your posts, idiot. > p.s. you figured out the difference between weight and density yet? You figure out yet that specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's modulus? Stopped making up stories about materials lectures over 30 years ago? Started calling yourself a "metallurgist" now, instead of "former metallurgist"? Made up a new story about "materials school"? Fucktard.           Date: 14 Sep 2007 07:13:58 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued jim beam wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: >>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real >>> world, people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. >>> Because they *should* be, I guess. >> >> Statements like that aren't helpful. > > oh dear!!! naughty man doesn't agree with you! why not call him a > liar? oh, you just question competence and trivialize experience > instead - typical peter cole. No, "dying left & right" is hyperbole, and nothing like what anybody is claiming. I know of only one recent local fatality from equipment failure, and that seemed to have been a freak event. I know of several cases of equipment failure, most did not cause crashes. Of the crashes I know of, including a few fork-related, the worst case was broken collarbone and road rash. The only source of "serious injury or death" warnings seems to be the manufacturers. > why not call him a > liar? Why put words in my mouth? I don't call people liars, you do.             Date: 14 Sep 2007 06:21:23 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: > >>>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real >>>> world, people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. >>>> Because they *should* be, I guess. >>> >>> Statements like that aren't helpful. >> >> oh dear!!! naughty man doesn't agree with you! why not call him a >> liar? oh, you just question competence and trivialize experience >> instead - typical peter cole. > > No, "dying left & right" is hyperbole, and nothing like what anybody is > claiming. > > I know of only one recent local fatality from equipment failure, and > that seemed to have been a freak event. I know of several cases of > equipment failure, most did not cause crashes. Of the crashes I know of, > including a few fork-related, the worst case was broken collarbone and > road rash. The only source of "serious injury or death" warnings seems > to be the manufacturers. > > > why not call him a > > liar? > > Why put words in my mouth? I don't call people liars, you do. but you do - /all/ the time. you call it cynicism - it's not - it's deep-seated insecurity and defense to misperceived threat. this is usenet. unless someone is trying to sell something under false pretense and you risk losing some money, there is NOTHING at stake. some people are liars. some people are bullshitters. some people are sincere in their beliefs but badly misinformed. some people are just plain fucking stupid. and some people are trying to get your money. but there is NOTHING here that is a serious threat, so why do you jump in with swords drawn without provocation? /all/ the time?       Date: 12 Sep 2007 22:39:15 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message news:Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27474@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet > another thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python > "witch" sketch. I guess analogies escape you, and you take these to be the real things. > All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world, > people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they > *should* be, I guess. How much of that is attributed to the different inspection/damage assessment for carbon frames, Mike? How does that go anyway, what IS the difference between manufacturers' recommendations on inspection/damage assessment for carbon components, and for metal components? How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you honestly, with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a vested interest in pushing high-margin boutique bikes?         Date: 12 Sep 2007 21:09:27 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Evil shop owner comes to terms with himself > How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you > honestly, with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a > vested interest in pushing high-margin boutique bikes? Is that a question that concerns you, because you think I've somehow hidden what I do for a living from everyone here? As if people don't know that I've got a business that puts my kids through school selling the product you apparently loathe? YES!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I'M AN EVIL GREEDY BUSINESSMAN WHO MAKES A LIVING SELLING PEOPLE BIKES & ACCESSORIES!!! I PUSH BICYCLES! There. I feel so much better now that my secret's out. : >) --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote in message news:46e8a2a7$0$32552$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message > news:Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27474@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > >> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet >> another thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty >> Python "witch" sketch. > > I guess analogies escape you, and you take these to be the real things. > >> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world, >> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they >> *should* be, I guess. > > How much of that is attributed to the different inspection/damage > assessment for carbon frames, Mike? How does that go anyway, what IS the > difference between manufacturers' recommendations on inspection/damage > assessment for carbon components, and for metal components? > > How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you > honestly, with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a > vested interest in pushing high-margin boutique bikes? >           Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:28:34 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Evil shop owner comes to terms with himself "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message news:XJ2Gi.2856$Sd4.794@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com... >> How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you >> honestly, with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a >> vested interest in pushing high-margin boutique bikes? > > Is that a question that concerns you, because you think I've somehow > hidden what I do for a living from everyone here? As if people don't know > that I've got a business that puts my kids through school selling the > product you apparently loathe? > > YES!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I'M AN EVIL GREEDY BUSINESSMAN WHO MAKES A LIVING > SELLING PEOPLE BIKES & ACCESSORIES!!! I PUSH BICYCLES! > > There. I feel so much better now that my secret's out. :>) That's not the issue though Mike, and you know it, although you might not know that dodging the question by ad absurdum comments don't generally succeed. The question is, do you or do you not have a vested interest in pushing CF frame bikes? It's a simple question. Because your wholehearted belief in CF and how you ignore the requirements for CF components, contrary to decades of data experience in the aerospace industry, don't seem to be based on any technical understanding of the material. And your requirement of "people dying" to disprove your faith in CF is not really logical.             Date: 15 Sep 2007 08:15:11 From: SMS Subject: Re: Evil shop owner comes to terms with himself Jambo wrote: > The question is, do you or do you not have a vested interest in pushing CF > frame bikes? It's a simple question. Because your wholehearted belief in > CF and how you ignore the requirements for CF components, contrary to > decades of data experience in the aerospace industry, don't seem to be based > on any technical understanding of the material. Having been in both of Mike's shops, I can say that they don't really "push" anything. While shops make more money on the higher priced bicycles, I think that in the case of CF those customers come in already knowing pretty much what they want. If they tried to "push," the result would probably be the customer leaving and going somewhere less pushy. > And your requirement of "people dying" to disprove your faith in CF is not > really logical. That much is true. The bicycle industry seems to jump from one fad to another in terms of materials, sacrificing durability for lower costs (aluminum) on the low end, and lower weight (CF) on the high end. Trek is probably the worst in this respect, as well as in jumping into various fads and trends that make little sense. Often the bicycles that do make sense never end up in many of their dealer's stores. When bicycle shopping for myself or with friend and relatives, Trek doesn't even enter the equation anymore, though I have purchased Trek products in previous century.             Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:25:27 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: Evil shop owner comes to terms with himself On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:28:34 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote: >> There. I feel so much better now that my secret's out. :>) > >That's not the issue though Mike, and you know it, although you might not >know that dodging the question by ad absurdum comments don't generally >succeed. > >The question is, do you or do you not have a vested interest in pushing CF >frame bikes? It's a simple question. Because your wholehearted belief in >CF and how you ignore the requirements for CF components, contrary to >decades of data experience in the aerospace industry, don't seem to be based >on any technical understanding of the material. > >And your requirement of "people dying" to disprove your faith in CF is not >really logical. We've gone around and around in these various carbon fiber threads, and between you, beam and admittedly myself we have degenerated into bickering, insults and name calling. But you really take the cake, dude. How can you call beam an asshole while you obnoxiously goad one of the two good guys in the threads (the other being McNamara, occasionally)? Mike has given calm, reasoned explanations of his take on carbon fiber as a bike shop owner and bike rider, and he has stayed above the fray while many of the rest of us throw feces. Yet you treat him as you would me - someone who is way down on a par with your level of discourse, and who has absolutely no compunction against getting into your smug, sanctimonious, self important and self righteous face, and telling you what an utter and complete tool you are. More than anyone else in this group, you've got to get over yourself. Neither your tedious didactic attitude, nor your supposed grasp of the science will ever convince anyone who actually uses carbon fiber to dump it, any more than you will convince a jesus freak to covert to islam. I think that about nails it. "Faith" is the right term; this subject is no different than religion, or for that matter, politics. To quote Dylan: " Most likely you go your way, and I'll go mine."               Date: 14 Sep 2007 19:03:27 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Evil shop owner comes to terms with himself "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message news:fotle3he6fgh2ctb4ev2sit4suqn09ks14@4ax.com... > We've gone around and around in these various carbon fiber threads, > and between you, beam and admittedly myself we have degenerated into > bickering, insults and name calling. I haven't seen you go around anything, since you've never presented anything even resembling fact, although your consumption details were quite amusing. beamboy hasn't presented any fact either, but his tactic is to make something look techno. > But you really take the cake, dude. How can you call beam an asshole > while you obnoxiously goad one of the two good guys in the threads > (the other being McNamara, occasionally)? Er, dude, the thread is a case of "good guys" and "bad guys"? And if those two are the good guys, does it make you and beam the bad guys? If I wanted excessive hyperbole like that, I'd watch the other dude's "Leave Britney alone" clip on YouTube. > Mike has given calm, reasoned explanations of his take on carbon fiber > as a bike shop owner and bike rider, and he has stayed above the fray > while many of the rest of us throw feces. Thanks for the admission of your feces-throwing. At least you, unlike beamboy, are honest about it. >Yet you treat him as you > would me - someone who is way down on a par with your level of > discourse, I can't believe that you're being so honest and open about yourself - maybe you can have redemption, after all. > and who has absolutely no compunction against getting into > your smug, sanctimonious, self important and self righteous face, and > telling you what an utter and complete tool you are. Sez someone who disparages "Freds" and amateur cyclists who don't upgrade their "obsolete" equipment every year.... Well, now you've started seeing visions again, and it's pretty disgusting how you would deem someone like Jacoubowsky to be like you - it's a total insult to him. > More than anyone else in this group, you've got to get over yourself. HA! Dude, look in the mirror. > Neither your tedious didactic attitude, nor your supposed grasp of the > science will ever convince anyone who actually uses carbon fiber to > dump it, As if I want people to dump CF, and it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand that. > any more than you will convince a jesus freak to covert to > islam. Oh, Jesus freaks "covert" to Islam all the time. > I think that about nails it. Wow, you're so confident of your "perceptive" powers! Perceive this: trying to class yourself in the same league as Jacoubowsky or anyone else who actually have significant things to say is pretty pathetic, and fails to cover the fact that your desire to be vocal in issues beyond your grasp far outpaces your intellectual ability to do so. Maybe you need to team up with Bill "Paris Hilton of r.b.t" Sornson, and film your own "reality" series called "The Simple Mind". > "Faith" is the right term; this subject > is no different than religion, or for that matter, politics. And your posts bear testimony to that. > > To quote Dylan: " Most likely you go your way, and I'll go mine." Well, I'll definitely never go your way, if that helps.                 Date: 15 Sep 2007 10:19:36 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: Evil shop owner comes to terms with himself On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:03:27 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote: >Er, dude, the thread is a case of "good guys" and "bad guys"? And if those >two are the good guys, does it make you and beam the bad guys? Follow along: Mike and Tim are the good guys, hence... That's right, chowderhead, everybody else, including YOU, is on the dark side. I freely admit it. Your turn. >> To quote Dylan: " Most likely you go your way, and I'll go mine." > >Well, I'll definitely never go your way, if that helps. Good call, because you definitely aren't invited. Not that you could keep up if you tried. P.S. I forgot to slam you for being a chickenshit by posting venom and insults anonymously, so add that to the list.                   Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:08:31 From: Jambo Subject: Re: Evil shop owner comes to terms with himself "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message news:f2qne3pj1hme872dc39vota6cdjlq5j27f@4ax.com... Uh, you and Bill, Dougy, "The Simple Mind"... it'll be hot!           Date: 13 Sep 2007 17:21:14 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: Evil shop owner comes to terms with himself On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:09:27 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote: >> How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you >> honestly, with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a >> vested interest in pushing high-margin boutique bikes? > >Is that a question that concerns you, because you think I've somehow hidden >what I do for a living from everyone here? As if people don't know that I've >got a business that puts my kids through school selling the product you >apparently loathe? > >YES!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I'M AN EVIL GREEDY BUSINESSMAN WHO MAKES A LIVING >SELLING PEOPLE BIKES & ACCESSORIES!!! I PUSH BICYCLES! > >There. I feel so much better now that my secret's out. :>) OK by me, Mike. As you know, I'm a gullible market manipulated baby boomer poseur with a hole in my wallet who keeps you all in business by actually buying bicycles and parts. Often. Road and Off-road. The type who stops in the shop weekly to yuck it up with the owner, salespeople and mechanics even if NOT buying anything. And who actually puts in 150 miles or so a week, sometimes more, sometimes less, as well. What can I say? My name is Doug. I'm a bike-o-holic.           Date: 13 Sep 2007 14:28:52 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Evil shop owner comes to terms with himself On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:09:27 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: > YES!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I'M AN EVIL GREEDY BUSINESSMAN WHO MAKES A LIVING > SELLING PEOPLE BIKES & ACCESSORIES!!! I PUSH BICYCLES! Jeez, I hope you've got X-No-Archive headers enabled :-)       Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:35:03 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27474@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net >, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote: > You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on > when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone > gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real information. We > see a picture of a single broken frame and build an entire world > around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some want to rush in and > exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong before somebody else can, > and then have to spend the next week coming up with ways to defend > that initial position. The initial position taken by most of us was that we couldn't conclude what happened with the Scott frame that broke in a crash. Most of us took that position except for a very few people who wanted to blame Scott. Most of us felt that we simply didn't have enough information about the crash, the frame and its history. It is the conservative approach and really the only one open to us given the dearth of data about the specifics of the incident. The conversation has long since moved on from that, with I suspect the OP not getting the support he wanted and disappearing. The conversation has basically been about the impact resistance of CF composites, pulled adrift occasionally by jim beam's pseudoscience spew and Doug Taylor's "retrogrouch" name-calling and a few people (myself included) rising to the bait, and about the consequences of impact damage on longevity and the risk of catastrophic failures in CF as compared to other materials. This has required some discussion of the nature of CF composites. While wood can be described as a composite, it is generally a poor analogy for CF composites. CF is designed, wood just grows. There are enough broken trees after any storm to show that spontaneous organic growth does not necessarily result in optimal strength. As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough failures to make me very concerned.         Date: 12 Sep 2007 19:57:14 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27474@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote: > >> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on >> when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone >> gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real information. We >> see a picture of a single broken frame and build an entire world >> around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some want to rush in and >> exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong before somebody else can, >> and then have to spend the next week coming up with ways to defend >> that initial position. > > The initial position taken by most of us was that we couldn't conclude > what happened with the Scott frame that broke in a crash. Most of us > took that position except for a very few people who wanted to blame > Scott. Most of us felt that we simply didn't have enough information > about the crash, the frame and its history. It is the conservative > approach and really the only one open to us given the dearth of data > about the specifics of the incident. > > The conversation has long since moved on from that, with I suspect the > OP not getting the support he wanted and disappearing. The conversation > has basically been about the impact resistance of CF composites, pulled > adrift occasionally by jim beam's pseudoscience spew and Doug Taylor's > "retrogrouch" name-calling and a few people (myself included) rising to > the bait, and about the consequences of impact damage on longevity and > the risk of catastrophic failures in CF as compared to other materials. > This has required some discussion of the nature of CF composites. > > While wood can be described as a composite, it is generally a poor > analogy for CF composites. no its not - you'd understand why if you'd bothered to study the subject and weren't just mouthing uninformed opinion. > CF is designed, wood just grows. There are > enough broken trees after any storm to show that spontaneous organic > growth does not necessarily result in optimal strength. now /that/ is real retardation talking. man-made composites are based on years of study of natural composites. the fact that one happens to shed leaves into your gutter is entirely irrelevant. > > As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF > frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough > failures to make me very concerned. that's retarded - it's totally out of proportion to the same or worse failure rates in metallic systems.         Date: 12 Sep 2007 22:42:01 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:35:03 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF >frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough >failures to make me very concerned. Sure. This so reminds me of the supposed disc brake ejected wheels which dominated thread after thread in rbt and amb 2 years ago. Which just disappeared into the ether, because, as people like beam and myself pointed out then, and are now vindicated, it was nothing less than fictitious usenet urban legend championed by my favorite people, the retrogrouches and the chicken little's of the world. Who have the temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because I like state of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy?           Date: 13 Sep 2007 17:38:39 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <9c8he3lnd5chlb5dg330qooedsl88jr4b9@4ax.com >, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:35:03 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing > >CF frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been > >enough failures to make me very concerned. > > Sure. This so reminds me of the supposed disc brake ejected wheels > which dominated thread after thread in rbt and amb 2 years ago. > Which just disappeared into the ether, because, as people like beam > and myself pointed out then, and are now vindicated, it was nothing > less than fictitious usenet urban legend championed by my favorite > people, the retrogrouches and the chicken little's of the world. Vindicated? Bullshit. The ejection force was conclusively demonstrated in direction and magnitude. The design flaw was made crystal clear. That discussion was over a long time ago. beam was wrong then as he so often is. > Who have the temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because > I like state of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy? You misunderstand once again.             Date: 13 Sep 2007 20:39:12 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <9c8he3lnd5chlb5dg330qooedsl88jr4b9@4ax.com>, > Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:35:03 -0500, Tim McNamara >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >>> As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing >>> CF frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been >>> enough failures to make me very concerned. >> Sure. This so reminds me of the supposed disc brake ejected wheels >> which dominated thread after thread in rbt and amb 2 years ago. >> Which just disappeared into the ether, because, as people like beam >> and myself pointed out then, and are now vindicated, it was nothing >> less than fictitious usenet urban legend championed by my favorite >> people, the retrogrouches and the chicken little's of the world. > > Vindicated? Bullshit. The ejection force was conclusively demonstrated > in direction and magnitude. The design flaw was made crystal clear. > That discussion was over a long time ago. beam was wrong then as he so > often is. > >> Who have the temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because >> I like state of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy? > > You misunderstand once again. no timmy, /you/ misunderstand. if the retaining force is 5000N and the ejection force is 1600N, nothing is going to happen. end of story. there's nothing you, chicken little, or any of your retarded kind can do to change the fundamentals.               Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:38:02 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message news:-cydnXYXppX9n3fbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > no timmy, /you/ misunderstand. if the retaining force is 5000N and the > ejection force is 1600N, nothing is going to happen. end of story. > there's nothing you, chicken little, or any of your retarded kind can do > to change the fundamentals. beamboy, you're over. Why prolong your agony? You've been proven wrong on this so many times, it's like you have the memory of a goldfish.             Date: 13 Sep 2007 21:55:10 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:38:39 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >Vindicated? Bullshit. The ejection force was conclusively demonstrated >in direction and magnitude. The design flaw was made crystal clear. >That discussion was over a long time ago. beam was wrong then as he so >often is. To quote a tedious rbt blowhard: "that tells us all we need to know." >> Who have the temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because >> I like state of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy? > >You misunderstand once again. And you don't get it.               Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:29:34 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message news:8dqje3lnm997hop5j0hmgghcmrntjffhd0@4ax.com... > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:38:39 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >>Vindicated? Bullshit. The ejection force was conclusively demonstrated >>in direction and magnitude. The design flaw was made crystal clear. >>That discussion was over a long time ago. beam was wrong then as he so >>often is. > > To quote a tedious rbt blowhard: "that tells us all we need to know." And this is the first time you've made sense. Pity it's unintentional irony on your part.               Date: 14 Sep 2007 02:14:48 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued >>Vindicated? Bullshit. The ejection force was conclusively demonstrated >>in direction and magnitude. The design flaw was made crystal clear. >>That discussion was over a long time ago. beam was wrong then as he so >>often is. > > To quote a tedious rbt blowhard: "that tells us all we need to know." > >>> Who have the temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because >>> I like state of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy? >> >>You misunderstand once again. > > And you don't get it. This thread seems designed to bring out the worst in us. I am trying to imagine that, in person, we'd actually enjoy one another's company and have friendly discussions in which the exchange of information and ideas was such that people actually came away more enlightened, more learned about things, rather than rated such an event on the basis of whether they won or lost an argument. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message news:8dqje3lnm997hop5j0hmgghcmrntjffhd0@4ax.com... > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:38:39 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >>Vindicated? Bullshit. The ejection force was conclusively demonstrated >>in direction and magnitude. The design flaw was made crystal clear. >>That discussion was over a long time ago. beam was wrong then as he so >>often is. > > To quote a tedious rbt blowhard: "that tells us all we need to know." > >>> Who have the temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because >>> I like state of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy? >> >>You misunderstand once again. > > And you don't get it.                 Date: 14 Sep 2007 00:02:15 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:14:48 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote: >This thread seems designed to bring out the worst in us. I am trying to >imagine that, in person, we'd actually enjoy one another's company and have >friendly discussions in which the exchange of information and ideas was such >that people actually came away more enlightened, more learned about things, >rather than rated such an event on the basis of whether they won or lost an >argument. I think what we are seeing is a precursor to Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law As often observed at family holiday dinner tables, accelerated there by the fuel of alcohol, what commences as a "discussion," devolves into a "disagreement," descends into an "argument," degenerates into "name calling and insults," and culminates as a "fistfight." Example: A: "My opinion is thus" B: "I disagree, my opinion is such" A: "I submit evidence X in support of thus." B: " I submit evidence Y which refutes thus and supports such." A: "Evidence Y is incorrect; evidence X is correct." B: "On the contrary, evidence Y in correct; evidence X in incorrect." A: "Evidence Y is bogus, opinion such is bogus." B: "Evidence X is absurd; opinion thus is absurd" A: "Opinion such is idiotic" B: "Opinion thus is inane" A: "Anyone who holds opinion such is a moron." B: "Anyone who holds opinion thus is a cretin." A: "You are an asshole" B: "You are a fuckwit" A: "Fuck you" B: "Fuck you" A: <Wham > B: <Wham > You can't punch anybody out on usenet; hence Godwin's Law.                   Date: 14 Sep 2007 07:23:40 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Doug Taylor wrote: > I think what we are seeing is a precursor to Godwin's Law: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law > > As often observed at family holiday dinner tables, accelerated there > by the fuel of alcohol, what commences as a "discussion," devolves > into a "disagreement," descends into an "argument," degenerates into > "name calling and insults," and culminates as a "fistfight." The disagreement has a turning point when name calling starts. Dies it take so much restraint to avoid that?                     Date: 14 Sep 2007 09:44:16 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued In article <GoqdnViFBPmh8nfbnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Doug Taylor wrote: > > > I think what we are seeing is a precursor to Godwin's Law: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law > > > > As often observed at family holiday dinner tables, accelerated > > there by the fuel of alcohol, what commences as a "discussion," > > devolves into a "disagreement," descends into an "argument," > > degenerates into "name calling and insults," and culminates as a > > "fistfight." > > The disagreement has a turning point when name calling starts. Dies > it take so much restraint to avoid that? Apparently the answer to that is "yes." ;-) Mike J. studiously avoids descending into name calling, however.                     Date: 14 Sep 2007 08:00:24 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:23:40 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >Doug Taylor wrote: > >> I think what we are seeing is a precursor to Godwin's Law: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law >> >> As often observed at family holiday dinner tables, accelerated there >> by the fuel of alcohol, what commences as a "discussion," devolves >> into a "disagreement," descends into an "argument," degenerates into >> "name calling and insults," and culminates as a "fistfight." > >The disagreement has a turning point when name calling starts. Dies it >take so much restraint to avoid that? In meat space? Of course not. On usenet? Nah - it's anonymous. Accordingly, I think we're ready for someone to invoke Nazis and Hitler and thereby end the thread. I draw my personal line at name calling and insults, so I'll defer to someone even more obnoxious to play the Nazi card.           Date: 12 Sep 2007 23:14:27 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message news:9c8he3lnd5chlb5dg330qooedsl88jr4b9@4ax.com... > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:35:03 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >>As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF >>frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough >>failures to make me very concerned. > > Sure. This so reminds me of the supposed disc brake ejected wheels > which dominated thread after thread in rbt and amb 2 years ago. Sigh. Disc brakes have nothing to do with carbon fiber frames. Hence, why do you think your arguments in disc brakes will apply to carbon fiber frames? >Which > just disappeared into the ether, because, as people like beam and > myself pointed out then, and are now vindicated, it was nothing less > than fictitious usenet urban legend championed by my favorite people, > the retrogrouches and the chicken little's of the world. Wow, congratulations to yourself and beamboy. I suppose James' experience of disc brakes, his compilation of stories from people with similar experiences, and the fact that the big fork makers like Magura, Fox, Marzocchi, (and other custom companies like Thick Bikes and Wily Cycles) all now orient their disc tabbed fork dropouts forward, are all just retrogrouch sulkings. And no, please don't resuscitate this issue, it's been beaten to death. > Who have the > temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because I like state > of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy? You just keep going on with your issues, it's as if you really need to convince yourself or be vindicated in your beliefs by others! You don't need to say anymore, we got your number....   Date: 12 Sep 2007 16:12:35 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued >>> someone with neither name or email address writes: >> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote >>> The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the rude >>> style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I hope that >>> those who have something to offer omit self righteous name calling and >>> four letter words. Such posts generally cancel opinions expressed and >>> degrade the level of discourse to trash. >>> >>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying >>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the >>> opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty your own space. > Jambo "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote >> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the >> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive enough to >> do so. I suspect many others have the same perception >> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups through >> insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more significantly, >> allow people like beamboy to continue polluting discussion groups with >> impunity. There's Jambo "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote > something to be said for fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only > one language a protagonsit can understand. Yet despite those words the target's opinion hardens rather than changes. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971     Date: 12 Sep 2007 23:41:56 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13eglg8cqq8j2f9@corp.supernews.com... > Yet despite those words the target's opinion hardens rather than changes. What can I say, it's not the "technical" arguments that are the point, it's the delivery system example - and sometimes showing someone a mirror is all one can do.   Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:09:12 From: Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Jambo who? writes: >>> someone with neither name or email address writes: >>> The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the >>> rude style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I >>> hope that those who have something to offer omit self righteous >>> name calling and four letter words. Such posts generally cancel >>> opinions expressed and degrade the level of discourse to trash. >>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate >>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the >>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty >>> your own space. >> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the >> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive >> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception >> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups >> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more >> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting >> discussion groups with impunity. There's something to be said for >> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a >> protagonist can understand. I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his education. It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one presentation over another. Jobst Brandt     Date: 12 Sep 2007 16:22:01 From: Ben C Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On 2007-09-12, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote: > Jambo who? writes: [...] >>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate >>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the >>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty >>>> your own space. > >>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the >>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive >>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception > >>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups >>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more >>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting >>> discussion groups with impunity. >>> >>> There's something to be said for >>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a >>> protagonist can understand. > > I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those > who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his > education. I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone. I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their derailleurs. > It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one > presentation over another. If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just address the technical points. That's what we all want to read. Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you. Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I charitably thought he was just a troll.       Date: 12 Sep 2007 22:54:34 From: Jambo Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote in message news:slrnfegm3c.5ge.spamspam@bowser.marioworld... > I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing > accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone. "Growing accustomed to see"? Funny, you may have noticed beamboy's bluster decreasing since his bluffs have been called. Accordingly, his reap followed suit. > I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All > they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might > have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be > browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their > derailleurs. I don't see how pushing back on a fraudster bully that is beamboy can deter other people from posting, unless they in fact support the former. Wouldn't it make more sense that this fraudster bully who try to suppress real knowledge contradictory to his, is the real annoyance? > If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just > address the technical points. That's what we all want to read. If only the fraudster bully would read this and learn.... > Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do > beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your > case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I > would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you. Not if there is a point to be made, that fraudulent claims to qualifications and the bleating of poor understanding of basic science and scientific methodologies cannot be disguised with bluster, technomumble, and personal insults. Is this not a technical newsgroup? > Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam > with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I > charitably thought he was just a troll. Your interpretations are your own....         Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:11:05 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Jambo wrote: > "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote in message > news:slrnfegm3c.5ge.spamspam@bowser.marioworld... >> I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing >> accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone. > > "Growing accustomed to see"? Funny, you may have noticed beamboy's bluster > decreasing since his bluffs have been called. Accordingly, his reap > followed suit. > >> I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All >> they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might >> have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be >> browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their >> derailleurs. > > I don't see how pushing back on a fraudster bully that is beamboy can deter > other people from posting, unless they in fact support the former. Wouldn't > it make more sense that this fraudster bully who try to suppress real > knowledge contradictory to his, is the real annoyance? > >> If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just >> address the technical points. That's what we all want to read. > > If only the fraudster bully would read this and learn.... > >> Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do >> beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your >> case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I >> would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you. > > Not if there is a point to be made, that fraudulent claims to qualifications > and the bleating of poor understanding of basic science and scientific > methodologies cannot be disguised with bluster, technomumble, and personal > insults. Is this not a technical newsgroup? yeah, correct definition of density, modulus and calling a bullshitter who doesn't understand the difference between plasticity and elasticity is real technomumble. fucking moron. > >> Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam >> with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I >> charitably thought he was just a troll. > > Your interpretations are your own.... > >       Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:05:18 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Ben C wrote: > On 2007-09-12, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: >> Jambo who? writes: > [...] >>>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate >>>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the >>>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty >>>>> your own space. >>>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the >>>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive >>>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception >>>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups >>>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more >>>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting >>>> discussion groups with impunity. >>>> >>>> There's something to be said for >>>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a >>>> protagonist can understand. >> I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those >> who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his >> education. > > I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing > accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone. > > I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All > they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might > have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be > browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their > derailleurs. > >> It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one >> presentation over another. > > If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just > address the technical points. That's what we all want to read. > > Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do > beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your > case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I > would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you. > > Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam > with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I > charitably thought he was just a troll. You should give him much more credit than that. His posts have been largely informative and polite. If you want to see how the whole brouhaha started, check out the beginning of the "brittle vs non-ductile thread". "jim beam" has been over-the-top abusive to several on this NG, including his "stalking" of Jobst. The only dis I've seen from Jambo is towards jimbo -- who really asked for it. I think your view is (way) lopsided. If there's a troll here it's you-know-who.         Date: 12 Sep 2007 19:57:25 From: jim beam Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued Peter Cole wrote: > Ben C wrote: >> On 2007-09-12, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org >> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: >>> Jambo who? writes: >> [...] >>>>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate >>>>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the >>>>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty >>>>>> your own space. >>>>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the >>>>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive >>>>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception >>>>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups >>>>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more >>>>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting >>>>> discussion groups with impunity. >>>>> >>>>> There's something to be said for >>>>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a >>>>> protagonist can understand. >>> I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those >>> who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his >>> education. >> >> I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing >> accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone. >> >> I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All >> they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might >> have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be >> browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their >> derailleurs. >> >>> It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one >>> presentation over another. >> >> If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just >> address the technical points. That's what we all want to read. >> >> Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do >> beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your >> case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I >> would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you. >> >> Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam >> with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I >> charitably thought he was just a troll. > > You should give him much more credit than that. His posts have been > largely informative and polite. If you want to see how the whole > brouhaha started, check out the beginning of the "brittle vs non-ductile > thread". > > "jim beam" has been over-the-top abusive to several on this NG, > including his "stalking" of Jobst. The only dis I've seen from Jambo is > towards jimbo -- who really asked for it. I think your view is (way) > lopsided. If there's a troll here it's you-know-who. says the guy that's sore because he gets called on his bullshit...       Date: 12 Sep 2007 22:55:05 From: _ Subject: Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:22:01 -0500, Ben C wrote: > On 2007-09-12, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: >> Jambo who? writes: > [...] >>>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate >>>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the >>>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty >>>>> your own space. >> >>>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the >>>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive >>>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception >> >>>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups >>>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more >>>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting >>>> discussion groups with impunity. >>>> >>>> There's something to be said for >>>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a >>>> protagonist can understand. >> >> I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those >> who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his >> education. > > I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing > accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone. > > I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. True. Pig-wrestling; you both get muddy, but the pig enjoys it.