Plies Kept It Too Real Mp3 Download
Rubie Mccloughan
What happened to Clement red glue?
Dear Lennard,
I have been riding tubulars my whole life, and I have always liked the Clement red glue. Now I cannot find it anymore. Do you know of a source?
Dear Mark,
I, too, loved that glue and have missed it. When Clement went bankrupt and was acquired by Pirelli, I think that the Clement red glue might have continued to be available for awhile, but that probably was just old stock and dwindled.
A couple of times, the brand has reappeared in tires, but I have never seen anyone reintroduce the glue. Last year, Vittoria licensed the Clement name from Pirelli, for instance, and produced some of the classic tire models again. That contract is not continuing, so there are no Clement tires or glues on the market now. That said, I do like Vittoria red glue.
But Continental, for instance, has quoted some incredibly high tread counts for some of its clinchers that have thread counts around 100tpi on a single ply, and they were simply adding together the tpi of each layer of casing. Any tire has at least two plies, since the threads need to run at right angles to constrain the air. If you just add plies, then it would look like a stiff tire with lots of plies was better because of the high thread count, when we all know that a more supple tire is the one with thinner threads and fewer plies.
Lennard
I was looking at both carbon and titanium seat posts. Due to my height, I require significant extension of the seat post. My current seat post is 330mm aluminum and the max extension mark is comfortably set a centimeter or two into the frame. Should I have any concerns? Are there any products I should stay away from due to my weight? Could you make any recommendations?
Adam
If things are crusty after you do this, then pick out what remains with something suitable for the job. Compressed air cans like the ones you use to clean your computer keyboard will usually get the loosened bits out of there. Blow down from above and rotate the cranks backwards. The remaining dirt and grime will be on the contact surfaces of the cogs, where they meet the chain. Use a rag and your index finger to rub the stuff off each one.
4. Dear Lennard,
Here in Brianza, Italy, everyone cleans cassettes with diesel (I use white gas). I have not seen problems if you wet everything down with water first, and are reasonably careful (though it may be considered improper maintenance by most manufacturers and, as such, void your hub warranty). I have seen many more problems by cyclists power-cleaning at the car wash.
Tying pieces of old inner tubes on the hub on each side of the cassette body helps to alleviate my contamination fears, and just brush on a layer of diesel, let it sit a minute, scrub real good, and rinse with a water bottle. The best bet is to remove the cassette, but we are a lazy breed. Overhaul your hubs once or twice a year, and use lots of good grease and high quality bearings.
John
5. Dear Lennard,
Another nice method to clean a cassette or a freewheel on the wheel involves a cheap 1-inch paintbrush, WD-40 and a shop rag. Use the paintbrush and the WD-40 to scrub the cassette, then pull the edge of the rag between the cogs so as the cassette will spin as you go back and forth. If the excess WD-40 makes a mess, use soap and water to clean it off.
The Court will dictate from the bench its opinion, which so far as practicable will contain the specific findings of fact *848 and conclusions of law. Either party may upon five days' notice submit such additional or supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law not inconsistent with the decision as such party may consider necessary or appropriate for the purpose of clarifying or implementing the decision.
I shall first take up the findings of fact and, in addition to the specific findings of fact, shall make such comments and observations as may be helpful in explaining the findings and the conclusions where I think explanation is necessary.
As a preliminary, the Court states that it has meticulously examined all of the documentary and physical exhibits and has, in this respect, been greatly aided by outstandingly competent and skillful counsel on both sides.
The Court has also closely observed the demeanor of those witnesses who took the stand. Many of the important issues in this case depend upon credibility. Mindful of the responsibility of a trial court in deciding questions of credibility, I have endeavored very closely to follow every nuance of the testimony as it was given from the witness chair.
1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of three patents, referred to in this case as the Deskey patent and two Bailey patents. There are also two counterclaims: one for infringement of the Deskey patent and the other for unfair competition.
Georgia-Pacific Plywood Company has, since the complaint was filed, changed its name to Georgia-Pacific Corporation. Georgia-Pacific Corporation is a corporation of the State of Georgia licensed to do business in the State of New York, having an office at 270 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y.
3. The Deskey patent will be described in fulsome detail by the Court in the course of this decision and opinion. At this point, and in connection with this finding, the Court states that the Deskey patent relates to a plywood panel in which one or both faces are striated or grooved by a multiplicity of grooves which are made generally parallel with the grain of the wood of the grooved face and which extend entirely over the grooved face. The Court finds that the grooves disclosed and claimed are of uneven size and depth. Panels having both faces grooved are not pertinent to the issues herein. The Deskey claims are not limited to panels of any particular kind of wood.
The Court finds that the primary effect of the grooving is to produce a highly decorative panel of great sales appeal. Another effect of the grooving, incidental to its decorative effect, is to reduce checking and cracking and to reduce edge separation which occurs on plain, ungrooved plywood panels.
4. The two Bailey patents are asserted to be improvements on the Deskey patent. They are in substantial respects identical in specifications, the claims of Bailey 2,363,492 being directed to a process, and those of Bailey 2,363,927 *849 directed to the resultant product. Both assert that panels made according to the disclosure of the Deskey patent tended to cup or warp. Bailey aimed at correcting this tendency by employing front and rear plies which originally were unbalanced, that is, of uneven thickness, in such degree that, after the removal of the wood from the front ply as an incident of the grooving, the front and rear plies contained substantially the same amount of wood; and thus the panel became balanced.
6. Long prior to Deskey, the exposed face of lumber, shakes and shingles, plywood and other related wood products had been grooved in a way fundamentally indistinguishable (in kind and in principle) from the grooving disclosed, with reference to plywood panels, by Deskey.
In 1927 Charles J. Melby became associated with them. Thereafter grooved face shingles or imitation shakes were produced on a planer, the knives of which had serrated cutting faces. Substantially all grooved wood products made since that time (including the grooved plywood made by defendant under the Deskey and Bailey patents, and that made by plaintiff, and here accused) are similarly made on planers, the knives of which are serrated.
The manufacture of these imitation shakes suggested the extension of the idea to lumber, one face of which was grooved for use as interior paneling (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, pp. 164-165, pp.) 64, 100-101. This in turn suggested the grooving of plywood (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, p. 308). All of these similar operations were performed in the same way on the same sort of machine (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, pp. 102 and 103, 185). *850 This natural development or progression is only what is to be expected of anyone ordinarily familar with the manufacture and utilization of wood products. This development and progression contained no attribute or element of invention.
The contract with Miller significantly excluded from the terms of the grant the right, among other things, to make or sell "veneer and/or plywoods * * * so processed" (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, sub-exhibit M-9, paragraph 1). This exclusionary phrase was interlineated in the typed contract in longhand.
8. The grooved plywood manufactured by Melby (and called Moray) has approximately 16 grooves and ridges to the inch; each groove is of the same depth; each ridge is of the same height; they are entirely uniform in profile.
At this point, the Court states that reference will be made in considerable detail to Melby's Moray plywood. Samples of this plywood have been closely scrutinized and analyzed by the Court. The Court also has available and has closely examined a series of photographs, eleven in number, which have been marked and received as Plaintiff's Exhibit 20. These photographs, which will also be referred to in some detail in the course of this decision, elucidate and make clear beyond peradventure of doubt the details which are set forth in this and the subsequent findings of fact and conclusions of law. I refer specifically to the physical characteristics of the grooved lumber, the shakes and shingles, the Moray plywood, the various products involved in the California litigation before District Judge Hall (which has been referred to here as the Zeesman litigation); and I refer specifically to the commodities known as Combwood, Venetex and Zeetex.
It is also appropriate at this point to comment that the Court has seen in demonstration a measuring device which, in actual courtroom demonstration, measured to the thousandth of an inch. The defendant's experts conceded the accuracy of this dial measuring device, which has an indicator manufactured by Federal Products Corporation, Providence, Rhode Island, Model CB1, with a calibration indicated thereon to the thousandth of an inch.
7fc3f7cf58