OBree uses a slack chain
someone
Notice the drop in the chain. So at least for training he uses a
slack chain.
danial crage
> http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> Notice the drop in the chain. So at least for training he uses a
> slack chain.
We would like to put you directly in touch with the breweries and
their products!
http://www.mybrewerytap.com/52wbc.htm
Steve Freides
news:6abd8114-5444-40a7...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd26oxpvl41-850-65.jpg
>
> Notice the drop in the chain. So at least for training he uses a
> slack chain.
Read up on chain tension on fixed-gear bicycles on Sheldon Brown's site.
Bottom line - any tighter and the drive train can start to bind. The
amount of chain slack you see is minimal, common, and about as _little_
as you'll likely see - more isn't uncommon. When you adjust the chain
tension, you try to get it as tight as you can _without_ binding, and
there's always a little bit of slack. After a while with the same bike
and the same drivetrain, you get a feeling for what's right. And the
amount of chain slack you can get away with, provided your chainline is
straight, is pretty amazing - it has to be _really_ sloppy for the rider
to have problems with it falling off.
-S-
N8N
> http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> slack chain.
And a monster chainring, too. What size is that?
nate
jim beam
er, and what else do you notice about that chain? any clues as to this
/not/ being the work of a detail obsessed pedant?
jim beam
oh, wait, it's trev. time to move along folks. nothing to see here.
landotter
> http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> slack chain.
I'd worry more about the missing spokes.
jim beam
why? each spoke can support 3x the rider's weight. and with a stiff,
deep section rim like that, undished on that track hub, they're not
going slack in use, so they're not fatiguing.
Ryan Cousineau
<95a5ba85-e582-4a56...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
danial crage <86da...@gmail.com> wrote:
No no! Pick me! PICK MEEEE!!!!
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Nate,
It's a 67x13:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/graeme-obree-bidding-for-hour-record-again-21712
53x12 = 4.4166
53x11 = 4.8181
55x11 = 5.0000
67x13 = 5.1538
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
TT
> http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> slack chain.
Parts on an older bike like that are rarely perfectly straight. Often
times you'll find if you set the chain as tight as possible and then
spin the cranks it may bind at some point, or it may go slacker than
you had tightened it. This is due to slight imperfections or slight
bends in the rear axle, bearing races, crank spindle, etc.
You need to find this "long" spot (where the chain is pulled the
tightest) and set up the tension so it doesn't bind at *that* point.
Using chain tensioners on the rear helps to keep the wheel from
sliding fore or aft.
-Tom
Michael Press
jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 2:41?am, someone <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >> http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
> >>
> >> Notice the drop in the chain. ?So at least for training he uses a
> >> slack chain.
> >
> > I'd worry more about the missing spokes.
>
> why? each spoke can support 3x the rider's weight. and with a stiff,
> deep section rim like that, undished on that track hub, they're not
> going slack in use, so they're not fatiguing.
So you tension your spokes to 2500 newton?
--
Michael Press
jim beam
no. why would i do that? you're not under some mistaken jobstian
illusion that wheel strength is a function of spoke tension are you?
because you seem to be trying to go down the road of fewer spokes
requires more tension, and that's fundamentally incorrect.
bjwe...@gmail.com
Please. It's not an "older" bike.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/graeme-obree-bidding-for-hour-record-again-21712
The biggest effects on variable chain tension are IMO
not offcenter bearing races or axles (those would have
shorter lifetimes) but offcenter chainrings and cogs.
That chain tension is a little lower than normal but there's
nothing wrong with it. Also, the bike was at a photo shoot
and who knows if they adjusted it to the normal riding tension.
Beamer's comment about the chain probably refers to the
four different colored links. Obree is using such a big
chainring, that he may have needed to play around with
the chain length if he changes rings/cogs.
Ben
N8N
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:00:24 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 11, 3:41 am, someone <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >>http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> >> Notice the drop in the chain. So at least for training he uses a
> >> slack chain.
>
> >And a monster chainring, too. What size is that?
>
> >nate
>
> Dear Nate,
>
> It's a 67x13:
>
>
> 53x12 = 4.4166
> 53x11 = 4.8181
> 55x11 = 5.0000
> 67x13 = 5.1538
Interesting. I guess the increased friction of a 11t cog over a 13t
cog makes it worthwhile to carry the weight of that big ring as
opposed to whatever ring would give the same development with the 11?
It must be significant, otherwise, why bother?
nate
jim beam
why indeed - glad to see that someone here is thinking analytically!
reality is though, track cogs below 13t are not available off the shelf,
and would in fact require a custom hub.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>On Sep 11, 2:29�pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Nate,
A) There may be a small but significant physical improvement, due to
reduced transmission losses and the slightly better aerodynamics of
the reduced cadence.
B) There may be a small but significant psychological improvement.
C) There may be no significant improvement of either kind, just
personal preference--Obree may prefer the lower cadence.
Up to 1996, no other hour record holders found gearing that high to be
worth the bother:
http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/field/4116/hour.html#Chronic
And Obree was using the highest gearing of any hour record rider back
in 1993, 52x12.
The hour record is so rarely contested that it tends to bring out
quirks, like Merckx's drilled bike.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
John Dacey
wrote:
The diameter of the sprocket threads on track hubs fixes the low limit
on sprocket size at 12 teeth. Regardless how efficiency calculations
on gear selection might resolve, using an 11 wouldn't be an option
with a standard track hub such as shown in the original poster's link.
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996
http://businesscycles.com
-------------------------------
bjwe...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:46:39 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
Jeezus, Carl. All that work and you didn't answer Nate's
question. He doesn't want to know why Obree uses a high
gear ratio, he wants to know why Obree is using a 67x13
instead of a 56x11 or 57x11 (nearly same gear ratio).
The answers could be:
- Standard track hubs don't accept smaller than a 13t cog
(beamer's answer, probably has a lot to do with it)
- Cogs smaller than 13t = increased chain bending and
power losses
- Extra weight in a 67t chainring is not that much. Really,
chainrings are pretty light
- Weight doesn't matter enormously since this is a track bike
for an hour record: flat course, few speed changes. Other
people who've attempted the hour have even done stuff
like use heavy wheels.
- Big chainrings look cool and can be used to "accidentally"
tear the pants legs of obstreperous UCI officials.
Ben
someone
> "someone" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6abd8114-5444-40a7...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> > Notice the drop in the chain. So at least for training he uses a
> > slack chain.
>
> Read up on chain tension on fixed-gear bicycles on Sheldon Brown's site.
> Bottom line - any tighter and the drive train can start to bind. The
> amount of chain slack you see is minimal, common, and about as _little_
> as you'll likely see - more isn't uncommon. When you adjust the chain
> tension, you try to get it as tight as you can _without_ binding, and
> there's always a little bit of slack. After a while with the same bike
> and the same drivetrain, you get a feeling for what's right. And the
> amount of chain slack you can get away with, provided your chainline is
> straight, is pretty amazing - it has to be _really_ sloppy for the rider
> to have problems with it falling off.
It's been some time since I rode a fixed, but the common perception at
that time was to get chain tension 'tight', so that in fact that the
chain just did not bind. Setting it very loose, as I now think is
best for training purposes, can be checked by pressing a cone spanner
(long campag or cobra) and adjusting so that the chain does not jump.
someone
So he could make a custom chainring, why else. Needs to have an OBree
part although I think those bars are not current off the shelf
equipment.
someone
A front brake disc hub. Not custom.
someone
To even out the wear. 114 links, 13t and 67t Rotation of use about
the chain and the sprockets. Minimising the wear will help maximise
efficiency. This has probably determined the precise chainstay length
in use with his chosen gear.
jim beam
hey, terry fuckwitt, how much time do you think obree is going to be
spending doing fixie skids while he's attempting an hour record? 'cos
you /surely/ ain't talking about chain wear, "boiled" linseed oil boy.
someone
>
> The biggest effects on variable chain tension are IMO
> not offcenter bearing races or axles (those would have
> shorter lifetimes) but offcenter chainrings and cogs.
Like OBree is going to make his own chainring wonky.
>
> That chain tension is a little lower than normal but there's
> nothing wrong with it. Also, the bike was at a photo shoot
> and who knows if they adjusted it to the normal riding tension.
Like they'd adjust it for an abnormal tension?
>
> Beamer's comment about the chain probably refers to the
> four different colored links. Obree is using such a big
> chainring, that he may have needed to play around with
> the chain length if he changes rings/cogs.
I doubt that. He's made the ring himself. Whatd'ya think, he made a
set of four?
Tom Kunich
> On 11 Sep, 21:37, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> >
> > The biggest effects on variable chain tension are IMO
> > not offcenter bearing races or axles (those would have
> > shorter lifetimes) but offcenter chainrings and cogs.
>
> Like OBree is going to make his own chainring wonky.
By all means explain to us how you can perfectly align a chain line. Most
especially on a home-made chainring.
> > That chain tension is a little lower than normal but there's
> > nothing wrong with it. Also, the bike was at a photo shoot
> > and who knows if they adjusted it to the normal riding tension.
>
> Like they'd adjust it for an abnormal tension?
Are you aware that putting a chain together ALWAYS makes the link-to-link
spacing slightly different between each individual link?
At least make an effort to understand what people are trying to say.
jim beam
he can't - he's chemically impaired.
Paul G.
wrote:
> The biggest effects on variable chain tension are IMO
> not offcenter bearing races or axles (those would have
> shorter lifetimes) but offcenter chainrings and cogs.
I was thinking the same thing.
-Paul
someone
detail
someone
> "someone" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Like OBree is going to make his own chainring wonky.
>
> By all means explain to us how you can perfectly align a chain line. Most
> especially on a home-made chainring.
What's "home-made" got to do with it?
> > Like they'd adjust it for an abnormal tension?
>
> Are you aware that putting a chain together ALWAYS makes the link-to-link
> spacing slightly different between each individual link?
WHAT?
>
> At least make an effort to understand what people are trying to say.
Use apt desciption rather than continuing with a vague sense of self
importance and maybe I might understand.
someone
Unless you're setting up a machine for a record attempt, in which
case, everything will be made to run true.
Michael Press
jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
You said that a spoke can support 3x the rider's weight.
That is typically ~2500 newton.
--
Michael Press
jim beam
> In article<X8udnZgjfbs7OjfX...@speakeasy.net>,
since when did "can" mean "does"???
someone
> On 09/12/2009 02:02 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> landotter wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 11, 2:41?am, someone<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> >>>>>> Notice the drop in the chain. ?So at least for training he uses a
> >>>>>> slack chain.
> >>>>> I'd worry more about the missing spokes.
> >>>> why? each spoke can support 3x the rider's weight. and with a stiff,
> >>>> deep section rim like that, undished on that track hub, they're not
> >>>> going slack in use, so they're not fatiguing.
>
> >>> So you tension your spokes to 2500 newton?
>
> >> no. why would i do that? you're not under some mistaken jobstian
> >> illusion that wheel strength is a function of spoke tension are you?
> >> because you seem to be trying to go down the road of fewer spokes
> >> requires more tension, and that's fundamentally incorrect.
>
> > You said that a spoke can support 3x the rider's weight.
> > That is typically ~2500 newton.
>
> since when did "can" mean "does"???
just before it snaps
bjwe...@gmail.com
> On 11 Sep, 21:37, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> > The biggest effects on variable chain tension are IMO
> > not offcenter bearing races or axles (those would have
> > shorter lifetimes) but offcenter chainrings and cogs.
>
> Like OBree is going to make his own chainring wonky.
>
>
>
> > That chain tension is a little lower than normal but there's
> > nothing wrong with it. Also, the bike was at a photo shoot
> > and who knows if they adjusted it to the normal riding tension.
>
> Like they'd adjust it for an abnormal tension?
Trevor, you autistic dumbass. When was the last time
you put together a fixed gear bike?
First of all, it looks like Obree's chain is a little slack.
The picture of him riding suggests so. I fail to see why
that is interesting. I don't think Obree plans to brake
using back-pressure during an hour record attempt.
Second, your confidence in the centering of chainrings
and cogs, vs attributing chain slack to bearing races (!!!)
is totally misplaced. There is some amount of slop just
in the mounting of a chainring, which is why you can
adjust chain tension a little by tapping the ring with a
mallet to center it. Even if Obree made the chainring
himself, he's likely using a stock crank, cog, and rear
hub, and those can all be a little offcenter.
Bike parts aren't made to the tolerances needed to
guarantee perfect chain tension all the way around.
Suppose you have an 0.1mm centering error, your
bike has 400mm chainstays, and the top chain
run is tight. That means the bottom chain length
varies by +/-0.2 mm. If it's perfectly tight at one
spot, the half-length of the bottom run is 200mm.
At the loose spot 180 degrees away, the half-length
is 200.2mm. The amount of sag you can pull out of
that is the short side of the triangle formed by the
straight chain run and the sagged chain,
sqrt(200.2^2 - 200^2) = 9 mm.
That's actually quite tolerable. A singlespeed or
fixed gear that has that variation in chain slack will
have no problems in operation. In fact the variation
is often larger, which tells us that it's hard to center
a drivetrain to 0.1mm.
(This is completely distinct from the lateral chainline
that Tom Kunich brought up, which is irrelevant to
variations in chainslack, and it should be possible to
get chainline aligned to 1mm or better, otherwise you
risk chain-throwing, which is No Fun on a fixed gear.)
Ben
someone
You are overthinking this. Record attempt, check all components.
Trimming the crank arm lengths so that they are all the same while
assembled to the bearing ensures that there is no deviation, except in
your mind. The new ring ias then manufactured to fit the arms as they
stand in their trimmed format (should it have been necessary.
>
> Bike parts aren't made to the tolerances needed to
> guarantee perfect chain tension all the way around.
That's why the record atemptee checks himself or has a mechanic to do
it.
> Suppose you have an 0.1mm centering error, your
> bike has 400mm chainstays, and the top chain
> run is tight. That means the bottom chain length
> varies by +/-0.2 mm. If it's perfectly tight at one
> spot, the half-length of the bottom run is 200mm.
> At the loose spot 180 degrees away, the half-length
> is 200.2mm. The amount of sag you can pull out of
> that is the short side of the triangle formed by the
> straight chain run and the sagged chain,
> sqrt(200.2^2 - 200^2) = 9 mm.
Small amounts of slack such as this are taken up by the relubrication
of the chain pins when the chain leaves the bottom of the chainwheel.
>
> That's actually quite tolerable. A singlespeed or
> fixed gear that has that variation in chain slack will
> have no problems in operation. In fact the variation
> is often larger, which tells us that it's hard to center
> a drivetrain to 0.1mm.
Not when a bike is being set up for a record attempt. Radial run out
is checked before fitting sprocket and bearing is reseated if there
appears to be any error.
Howard Kveck
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're right on almost all of those points, Ben. The one I'd quibble with is the
rear hub. When they're being made, they'd cut the threads for the sprocket and the
surface it tightens against in the same operation as they'd bore the bearing hole. So
those will be very concentric. The cog is another matter, as you mention. They're
made to have some slop so it threads onto all hubs. In other words they use the
standard manufacturing tolerance. The holes and surface that radially locates a ring
on a crank can and often does have some runout. I measured some Shimano and Topline
cranks a few years ago and saw as much as .3 mm runout. Additionally, there's no
guarantee that the teeth are going to be concentric to the threaded section during
gear hobbing, as it's done in a separate operation from the forming of the gear body.
Which makes Trevor Whatevor's comments about "Radial run out is checked before
fitting sprocket and bearing is reseated if there appears to be any error" are
thoroughly bizarre. The bearings are the one thing that isn't likely to move.
> Bike parts aren't made to the tolerances needed to
> guarantee perfect chain tension all the way around.
> Suppose you have an 0.1mm centering error, your
> bike has 400mm chainstays, and the top chain
> run is tight. That means the bottom chain length
> varies by +/-0.2 mm. If it's perfectly tight at one
> spot, the half-length of the bottom run is 200mm.
> At the loose spot 180 degrees away, the half-length
> is 200.2mm. The amount of sag you can pull out of
> that is the short side of the triangle formed by the
> straight chain run and the sagged chain,
> sqrt(200.2^2 - 200^2) = 9 mm.
Most specs I've seen on chain tension indicates that 3/8" (9.5 mm) is desirable.
> That's actually quite tolerable. A singlespeed or
> fixed gear that has that variation in chain slack will
> have no problems in operation. In fact the variation
> is often larger, which tells us that it's hard to center
> a drivetrain to 0.1mm.
It's pointless to get it much tighter than that (3/8" or 9 mm), I think. What do
you lose from it being kind of loose? Nothing. It's tight on the top side, which is
under tension. It''s loose o n the bottom, where it doesn't matter. Having a chain be
too tight will definitely cause binding problems and, therefore, mechanical losses.
> (This is completely distinct from the lateral chainline
> that Tom Kunich brought up, which is irrelevant to
> variations in chainslack, and it should be possible to
> get chainline aligned to 1mm or better, otherwise you
> risk chain-throwing, which is No Fun on a fixed gear.)
Having a chain at an angle will cause some mechanical loss but it's ridiculously
easy to get the chain line on the money. TK's comment ("By all means explain to us
how you can perfectly align a chain line. Most especially on a home-made chainring.")
is nonsensical. Obree seems to be enough of a perfectionist to make sure he gets his
chainring's teeth concentric with the spindle, as well as making sure the gear is
correctly spaced side to side to get the lateral alignment correct. Funny that TK
says that after extolling the virtues of machinists running manual mills in North
Africa a while back. Dumbass.
Also, did you notice how long the rear triangle is on the new Obree bike? It's
pretty long. That might account for the odd section of chain (he may have taken a
chain of an earlier, standard rear triangle bike and moved it over to this bike).
http://tinyurl.com/qg7a4p or
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/graeme-obree-bidding-for-hour-record-again-21712
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Ryan Cousineau
Howard Kveck <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
Nice catch on the long rear triangle. The whole bike looks really
slack-angled. Narrow bars too. The action photo tells the tale:
tucked-in hands, flat back. He's managed to get very close to a TT
position using a Merckx bike.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
pm
> http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> slack chain.
1) A track wheel is presumably dishless, so why is it laced half-
radial?
2) As long as it's laced half-radial, why does the radial half
alternate between heads-in and heads-out?
P. Chisholm
Good call. On a dishless wheel it makes no sense BUT most track, not
flipflop, hubs have some dish, the RH flange a little closer to the
centerline of the hub than the LH one. I think he should have done
crows foot both sides, looks cooler. 12 spokes per side, skipping one
hole between the 'feet'.
jim beam
> On Sep 11, 12:41�am, someone<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>>
>> Notice the drop in the chain. �So at least for training he uses a
>> slack chain.
>
> 1) A track wheel is presumably dishless, so why is it laced half-
> radial?
technically, dish has nothing to do with being nds half radial*,
contrary to some wheelbuilding myth and bs. presumably it's for weight
saving [slightly shorter spokes], but i don't see obree showing up here
and confirming...
>
> 2) As long as it's laced half-radial, why does the radial half
> alternate between heads-in and heads-out?
good question! pretty pointless. i'd go heads-in for the bracing angle
personally.
* there's a very slight advantage with ds half radial if you're
desperate to grab the tiniest bit of extra bracing angle and you have a
fat cantered hub that can transfer the drive torque to a tangentially
laced nds.
ilan
> http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> Notice the drop in the chain. So at least for training he uses a
> slack chain.
Didn't he get caught doping?
ilan
Sorry, that was O'Bee. Next time, don't spell Obree with a capital B
please.
-ilan
Tom Kunich
news:rcousine-59EB13.22490612092009@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> In article <YOURhoward-1E348...@news.giganews.com>,
> Howard Kveck <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>> > (This is completely distinct from the lateral chainline
>> > that Tom Kunich brought up, which is irrelevant to
>> > variations in chainslack, and it should be possible to
>> > get chainline aligned to 1mm or better, otherwise you
>> > risk chain-throwing, which is No Fun on a fixed gear.)
>>
>> Having a chain at an angle will cause some mechanical loss but it's
>> ridiculously easy to get the chain line on the money. TK's comment
>> ("By all means explain to us how you can perfectly align a chain line.
>> Most especially on a home-made chainring.")
One of the reasons that I've put these fools on :ignore" is their willful
stupidity. For instance, all you have to do is look down at your chainring
when you're riding to see it wobbling back and forth when you're turning the
cranks. This is a combination of the alignment of the rings on the cranks
and the bearing play and the setup play in the mechanism.
As long as it doesn't exceed moderate values it doesn't hurt a thing but you
DO have to take it into account.
And this despite not even mentioning using an old lath possibly with bad
bearings to cut your own chainwheels.
The end result is that the chain tends to wander back and forth on the
chainrings as you ride. This is part of the source of the inefficiencies and
drag of the chain/chainring drive mechanism.
What's more, Howard knows all this as well or better than I do since he
works with this sort of stuff every day as a machinist.
> Nice catch on the long rear triangle. The whole bike looks really
> slack-angled. Narrow bars too. The action photo tells the tale:
> tucked-in hands, flat back. He's managed to get very close to a TT
> position using a Merckx bike.
Notice that he's using a low spoke count wheel however. This measurably
reduces the wheel drag.
Clive George
news:3402d523-1381-40da...@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
One reason he didn't make it as a pro was he didn't go with the team
"medications".
someone
> You're right on almost all of those points, Ben. The one I'd quibble with is the
> rear hub. When they're being made, they'd cut the threads for the sprocket and the
> surface it tightens against in the same operation as they'd bore the bearing hole. So
> those will be very concentric. The cog is another matter, as you mention. They're
> made to have some slop so it threads onto all hubs. In other words they use the
> standard manufacturing tolerance. The holes and surface that radially locates a ring
> on a crank can and often does have some runout. I measured some Shimano and Topline
> cranks a few years ago and saw as much as .3 mm runout. Additionally, there's no
> guarantee that the teeth are going to be concentric to the threaded section during
> gear hobbing, as it's done in a separate operation from the forming of the gear body.
> Which makes Trevor Whatevor's comments about "Radial run out is checked before
> fitting sprocket and bearing is reseated if there appears to be any error" are
> thoroughly bizarre.
Swarf between bearing cup and hub shell. Not bizarre. Occurs.
> http://tinyurl.com/qg7a4p orhttp://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/graeme-obree-bidding-for-hour-r...
someone
>
> One of the reasons that I've put these fools on :ignore" is their willful
> stupidity. For instance, all you have to do is look down at your chainring
> when you're riding to see it wobbling back and forth when you're turning the
> cranks. This is a combination of the alignment of the rings on the cranks
> and the bearing play and the setup play in the mechanism.
Correctly adjusted cup and cone track bearings with correctly
installed square taper cranks do not exibit this. My own road set ups
do not exhibit this. Obree has been riding high gears for a long time
and if there was any dissatisfaction due to service bending then I'm
certain he would have addressed it.
>
> As long as it doesn't exceed moderate values it doesn't hurt a thing but you
> DO have to take it into account.
>
> And this despite not even mentioning using an old lath possibly with bad
> bearings to cut your own chainwheels.
but you did, and you shou
ldn't have.
>
> The end result is that the chain tends to wander back and forth on the
> chainrings as you ride.
You need to install a GPS to keep track of your chain.
This is part of the source of the inefficiencies and
> drag of the chain/chainring drive mechanism.
WHAT?
>
> What's more, Howard knows all this as well or better than I do since he
> works with this sort of stuff every day as a machinist.
>
> > Nice catch on the long rear triangle. The whole bike looks really
> > slack-angled. Narrow bars too. The action photo tells the tale:
> > tucked-in hands, flat back. He's managed to get very close to a TT
> > position using a Merckx bike.
>
> Notice that he's using a low spoke count wheel however. This measurably
> reduces the wheel drag.
At 50kmh+ yes but not at 20kmh and less.
someone
> On Sep 11, 12:41 am, someone <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/06/08/1244467596618-hmd...
>
> > Notice the drop in the chain. So at least for training he uses a
> > slack chain.
>
> 1) A track wheel is presumably dishless, so why is it laced half-
> radial?
Simpler.
>
> 2) As long as it's laced half-radial, why does the radial half
> alternate between heads-in and heads-out?
Because. Perhaps it's a test to see whether the spoke elbow angle
changes.
Tom Kunich
> On 13 Sep, 15:56, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> One of the reasons that I've put these fools on :ignore" is their willful
>> stupidity. For instance, all you have to do is look down at your
>> chainring
>> when you're riding to see it wobbling back and forth when you're turning
>> the
>> cranks. This is a combination of the alignment of the rings on the cranks
>> and the bearing play and the setup play in the mechanism.
>
> Correctly adjusted cup and cone track bearings with correctly
> installed square taper cranks do not exibit this. My own road set ups
> do not exhibit this. Obree has been riding high gears for a long time
> and if there was any dissatisfaction due to service bending then I'm
> certain he would have addressed it.
Ahem - cup and cone? Also - What "bending" are you talking about?
>> As long as it doesn't exceed moderate values it doesn't hurt a thing but
>> you
>> DO have to take it into account.
>>
>> And this despite not even mentioning using an old lath possibly with bad
>> bearings to cut your own chainwheels.
>
> but you did, and you shouldn't have.
What the heck are you talking about? If you're going to discuss this please
be plainer in your writing so that we can actually communicate.
>> The end result is that the chain tends to wander back and forth on the
>> chainrings as you ride.
>
> You need to install a GPS to keep track of your chain.
Have you ever bothered to watch the chain on your chainring? Or watch the
chainring compared to your front derailer?
> > This is part of the source of the inefficiencies and
> > drag of the chain/chainring drive mechanism.
>
> WHAT?
As the chain engages and disengages there is the slight extra drag of the
chain sides dragging slightly on the chainring. Theoretically it would never
touch because everything would be perfect.
>> Notice that he's using a low spoke count wheel however. This measurably
>> reduces the wheel drag.
>
> At 50kmh+ yes but not at 20kmh and less.
I hadn't realized that Obrea was riding at 20 kmh or less to set his
records.
someone
> "someone" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Correctly adjusted cup and cone track bearings with correctly
> > installed square taper cranks do not exibit this. My own road set ups
> > do not exhibit this. Obree has been riding high gears for a long time
> > and if there was any dissatisfaction due to service bending then I'm
> > certain he would have addressed it.
>
> Ahem - cup and cone? Also - What "bending" are you talking about?
The correct terminology for a traditional bicycle (ball) bearing as
used on wheel axles and crank spindles.
In service bending occurs from the pedalling forces. Cranks will bend
and twist and spindles will bend. With sufficient force the strain
will displace the spindle and so the chainwheel. Using a solid crank
spindle and appropriate sized crank for the expected rider loading.
>
> >> As long as it doesn't exceed moderate values it doesn't hurt a thing but
> >> you
> >> DO have to take it into account.
>
> >> And this despite not even mentioning using an old lath possibly with bad
> >> bearings to cut your own chainwheels.
>
> > but you did, and you shouldn't have.
>
> What the heck are you talking about? If you're going to discuss this please
> be plainer in your writing so that we can actually communicate.
>
whatever an old lath is!
> >> The end result is that the chain tends to wander back and forth on the
> >> chainrings as you ride.
>
> > You need to install a GPS to keep track of your chain.
>
> Have you ever bothered to watch the chain on your chainring? Or watch the
> chainring compared to your front derailer?
Yep. Had a slight issue many years back. With the crank bolt
correctly torqued and the cup and cone bearing correctly adjusted the
chain behaved correctly.
>
> > > This is part of the source of the inefficiencies and
> > > drag of the chain/chainring drive mechanism.
>
> > WHAT?
>
> As the chain engages and disengages there is the slight extra drag of the
> chain sides dragging slightly on the chainring. Theoretically it would never
> touch because everything would be perfect.
and practically irrelevant.
>
> >> Notice that he's using a low spoke count wheel however. This measurably
> >> reduces the wheel drag.
>
> > At 50kmh+ yes but not at 20kmh and less.
>
> I hadn't realized that Obrea was riding at 20 kmh or less to set his
> records.
Just a reminder for the coffee shop crew. Bare polished aluminium is
where it's at. 28 chrome spokes, double tied and soldered on anorexic
hubs.
Tom Kunich
> On 14 Sep, 03:54, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ahem - cup and cone? Also - What "bending" are you talking about?
>
> The correct terminology for a traditional bicycle (ball) bearing as
> used on wheel axles and crank spindles.
Is that what Obree was using?
> In service bending occurs from the pedalling forces. Cranks will bend
> and twist and spindles will bend. With sufficient force the strain
> will displace the spindle and so the chainwheel. Using a solid crank
> spindle and appropriate sized crank for the expected rider loading.
The end result is that the chain is walking left and right on the rings. As
it touches the siides of the chain on the rings it gets a small amount of
friction joining and leaving the rings. Were it able to ride perfectly
centered it would have significantly less friction.
> > What the heck are you talking about? If you're going to discuss this
> > please
> > be plainer in your writing so that we can actually communicate.
>
> whatever an old lath is!
In the movie which was supposed to have been filmed in Obree's shop it
showed an older lath that might or might not have been properly maintained.
I've measured runouts of .005 commonly on older lathes such as those in my
time.
> > Have you ever bothered to watch the chain on your chainring? Or watch
> > the
> > chainring compared to your front derailer?
>
> Yep. Had a slight issue many years back. With the crank bolt
> correctly torqued and the cup and cone bearing correctly adjusted the
> chain behaved correctly.
Then you weren't looking at it under load.
> > As the chain engages and disengages there is the slight extra drag of
> > the
> > chain sides dragging slightly on the chainring. Theoretically it would
> > never
> > touch because everything would be perfect.
>
> and practically irrelevant.
Maybe you haven't been following our discussion here?
Steve Freides
news:24312d01-9482-40c1...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
*************
To your #1: I'm sure the argument has to do with how the wheel responds
under a pedaling load, and that the cross pattern on the drive side
would make the wheel less likely to <insert engineering expression about
how the hub would start to turn but the rim would lag behind>. Cross
patterns are supposed to be better at that sort of thing.
#2: Probably there is another argument along similarly technical lines,
e.g., maybe it's supposed to stress the drive-side flange more evenly.
NB: I am clueless about the physics of all this (I'm a musician and not
an engineer) and am just repeating, with the hope of repeating at least
semi-accurately, what I've heard in the past.
-S-
someone
> "someone" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:de13aef3-ecfc-4f6f...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 14 Sep, 03:54, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ahem - cup and cone? Also - What "bending" are you talking about?
>
> > The correct terminology for a traditional bicycle (ball) bearing as
> > used on wheel axles and crank spindles.
>
> Is that what Obree was using?
Do you think that in thirty or so years of racing he would be wise to
use something less efficient and less suitable?
> The end result is that the chain is walking left and right on the rings. As
> it touches the siides of the chain on the rings it gets a small amount of
> friction joining and leaving the rings. Were it able to ride perfectly
> centered it would have significantly less friction.
Not with a single speed chain! Single speed chains do not wander like
a derailler chain.
> In the movie which was supposed to have been filmed in Obree's shop it
> showed an older lath that might or might not have been properly maintained.
> I've measured runouts of .005 commonly on older lathes such as those in my
> time.
irrelevant.
>
> > > Have you ever bothered to watch the chain on your chainring? Or watch
> > > the
> > > chainring compared to your front derailer?
>
> > Yep. Had a slight issue many years back. With the crank bolt
> > correctly torqued and the cup and cone bearing correctly adjusted the
> > chain behaved correctly.
>
> Then you weren't looking at it under load.
was so.
>
> > > As the chain engages and disengages there is the slight extra drag of
> > > the
> > > chain sides dragging slightly on the chainring. Theoretically it would
> > > never
> > > touch because everything would be perfect.
>
> > and practically irrelevant.
>
> Maybe you haven't been following our discussion here?
Stop letting your mind wander, a track chain does not.
Tom Kunich
> On 14 Sep, 17:13, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "someone" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > > > Ahem - cup and cone? Also - What "bending" are you talking about?
> >
> > > The correct terminology for a traditional bicycle (ball) bearing as
> > > used on wheel axles and crank spindles.
> >
> > Is that what Obree was using?
>
> Do you think that in thirty or so years of racing he would be wise to
> use something less efficient and less suitable?
Perhaps you don't understand bearings? "Traditional" cup and cone uses an
angular bearing race which causes more drag than a catridge bearing which
has the load added on a plane with the races.What's more, the cup and cone
are a lot easier to misadjust one way or the other.
> > The end result is that the chain is walking left and right on the rings.
> > As
> > it touches the siides of the chain on the rings it gets a small amount
> > of
> > friction joining and leaving the rings. Were it able to ride perfectly
> > centered it would have significantly less friction.
>
> Not with a single speed chain! Single speed chains do not wander like
> a derailler chain.
Are you perhaps missing my point? Even were the chain perfectly symetrical
the cranks, ring and rear sprocket aren't. The only time this makes a
difference is when the chain is going onto the sprockets or off but it is
there whether you like it or not.
> > In the movie which was supposed to have been filmed in Obree's shop it
> > showed an older lath that might or might not have been properly
> > maintained.
> > I've measured runouts of .005 commonly on older lathes such as those in
> > my
> > time.
>
> irrelevant.
You believe it to be irrelevant to know what machines Obree might have used
for building his bike the accuracy of which we are discussing?
> > > > Have you ever bothered to watch the chain on your chainring? Or
> > > > watch
> > > > the chainring compared to your front derailer?
> >
> > > Yep. Had a slight issue many years back. With the crank bolt
> > > correctly torqued and the cup and cone bearing correctly adjusted the
> > > chain behaved correctly.
> >
> > Then you weren't looking at it under load.
>
> was so.
Then perhaps you can explain why your chain was running perfectly when all
of the components aren't.
> > > > As the chain engages and disengages there is the slight extra drag
> > > > of
> > > > the chain sides dragging slightly on the chainring. Theoretically it
> > > > would
> > > > never touch because everything would be perfect.
> >
> > > and practically irrelevant.
> >
> > Maybe you haven't been following our discussion here?
>
> Stop letting your mind wander, a track chain does not.
You're implying that a track chain is so tight on the sprockets that it
can't move back and forth. In which case I would expect the chain to drag on
BOTH sides instead of one and thereby increase the drag. Again it is slight
but there nonetheless.
At the very least the frame flexes back and forth as you pedal causing a
misalignment of the cranks and the rear wheel. In fact it is really an
addition of a whole lot of things - it is unlikely that the frame and rear
wheel are perfectly aligned. Both the front and the rear sprocket need to
run perfectly true which again is unlikely. The frame flexes under power
causing a misalignment even if there are no others. Each chain link is
slightly different than the one in front of it and the one trailing it. This
causes the chain to wander. The rear sprocket guide must be perfectly
straight and in alignment with the axle and the axle must be perfectly
straight in the frame. No maker I've ever seen uses equipment so accurate
that there's perfect alignment there.
I've looked at high priced one-off frames from world famous builders that
are 1/4" out of alignment. One Bianchi from their racing shop had a 1/4"
difference in chain stay length from one side to the other! Others from big
name European builders were significantly out of alignment. That's why they
used to use those long horizontal drop-outs. One big name frame I looked at
had the front wheel and the rear wheel on different plains. That is the
wheels were off the lengthwise center of the bike with the rear wheel to one
side of center and the front to the other.
Again, if a bike has ALL of these problems the added friction is slight and
that's why they only worry about it on very special one-offs. But since
Obree makes a lot of his own stuff it isn't clear whether he worries about
that kind of thing or not. After all, he tends to go for custom built
components and so it is difficult to tell what he pays attention to and what
not.
someone
> "someone" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:27c063f3-8153-4ee9...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 14 Sep, 17:13, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > "someone" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > On 14 Sep, 03:54, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ahem - cup and cone? Also - What "bending" are you talking about?
>
> > > > The correct terminology for a traditional bicycle (ball) bearing as
> > > > used on wheel axles and crank spindles.
>
> > > Is that what Obree was using?
>
> > Do you think that in thirty or so years of racing he would be wise to
> > use something less efficient and less suitable?
>
> Perhaps you don't understand bearings? "Traditional" cup and cone uses an
> angular bearing race which causes more drag than a catridge bearing which
> has the load added on a plane with the races.What's more, the cup and cone
> are a lot easier to misadjust one way or the other.
The angular contact was designed in because that is the requirement
considering the forces present. A good cup and cone bearing such as
that used in track equipment is easy to adjust accurately with hand
tools and a bit of sense.
>
> > > The end result is that the chain is walking left and right on the rings.
> > > As
> > > it touches the siides of the chain on the rings it gets a small amount
> > > of
> > > friction joining and leaving the rings. Were it able to ride perfectly
> > > centered it would have significantly less friction.
>
> > Not with a single speed chain! Single speed chains do not wander like
> > a derailler chain.
>
> Are you perhaps missing my point? Even were the chain perfectly symetrical
> the cranks, ring and rear sprocket aren't. The only time this makes a
> difference is when the chain is going onto the sprockets or off but it is
> there whether you like it or not.
then your 'point' is not wot yuv decribd.
>
> > > In the movie which was supposed to have been filmed in Obree's shop it
> > > showed an older lath that might or might not have been properly
> > > maintained.
> > > I've measured runouts of .005 commonly on older lathes such as those in
> > > my
> > > time.
>
> > irrelevant.
>
> You believe it to be irrelevant to know what machines Obree might have used
> for building his bike the accuracy of which we are discussing?
It's the manner in which they are used. The end result can be finer
than the equipment used to make it or we would still be pounding rocks
and waiting for the bronze age.
>
> > > > > Have you ever bothered to watch the chain on your chainring? Or
> > > > > watch
> > > > > the chainring compared to your front derailer?
>
> > > > Yep. Had a slight issue many years back. With the crank bolt
> > > > correctly torqued and the cup and cone bearing correctly adjusted the
> > > > chain behaved correctly.
>
> > > Then you weren't looking at it under load.
>
> > was so.
>
> Then perhaps you can explain why your chain was running perfectly when all
> of the components aren't.
?
>
> > > > > As the chain engages and disengages there is the slight extra drag
> > > > > of
> > > > > the chain sides dragging slightly on the chainring. Theoretically it
> > > > > would
> > > > > never touch because everything would be perfect.
>
> > > > and practically irrelevant.
>
> > > Maybe you haven't been following our discussion here?
>
> > Stop letting your mind wander, a track chain does not.
>
> You're implying that a track chain is so tight on the sprockets that it
> can't move back and forth.
Change of tack there, it was side to side before. I'm not making any
implication, I describe it as I find it. A single speed chain does
not wander. With correct alignment the teeth will hook before taking
the plating off the sides.
> In which case I would expect the chain to drag on
> BOTH sides instead of one and thereby increase the drag. Again it is slight
> but there nonetheless.
?
>
> At the very least the frame flexes back and forth as you pedal causing a
> misalignment of the cranks and the rear wheel.
An hour record attempt needs a relatively steady torque to succeed,
flexing of the frame will be minimal for this event. Generally a
fixed gear rider will be providing a more steady torque, the demands
of the discipline force the rider to adopt a smooth style over a
variety of foot speed.
> In fact it is really an
> addition of a whole lot of things - it is unlikely that the frame and rear
> wheel are perfectly aligned.
Perfect enough for a bike.
> Both the front and the rear sprocket need to
> run perfectly true which again is unlikely.
What is your permissable error on this?
> The frame flexes under power
> causing a misalignment even if there are no others.
Unless that flexure has been designed into the geometry.
> Each chain link is
> slightly different than the one in front of it and the one trailing it.
Each link is the same. Or are you suggesting that a micron
digfference is important.
> This
> causes the chain to wander.
A track chain does not wander, hence the difference in chain
descriptions.
>The rear sprocket guide
WHAT?
>must be perfectly
> straight and in alignment with the axle and the axle must be perfectly
> straight in the frame. No maker I've ever seen uses equipment so accurate
> that there's perfect alignment there.
>
> I've looked at high priced one-off frames from world famous builders that
> are 1/4" out of alignment. One Bianchi from their racing shop had a 1/4"
> difference in chain stay length from one side to the other! Others from big
> name European builders were significantly out of alignment. That's why they
> used to use those long horizontal drop-outs.
Crap. Horizontal dropouts permit the proper location of the sprockets
relative to the derailler necessary to ensure accurate shifting with a
single pivot mech. That some builders are lax and have taken
advantage of it does not mean all do.
> One big name frame I looked at
> had the front wheel and the rear wheel on different plains. That is the
> wheels were off the lengthwise center of the bike with the rear wheel to one
> side of center and the front to the other.
Irellevant to an Obree bike, havn't you heard, he builds his own?
>
> Again, if a bike has ALL of these problems the added friction is slight and
> that's why they only worry about it on very special one-offs. But since
> Obree makes a lot of his own stuff it isn't clear whether he worries about
> that kind of thing or not. After all, he tends to go for custom built
> components and so it is difficult to tell what he pays attention to and what
> not.
Any hour record machine will be a one off because of the precision it
demands in setting up. He cut a chainring and brazed tubes into a
bike frame for himself because he can do it and he has control. I
think he pays attention to it all.
Howard Kveck
someone <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Sep, 05:14, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > Which makes Trevor Whatevor's comments about "Radial run out is checked
> > before fitting sprocket and bearing is reseated if there appears to be any error"
> > are thoroughly bizarre.
>
> Swarf between bearing cup and hub shell. Not bizarre. Occurs.
Dude, if you can install a bearing cup on a frame with so much "swarf" in the
threads that it will move a crank, you are a total gorilla (not Magilla, either) who
should not be allowed near a bicycle. The second point: even if the bearing cup *is*
installed off center in the bottom bracket shell, it won't make the crank run out
radially. The crankarm mounted to the spindle is going to spin on the bearings, which
*are still* centered in the cup. The only way a crankarm is going to show runout
radially is if the spindle is bent or the arm has a square taper that's off center.
Lastly: bearing cups? Are you fucking joking? Are you not aware that bottom
brackets are pretty much all cartridge bearing assemblies lately? And that Obree
famously used the bearings out of a washing machine to make the BB on the bike he
used to set the hour record with twice?
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In the movie which was supposed to have been filmed in Obree's shop it
> showed an older lath that might or might not have been properly maintained.
> I've measured runouts of .005 commonly on older lathes such as those in my
> time.
If you ever actually measured anything on a lathe, I seriously doubt it was a
spindle that had bearings so bad that you could measure .005" of runout. There's any
number of things that would cause runout, such as a poorly mounted chuck (the flat
surface and taper not cleaned), a worn out chuck (worn master jaws or scroll) or
fixturing that was installed properly. If the bearings are bad enough to show that
much runout, the lathe is unuseable.
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-59EB13.22490612092009@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> > In article <YOURhoward-1E348...@news.giganews.com>,
> > Howard Kveck <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >> > (This is completely distinct from the lateral chainline
> >> > that Tom Kunich brought up, which is irrelevant to
> >> > variations in chainslack, and it should be possible to
> >> > get chainline aligned to 1mm or better, otherwise you
> >> > risk chain-throwing, which is No Fun on a fixed gear.)
> >>
> >> Having a chain at an angle will cause some mechanical loss but it's
> >> ridiculously easy to get the chain line on the money. TK's comment
> >> ("By all means explain to us how you can perfectly align a chain line.
> >> Most especially on a home-made chainring.")
>
> One of the reasons that I've put these fools on :ignore" is their willful
> stupidity. For instance, all you have to do is look down at your chainring
> when you're riding to see it wobbling back and forth when you're turning the
> cranks. This is a combination of the alignment of the rings on the cranks
> and the bearing play and the setup play in the mechanism.
Willful stupidity, huh? Where to begin...
Bearing play? Setup play in the mechanism? Sorry but neither of those has anything
to do with wobbly chainrings. The rings in most cases are made from stamped
sheetmetal (no real guarantee of flatness there), with the outer edge thinned on a
lathe. If the gear blank is not flat after stamping then the thinned section will
follow that non-flatness.
But guess what? All it takes is a simple prybar and you can ease your chainrings
into spinning perfectly true side to side. Not that hard.
> As long as it doesn't exceed moderate values it doesn't hurt a thing but you
> DO have to take it into account.
>
> And this despite not even mentioning using an old lath possibly with bad
> bearings to cut your own chainwheels.
Why assume bad bearings? The most likely reason for wobble on a lathe is less than
optimal fixturing (i.e. chucks not mountied perfectly or fixture plates not indicated
in). there's no reason to think that Obree doesn't know how to set up his stuff to
work perfectly, old lathe or not. He has given every indication in the past that he
is very knowledgeable and a perfectionist.
> The end result is that the chain tends to wander back and forth on the
> chainrings as you ride. This is part of the source of the inefficiencies and
> drag of the chain/chainring drive mechanism.
>
> What's more, Howard knows all this as well or better than I do since he
> works with this sort of stuff every day as a machinist.
It's great that you acknowledge that I may possibly know more about machining than
when you. But when you start off with "One of the reasons that I've put these fools
on :ignore" is their willful stupidity" while responding indirectly to something I
posted makes it sound as if you think I'm disagreeing with you even though I should
know better, that I'm arguing against what I may have learned in a long career as a
machinist. No, Tom: I'm disagreeing with you because the things you're saying are not
supported by what I've learned in a long career as a machinist.
And you've again done a cowardly thing. You responded critically to someone you
have killfiled indirectly (via responding to that person's argument that you read in
someone else's post). You aren't planning to have a discussion with that person
because you can't read their response. That is pure cowardice.
Howard Kveck
someone <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
I have to compliment you two on turning this thread into one of the most awe
inspiring bits of "blind leading the blind" to be seen in quite some time. Jolly
good! Carry on.
Michael Press
Howard Kveck <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> I have to compliment you two on turning this thread into one of the most awe
> inspiring bits of "blind leading the blind" to be seen in quite some time. Jolly
> good! Carry on.
It is difficult to read these exchanges so I tend to read fast;
but read I do because I know they will go down in history as
one of the most boring and uninformed discussions ever to
come down the pike. Good work setting Tom straight in your
previous message.
--
Michael Press
Donald Munro
>> I have to compliment you two on turning this thread into one of the
>> most awe inspiring bits of "blind leading the blind" to be seen in quite some
>> time. Jolly good! Carry on.
Michael Press wrote:
> It is difficult to read these exchanges so I tend to read fast; but read I
> do because I know they will go down in history as one of the most boring
> and uninformed discussions ever to come down the pike.
So cross-posting this to rbr is a kind of undercover war designed to kill
us by boredom or lull us into a state of deep sleep before attacking at
dawn.
bjwe...@gmail.com
> In article <YOURhoward-A470DE.23311414092...@news.giganews.com>,
> Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to compliment you two on turning this thread into one of the most awe
> > inspiring bits of "blind leading the blind" to be seen in quite some time. Jolly
> > good! Carry on.
>
> It is difficult to read these exchanges so I tend to read fast;
> but read I do because I know they will go down in history as
> one of the most boring and uninformed discussions ever to
> come down the pike. Good work setting Tom straight in your
> previous message.
I admire Schwartz's accomplishment in getting
his bots to argue with each other, but I'd be even
more impressed if they could do it in comprehensible
English.
Ben
Fred Fredburger
> In article <Qo2dnQCEcOkE9jPX...@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In the movie which was supposed to have been filmed in Obree's shop it
>> showed an older lath that might or might not have been properly maintained.
>> I've measured runouts of .005 commonly on older lathes such as those in my
>> time.
>
> If you ever actually measured anything on a lathe, I seriously doubt it was a
> spindle that had bearings so bad that you could measure .005" of runout. There's any
> number of things that would cause runout, such as a poorly mounted chuck (the flat
> surface and taper not cleaned), a worn out chuck (worn master jaws or scroll) or
> fixturing that was installed properly. If the bearings are bad enough to show that
> much runout, the lathe is unuseable.
>
I always had the idea that Obree was a fairly competent machinist.
Fred Fredburger
:
Donald Munro
> I admire Schwartz's accomplishment in getting his bots to argue with each
> other, but I'd be even more impressed if they could do it in
> comprehensible English.
SchwartzSoft are branching out for their rbr clientele:
<http://virt.vgmix.com/jenny18/>
"
reduz asked me to make the eliza bot better. i'm not smart enough to make
like neural networks and natural language parsing and contextual branching
decision matrices, but i sure as hell know how to talk like a guy
pretending to be a dumb girl.
"
Tom Kunich
news:4aaf...@news.x-privat.org...
As have I. But we don't know and as I pointed out, I have measured these
sorts of errors myself. If dopey is claiming that they don't occur then
perhaps he should remember that he is a professional machinist and Obree
isn't.
someone
> In article <5a98f0dd-84fa-4266-b006-153952988...@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> someone <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 13 Sep, 05:14, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > > Which makes Trevor Whatevor's comments about "Radial run out is checked
> > > before fitting sprocket and bearing is reseated if there appears to be any error"
> > > are thoroughly bizarre.
>
> > Swarf between bearing cup and hub shell. Not bizarre. Occurs.
>
> Dude, if you can install a bearing cup on a frame with so much "swarf" in the
> threads that it will move a crank, you are a total gorilla (not Magilla, either) who
> should not be allowed near a bicycle. The second point: even if the bearing cup *is*
> installed off center in the bottom bracket shell, it won't make the crank run out
> radially. The crankarm mounted to the spindle is going to spin on the bearings, which
> *are still* centered in the cup. The only way a crankarm is going to show runout
> radially is if the spindle is bent or the arm has a square taper that's off center.
>
> Lastly: bearing cups? Are you fucking joking? Are you not aware that bottom
> brackets are pretty much all cartridge bearing assemblies lately? And that Obree
> famously used the bearings out of a washing machine to make the BB on the bike he
> used to set the hour record with twice?
I referred to swarf ibetween a hub shell and its cup, so that effort
was a total waste.
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <Fr...@fredlier.than.thou> wrote in message
> news:4aaf...@news.x-privat.org...
> > Howard Kveck wrote:
> >> In article <Qo2dnQCEcOkE9jPX...@earthlink.com>,
> >> "Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In the movie which was supposed to have been filmed in Obree's shop it
> >>> showed an older lath that might or might not have been properly
> >>> maintained. I've measured runouts of .005 commonly on older lathes such
> >>> as those in my time.
> >>
> >> If you ever actually measured anything on a lathe, I seriously doubt
> >> it was a spindle that had bearings so bad that you could measure .005" of
> >> runout. There's any number of things that would cause runout, such as a
> >> poorly mounted chuck (the flat surface and taper not cleaned), a worn out
> >> chuck (worn master jaws or scroll) or fixturing that was installed
> >> properly. If the bearings are bad enough to show that much runout, the
> >> lathe is unuseable.
> >>
> >
> > I always had the idea that Obree was a fairly competent machinist.
>
> As have I. But we don't know and as I pointed out, I have measured these
> sorts of errors myself. If dopey is claiming that they don't occur then
> perhaps he should remember that he is a professional machinist and Obree
> isn't.
Tom, you aren't a machinist. Firstly, why would you need to be measuring runout on
lathes? Secondly, how on earth would you know where or what to measure to assertain
the wear on the spindle bearings that you claim are so bad that you've "measured
runouts of .005 commonly"? Why would you be doing this?
A word to the wise, Tom: if, in fact, you were in the same county as a lathe that
was showing that much slop, it does not mean what you think it does.
Howard Kveck
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I don't think he's "set straight" as he has a very deep and abiding belief in his
own rightness at all times.
Ryan Cousineau
Donald Munro <fat-d...@mailinator.com> wrote:
You missed the best line: "making sex bots is just a disturbing side
hobby."
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."