On Maintaining Shimano Dynamo Hubs
Radey Shouman
was aware of the hub's foible -- although it uses cup and cone bearings,
Shimano is sufficiently embarrassed about one of them that they don't
admit to its existence in their customer documentation.
The reason is explained in a document formerly available from
trinitybicycles.com:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3819048/Overhauling%20Shimano%20Dynamo%20Hubs.pdf
A solid wire connecting the hot end of the coil to the external
connector runs in a keyway in the axle, it is fragile, and must be bent
several times in order to service the bearing on that side of the hub.
When the play at the rim of my wheel became noticeably greater than it
was when new, I decided to service the bearings. It didn't sound *that*
hard, the days are long now, and I have a perfectly serviceable spare
wheel.
Naturally, I broke the wire (when trying to reassemble the thing in not
quite the right order).
It still didn't seem *that* hard, until I tried to solder a wire to the
end of the broken one. With the wire I could push a blob of molten
solder around without wetting it one bit. A more capable co-worker was
kind enough to try his hand at it, and and as I watched the same thing
happen to him I realized the the brittle, silvery wire was aluminum.
Aluminum is a reasonable choice for winding a bicycle dynamo. It is
more conductive than copper on either a mass or cost basis. But it's a
crap choice for a little pigtail that has to be bent this way and that.
Eventually I procured some aluminum flux and Sn/Zn solder, and managed
to tin the end of the aluminum wire, and then to solder a stranded
copper pigtail to it. I located the splice below the axle keyway, so
that I could make it conveniently fat. The axle is retained in the
armature by two nuts, staked in place by little tabs on the washers
below them. I removed the nut on the connector side using a strap
wrench to hold the armature, stuffed the splice under the washer, and
reassembled it as it was before.
So far, the dynamo seems to work as it did before, and should be
considerably easier to service, unless my splice falls apart or
corrodes.
Wondering why Shimano didn't do the same thing originally (I would have
cheerfully spent an extra $10 on a hub that was unequivocally
serviceable), I happened across a European patent application for just
that, dated 2007:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1930916.html
I can't tell whether this patent, or the referenced Japanese patent,
ever issued.
--
Jeff Liebermann
<sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I happened across a European patent application for just
>that, dated 2007:
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1930916.html
>
>I can't tell whether this patent, or the referenced Japanese patent,
>ever issued.
It's apparently still in process in the US:
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=YiWqAAAAEBAJ>
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Marcus Coles
is "obvious to one skilled in the art".
The trouble is that these days patent offices find the acquisition of
fees is the prime directive and research and assessment of patents is a
money waster.
Warning: Don't get me started on software patents.
Marcus
Peter Cole
> Radey Shouman<sho...@comcast.net> considered Wed, 20 Jul 2011
> royalty payment for a one-off use.
> They will probably decline such a small payment anyway, as being not
> worth the cost of processing, but will possible be perfectly satisfied
> with your validation of the usefulness, and wish to cite it in
> promotional material, so a glowing letter of approval may help.
> Independent product endorsements are generally worth more to a
> developer than the royalty payment for a single unit.
AFAIK, it's fine to exploit a patent for personal use, at least in the
US. A tip: Google patents works much better than freepatentsonline.
Another tip: if you can't find a service manual for something, try a
patent search, that's saved my bacon a few times now.
Radey Shouman
> I don't think the patent should be/have been approved since the
> solution is "obvious to one skilled in the art".
It was obvious to me, and I'm barely competent in the art.
> The trouble is that these days patent offices find the acquisition of
> fees is the prime directive and research and assessment of patents is
> a money waster.
>
> Warning: Don't get me started on software patents.
>
>
> Marcus
--
Radey Shouman
> Radey Shouman <sho...@comcast.net> considered Wed, 20 Jul 2011
> 23:06:28 -0400 the perfect time to write:
>
[...]
>>Wondering why Shimano didn't do the same thing originally (I would have
>>cheerfully spent an extra $10 on a hub that was unequivocally
>>serviceable), I happened across a European patent application for just
>>that, dated 2007:
>>
>> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1930916.html
>>
>>I can't tell whether this patent, or the referenced Japanese patent,
>>ever issued.
>
> It may be safest to contact the patent holder and offer a reasonable
> royalty payment for a one-off use.
> They will probably decline such a small payment anyway, as being not
> worth the cost of processing, but will possible be perfectly satisfied
> with your validation of the usefulness, and wish to cite it in
> promotional material, so a glowing letter of approval may help.
> Independent product endorsements are generally worth more to a
> developer than the royalty payment for a single unit.
I'm not really worried about the patent being enforced on my home brew
modification, unless the RIAA should somehow acquire an interest. I am
curious to know if Shimano has actually marketed the invention
described. In the worst case they would patent it, defend their patent,
but not offer any for sale.
I know I bought my dynohub after the patent publication date, and it did
not include the described innovation.
--
Radey Shouman
> On 7/21/2011 1:08 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> Radey Shouman<sho...@comcast.net> considered Wed, 20 Jul 2011
>> 23:06:28 -0400 the perfect time to write:
[ ... ]
>>> Wondering why Shimano didn't do the same thing originally (I would have
>>> cheerfully spent an extra $10 on a hub that was unequivocally
>>> serviceable), I happened across a European patent application for just
>>> that, dated 2007:
>>>
>>> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1930916.html
>>>
>>> I can't tell whether this patent, or the referenced Japanese patent,
>>> ever issued.
>>
>> It may be safest to contact the patent holder and offer a reasonable
>> royalty payment for a one-off use.
>> They will probably decline such a small payment anyway, as being not
>> worth the cost of processing, but will possible be perfectly satisfied
>> with your validation of the usefulness, and wish to cite it in
>> promotional material, so a glowing letter of approval may help.
>> Independent product endorsements are generally worth more to a
>> developer than the royalty payment for a single unit.
>
> AFAIK, it's fine to exploit a patent for personal use, at least in the
> US. A tip: Google patents works much better than
> freepatentsonline. Another tip: if you can't find a service manual for
> something, try a patent search, that's saved my bacon a few times now.
freepatentsonline came up in a google web search, google patents did
not. Google patents seems to cover only US patents, not Euro or Japanese.
Patent searching for personal use can turn up some interesting diagrams;
those in the Shimano patent show something very like the actual product.
On the other hand, in a professional context, punitive damages may apply
if a patent is deliberately infringed, so it may be better not to check.
--
Peter Cole
check.
David Scheidt
If you don't chck, you can claim it's obvious to someone skilled in
the art. If you check, you clearly copied it.
--
sig 19
Peter Cole
You can also claim you didn't check.
Radey Shouman
Some people prefer not to perjure themselves, for various reasons.
--
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> Radey Shouman<sho...@comcast.net> considered Wed, 20 Jul 2011
> 23:06:28 -0400 the perfect time to write:
>
> royalty payment for a one-off use.
> They will probably decline such a small payment anyway, as being not
> worth the cost of processing, but will possible be perfectly satisfied
> with your validation of the usefulness, and wish to cite it in
> promotional material, so a glowing letter of approval may help.
> Independent product endorsements are generally worth more to a
> developer than the royalty payment for a single unit.
I am not a patent lawyer, but my understanding is that one is not
violating the law by copying a patented item, as long as one does not
sell the result.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Radey Shouman
That's probably not quite right, for example I don't imagine it would be
safe to set up a business modifying Shimano hubs for hire. I do think
modifying one for personal use in the US is ok, but might well not be in
the UK, where, I believe, Phil Lee lives.
--
Dennis Ferguson
>> They will probably decline such a small payment anyway, as being not
>> worth the cost of processing, but will possible be perfectly satisfied
>> with your validation of the usefulness, and wish to cite it in
>> promotional material, so a glowing letter of approval may help.
>> Independent product endorsements are generally worth more to a
>> developer than the royalty payment for a single unit.
>
> I am not a patent lawyer, but my understanding is that one is not
> violating the law by copying a patented item, as long as one does not
> sell the result.
It might work that way somewhere, but not in the United States.
TITLE 35 > PART III > CHAPTER 28 > § 271
§ 271. Infringement of patent
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
invention, within the United States or imports into the United
States any patented invention during the term of the patent
therefor, infringes the patent.
That is, "makes" and "uses" are as much of a problem as "sells".
Dennis Ferguson
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
The real answer is not the statute's wording, but the precedence of how
the courts have interpreted the statute in past cases.
Dan O
> I have a Shimano dynamo hub, DH-3N72. At the time that I bought it I
> was aware of the hub's foible -- although it uses cup and cone bearings,
> Shimano is sufficiently embarrassed about one of them that they don't
> admit to its existence in their customer documentation.
>
> The reason is explained in a document formerly available from
> trinitybicycles.com:
>
This is exactly why - while I the idea of a dynamo hub appeals to me -
I am holding out for a SON. That and the fact that the specs I have
seen also show the SON has minimal drag.
Popping a pair of batteries out of my PB 2-watt (which gives excellent
light, BTW) and into the charger is not so much overhead along with
topping up tires, cleaning bike clothes, glasses, and water bottles,
and weekly maintenance - for a front hub that is light, zero (extra)
drag, and easy to overhaul (or maintenance free, in the case of my
PW).
My application is not everyone's, though, and if I lived in a big city
and had a dedicated "utility" bike, it would really want the dynamo
hub.
<snip>
Radey Shouman
> Radey Shouman <sho...@comcast.net> considered Fri, 22 Jul 2011
> I only ever said "may", but I still think it would be the safest way
> of covering yourself.
> What if 3 years later, the patent holder has been swallowed by another
> company that is more aggressive about enforcing rights?
> And you just sold the bike to a mate, having bought a new one?
>
> I think it's more about gaining any advantage from it (which is not
> necessarily limited to financial advantage) than actually selling it.
>
> That could include increased reliability (particularly in a hire
> fleet), or enhanced resale value.
In the US, at least, it's more about the patent holder *losing*
advantage. If I understand correctly awards are limited to three times
actual damages. Damages on losing the sale of one hub would not
pay Shimano for one stern letter, nor would it come near paying me for a
replacement hub.
It's not even clear that they lose anything -- I might well have
replaced their hub with a competitor's, or with a bottom bracket
generator. I am actually more likely to buy a replacement Shimano now
that I am convinced they are repairable.
Contacting Shimano might be worthwhile anyway, both for entertainment
value and to try to influence them to ship more maintainable products.
> Just to be clear, I think the patents system is pretty thoroughly
> broken anyway, but it's all we have at present, and it isn't something
> we can opt out of.
It has certainly run downhill since the US patent office was made
dependent on fees for funding -- they have no incentive whatsoever to
safeguard the ostensible reason for patents, the improvement of useful
arts. From what I've seen most manufacturers actually do opt out of the
system, in the sense that they would rather gouge their eyes out with a
spoon than license a patent for money. Cross-licensing by way of self
defense (and freezing out third parties) is the order of the day.
--
Radey Shouman
I like my Shimano hub a lot more now that I've repaired it. It does
have drag that is detectable when turning the wheel by hand, but it's
not something I would ever notice while riding along.
When I used battery lights I frequently found myself delaying light use
until it got really dark to conserve the batteries. Now I flip the
switch whenever I feel like it.
> Popping a pair of batteries out of my PB 2-watt (which gives excellent
> light, BTW) and into the charger is not so much overhead along with
> topping up tires, cleaning bike clothes, glasses, and water bottles,
> and weekly maintenance - for a front hub that is light, zero (extra)
> drag, and easy to overhaul (or maintenance free, in the case of my
> PW).
I bought a 1 Watt PB light several years ago. The mechanical design
and build quality were quite good, but the optics were horrible. It
threw alternating bright stripes of light and dark holes, apparently by
design. One foggy night the light it threw upwards (illuminating tree
branches overhead) actually made it harder to see, so I decided to get
something else.
--
Dennis Ferguson
That would give you an answer different than the statute's wording
only if case law reinterpreting that language existed, but in this
case none does. In this instance the law is what the law says it is.
This issue comes up reasonably regularly in free software, since
many software patents exist which are trivial to independently
reinvent when you have the problem the invention addresses. Neither the
fact that you were unaware of the patent that you infringed nor the
fact that you are giving away the code you wrote which infringes
the patent helps at all.
Dennis Ferguson
Frank Krygowski
>
> I like my Shimano hub a lot more now that I've repaired it. It does
> have drag that is detectable when turning the wheel by hand, but it's
> not something I would ever notice while riding along.
I've got a Shimano hub unit too. I sometimes detect a weird little
vibration while riding, but otherwise it's as unnoticeable as any
front hub.
> When I used battery lights I frequently found myself delaying light use
> until it got really dark to conserve the batteries. Now I flip the
> switch whenever I feel like it.
That's pretty much why I started using generator lights. I'll point
out, it works the same whether it's a hub unit, bottle unit or roller
unit. All are very practical for most situations.
> I bought a 1 Watt PB light several years ago. The mechanical design
> and build quality were quite good, but the optics were horrible. It
> threw alternating bright stripes of light and dark holes, apparently by
> design. One foggy night the light it threw upwards (illuminating tree
> branches overhead) actually made it harder to see, so I decided to get
> something else.
It's a rare battery light that has optics as good as a generator
light.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
That really is the best of all worlds - value added by your own
ingenuity.
> It does
> have drag that is detectable when turning the wheel by hand, but it's
> not something I would ever notice while riding along.
>
True - but we spin our wheels on the stand and watch to make sure they
glide to a stop with the least achieveable drag, so just *knowing* the
extra drag was there would bug me (I'm working on this class of hangup
in my head).
> When I used battery lights I frequently found myself delaying light use
> until it got really dark to conserve the batteries. Now I flip the
> switch whenever I feel like it.
>
Good point. I do the same thing with my battery light (or rather it
does it to me)... don't run it all when I think it's unnecessary...
and then run it on low power... and switch to blinking when it's light
enough that I don't have to see the annoying flashing myself... all
measures undertaken primarily for battery life, all reasons to prefer
a dynamo - not to mention the drawback of having to about it.
For my application, though (~2 hours to work and ~2 hours back - only
all dark for a small part of the year), I could run it solid on all
the way without worrying about it if I wanted to. Like I said, if I
lived in the big city and had a "utility" bike...
> > Popping a pair of batteries out of my PB 2-watt (which gives excellent
> > light, BTW) and into the charger is not so much overhead along with
> > topping up tires, cleaning bike clothes, glasses, and water bottles,
> > and weekly maintenance - for a front hub that is light, zero (extra)
> > drag, and easy to overhaul (or maintenance free, in the case of my
> > PW).
>
> I bought a 1 Watt PB light several years ago. The mechanical design
> and build quality were quite good, but the optics were horrible. It
> threw alternating bright stripes of light and dark holes, apparently by
> design. One foggy night the light it threw upwards (illuminating tree
> branches overhead) actually made it harder to see, so I decided to get
> something else.
>
I had a PB 1-watt. It's light was not *much* good to see by. Then it
got water inside and the optics got even worse. The 2-watt is much,
much better to see by, and so far hasn't gotten wet inside.
The thing is, lighting isn't that big of a priority for me except when
it's really dark on less familar roads (though since getting the 2-
watt I am growing more appreciative). I would kind of like to have a
SON hub with one of those really nice headlights that Peter White
sells (and Phil Wood rear hub and BB... and Velocity rims... Paul
brakes... Ortlieb bags... and... :-)
I remember well - as a kid - anticipating being able to light up the
road ahead and see where I was going with the white / red T-head
incandescent flashlight w/ leg strap that I won selling
newspapers... :-( And then the big chrome incandescent w/ bottle
dynamo... :-( Only now w/ the PB 2-watt that fits in my hand and runs
on rechargable *penlight* batteries is that "vision" beginning to be
realized.
Frank Krygowski
>
> The thing is, lighting isn't that big of a priority for me except when
> it's really dark on less familar roads (though since getting the 2-
> watt I am growing more appreciative). I would kind of like to have a
> SON hub with one of those really nice headlights that Peter White
> sells (and Phil Wood rear hub and BB... and Velocity rims... Paul
> brakes... Ortlieb bags... and... :-)
FWIW, good lights make WAY more difference to your riding than
anything else you've listed. Better rims, hubs or bags may be slight
improvements over what you're using now. But a light that lets you
see really well gives you great freedom. It gives you access to
another part of the 24 hour day. It can also prevent a lot of worry
as daylight gets more scarce - the "Can I make it home before dark?"
worry.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Your worry, not mine. And difference to *my* riding? Awfully
presumptuous, don't you think?
Anyway, I wasn't listing *any* of those things as something that would
make any or much difference to my riding. I was illustrating my
appreciation and desire for uncompromised quality - a wish list for
Santa.
Speaking of "my" riding. I just came back from the store. Yes, it's
dark outside. No, I have no lights on my wheelie bike. Nor does it
have any racks or baskets. I was sent for pizza (2 large), milk (1
gallon), and got a couple other small items. So here I have two large
pizzas, one gallon milk, and a plastic bag. I can hold the milk jug
and plastic bag with a few fingers, but that only leaves thumb and two
fingers to balance two large pizzas. That was okay to mount up and
get going, but precarious (for the pizzas) enroute, so I transferred
to pizzas to my other hand once underway.
So there I am riding home in the dark - not only w/ no hands, but no
hands free to grab the bars if I had to. This is actually illegal in
my state (but so is the no light so what the hey) - although I'm not
sure of the application if I am able to transfer the pizzas back to
the milk jug hand and get one free - which I did in order to negotiate
the bumpy, walnut-strewn driveway and dismount.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> I remember well - as a kid - anticipating being able to light up the
> road ahead and see where I was going with the white / red T-head
> incandescent flashlight w/ leg strap that I won selling
I had one of those almost 30 years ago. Trapping some fireflies in a
bottle would have been almost as effective.
Lou Holtman
Would this not be easier with a rear rack and panniers instead of making
this into a circus act?
Lou
Dan O
If I mount a rear rack and panniers, I would not be able to get my
feet under me on the off chance that I flip the bike over on my way
*to* the store.
(I'd have to juggle the pizzas and milk to really qualify for the
circus.)
It was an exceptionally satisfying - if short - ride, actually.
Dan O
... and the pizzas were completely unscathed, un-smooshed, not a dent
in the crust or a topping out of place (seriously, they would have
done worse riding in the back of a car). How would you carry two
large pizzas? Would you let them flap off the end and sides of the
rack? Tied down with bungies? Stuffed into panniers?
(When I was in the bookstore the other day, I had my work clothes tied
on top of the rear rack, 3/4 loaf of bread and a new tube of
toothpaste on the front. Carried the books home in voluminous
messenger bag.)
Frank Krygowski
>
> If I mount a rear rack and panniers, I would not be able to get my
> feet under me on the off chance that I flip the bike over on my way
> *to* the store.
Oddly, most people never flip their bikes over on the way to the
store. And those with racks and/or panniers probably replace a lot
more car use, by being able to carry serious grocery loads. (My
utility bike became a lot more useful once I customized it to its
purpose.)
Not that I'm suggesting anything for you, Dan. Do whatever you like,
using whatever blood alcohol content you think appropriate.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan
> On Jul 24, 10:54 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If I mount a rear rack and panniers, I would not be able to get my
>> feet under me on the off chance that I flip the bike over on my way
>> *to* the store.
>
> Oddly, most people never flip their bikes over on the way to the
> store. And those with racks and/or panniers probably replace a lot
> more car use, by being able to carry serious grocery loads.
Actually, I have a large wagon w/ pneumatic tires that I can pull
behind my bike with one hand and haul a *lot* back from the store
when I need to.
> (My
> utility bike became a lot more useful once I customized it to its
> purpose.)
>
So how would you carry two large pizzas?
> Not that I'm suggesting anything for you, Dan. Do whatever you like,
> using whatever blood alcohol content you think appropriate.
>
Look, I know you have a notion of "proper cycling", and you have disdain
for anyone with differing notions. I think maybe alcohol (etc.) is just
a catch-all metaphor for everything that flies in the face of your notion.
Ride Bike!
Dan O
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 24, 10:54 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If I mount a rear rack and panniers, I would not be able to get my
> >> feet under me on the off chance that I flip the bike over on my way
> >> *to* the store.
>
> > Oddly, most people never flip their bikes over on the way to the
> > store. And those with racks and/or panniers probably replace a lot
> > more car use, by being able to carry serious grocery loads.
>
> Actually, I have a large wagon w/ pneumatic tires that I can pull
> behind my bike with one hand and haul a *lot* back from the store
> when I need to.
>
... *and*, I get more trips to the store for a few items at a time -
getting *more* opportunity to utilize *my* bike for it's expressed
purpose and for which the configuration *is* optimized.
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > store. And those with racks and/or panniers probably replace a lot
> > more car use, by being able to carry serious grocery loads.
>
> Actually, I have a large wagon w/ pneumatic tires that I can pull
> behind my bike with one hand and haul a *lot* back from the store
> when I need to.
Fine.
>
> > (My
> > utility bike became a lot more useful once I customized it to its
> > purpose.)
>
> So how would you carry two large pizzas?
I bungee pizzas to the rear rack. I have a bungee cord on that rack
that's adjustable for length. It's two plastic hooks can slide
anywhere along the cord, then grip where I choose. I set it so it
holds the pizzas without crushing the boxes. Pretty easy, really.
> > Not that I'm suggesting anything for you, Dan. Do whatever you like,
> > using whatever blood alcohol content you think appropriate.
>
> Look, I know you have a notion of "proper cycling", and you have disdain
> for anyone with differing notions.
We all have our preferences. I enjoy transportation or utility
riding, solo touring or touring with family and friends, club rides,
neighborhood cruises, etc.
I'm not very impressed by the crowd that only rides on the bike path,
nor the guys who think cycling is _only_ for "training" using the
latest high-zoot equipment, but that's their choice.
I think anyone riding at night, toward me on my side of the street and
without lights, is a fool. That's even if they're not drunk.
But you do what you like.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> On Jul 24, 12:43 pm, Dan <d...@t23.daisyheadmayzie.net> wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > Oddly, most people never flip their bikes over on the way to the
> > > store. And those with racks and/or panniers probably replace a lot
> > > more car use, by being able to carry serious grocery loads.
>
"... a lot more car use... "? More than me?
> > Actually, I have a large wagon w/ pneumatic tires that I can pull
> > behind my bike with one hand and haul a *lot* back from the store
> > when I need to.
>
> Fine.
>
Is that your way of saying, "I'm sorry I was so presumptuous and
judgmental"?
>
>
> > > (My
> > > utility bike became a lot more useful once I customized it to its
> > > purpose.)
>
> > So how would you carry two large pizzas?
>
> I bungee pizzas to the rear rack. I have a bungee cord on that rack
> that's adjustable for length. It's two plastic hooks can slide
> anywhere along the cord, then grip where I choose. I set it so it
> holds the pizzas without crushing the boxes. Pretty easy, really.
>
My pizzas were unbaked, on flexible baking trays, with a corrugated
disk under the center for handling, and outer plastic wrap. Bungees
would have destroyed them. You'd apparently have had to come home to
your waiting family empty handed or with "Pizza in a Cup". (Did I
mention that I got them home without so much as a dent in the crust or
a single topping out of place?)
> > > Not that I'm suggesting anything for you, Dan. Do whatever you like,
> > > using whatever blood alcohol content you think appropriate.
>
> > Look, I know you have a notion of "proper cycling", and you have disdain
> > for anyone with differing notions.
>
> We all have our preferences. I enjoy transportation or utility
> riding, solo touring or touring with family and friends, club rides,
> neighborhood cruises, etc.
>
An altogether different subject than your well established notion of
"cycling properly". (And your "tolerance" for the diversity of
preferences is marked by superciliousness.)
> I'm not very impressed by the crowd that only rides on the bike path,
> nor the guys who think cycling is _only_ for "training" using the
> latest high-zoot equipment, but that's their choice.
>
What does that have to do with my pizza story (which I guess you've
snipped entirely anyway)?
> I think anyone riding at night, toward me on my side of the street and
> without lights, is a fool.
What does that have to do with me and my pizza story?
> That's even if they're not drunk.
>
What does that have to do with me and my pizza story?
> But you do what you like.
>
"But"? Do I detect an incorrigible tendency to presumptuous judgment
and supercilious implication?
Frank Krygowski
Dan, you're not a fan of my riding according to the rules of the road.
I'm not a fan of your riding while drunk, riding at night without
lights, and bragging about riding like a 12-year-old.
But you're not going to change my riding, and I'm not going to change
yours. Let's leave it at that, OK?
- Frank Krygowski
Radey Shouman
> Radey Shouman <sho...@comcast.net> considered Sat, 23 Jul 2011
> I use a Busch and Muller Ixon IQ, which has an excellent beam pattern,
> 5-20 hours life from one set of (hybrid HiMH) cells, and as a bonus,
> can be recharged from a hub generator via a Ride & Charge cable, if I
> ever want to upgrade.
> That would be the perfect touring setup, as you can charge the light
> for use when camping.
I can affirm that these are a good choice, as they are what I use now.
I have both dynamo and battery versions, but didn't spring for the ride
& charge, which seemed a bit expensive. However, I can see where it
would come in handy.
--
Radey Shouman
I had one of the strap on flashlight things too, I think it took two C
batteries. As I recall it started out poor and rusted out pretty
quickly. I can also recall being able to see better in the dark.
Rechargeable batteries and portable lights have plainly improved
a great deal since I was a kid, and for some reason disposable
batteries now stay good for months or years on the shelf, instead of
turning to crap like they used to.
I'm surprised by the number of compliments I get from kids when riding
at night -- bright lights are cool. If prices were a little more
reasonable and local availability better I suspect some of them would
rock lights just for appearance sake.
--
Radey Shouman
Freely copiable software is different than a physical device, because a
software patent holder can claim to have lost the opportunity to sell a
huge number of licenses due to a single free software release. Often it
is hard to tell how many users a bit of software has, much less how many
might have otherwise licensed a proprietary alternative.
Such claims are really not supportable when the damage is due to
construction of a single physical device. Eventually 3-d printing might
advance to the point that they are, but that time is not yet.
--
James
> On Jul 24, 5:02 pm, Dan O<danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 12:06 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But you do what you like.
>>
>> "But"? Do I detect an incorrigible tendency to presumptuous judgment
>> and supercilious implication?
>
> Dan, you're not a fan of my riding according to the rules of the road.
>
> I'm not a fan of your riding while drunk, riding at night without
> lights, and bragging about riding like a 12-year-old.
Be prepared to be told, Frank.
--
JS.
Dan O
> On Jul 24, 5:02 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 12:06 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But you do what you like.
>
> > "But"? Do I detect an incorrigible tendency to presumptuous judgment
> > and supercilious implication?
>
> Dan, you're not a fan of my riding according to the rules of the road.
>
Sure I am. That's fine - admirable, even (if kind of dorky when taken
too far, IMO).
For that matter *most* of my riding is in accordance with the rules of
the road, and essentially *all* of it is in some kind of accord with
what I figure is the spirit and intent of those rules. Most of my
riding is pretty mundane stuff. Yes, I go nuts. And yes, which
course of action may provide the most thrilling experience gets extra
points in my decision criteria weighting scale - but safety
considerations also take on a stronger dimension as the decision
factoring process gravitates that way. I'm not a blithe idiot (would
I still be here writing in response to my old bikey pal Frank
otherwise? ;-)
Cars are generally much faster from point A to point B than bicycles,
and (currently, at least around here) have the infrastructure
essentially tailored for them. This gives their users a sense of
inherent superiority over the bicyclist, which affects their attitude
and respect around the bicyclist. I imagine it never even occurs to
most of them that the bicyclist is also just trying to get to point B
- instead wondering with some annoyance what he's doing playing in
the(ir) street. Sure, most drivers give plenty of room, but not so
much, I think, out of respect, but more because they pity my pathetic
inferiority, and most people are simply compassionate enough to also
care (positively, though this also goes both ways) about my relative
vulnerability - but it still stresses them at least a bit (some of
them a lot) to have to deal with me at all in their "domain".
Bikes generally do take longer from A to B (and this is the #1, though
not only, price I pay for all the benefits of "cycling"). But as we
know, there are times when the table is turned. I get into the city,
traffic snarls and turns to lumpy molasses, and all of a sudden my
freedom (yes, freedom) is a tremendous advantage. I pay my dues for
this - taking care of my bike and gear, dragging my ass out of bed,
churning out the long miles rain or shine, suffering the abuse of
cager hostility - and I'll be damned if I'm going to play traffic
Parcheesi and pass up the opportunity to take those cagers superiority
complex down a few notches, and have some fun in the process.
This is dangerous, though (yeah, yeah - DANGER! DANGER!) But, as
noted above, I factor this in, and always try to exercise due care and
good judgment - even if someone else's idea of good judgment is to
avoid any of this sort of activity in the first place (yawn). I am
not clueless to the plus side of playing along with traffic. But I'm
a loner, Dottie, a rebel - Austin "Danger" Powers - Yeah, baby! :-)
I do try to consider the effects of my actions on others, and be
*reasonable* (if not subservient). I do not blast out into the path
of anyone such that I impede their progress or right-of-way (or rely
on them to save my life). The worst effects of my childish hijinks is
to shock and offend sensibilities. Tough shit. I can't help them
with their f'd up sensibility. They are just frustrated by their
pathetic cager contraints, and I've got a hearty FU for anyone who
wants to blame *me* for any of *them* getting PO'd at *you* - not
reasonable.
So I don't mind at all if *you* want to play "vehicle" by the Official
(and substantially arbitrary) Rules of Parcheesi (vroom, vroom - putt,
putt - stop and wait... :-) It just doesn't work for me.
What I am not a fan of is you holding up *your* way as the one true
right proper way (which must be presumed authoritative because *you*
stand at a lecturn (?)... and if anybody challenges it you'll put that
heckler down forthwith using ridicule and the royal "we" - which is
probably just a bunch of students who might think you're just as full
of it as the heckler does, but don't want to risk their grade by
saying anything, so you *use* them... but I digress... )
What I am not a fan of is you holding up *your* "cycling properly" as
summary defacto proof that I am doing it wrong, have poor riding
skills, am unduly fearful, and obviously of deficient intellect.
> I'm not a fan of your riding while drunk...
Moral judgment?
> ..., riding at night without
> lights...
It's summertime. In my little town there are lots of kids (and a few
grownups) out on their bikes every night. No lights on any of them.
Yeah, it's against the law, but not a problem. I know the usefulness
and safety advantage of lights, and use them when it matters enough
(just like with my helmet). This is just one of your pet peeves.
> ..., and bragging about riding like a 12-year-old.
>
Hey, I'm *glad* to be on such good terms with my inner child :-)
I am not so wild as you probably think. I don't embellish, but I
guess I like to taunt your sensibility with the juiciest bits of what
I expect you'll consider perverse. (Sorry, but you sort of ask for
it.)
Ride Bike to me has always been about freedom and two wheels and a
frame and my body and soul and brain and nerves and muscle and blood
and guts and *essence* - all one single, *wondrous*, dynamic apparatus
- whizzing across the earth. It's a feeling and a phenomenon that
can't be explained - only experienced.
>
> But you're not going to change my riding, and I'm not going to change
> yours.
I've *never* been about trying to change your riding, man. I only
ever make fun of it (fuddy-duddy, etc.) because you so egregiously and
with hurtful personal derision ridicule mine.
> Let's leave it at that, OK?
>
No. See how even in this ostensible compromise you characterize your
way as good, my way bad?
I like you. I do. (We're all brothers, right?) I have read some of
your writing about
the joys of riding bike, and we have some things in common that are
not common between most people. I have learned stuff from you here,
and incorporate that in what bicycling education, advocacy, or
commentary I might get dragged into. I respect and admire and and
appreciate your ardent efforts to promote bicycling.
I just don't appreciate the judmental derision and the dunce cap. But
I'm tired of it, and don't care so much anymore.
Anyway, I *will* leave it at that. I think maybe I've finally purged
the very last of it now :-) Best wishes. Ride Bike!
James
> On Jul 25, 8:14 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 5:02 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 24, 12:06 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> But you do what you like.
>>> "But"? Do I detect an incorrigible tendency to presumptuous judgment
>>> and supercilious implication?
>> Dan, you're not a fan of my riding according to the rules of the road.
>>
>
> Sure I am. That's fine - admirable, even (if kind of dorky when taken
> too far, IMO).
<snip> Too long, but I read it anyway ;-)
Frank is probably jealous of your balance and skill. His own so lacking
that he has to ridicule anyone who shows an ounce of safe rule bending.
Wheeljie on, Dan O.
--
JS.
Frank Krygowski
> On Jul 25, 8:14 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not a fan of your riding while drunk...
>
> Moral judgment?
Practical judgment. I'm not a fan of anybody riding while drunk. I'm
not going to pretend that all riding is equally fine, and that nobody
should ever receive disapproval for any move they make on a bike.
A drunk on a bike in Oregon affects me only if he gets hurt and
contributes another "Bicycling is terribly dangerous" anecdote. But a
drunk on a bike in my area might be the dolt weaving toward me on my
side of the road at night, with no headlights. He's a definite danger
to me. And that drunk in Oregon can likewise be a danger to someone
else.
> > ..., riding at night without
> > lights...
>
> It's summertime. In my little town there are lots of kids (and a few
> grownups) out on their bikes every night. No lights on any of them.
> Yeah, it's against the law, but not a problem.
Yep, everyone riding at night without lights thinks it's no problem.
Same is true for the people riding drunk. Same is true for the people
riding facing traffic. I know you hate to hear this, but look for
some data.
- Frank Krygowski
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> On Jul 28, 1:13 am, Dan O<danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 8:14 am, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a fan of your riding while drunk...
>>
>> Moral judgment?
>
> Practical judgment. I'm not a fan of anybody riding while drunk. I'm
> not going to pretend that all riding is equally fine, and that nobody
> should ever receive disapproval for any move they make on a bike.
>
> A drunk on a bike in Oregon affects me only if he gets hurt and
> contributes another "Bicycling is terribly dangerous" anecdote. But a
> drunk on a bike in my area might be the dolt weaving toward me on my
> side of the road at night, with no headlights. He's a definite danger
> to me. And that drunk in Oregon can likewise be a danger to someone
I would just hold my line, and let the drunk bounce off.
Dan
> On Jul 28, 1:13 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 8:14 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not a fan of your riding while drunk...
>>
>> Moral judgment?
>
<snip>
> I'm
> not going to pretend that all riding is equally fine...
That's what I keep trying to tell you is your problem.
> ..., and that nobody
> should ever receive disapproval for any move they make on a bike.
Any *move* - sure, but you're pre-judging a presumed propensity to
make some "move" that you're making up in your head.
>
> A drunk on a bike in Oregon affects me only if he gets hurt and
> contributes another "Bicycling is terribly dangerous" anecdote. But a
> drunk on a bike in my area might be the dolt weaving toward me on my
> side of the road at night, with no headlights. He's a definite danger
> to me. And that drunk in Oregon can likewise be a danger to someone
> else.
>
DANGER! DANGER!
What if it's a cat weaving toward you in the dark (with no headlights).
Would you just plow into it?
>> > ..., riding at night without
>> > lights...
>>
>> It's summertime. In my little town there are lots of kids (and a few
>> grownups) out on their bikes every night. No lights on any of them.
>> Yeah, it's against the law, but not a problem.
>
> Yep, everyone riding at night without lights thinks it's no problem.
> Same is true for the people riding drunk. Same is true for the people
> riding facing traffic. I know you hate to hear this, but look for
> some data.
>
Hey, I don't hate to hear it. I don't give a rip anymore. Rant on,
man.
Would those kids be safer using lights? Almost certainly. But it's
a matter of practicality. Most of them are lucky to have bikes at
all. Should they not ride because they don't have lights? I think
they're okay - they just need to be careful, situational aware*, and
responsible for their actions.
Walking lights, anyone? :-)
(* If and when I've been drinking, I'm aware of that situation :-)
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> Frank Krygowski<frkr...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Jul 28, 1:13 am, Dan O<danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 25, 8:14 am, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What if it's a cat weaving toward you in the dark (with no headlights).
> Would you just plow into it?
>
Cat 5.
>>>> ..., riding at night without
>>>> lights...
>>>
>>> It's summertime. In my little town there are lots of kids (and a few
>>> grownups) out on their bikes every night. No lights on any of them.
>>> Yeah, it's against the law, but not a problem.
>>
>> Yep, everyone riding at night without lights thinks it's no problem.
>> Same is true for the people riding drunk. Same is true for the people
>> riding facing traffic. I know you hate to hear this, but look for
>> some data.
>>
>
> Hey, I don't hate to hear it. I don't give a rip anymore. Rant on,
> man.
>
> Would those kids be safer using lights? Almost certainly. But it's
> a matter of practicality. Most of them are lucky to have bikes at
> all. Should they not ride because they don't have lights? I think
> they're okay - they just need to be careful, situational aware*, and
> responsible for their actions.[...]
As long as hitting them does not scratch the fairing too much...
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> considered
> Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:09:54 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 7/29/2011 10:14 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> A drunk on a bike in Oregon affects me only if he gets hurt and
>>> contributes another "Bicycling is terribly dangerous" anecdote. But a
>>> drunk on a bike in my area might be the dolt weaving toward me on my
>>> side of the road at night, with no headlights. He's a definite danger
>>> to me. And that drunk in Oregon can likewise be a danger to someone
>>> else.[...]
>>
>> I would just hold my line, and let the drunk bounce off.
>
> On one occasion, the late great Isambard Kingdom Brunel was asked by a
> friend what course of action he would follow if he were to observe a
> train approaching towards him on the same track.
> He replied that he "would put on all available steam, with the
> intention of driving off the other locomotive with the superior
> momentum of my own"
> It is suspected that he was pulling his friend's leg*.
>
> You can be fairly certain that the simultaneous adoption of this
> tactic by two opposing drivers would be impressive and spectacular, to
> say the least.
>
> This may be why such methods have failed to find their way into the
> various road traffic acts.[...]
>
I would not do so if I was riding a 20th Century naked bicycle design,
but would if riding a 21st Century velomobile design. :)
Joe Riel
Confirmation that cagers---whatever the material---are aggressive
towards cyclists 8-?
--
Joe Riel
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Why should I let a drunk person put me in danger, even if he/she is on a
bicycle?