Ventoso blasts the use of disc brakes in the peloton

[Sir Ridesalot]

'Nobody thought they were dangerous? Nobody realized they can... become giant knives?'

Francisco Ventoso's (Movistar) is recovering from deep wound to his leg caused by a disc brake during a crash at Paris-Roubaix on Sunday. Three days later, the Movistar rider has penned an open letter blasting the pro cycling community including international and national governing bodies, teams and riders for not taking action to prevent the use of disc brakes in the peloton.

"Shortly afterwards [after the crash], I have a glance at that leg: it doesn't hurt, there's not a lot of blood covering it, but I can clearly see part of the periosteum, the membrane or surface that covers my tibia," Ventoso wrote. "I get off my bike, throw myself against the right-hand side of the road over the grass, cover my face with my hands in shock and disbelief, start to feel sick... I could only wait for my team car and the ambulance, while a lot of things come through my mind."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ventoso-blasts-the-use-of-disc-brakes-in-the-peloton/

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ventoso-injured-by-disc-brake-at-paris-roubaix/

Cheers

[Joerg]

I've always wondered about a crash and hitting my spinning front wheel
disk. Even more I wondered why they don't make them 0.050" or 1mm larger
in diameter and then round off the outside. But I guess the answer is
the usual, "weight weenieism".

Discs can become dangerous but they sure can stop you on a dime. Maybe
that is why he rear-ended the cyclist in front of him, the guy had disc
stopping power and Ventoso didn't.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[avag...@gmail.com]

CF DISCS ?

[John B.]

By gorry this bicycle riding seems like a dangerous pastime. Given the
impossibility of repairing bike brakes as evidence by one of our
correspondents and now the evidence of the dangers of another type of
brake perhaps it would be better to just ban brakes from being
installed on bicycles.

Fixies For Ever!
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:41:50 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> considered Thu, 14 Apr 2016

>Surely that's impossible if he was wearing his helmet?

Undoubtedly you are correct. The above reference certainly shows the
wounded "moviestar" not wearing a helmet.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

The mechanism of the injury isn't really clear. He would have munged his leg in the spokes in any event, but the spinning disc apparently created a new hazard.

I like road discs for my non-racing rain bike and commuter because they stop much better in wet conditions and don't grind down my rims. I would bother with them on a mostly dry-weather racing bike -- but in the PR they might serve some purpose by allowing the use of a frame with more clearance and room for larger tires, e.g. the latest Domane or any of the gravel bikes. They also stop well, but so do rim brakes -- at least on an ordinary racing bike with the right pads.

-- Jay Beattie.

[avag...@gmail.com]

https://goo.gl/KfJuKm

this injury is not commonly accessed. knda hard getting your shin in there but you know accidents...

https://goo.gl/KfJuKm

easier accessing Ventoso

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/14/2016 8:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> The mechanism of the injury isn't really clear. He would have munged his leg in the spokes in any event, but the spinning disc apparently created a new hazard.
>
> I like road discs for my non-racing rain bike and commuter because they stop much better in wet conditions and don't grind down my rims. I would bother with them on a mostly dry-weather racing bike -- but in the PR they might serve some purpose by allowing the use of a frame with more clearance and room for larger tires, e.g. the latest Domane or any of the gravel bikes. They also stop well, but so do rim brakes -- at least on an ordinary racing bike with the right pads.

That makes sense to me.

I tend to get irritated by the "safety inflation" aspect of these bike
tech developments. We've been through the argument that it's "unsafe"
to have to move your hands from your brake levers to shift gears. I was
once told in this forum that my pedals were unsafe because they were
more than 10 years old. As soon as certain people see or imagine a tiny
safety benefit, they think it should be (almost?) mandatory.

We'll doubtlessly be hearing that non-disc brakes aren't sufficiently
safe because they don't stop quickly enough in all conditions. It's
sort of nice to see some hand-wringing about lacerations, just to
balance things out.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

Disc brakes also shine when taking the occasional dirt path in any kind
of weather. My road bike unfortunately has rim brakes (it's 30+ years
old) and braking after a dirt stretch often gives me the goose bumps ...
KRCCHHHHH ... you can literally hear them eat a layer off of the rims.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

It's been so long since I've raced that it never even occurred to me to consider a disk as a weapon. But they are the only thing to ride on very steep descents. But perhaps he is correct and these could either in come manner be shielded or removed from the peloton.

[Joerg]

Just make the discs a smidgen larger in diameter and round the edge.
Technical solutions can be so simple if the movers and shakers would put
their minds to it instead of simply screaming for a ban.

[avag...@gmail.com]

CF discs would be wider, blunto, preventing clods like Ventoso fromminjury.

[Frank Krygowski]

Looks like somebody listened:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/04/news/roubaix-injury-prompts-uci-to-halt-disc-brake-trial_402497


--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

discs will increase competition in an 'unnecessary' area ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm_voGowZKc

could end his career....amazing rolled onto the disc in just the right spot

[cycl...@gmail.com]

This did not appear to be either a stupid or unusual crash and seems to have ended up in a very serious injury. Hopefully he will recover complete use of his leg.

[Lars Lehtonen]

Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
> Disc brakes also shine when taking the occasional dirt path in any kind
> of weather. My road bike unfortunately has rim brakes (it's 30+ years
> old) and braking after a dirt stretch often gives me the goose bumps ...
> KRCCHHHHH ... you can literally hear them eat a layer off of the rims.

The optimistic interpretation is that the brakes are using the dirt as
an abrasive to grind off a layer of oxidation.

---
Lars Lehtonen

[Joerg]

Possibly but in the end only this counts: It works.

They perform very well also on paved roads and bike paths. Which is
where one has to be careful because especially road bikers have this
dreaded habit of riding right behind others, no safety distance. So you
can't just reach in hard.

[Gregory Sutter]

On 2016-04-15, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>
> Just make the discs a smidgen larger in diameter and round the edge.
> Technical solutions can be so simple if the movers and shakers would put
> their minds to it instead of simply screaming for a ban.

Classic disc brakes are about 600mm in diameter, right round the edge.
We're in agreement that it's best to keep it simple.

--
Gregory S. Sutter Mostly Harmless
mailto:gsu...@zer0.org
http://zer0.org/~gsutter/

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-20 22:31, Gregory Sutter wrote:
> On 2016-04-15, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>
>> Just make the discs a smidgen larger in diameter and round the edge.
>> Technical solutions can be so simple if the movers and shakers would put
>> their minds to it instead of simply screaming for a ban.
>
> Classic disc brakes are about 600mm in diameter, right round the edge.
> We're in agreement that it's best to keep it simple.
>

Those do not work well in rain and mud. The 160mm or 180mm ones do.

[Sir Ridesalot]

How do discs that are nearly 75% 0r 66% SMALLER work better than the much larger 600mm ones?

Cheers

[Joerg]

This way: They (finally!) applied automotive principles. A sturdy steel
disc instead of weak aluminum. Hydraulics. A set of pistons that can
apply many times the force of a rim brake caliper and you can easily do
that with one finger. A semi-metallic or in my case motor-cycle grade
ceramic-based compound in the pads instead of ... rubber.

When I rode an MTB with hydraulic disc brakes for the first time I
almost went over the handlebar. That sold me on the concept in
milliseconds. If I ever need a new road bike if will have discs, at
least in front.

Oh, and no worries about grenading a tire because of excess heat. But
you do have to mind brake fade with hydraulics, just like you do with
cars and motorcycles. Even in that domain a good set of disc brakes runs
circles around rim brakes.

[avag...@gmail.com]

written from a position how many miles are on your new fangled discs ?

runs good ? replace every what miles n run good ? in the abrasive dirt you lvie on ....._______\

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 11:02:27 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:

Snipped

> When I rode an MTB with hydraulic disc brakes for the first time I
> almost went over the handlebar. That sold me on the concept in
> milliseconds.

Snipped
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

The same is true for many people who try V-brakes for the first time.

Cheers

[Joerg]

Over 3000mi, mostly hard trails, maybe 10-15% of it road.

> runs good ? replace every what miles n run good ? in the abrasive
> dirt you lvie on ....._______\
>

The sintered pads that came with the MTB lasted ok, maybe 700mi. But
they cost too much. Organic brand name ones were eaten up in 500mi which
is ridiculous since they cost me $16 plus tax at the bike dealer. The
Chinese $3/pair ceramic-based pads of the Novich brand last 1000mi easy.
But I can't get them anymore :-(

This is a low-end brake setup, Promax Decipher which uses pads like the
Avid BB5. I am pretty sure that a Hope Tech or similar would be another
day/night difference but what I've got is good enough.

Rim brakes in the bush, forget it. My old MT has that and it made for
some white-knuckle situations in wet weather and on muddy trails. Curve
comes, you reach in and other than a horrid grinding noise ... nothing.

Burping them is always a messy situation but I got used to it.

[Joerg]

Which is what I have on my old MTB. They can't even hold a candle to the
cheap hydraulic disc system on my new MTB. I will never look back, rim
brakes are ancient technology.

[AMuzi]

As with other conversations here it is the same, but also
different.

Mr Jute, for example, uses Magura hydraulic calipers on the
big disc (rim) which indeed work like other discs of similar
caliper design.

Yes, swept area (not puck size) is the prime factor in
braking calculations for bicycles, cars motorcycles or what
have you.

That said, differences in lever-to-caliper leverage,
hysteresis, weight, complexity, heat dissipation rates, rim
wear (or not), crisp response vs total braking power and
other factors all have their own adherents and detractors.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[jbeattie]

Dude, one word: fixie. Checkmate brake fools!

-- Hipster.

[avag...@gmail.com]

? wudda bet on puck size with low speed low low...size of puck related to brake force sensitivity poss reliability for x to pressure/stop distance.

J isnot answering how long does the mechanism fiction at new 100% under the alleged conditions.

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-21 13:15, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> considered Thu, 21 Apr 2016

> But having a rounded edge on the disc means extending the reach of the
> caliper do that, so it applies the pad just inboard of the edge. This
> isn't all that difficult from an engineering point of view, but it
> does add weight to the caliper - not only because it has to be
> slightly larger, but because that increase in reach means additional
> strength for rigidity (or a rather squidgy brake, if the caliper can
> flex).


I know, this ain't for weight weenies. Because two-and-a-half grams more
could cost ya the yellow jersey.


> Of course, some brands of caliper may have enough clearance between
> disc edge and caliper already, in which case a slightly larger disc
> would solve the problem in one go.
>

Mine (Promax Decipher) could easily accept 2mm of increased diameter.
You don't even need that much.


> If discs are that dangerous though, how come they are universal in
> motorcycle racing?


Because as I have said many times motorcycle technology is light-years
ahead of bicycle technology. Heck, we can't even get o-ringed chains,
let alone a decent shaft drive for a FS-MTB. Which is why I get to mount
the next new cassette tonight.


> Leathers provide almost no cut resistance at all against a really
> sharp edge (I've seen enough motorcycling mishaps as a race marshal to
> know that), so the risk to riders seems to be similar, as any
> protection leathers do offer is surely offset by the fact that in
> motorcycle racing, they are almost always on both sides of the front
> wheel, doubling the chance of coming into contact with one in a crash!
>

Then also motorcycle discs are way thicker which reduces their risk of
slicing deeply.

[John B.]

The "Big Boys" riding in their annual tour of France are reported to
descend hills at as much as 100 KPH. Try that on your fixie :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:43:36 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

Err... actually a "rim brake" uses exactly the same technology as the
vaunted "disk brake". A rotating "disk" with brake pads that apply
force against the rotating part.

The rest of it is just mechanics.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:53:58 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

But based on you frequent moans of pain about having to spend a tiny
bit for bicycle parts would you actually pay for an "o-ringed" chain
if one were available?

>
>> Leathers provide almost no cut resistance at all against a really
>> sharp edge (I've seen enough motorcycling mishaps as a race marshal to
>> know that), so the risk to riders seems to be similar, as any
>> protection leathers do offer is surely offset by the fact that in
>> motorcycle racing, they are almost always on both sides of the front
>> wheel, doubling the chance of coming into contact with one in a crash!
>>
>
>Then also motorcycle discs are way thicker which reduces their risk of
>slicing deeply.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Tim McNamara]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:02:29 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>
> This way: They (finally!) applied automotive principles.

When did my bicycle turn into a car?

Of course, a rim brake *is* a disk brake- possibly the original disk
brake. Automotive principles were borrowed from bikes.

There are problems with disk brakes on road bikes. Applying the front
brake will flex the left fork blade, adversely affecting handling,
stressing the front axle, etc. Disk brake mountain bikes use ways to
get around that- large diameter axles, large diameter fork legs,
different clamping systems, etc. These things are less viable on a road
bike. In fact, IMHO, disk brakes are BS on road bikes altogether. On
MTBs and 'cross bikes, the advantage of the brake being out of the mud
is useful. One road bikes? Meh. The downsides outweigh the benefits.

However, if'n you wanna ride disk brakes on your road bike, be my guest.
If they work for you, that's great. I'll pass. My time-tested brazed
on centerpulls are outstanding, my sidepulls and my cantis are also
excellent. But what works for me perfectly well might not for you.

[Roger Merriman]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> considered Thu, 21 Apr 2016
> 07:12:03 -0700 the perfect time to write:
>

> But having a rounded edge on the disc means extending the reach of the
> caliper do that, so it applies the pad just inboard of the edge. This
> isn't all that difficult from an engineering point of view, but it
> does add weight to the caliper - not only because it has to be
> slightly larger, but because that increase in reach means additional
> strength for rigidity (or a rather squidgy brake, if the caliper can
> flex).

> Of course, some brands of caliper may have enough clearance between
> disc edge and caliper already, in which case a slightly larger disc
> would solve the problem in one go.
>

> If discs are that dangerous though, how come they are universal in
> motorcycle racing?

> Leathers provide almost no cut resistance at all against a really
> sharp edge (I've seen enough motorcycling mishaps as a race marshal to
> know that), so the risk to riders seems to be similar, as any
> protection leathers do offer is surely offset by the fact that in
> motorcycle racing, they are almost always on both sides of the front
> wheel, doubling the chance of coming into contact with one in a crash!

or XC MTB racing mass starts etc, much more like road race than any
other MTB racing.

the chances of connecting a disk in a crash must be high.

Roger Merriman

[Joerg]

No. If you had read what I wrote before you'd know:

"This way: They (finally!) applied automotive principles. A sturdy steel
disc instead of weak aluminum. Hydraulics. A set of pistons that can
apply many times the force of a rim brake caliper and you can easily do
that with one finger. A semi-metallic or in my case motor-cycle grade
ceramic-based compound in the pads instead of ... rubber".

Then there is the fact that a rim brake is totally inefficient right
after going through a body of water. Why serious cyclcist often do.

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-21 18:31, John B. wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:53:58 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-04-21 13:15, Phil W Lee wrote:

[...]

>>
>>> Of course, some brands of caliper may have enough clearance between
>>> disc edge and caliper already, in which case a slightly larger disc
>>> would solve the problem in one go.
>>>
>>
>> Mine (Promax Decipher) could easily accept 2mm of increased diameter.
>> You don't even need that much.
>>
>>
>>> If discs are that dangerous though, how come they are universal in
>>> motorcycle racing?
>>
>>
>> Because as I have said many times motorcycle technology is light-years
>> ahead of bicycle technology. Heck, we can't even get o-ringed chains,
>> let alone a decent shaft drive for a FS-MTB. Which is why I get to mount
>> the next new cassette tonight.
>>
>
> But based on you frequent moans of pain about having to spend a tiny
> bit for bicycle parts would you actually pay for an "o-ringed" chain
> if one were available?
>

If you had read more carefully you'd know that I do not mind spending
_if_ there is commensurate value in the parts. With bicycle parts there
often is not. What matters to me is not cost, what matters is cost per mile.

Here:

http://www.motosport.com/sunstar-520-ssr-oring-sealed-ring-chain

People get over 10000mi out of O-ring chains and over 30000mi out of a
rear sprocket. On my MTB I am luckey if I get 1200mi out of a chain and
4000mi out of a cassette. So the math is easy, isn't it?

Same for tires and on and on.

[...]

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-21 19:30, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:02:29 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> This way: They (finally!) applied automotive principles.
>
> When did my bicycle turn into a car?
>
> Of course, a rim brake *is* a disk brake- possibly the original disk
> brake. Automotive principles were borrowed from bikes.
>
> There are problems with disk brakes on road bikes. Applying the front
> brake will flex the left fork blade, adversely affecting handling,
> stressing the front axle, etc. Disk brake mountain bikes use ways to
> get around that- large diameter axles, large diameter fork legs,
> different clamping systems, etc. These things are less viable on a road
> bike. In fact, IMHO, disk brakes are BS on road bikes altogether. On
> MTBs and 'cross bikes, the advantage of the brake being out of the mud
> is useful. One road bikes? Meh. The downsides outweigh the benefits.
>

They do not for all-weather riders like me. If I ever need a new road
bike it will have disc brakes or I won't buy.

> However, if'n you wanna ride disk brakes on your road bike, be my guest.
> If they work for you, that's great. I'll pass. My time-tested brazed
> on centerpulls are outstanding, my sidepulls and my cantis are also
> excellent. But what works for me perfectly well might not for you.
>

For fair-weather rides rim brakes are ok. In the rain they aren't unless
you can anticipate a need to brake and nobody ever pulls out of a side
road right in front of you. When there's dirt road sections in the ride
that are muddy rim brakes are horrid. That eats rims in no time. BTDT.

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-22 08:07, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-04-21 19:30, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:02:29 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This way: They (finally!) applied automotive principles.
>>
>> When did my bicycle turn into a car?
>>
>> Of course, a rim brake *is* a disk brake- possibly the original disk
>> brake. Automotive principles were borrowed from bikes.
>>

Forgot to mention:

http://classiccycleus.com/home/thats-the-brakes/

http://ae-plus.com/milestones/frederick-lanchester-inventor-of-the-disc-brake

[Sir Ridesalot]

By a motorcycle designed for off-road riding. Remove engine.Take bike to welder and have them weld on a bicycle bottom bracket. Now you've got something that's MOSTLY automotive design based and maybe even rugged enough for you.

Sheesh!

Cheers

[Joerg]

What would be so difficult making stuff sturdier for bicycles? For
example, a hub transmission in conjunction with an o-ring chain will not
be much heavier. But it can afford the rider 10k+ miles with no worries
about premature chain wear. Oh well, for the bicycle industry that is
too difficult I guess.

[jbeattie]

Go buy a Rohloff hub then. They're supposed to be indestructible. Get the Gates belt drive version. Done.

Oh, wait, that's too expensive! (rinse, lather, repeat).

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

Jay, that's classic retail conversation, pithily.
'everything I like costs too much. Everything at my price
range is tacky'

[Joerg]

Indeed it is. Things have to be reasonable. >$1.5k is not reasonable.
But the larger challenge is to get that going in a full suspension bike.
One custom builder team in Germany builds FS-bikes with Rohloff and when
my MTB ever gives up I will contact them about a custom job. It's going
to cost but not north of $1.5k extra just for the Rohloff hub. Still
would need an O-ring chain for that unless a motorcycle chain can fit.

Shaft drive would solve that problem for good but so much progress isn't
going to happen in the world of MTB anytime soon. So I just installed
the next cassette. The previous one was so worn that it slit into the
skin of my left index finger.

[Joerg]

Not really. My MTB buddy thinks pretty much the same way I do. But he
plunked down a big wad of money for a BMW GS1200 offroad version.
Because there you get commensurate durability and service life per Dollar.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/22/2016 2:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>
> What would be so difficult making stuff sturdier for bicycles? For
> example, a hub transmission in conjunction with an o-ring chain will not
> be much heavier. But it can afford the rider 10k+ miles with no worries
> about premature chain wear. Oh well, for the bicycle industry that is
> too difficult I guess.

You're asking the bicycle industry to produce a difficult to manufacture
product for a potential market of, oh, roughly one rider.

Your inability to understand the design, manufacturing and marketing
challenges indicates your requests are not to be taken seriously.
You're wasting your time and ours.

But as we've said, if you think we're all wrong, and such a bike has
such a huge potential, get the things made and make yourself rich!

Yeah, I know, you're too busy complaining on Usenet to get this done;
but I don't see a reason you can't convince a bank to give you a big
loan, then become an angel investor for a startup company.

Stop whining and ride your bike to the bank! Wouldn't they be sure to
see the genius in your ideas?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-22 13:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 2:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>>
>> What would be so difficult making stuff sturdier for bicycles? For
>> example, a hub transmission in conjunction with an o-ring chain will not
>> be much heavier. But it can afford the rider 10k+ miles with no worries
>> about premature chain wear. Oh well, for the bicycle industry that is
>> too difficult I guess.
>
> You're asking the bicycle industry to produce a difficult to manufacture
> product for a potential market of, oh, roughly one rider.
>

a. It is not difficult to manufacture, as the motorcycle industry has
proven.

b. There are plenty more riders who are unhappy about having to whip out
the wrenches every few weeks.

> Your inability to understand the design, manufacturing and marketing
> challenges indicates your requests are not to be taken seriously. You're
> wasting your time and ours.
>

Then why do you read my posts?

> But as we've said, if you think we're all wrong, and such a bike has
> such a huge potential, get the things made and make yourself rich!
>

As I've said I am busy enough doing exactly that in electronics. Sans
the getting rich part because that's not important to me. Seeing my
designs being robust and used in the field for decades suffices. There
were plenty of designs among these where people said it can't be done
and then we did it anyhow.

> Yeah, I know, you're too busy complaining on Usenet to get this done;
> but I don't see a reason you can't convince a bank to give you a big
> loan, then become an angel investor for a startup company.
>
> Stop whining and ride your bike to the bank! Wouldn't they be sure to
> see the genius in your ideas?
>

If the day had 36h I could do that. But it doesn't.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 8:02:27 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-04-21 07:47, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:11:59 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
> >> On 2016-04-20 22:31, Gregory Sutter wrote:
> >>> On 2016-04-15, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>> Just make the discs a smidgen larger in diameter and round the
> >>>> edge. Technical solutions can be so simple if the movers and
> >>>> shakers would put their minds to it instead of simply screaming
> >>>> for a ban.
> >>>
> >>> Classic disc brakes are about 600mm in diameter, right round the
> >>> edge. We're in agreement that it's best to keep it simple.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Those do not work well in rain and mud. The 160mm or 180mm ones
> >> do.
> >>

> >> -- Regards, Joerg
> >>
> >> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
> >

> > How do discs that are nearly 75% 0r 66% SMALLER work better than the
> > much larger 600mm ones?
> >
>

> This way: They (finally!) applied automotive principles. A sturdy steel
> disc instead of weak aluminum. Hydraulics. A set of pistons that can
> apply many times the force of a rim brake caliper and you can easily do
> that with one finger. A semi-metallic or in my case motor-cycle grade
> ceramic-based compound in the pads instead of ... rubber.
>

> When I rode an MTB with hydraulic disc brakes for the first time I
> almost went over the handlebar. That sold me on the concept in

> milliseconds. If I ever need a new road bike if will have discs, at
> least in front.
>
> Oh, and no worries about grenading a tire because of excess heat. But
> you do have to mind brake fade with hydraulics, just like you do with
> cars and motorcycles. Even in that domain a good set of disc brakes runs
> circles around rim brakes.
>

> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

The first time I rode am MTB with hydraulic disks I got EXACTLY the same impression as you. They are simply not in the same category as manual rim brakes.

I installed them on my Redline Conquest cross bike and it is exactly the same sort of impression - there simply is not anything to compare it to.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I want to see you riding in San Francisco. The fixies all have this habit of walking up AND DOWN all of the hills.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Then why not buy a motorcycle designed for offroad riding, remove the engine and fuel tank and weld on a bicycle bottom bracket and then install bicycle cranks and pedals? then EVERYTHING ELSE on the thing would be MOTORCYLE strength.

Cheers

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Joerge - there is a very good reason that bicycles use the chains and sprockets they do. The o-ringed chain has so much friction that you couldn't get 10 mph on one. This friction is nothing to the torque of an engine but HUGE percentage of the power a man can generate. The smallest engines can produce many horsepower but a Tour rider can maintain barely over a half horsepower over time.

As for the sprockets - you have a limited wheel width and the most modern 29ers are already too wide with their 135 mm rear wheels.

Motorcycles have internal transmissions which again you cannot use on bicycles because of the drag of the gears in an oil bath.

So bicycles are one of the most advanced technical items of transportation you can buy. The weight and the speed you can achieve vs the cost gives you absolutely NOTHING like it.

[Joerg]

Except for guys like him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcLK1666_Ys

He's got zero respect for stop signs or other rules. I wonder what kind
of rear tire they are using and how long it lasts.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/22/2016 4:47 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-04-22 13:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/22/2016 2:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> What would be so difficult making stuff sturdier for bicycles? For
>>> example, a hub transmission in conjunction with an o-ring chain will not
>>> be much heavier. But it can afford the rider 10k+ miles with no worries
>>> about premature chain wear. Oh well, for the bicycle industry that is
>>> too difficult I guess.
>>
>> You're asking the bicycle industry to produce a difficult to manufacture
>> product for a potential market of, oh, roughly one rider.
>>
>
> a. It is not difficult to manufacture, as the motorcycle industry has
> proven.
>
> b. There are plenty more riders who are unhappy about having to whip out
> the wrenches every few weeks.
>
>
>> Your inability to understand the design, manufacturing and marketing
>> challenges indicates your requests are not to be taken seriously. You're
>> wasting your time and ours.
>>
>
> Then why do you read my posts?

I generally speed-read your posts, to minimize wasted time.

Why do you post the same complaints over and over? Do you really expect
that engineers at Trek or Specialized are going to slap their foreheads
and say "Damn! Why didn't we think of that! We can spend hundreds of
engineering man-hours to design Joerg-proof bikes, build them at our
cost of only a couple thousand bucks apiece to make, and sell them for a
few hundred dollars to guys like Joerg!"

>
>
>> But as we've said, if you think we're all wrong, and such a bike has
>> such a huge potential, get the things made and make yourself rich!
>>
>
> As I've said I am busy enough doing exactly that in electronics. Sans
> the getting rich part because that's not important to me.

If that's not important to you, you need to jump on my idea. It will
give you a great opportunity to prove it!

Hell, you could have set up the bank appointment in the time you spent
typing just today. Skip Usenet tomorrow, and you can get your business
plan written by Sunday. And your brilliant ideas will guarantee you'll
have the check in your hand by Tuesday - right? After all, how could
bank managers not recognize your brilliance?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

"Massan The Insane Rider" is a great name for him! The guy's got a death wish ridng like that. As far as tires, based on the different clotes worn I'd say he goes through a lot of tires.

Cheers

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-22 15:45, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 4:47:25 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2016-04-22 13:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

>>> Yeah, I know, you're too busy complaining on Usenet to get this
>>> done; but I don't see a reason you can't convince a bank to give
>>> you a big loan, then become an angel investor for a startup
>>> company.
>>>
>>> Stop whining and ride your bike to the bank! Wouldn't they be
>>> sure to see the genius in your ideas?
>>>
>>
>> If the day had 36h I could do that. But it doesn't.
>>
>> -- Regards, Joerg
>>
>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
> Then why not buy a motorcycle designed for offroad riding, remove the
> engine and fuel tank and weld on a bicycle bottom bracket and then
> install bicycle cranks and pedals? then EVERYTHING ELSE on the thing
> would be MOTORCYLE strength.
>

Because it's too heavy, the material is way overkill. It should be
obvious to you that a bicycle does not need to withstand 100mph+, does
not need to withstand acceleration from 0-60mph in five seconds, and
does not need to slow down 500lbs+ in even less time.

One of many examples:

A motorcycle battery will make sure the vehicle can remain fully lit at
all times, even while idling or when the engine is shut off. It is
bolted down so it never sloshes around. The owner does not have to worry
about the battery topic for years, it is automatically charged, it just
works.

On a bicycle? Forget it. Either you are swapping batteries all the time
or you have to buy a Li-Ion battery, remember charging it and it'll come
in a totally flimsy pouch that somehow flops around under your seat. Or
flies off during the next crash. _This_ is how a sturdy bicycle battery
looks like:

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/Battbox2.JPG

Needless to say you cannot buy this and I had to build it myself. The
box contains eight 18650 Li-Ion cells, a master switcher and, of course,
a fuse (ever saw that on a bicycle?). There is a charge port under the
seat which can also be used to connect a radio or whatever. It's been on
many rough rides by now, is caked in crusted mud, got soaked, rocks
banged into it, no issues whatsoever. And yeah, it can keep the ship
fully lit for more than 5h. With that I mean real light and not some
paltry 300 lumens.

Next up is a new brighter rear light with strobe overlay and a
switch-mode controller, 8.4V tie-in, as bright as the tail light of a
good motorcycle. I looked all over and, of course, you can't buy that
either. Still have to finish it and when done I'll publish it. I have
used only parts that are cheap, available just about anywhere and can be
scrapped out of junk in countries where they don't have the resources.
For kicks I might do yet another one with a micro controller because the
kids know that kind of stuff. I just don't have too much free time.

[Sir Ridesalot]

BUT, BUT, BUT, YOU'RE the one who's ALWAYS COMPLAINING that bicycles don't have heavy-duty motorcycle/automotive-like parts and components and tires and so on.

Cheers

[Joerg]

No, I am complaining that bicycle componenent do not offer a similar
level of quality commensurate with the respective use. Because they
generally don't.

My MTB tubes now have motorcycle level quality. Thick, they weigh well
over a pound each and ... tadaaa ... no more flats. Tires are way
inferior to motorcycle gear no matter what you pay. My bike dealer had a
$80+ tire and said "George, this is the one for your riding style!" ...
"So will it likely last more than 500 miles?" ... He shook his head.
Today I received a CST Rock Hawk 29"*2.25" tire which weighs over 2lbs
and make a very robust impression. We shall see. Its running surface
feels nice and hard, the sidewalls are still not the same strength as on
the Maxxis 1040N which unfortunately does not come in 29".

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-22 16:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 4:47 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2016-04-22 13:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

>>> But as we've said, if you think we're all wrong, and such a bike has
>>> such a huge potential, get the things made and make yourself rich!
>>>
>>
>> As I've said I am busy enough doing exactly that in electronics. Sans
>> the getting rich part because that's not important to me.
>
> If that's not important to you, you need to jump on my idea. It will
> give you a great opportunity to prove it!
>
> Hell, you could have set up the bank appointment in the time you spent
> typing just today. Skip Usenet tomorrow, and you can get your business
> plan written by Sunday. And your brilliant ideas will guarantee you'll
> have the check in your hand by Tuesday - right? After all, how could
> bank managers not recognize your brilliance?
>

You don't seem to understand how venture financing works. I do, BTDT,
several times.

Banks are not the places to go to for that and it does take ore than a
few minutes of Usenet time to prepare. As I've said many times I am
maxed out WRT work time. I wish not to add any more ventures at this
point. Partly because I work as volunteer in non-engineering functions
and the other part is pure selfishness: I want to ride.

[jbeattie]

The guy doing the filming is running all the same signs -- which makes me wonder if there wasn't at least a little traffic coordination. If not, wait for the sequel "Massan The Deceased Rider."

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

You've put at least a hundred hours into telling us that all current bicycles
are junk. That wasn't riding time.

I actually think you're more intelligent than you pretend. Specifically,
I think you know that the demands you pretend to have are nonsense, and
that no bike built to meet those demands would sell more than a couple
dozen copies, if that. And I think you know that no amount of complaining
here will cause anyone build and sell such a bike.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 07:56:27 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

Jorge, I hate to offend you but Hydraulics weren't discovered in
conjunction with automobiles. The Greeks were constructing hydraulic
systems in the 3rd century B.C.

As for this amazing pressure that can be applied by a hydraulic
system... well, any lever system can do exactly the same thing, in
fact exactly the same principals apply. Big lever, small lever, big
piston, small piston.

Frank can probably give you a basic lecture in"mechanics" it is
sometimes called, in fact I believe that an old bloke, in his trade,
once said something like, "give me a long enough lever..."

>Then there is the fact that a rim brake is totally inefficient right
>after going through a body of water. Why serious cyclcist often do.

Again I hate to disagree but the V-brakes I use on my utility bike
will skid either wheel in a downpour. In fact they are a bit too
strong as the wet pavement is sometimes rather slippery
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:51:06 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

Nope, not too difficult. And even a very stubborn person should be
able to figure out that there might be a reason why these unbreakable
bikes aren't being made.... Nobody wants them.

An o-ringed chain sells for about $90 and is too stiff to use with a
derailer system. Of course, it isn't any problem to design a geared 33
speed transmission but I suspect that they will be a bit "up-market"
for most cyclists. In addition it is not going to be a light weight
system.

So, are you willing to pay, lets say, 5 - 10 thousand dollars for a
limited production and very heavy bicycle?

Or to put the question another way, Will Andrew think it is a smart
business plan to stock a 50 - 60 lb bicycle that sells for, lets say
$4,000 - $10,000 and is purchased by only a few people?

But, if you are really serious about this there are multitudes of
custom bike makers who, I'm sure, will be willing to build a bicycle
to your exact specifications.... for a price, of course.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:21:39 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

But, driver shaft bicycles have been made. They seem to date back to
the 1890's. My local bike shop even has one, although a more recent
version, on display.

Given that they were first built over a hundred years ago it is
strange why this "perfect" design hasn't conquered the market.

One can only speculate why.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Since, I believe, that o-ringed chains cannot be used in a derailer
system as they are too stiff and that 11 x 3 derailer systems are
common, what would you estimate Trek's cost would be to design and
develop for sale a 33 speed, non derailer, gear system?

Then we could ask Andrew about amortizing development costs over
potential sales, to arrive at a likely street price for Jorge's new
bike.


,

>>
>>
>>> But as we've said, if you think we're all wrong, and such a bike has
>>> such a huge potential, get the things made and make yourself rich!
>>>
>>
>> As I've said I am busy enough doing exactly that in electronics. Sans
>> the getting rich part because that's not important to me.
>
>If that's not important to you, you need to jump on my idea. It will
>give you a great opportunity to prove it!
>
>Hell, you could have set up the bank appointment in the time you spent
>typing just today. Skip Usenet tomorrow, and you can get your business
>plan written by Sunday. And your brilliant ideas will guarantee you'll
>have the check in your hand by Tuesday - right? After all, how could
>bank managers not recognize your brilliance?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:03:11 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-04-21 18:31, John B. wrote:

True, on the other hand I have been using the same tail light for
several years now while you were complaining about how they just fell
off your bike.

I can only suggest that you simply install a set of sprockets to fit
the, what is it? 1/2" wide motorcycle chain and use it.

By the way, a properly designed chain transmission system can operate
literally for years without failure. Decades, perhaps.

--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:47:28 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-04-22 13:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/22/2016 2:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> What would be so difficult making stuff sturdier for bicycles? For
>>> example, a hub transmission in conjunction with an o-ring chain will not
>>> be much heavier. But it can afford the rider 10k+ miles with no worries
>>> about premature chain wear. Oh well, for the bicycle industry that is
>>> too difficult I guess.
>>
>> You're asking the bicycle industry to produce a difficult to manufacture
>> product for a potential market of, oh, roughly one rider.
>>
>
>a. It is not difficult to manufacture, as the motorcycle industry has
>proven.
>

No that isn't correct. As Tom has written, you simply aren't man
enough to ride a 33 speed geared transmission bicycle with an o-ringed
chain.

>b. There are plenty more riders who are unhappy about having to whip out
>the wrenches every few weeks.
>

Really? And they will be happy to pay $90 for a chain that won't bend
around corners?

>
>> Your inability to understand the design, manufacturing and marketing
>> challenges indicates your requests are not to be taken seriously. You're
>> wasting your time and ours.
>>
>
>Then why do you read my posts?
>
>
>> But as we've said, if you think we're all wrong, and such a bike has
>> such a huge potential, get the things made and make yourself rich!
>>
>
>As I've said I am busy enough doing exactly that in electronics. Sans
>the getting rich part because that's not important to me. Seeing my
>designs being robust and used in the field for decades suffices. There
>were plenty of designs among these where people said it can't be done
>and then we did it anyhow.
>
>
>> Yeah, I know, you're too busy complaining on Usenet to get this done;
>> but I don't see a reason you can't convince a bank to give you a big
>> loan, then become an angel investor for a startup company.
>>
>> Stop whining and ride your bike to the bank! Wouldn't they be sure to
>> see the genius in your ideas?
>>
>
>If the day had 36h I could do that. But it doesn't.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:28:46 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-04-22 15:45, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 4:47:25 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-22 13:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> Yeah, I know, you're too busy complaining on Usenet to get this
>>>> done; but I don't see a reason you can't convince a bank to give
>>>> you a big loan, then become an angel investor for a startup
>>>> company.
>>>>
>>>> Stop whining and ride your bike to the bank! Wouldn't they be
>>>> sure to see the genius in your ideas?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the day had 36h I could do that. But it doesn't.
>>>
>>> -- Regards, Joerg
>>>
>>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>>
>> Then why not buy a motorcycle designed for offroad riding, remove the
>> engine and fuel tank and weld on a bicycle bottom bracket and then
>> install bicycle cranks and pedals? then EVERYTHING ELSE on the thing
>> would be MOTORCYLE strength.
>>
>
>Because it's too heavy, the material is way overkill. It should be
>obvious to you that a bicycle does not need to withstand 100mph+, does
>not need to withstand acceleration from 0-60mph in five seconds, and
>does not need to slow down 500lbs+ in even less time.
>

I suspect that either the market has changed or you aren't familiar
with off the road motorcycles. Way back in the 1970's I was building
4130 light weight tubing parts for motorcycles and could have build,
if asked, a light weight frame that I suspect you couldn't break.
So, that part of your argument is not correct.

I would also suggest that few, if any, of the small sized, say
approximately equal in H.P. to a human, off the road racing
motorcycles are ridden at 100 mph, nor can they likely accelerate from
0 - 60 MPH in 5 seconds. Off the road.

>One of many examples:
>
>A motorcycle battery will make sure the vehicle can remain fully lit at
>all times, even while idling or when the engine is shut off. It is
>bolted down so it never sloshes around. The owner does not have to worry
>about the battery topic for years, it is automatically charged, it just
>works.
>
>On a bicycle? Forget it. Either you are swapping batteries all the time
>or you have to buy a Li-Ion battery, remember charging it and it'll come
>in a totally flimsy pouch that somehow flops around under your seat. Or
>flies off during the next crash. _This_ is how a sturdy bicycle battery
>looks like:

Why do you say that? One can install a hub generator and a small
motorcycle battery and have exactly the same, in essence, system.
Small, battery. doesn't leak, automatically charged.

>http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/Battbox2.JPG
>
>Needless to say you cannot buy this and I had to build it myself. The
>box contains eight 18650 Li-Ion cells, a master switcher and, of course,
>a fuse (ever saw that on a bicycle?). There is a charge port under the
>seat which can also be used to connect a radio or whatever. It's been on
>many rough rides by now, is caked in crusted mud, got soaked, rocks
>banged into it, no issues whatsoever. And yeah, it can keep the ship
>fully lit for more than 5h. With that I mean real light and not some
>paltry 300 lumens.
>

Yes, you can't buy a commercial unit as no one wants one :-)

>Next up is a new brighter rear light with strobe overlay and a
>switch-mode controller, 8.4V tie-in, as bright as the tail light of a
>good motorcycle. I looked all over and, of course, you can't buy that
>either. Still have to finish it and when done I'll publish it. I have
>used only parts that are cheap, available just about anywhere and can be
>scrapped out of junk in countries where they don't have the resources.
>For kicks I might do yet another one with a micro controller because the
>kids know that kind of stuff. I just don't have too much free time.

Again, a multitude of one wants one.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:14:02 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

Well, if you are an average cyclist or even a bit better then average
you have, an average power output for periods of an hour or more of
(probably) less then 400 watts, or about a half of one horsepower.

You can use it to go fast, or you can use it to carry heavy loads. But
not both :-)

--

Cheers,

John B.

[Joerg]

Sure it'll cost some power. But last time I read up on that it was in
the low single dgit percent between non o-ring and o-ring chain. Which
makes sense because of, for example, 5hp on a 50hp motorbike would burn
up in the chain it would be glowing red and rubber o-rings would
vaporize within the first mile.

I gladly give up 1-2% of my muscle-generated power if it allows me to
get there without incident and greatly reduces maintenance.

> As for the sprockets - you have a limited wheel width and the most
> modern 29ers are already too wide with their 135 mm rear wheels.
>
> Motorcycles have internal transmissions which again you cannot use on
> bicycles because of the drag of the gears in an oil bath.
>

Yet that is exactly what Rohloff does with their hub transmissions, and
some others. Except last time I looked they wanted $1500 for a
disc-version MTB Rohloff plus the cost for all the supporting stuff.
That's a bit much for a bicycle.

> So bicycles are one of the most advanced technical items of
> transportation you can buy.

That I completely disagree with. Many parts of bicycles are still almost
flintstonian, such as lighting. Unless you build your own.


> ... The weight and the speed you can achieve

> vs the cost gives you absolutely NOTHING like it.
>

I fully agree there.

But they don't last. I've always had that problem, even as a kid. When I
went to college and cycled well north of 5k miles/year I went through
one bike/year. Buying used and wearing them down was cheaper than spare
parts. Now that they built more bike infrastructure here I am back to
about 4k miles/year and that same wear and tear issue starts all over
again. It almost seems nothing has improved in that domain. I had to
hoof it back home several times because of some catastrophic failure.
Tire blowout, sidewall blowout, broken axles and such. Same for other
riders that I saw walking. I always try to help them but when 4-5 spokes
are gone there is nothing one can do right there.

With automotive product that is very different. My car is 19 years old
and close to 80k miles. It is an SUV that is not spared hard work under
heavy loads. Number of breakdowns or even an ever so slight hiccup: None.

[Joerg]

Not enough engineering put into it. BMW refined it to the point where it
is now standard on most of their motorcycles.

[Joerg]

True. However, for me any vehicle is multi-purpose. Even the road bike.
Mine always had luggage racks. Sometimes I bring a heavy box of machine
parts down to the Fedex depot in the valley and still step on it. Other
times I want to be able to zip along for 50mi or so and then it still
has panniers with varying degrees of loads in them (usually heavy on the
way back up the hills).

Same with the MTB which has a luggage rack. Just like my SUV I expect
that to be able to carry weight down a trail because sometimes that is
needed. The box with machine parts or whatever gets tightly strapped on
top with numerous bungee cords:

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/Muddy3.JPG

Bicycles are superior to most cars (except for Citroen and such) in very
few aspects: I can adjust the rear shock on my MTB so it fits the load
situation and trail condition. That always maximizes ride comfort on
rough turf. In my Mitsubishi SUV I'd have to add/remove a leaf on each
side which would take way more time.

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-23 02:00, John B. wrote:

Could have != have :-)

So what did that motorcycle frame weigh?

> I would also suggest that few, if any, of the small sized, say
> approximately equal in H.P. to a human, off the road racing
> motorcycles are ridden at 100 mph, nor can they likely accelerate from
> 0 - 60 MPH in 5 seconds. Off the road.
>

I see lots of little ones on the trails (illegal, but the kids wnat to
have fun). They still have way more oomph than any MTB rider can muster.
And they do major jumps. One guy had a MTB/motorcycle combination which
was cool. But too small for me and it only came in that one frame size.
You could buy a kit and then choose your own motor and decide whether to
also have pedals or not.

>
>
>> One of many examples:
>>
>> A motorcycle battery will make sure the vehicle can remain fully lit at
>> all times, even while idling or when the engine is shut off. It is
>> bolted down so it never sloshes around. The owner does not have to worry
>> about the battery topic for years, it is automatically charged, it just
>> works.
>>
>> On a bicycle? Forget it. Either you are swapping batteries all the time
>> or you have to buy a Li-Ion battery, remember charging it and it'll come
>> in a totally flimsy pouch that somehow flops around under your seat. Or
>> flies off during the next crash. _This_ is how a sturdy bicycle battery
>> looks like:
>
> Why do you say that? One can install a hub generator and a small

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> motorcycle battery and have exactly the same, in essence, system.
> Small, battery. doesn't leak, automatically charged.
>

I've underlined the salient words. You have to do it yourself, you
cannot buy this. On street-legal motorcycles this is standard.

>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/Battbox2.JPG
>>
>> Needless to say you cannot buy this and I had to build it myself. The
>> box contains eight 18650 Li-Ion cells, a master switcher and, of course,
>> a fuse (ever saw that on a bicycle?). There is a charge port under the
>> seat which can also be used to connect a radio or whatever. It's been on
>> many rough rides by now, is caked in crusted mud, got soaked, rocks
>> banged into it, no issues whatsoever. And yeah, it can keep the ship
>> fully lit for more than 5h. With that I mean real light and not some
>> paltry 300 lumens.
>>
> Yes, you can't buy a commercial unit as no one wants one :-)
>

Lots of people do. But the bicycle industry lacks what is standard
procedure in my previous world (medical device design): Talking to
customers.

>> Next up is a new brighter rear light with strobe overlay and a
>> switch-mode controller, 8.4V tie-in, as bright as the tail light of a
>> good motorcycle. I looked all over and, of course, you can't buy that
>> either. Still have to finish it and when done I'll publish it. I have
>> used only parts that are cheap, available just about anywhere and can be
>> scrapped out of junk in countries where they don't have the resources.
>> For kicks I might do yet another one with a micro controller because the
>> kids know that kind of stuff. I just don't have too much free time.
>
> Again, a multitude of one wants one.
>

From what I've seen on bike trails that statement is not true. The
problem is that most people who want it do not have the knack for
assembling a nice enough system so they rely on expensive battery
lights, often rechargeable.

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-23 02:00, John B. wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:47:28 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>

[...]

>
>> b. There are plenty more riders who are unhappy about having to whip out
>> the wrenches every few weeks.
>>
>
> Really? And they will be happy to pay $90 for a chain that won't bend
> around corners?
>

As I've shown you can buy them for around $60. For bicycles they'd be
even less because smaller size. If a chain lasts 5-10x longer then yes,
people will become interested. Power loss for o-rings is fairly modest,
low single digit percent.

But it requires vision on the part of the industry.

[...]

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-23 02:00, John B. wrote:

What 33-speed transmission are you talking about? On a bicycle you
cannot ride large-small, small-large, or anything near there. Sensible
riders never do that. Also, even on MTB it has turned out that 14 gears
are plenty. Rohloff knows a thing or two about this.

> So, are you willing to pay, lets say, 5 - 10 thousand dollars for a
> limited production and very heavy bicycle?
>

No.

> Or to put the question another way, Will Andrew think it is a smart
> business plan to stock a 50 - 60 lb bicycle that sells for, lets say
> $4,000 - $10,000 and is purchased by only a few people?
>
> But, if you are really serious about this there are multitudes of
> custom bike makers who, I'm sure, will be willing to build a bicycle
> to your exact specifications.... for a price, of course.
>

My bike weighs 40lbs by now and rides nicely. As for the business plan a
huge inventory is yesteryear's business model. When I wanted one
particular model full suspension MTB because of frame sturdiness I had
to wait a couple months until my local bike dealer got it. Big deal.

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-23 02:00, John B. wrote:

The Greeks did not develop that into brake systems for their chariot.
Engineering is the art of combining things to make something brand new.
I am an engineer and do this all the time, since decades, and people pay
me to do that. Essentially all my work boils down to four equations
(Maxwell theory) from well before my great-grandpa was in diapers,
always the same equations. Yet it's all new stuff and sometimes gets
patented.

> As for this amazing pressure that can be applied by a hydraulic
> system... well, any lever system can do exactly the same thing, in
> fact exactly the same principals apply. Big lever, small lever, big
> piston, small piston.
>
> Frank can probably give you a basic lecture in"mechanics" it is
> sometimes called, in fact I believe that an old bloke, in his trade,
> once said something like, "give me a long enough lever..."
>

Lectures mean nothing, products do. Yeah, you could make a
self-adjusting mechanical brake but the industry hasn't really. With
hydraulics that's a natural, they do this almost by principle. I have
never seen a mechanically operated bicycle brake that could even hold a
candle to a hydraulic one.

>> Then there is the fact that a rim brake is totally inefficient right
>> after going through a body of water. Why serious cyclcist often do.
>
> Again I hate to disagree but the V-brakes I use on my utility bike
> will skid either wheel in a downpour. In fact they are a bit too
> strong as the wet pavement is sometimes rather slippery
>

You can get very aggressive pad material but that will eat rims. Anyhow,
on a MTB that's a moot point because in muddy turf it will always eat
rims. I had enough of this mechanical brake stuff after I came through a
mud hole followed by a curve and other than a horrif grinding sound had
almost no brakes.

There is nothing that can replace hydraulic disc brakes. Except bigger
hydraulic disc brakes.

[jbeattie]

BTW, O-ring chains for motorcycles weigh close to 4 lbs; according to some reports they use 1/10th HP more energy to turn because of added drag. I suppose a bicycle equivalent would weigh between 1-2lbs and would probably sap 50 watts. All of the other Joerg-imagined super equipment would probably sap >400 watts just to get down the trail. Joerg would also have to commit to an IGH unless someone designs an o-ring derailleur chain. And with the tiny market for all this equipment, it would cost a mint. Most of the DH riders who pound the hell out of their equipment are served by existing products.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

Shaft drive bicycles predate the BMW shaft drive motorcycles.

Every bicycle company since then has had the opportunity to build shaft
drive bikes; and there have been hundreds of such companies, with
thousands of engineers and designers. But shaft drive bikes remain
about as rare as hen's teeth.

So Joerg, it's safe to say there have been thousands of intelligent
professionals who disagree with your assessment of the relevant
technologies.

You pretend to know more than all of them. Yet you refuse to put your
money where your mouth is.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-23 08:42, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/23/2016 10:27 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2016-04-23 02:00, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> But, driver shaft bicycles have been made. They seem to date back to
>>> the 1890's. My local bike shop even has one, although a more recent
>>> version, on display.
>>>
>>> Given that they were first built over a hundred years ago it is
>>> strange why this "perfect" design hasn't conquered the market.
>>>
>>> One can only speculate why.
>>>
>>
>> Not enough engineering put into it. BMW refined it to the point where it
>> is now standard on most of their motorcycles.
>
> Shaft drive bicycles predate the BMW shaft drive motorcycles.
>

Some companies manage to see such R&D projects through to completion and
market success, some don't. BMW did and that's all that counts.

> Every bicycle company since then has had the opportunity to build shaft
> drive bikes; and there have been hundreds of such companies, with
> thousands of engineers and designers. But shaft drive bikes remain
> about as rare as hen's teeth.
>

They should have teamed up with BMW. They know how it's done successfully.

> So Joerg, it's safe to say there have been thousands of intelligent
> professionals who disagree with your assessment of the relevant
> technologies.
>
> You pretend to know more than all of them. Yet you refuse to put your
> money where your mouth is.
>

As I've said many times my work day is already full so I can't attempt
to fix everything others may have messed up. Several times I or the team
I worked with have been told that something isn't feasible and we've
proven them wrong. Not by some prototype but by real products that are
successful in the market place, one of them for more than two decades
now, and counting. I've brought the details about that example here.
Heck, the others weren't even able to copy it. Which is why the company
is very non-concerned about the fact that the patents have run out.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/23/2016 2:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-04-23 08:42, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> So Joerg, it's safe to say there have been thousands of intelligent
>> professionals who disagree with your assessment of the relevant
>> technologies.
>>
>> You pretend to know more than all of them. Yet you refuse to put your
>> money where your mouth is.
>>
>

> As I've said many times my work day is already full...

So why are you wasting time posting complaints?

There are two types of people in this world. There are the ones who
actually do things, and there are the ones who tell them they're doing
them wrong. You're clearly in the latter group.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-23 05:11, Phil W Lee wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:00:44

> With the amount of weight Joerg wants to add to it 0-5mph in 60
> seconds is probably a more realistic target.
>

Even when transporting a bed and a mattress using two bikes in push-pull
configuration we managed a lot better than that :-)

That was in my university days where I bought another used road bike
every year because the previous one was completely worn. This turned out
to be much cheaper per mile than repairing.


> Unless you are chucking it off a cliff, of course.

>>
>>
>>> One of many examples:
>>>
>>> A motorcycle battery will make sure the vehicle can remain fully lit at
>>> all times, even while idling or when the engine is shut off. It is
>>> bolted down so it never sloshes around. The owner does not have to worry
>>> about the battery topic for years, it is automatically charged, it just
>>> works.
>>>
>>> On a bicycle? Forget it. Either you are swapping batteries all the time
>>> or you have to buy a Li-Ion battery, remember charging it and it'll come
>>> in a totally flimsy pouch that somehow flops around under your seat. Or
>>> flies off during the next crash. _This_ is how a sturdy bicycle battery
>>> looks like:
>>

> Yes, all you need is an alternator with an output approximately equal
> to the average power output of a TdF rider, and all these requirements
> will be possible.
>

Run the numbers: Front light uses 8W at highest setting, rear 1.5W. The
battery pack provides roughly 60Wh.

So, what's the average power output of a Tour de France rider?

[...]

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-23 11:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/23/2016 2:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2016-04-23 08:42, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> So Joerg, it's safe to say there have been thousands of intelligent
>>> professionals who disagree with your assessment of the relevant
>>> technologies.
>>>
>>> You pretend to know more than all of them. Yet you refuse to put your
>>> money where your mouth is.
>>>
>>
>> As I've said many times my work day is already full...
>
> So why are you wasting time posting complaints?
>

Because someone in the industry might actually notice. Squeaky wheel ->
grease. No squeaks -> no grease.

> There are two types of people in this world. There are the ones who
> actually do things, and there are the ones who tell them they're doing
> them wrong. You're clearly in the latter group.
>

Wrong. In fact, so wrong that more people would have died in necessary
but risky medical procedures if it wasn't for products our team
designed. Because we thought and made known that the status quo was
inadequate, which it was.

[AMuzi]

more than we mere humans produce. A lot more

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/2014-tour-de-france-week-2-power-analysis


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Joerg]

Amazing. I am very far away from that level or from what what Jay did on
his 8-1/2h ride from Seattle to Portland. No way I could do that. I can
hold 20mph on a fairly level road or bike path for an hour but then I've
had enough. Even when pushing 25mph for brief sprints I had people blow
past me.

But it was more of a rhetorical question because even if you wanted to
generate enough power to avoid any battery depletion 12W or so is all
that's needed. When the front rim of my road bike is done next time I
want to look for a hub dynamo wheel. With some fancy electronics it
should be possible to goose that to deliver 5-8 watts on a zippy ride so
that would allow me to get away with a very small Li-Ion battery.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 04-21-2016 17:02, Joerg wrote:
> Oh, and no worries about grenading a tire because of excess heat. But
> you do have to mind brake fade with hydraulics, just like you do with
> cars and motorcycles. Even in that domain a good set of disc brakes runs
> circles around rim brakes.

So, you can lock the wheel easier than with a caliper, yet there's no
risk of a skid? Explain?

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 04-23-2016 16:47, Joerg wrote:
>> Why do you say that? One can install a hub generator and a small
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> motorcycle battery and have exactly the same, in essence, system.
>> Small, battery. doesn't leak, automatically charged.
>>
>
> I've underlined the salient words. You have to do it yourself, you
> cannot buy this. On street-legal motorcycles this is standard.

Cannot buy _what_? I have a hub generator in the bike.
I did not install it, Brompton did.

What are you saying cannot be bought?

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 04-23-2016 05:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> I actually think you're more intelligent than you pretend. Specifically,
> I think you know that the demands you pretend to have are nonsense, and
> that no bike built to meet those demands would sell more than a couple
> dozen copies, if that. And I think you know that no amount of complaining
> here will cause anyone build and sell such a bike.

I don't know whether it would meet his demands, but I did see a bike in
a shop with a price tag of $16,000 US dollars. There apparently are
people nutty^H^H^H^H^Hfinicky enough to pay it, or at least the
manufacturer thought so.

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 04-23-2016 16:25, Joerg wrote:
> When I went to college and cycled well north of 5k miles/year I went
> through one bike/year.

My commute for a couple of years was 13 miles each way, five days/week.

More than six thousand miles a year, plus other trips. (And a shorter
commute for a year before that.) One bicycle, for which I paid four
hundred dollars. I was not aware of anything wrong with it for a couple
years after that (when it was stolen in Boston).

--
Wes Groleau

[Sir Ridesalot]

You probably looked after it whereas according to many of Joerg's posts he abuses his bike until something brakes.

Cheers

[John B.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:59:48 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>

wrote:

>John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:00:44
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>

>Not a problem, as a derailer system has considerable overlap between
>ranges, and a Rohloff is evenly spaced, so the 14 gears of a Rohloff
>give nice even spacing even over a very large range. If that isn't
>enough just add an IG bottom bracket to go with it.
>

In my experience there is, usually, about a 2 gear overlap between
chain rings so approximately 2 x 3 = 6 gears. 33 - 6 = something like
27 separate gear ratios.And supposing I miscalculated a little taking
90% of that number we will need a couple of Rohloffs in tandem.
Unless, of course, we are trying to emulate one of the old 7 speed
dual setups from years ago. Rather then "Rohloffs" perhaps we could
call this new 14 speed system the "Retro" gear system.

"Yes Sir! The latest improvement in bicycle gearing in over a year. No
more of that silly 33 speed thing, now we have the Retro Gear
System(r) a return to the 14 speeds of years gone by."


>The greater difficulty is using o-ring chain at all, since it is stiff
>to move, and would consume considerable power. That is one reason why
>it isn't used on any racing motorcycle I'm aware of, the other being
>that it overheats, and the o-rings melt.
>Even without the additional stiffness from o-rings, a motorcycle chain
>gets so hot in racing that if collected from the track by a marshal,
>thick leather gloves must be worn to avoid serious burns.

>>
>>Then we could ask Andrew about amortizing development costs over
>>potential sales, to arrive at a likely street price for Jorge's new
>>bike.
>>
>>

>That shouldn't be too bad if all you are doing is fitting motorcycle
>chain and sprockets to existing IGH/BB systems.
>And the chain and sprockets would only add another couple of Kgs over
>that of the Rohloff/Schlumpf.
>It might be a plan to add a similar sprocket to the alternator he is
>going to need to get automotive quality lighting and charging, so that
>it maintains output in low gears.
>The only slight problem is that it would undoubtedly exceed the torque
>limits for a Rohloff, but hey, the design work is done - all you have
>to do is convince them to build a scaled up version capable of
>handling several times to torque that'll be necessary to move the
>thing on the flat, never mind up any kind of hill (and fitting it into
>the rim size dictated by a motorcycle tyre and rim). It'll probably
>be very wide, and may even need to have the rim built onto it, as the
>gap between hub and rim will be too small to fit any kind of cross
>pattern for spoking..
>
>Heck, with the drivetrain, charging, battery, luggage capacity, bash
>guards, motorcycle tyres (and the rims to hold them) motorcycle brakes
>and mounting hardware, we can't have added more than 35Kgs to the
>weight of the bike. Better allow another 5Kg for the additional
>weight of the frame to carry all that.
>
>And that's without the extra drag!
>
>It would be roughly equivalent to pulling another non-contributing
>adult on a sledge.
>
>Yes, it would be pretty indestructible.
>In fact, it would probably last forever, since nobody in their right
>mind would actually want to ride it (except maybe as a challenge over
>a very short distance).

[John B.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:11:37 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>

wrote:

>John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:00:44
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>

>With the amount of weight Joerg wants to add to it 0-5mph in 60
>seconds is probably a more realistic target.
>

>Unless you are chucking it off a cliff, of course.
>>
>>

>>>One of many examples:
>>>
>>>A motorcycle battery will make sure the vehicle can remain fully lit at
>>>all times, even while idling or when the engine is shut off. It is
>>>bolted down so it never sloshes around. The owner does not have to worry
>>>about the battery topic for years, it is automatically charged, it just
>>>works.
>>>
>>>On a bicycle? Forget it. Either you are swapping batteries all the time
>>>or you have to buy a Li-Ion battery, remember charging it and it'll come
>>>in a totally flimsy pouch that somehow flops around under your seat. Or
>>>flies off during the next crash. _This_ is how a sturdy bicycle battery
>>>looks like:
>>

>Yes, all you need is an alternator with an output approximately equal
>to the average power output of a TdF rider, and all these requirements
>will be possible.
>

There is a problem with that equation. If you can't produce the power
of a TdeF rider you won't be able to ride the thing.... somewhere in
the neighborhood of 400 watts continuous. If a 12 VDC generator then a
continues output of 33 amps :-)

[John B.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 07:25:38 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

But. Firstly a very flexible bicycle chain which is necessary to
facilitate the derailer gear changes probably can't be effectively
"o-ringed" if for no other reason then that the o-rings must, to be
effective, press against the chain links which in turn makes the chain
less flexible.

Secondly, you are talking about a motorcycle with a 50 H.P. engine.
The rest of us are talking about a bicycle with a one-half horsepower
power plant.

The friction loss of the o-ring chains is inconsequential to the big,
brawny, motorcycle but a matter of real concern to our puny bicycle
power plant.

>I gladly give up 1-2% of my muscle-generated power if it allows me to
>get there without incident and greatly reduces maintenance.



>> As for the sprockets - you have a limited wheel width and the most
>> modern 29ers are already too wide with their 135 mm rear wheels.
>>
>> Motorcycles have internal transmissions which again you cannot use on
>> bicycles because of the drag of the gears in an oil bath.
>>
>
>Yet that is exactly what Rohloff does with their hub transmissions, and
>some others. Except last time I looked they wanted $1500 for a
>disc-version MTB Rohloff plus the cost for all the supporting stuff.
>That's a bit much for a bicycle.

But you have previously said that you didn't care about the money. You
just wanted chain life. A Rohloff with some slightly wider o-ringed
chain ring and rear sprocket could be adapted to a bicycle with few
problems. I'm not current with prices in the U.S. but I would guess
that one could build a system similar to your desires for, perhaps,
$2500..

>> So bicycles are one of the most advanced technical items of
>> transportation you can buy.
>
>
>That I completely disagree with. Many parts of bicycles are still almost
>flintstonian, such as lighting. Unless you build your own.
>
>
>> ... The weight and the speed you can achieve
>> vs the cost gives you absolutely NOTHING like it.
>>
>
>I fully agree there.
>
>But they don't last. I've always had that problem, even as a kid. When I
>went to college and cycled well north of 5k miles/year I went through
>one bike/year. Buying used and wearing them down was cheaper than spare

I think there is something wrong with your calculations. James has
spoken of very respectable yearly totals and he has also talked about
multi year use of components. Perhaps he would comment on your 5 K
miles to scrap.

While not, perhaps as current as James, but I do read Blogs written by
people who ride an average of 10,000 miles a year and from their
comments I believe that their bicycles last for multiple years.

>parts. Now that they built more bike infrastructure here I am back to
>about 4k miles/year and that same wear and tear issue starts all over
>again. It almost seems nothing has improved in that domain. I had to
>hoof it back home several times because of some catastrophic failure.
>Tire blowout, sidewall blowout, broken axles and such. Same for other
>riders that I saw walking. I always try to help them but when 4-5 spokes
>are gone there is nothing one can do right there.
>
>With automotive product that is very different. My car is 19 years old
>and close to 80k miles. It is an SUV that is not spared hard work under
>heavy loads. Number of breakdowns or even an ever so slight hiccup: None.

But, you talk about riding "off road", crashing down rocky hills and
diving into rivers with the bicycle. Do you do this with your SUV?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I suggest that the real problem with a bicycle "o-ring" chain is that
it would have to be much stiffer then the present chains. An
"o-ringed" chain prevents the ingress of dirt into the links by an
o-ring squeezed between the inner and outer link plates and thus the
effective clearance between link plates is reduced and thus the chain
is stiffer. Try designing a light weight derailer system for use with
a stiff chain.

A professional cyclist can produce about 400 watts, or 0.536 horse
power for periods of an hour or more. The 1/10 of a horsepower you
mention above amounts to ~75 watts, or nearly 20% of the pro cyclists
power output.

Of course it would be very simple to build a rear hub gear system and
adapt a thicker o-ringed chain and sprockets. This of course would be
an estimated $2,000 - 3,000 base cost and the cost of frame, wheels,
etc., would need to be added. The results would be a heavy, expensive,
bicycle requiring more power to attain present day speeds.

Weights and speeds are an interesting problem. Firstly according to
the figures above the o-ringed chain will result in ~20% loss in power
but additionally the heavier chain and gear box will result in a
heavier bike thus requiring even more power to attain present day
speeds.

One can only speculate on the sales volume of a bicycle costing, say
$2,000 more then current models. Substantially heavier then current
models and requiring perhaps 40% more strength to reach current
speeds.

But with a chain life of, lets say 15,000 miles.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:28:41 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-04-23 08:42, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/23/2016 10:27 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-23 02:00, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But, driver shaft bicycles have been made. They seem to date back to
>>>> the 1890's. My local bike shop even has one, although a more recent
>>>> version, on display.
>>>>
>>>> Given that they were first built over a hundred years ago it is
>>>> strange why this "perfect" design hasn't conquered the market.
>>>>
>>>> One can only speculate why.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not enough engineering put into it. BMW refined it to the point where it
>>> is now standard on most of their motorcycles.
>>
>> Shaft drive bicycles predate the BMW shaft drive motorcycles.
>>
>
>Some companies manage to see such R&D projects through to completion and
>market success, some don't. BMW did and that's all that counts.
>

You seem to be talking about some sort of miraculous discovery made
by BMW that allowed them to build this shaft drive dream.

That just isn't so. BMW elected to go with a very old fashioned drive
system assuming that their customers would prefer it to the more
efficient but higher maintenance chain drive.

I might also mention that I have been aware of the BMW motorcycles
since about 1950 and until very recently they have been a very sedate
sort of motorcycle. Remember the BMW R-24 Single or the later BMW's
with the funny forks and the screaming 500 cc, 26 H.P. engines?

It might also be worth mentioning that BMW has, in the past, and still
does manufacture chain drive motorcycles.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Out local Trek Shop usually has $7,000 (list price) Time Trial/"Iron
Man" bike on display. I asked the sales department how many they sold
a year and was told "about 3 or 4. All to professional cyclists".
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 07:27:00 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

Are you talking about some sort of magic here? Or just that BMW
elected to go with a slight mechanical disadvantage using the shaft
drive?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/24/2016 3:21 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:59:48 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not a problem, as a derailer system has considerable overlap between
>> ranges, and a Rohloff is evenly spaced, so the 14 gears of a Rohloff
>> give nice even spacing even over a very large range. If that isn't
>> enough just add an IG bottom bracket to go with it.
>>
>
> In my experience there is, usually, about a 2 gear overlap between
> chain rings so approximately 2 x 3 = 6 gears. 33 - 6 = something like
> 27 separate gear ratios.And supposing I miscalculated a little taking
> 90% of that number we will need a couple of Rohloffs in tandem.
> Unless, of course, we are trying to emulate one of the old 7 speed
> dual setups from years ago. Rather then "Rohloffs" perhaps we could
> call this new 14 speed system the "Retro" gear system.
>
> "Yes Sir! The latest improvement in bicycle gearing in over a year. No
> more of that silly 33 speed thing, now we have the Retro Gear
> System(r) a return to the 14 speeds of years gone by."

Except for loaded touring or tandem riding, I'd do fine with 7 or 8
well-spaced gears between about 35 and 100 gear inches. I know others
like to have very precise gear ratios, but I don't mind changing my
cadence.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-24 00:21, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:28:41 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-04-23 08:42, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2016 10:27 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2016-04-23 02:00, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But, driver shaft bicycles have been made. They seem to date back to
>>>>> the 1890's. My local bike shop even has one, although a more recent
>>>>> version, on display.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that they were first built over a hundred years ago it is
>>>>> strange why this "perfect" design hasn't conquered the market.
>>>>>
>>>>> One can only speculate why.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not enough engineering put into it. BMW refined it to the point where it
>>>> is now standard on most of their motorcycles.
>>>
>>> Shaft drive bicycles predate the BMW shaft drive motorcycles.
>>>
>>
>> Some companies manage to see such R&D projects through to completion and
>> market success, some don't. BMW did and that's all that counts.
>>
> You seem to be talking about some sort of miraculous discovery made
> by BMW that allowed them to build this shaft drive dream.
>
> That just isn't so. BMW elected to go with a very old fashioned drive
> system assuming that their customers would prefer it to the more
> efficient but higher maintenance chain drive.
>

The efficiency difference is much lower than it's hyped up to be.

> I might also mention that I have been aware of the BMW motorcycles
> since about 1950 and until very recently they have been a very sedate
> sort of motorcycle. Remember the BMW R-24 Single or the later BMW's
> with the funny forks and the screaming 500 cc, 26 H.P. engines?
>

They were never into crotch rockets, it's not their main market. They
are into reliable machines which is also why they landed so many police
bike contracts, even in America where it is highly unusual for a
government entity to buy non-American.

Now I am not so partial to their cars. Too much electronics and that
clearly does not seem to be their strength.

> It might also be worth mentioning that BMW has, in the past, and still
> does manufacture chain drive motorcycles.
>

Who in their right mind would ever buy a chain-driven GS1200 dual-sport
version if they can have shaft-drive? If they even make one for offroad.

[Joerg]

Try to buy a mountain bike with a hub generator in America. Or even a
road bike. A Brompton is for city riding and people who need to fold and
carry it a lot.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/24/2016 3:21 AM, John B. wrote:
>

> One can only speculate on the sales volume of a bicycle costing, say
> $2,000 more then current models. Substantially heavier then current
> models and requiring perhaps 40% more strength to reach current
> speeds.
>
> But with a chain life of, lets say 15,000 miles.

Well, someone might sell a couple.

When the first incandescent replacement LED bulbs came out, I knew one
guy who proudly spent something like $40 to buy one, instead of getting
another compact fluorescent. He focused on the fact that the LED used
just 11 Watts, instead of the roughly 15 Watts drawn by a competing
compact fluorescent that sold for maybe $4.

For that guy, talk of payback period, etc. was meaningless. It was the
principle of the thing. I suspect Joerg is similar.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

It's simple:

Regardless of weather, dirtiness level or whatever, when I reach in I
can achieve maximum _safe_ braking force instantly with a dic brake.
With a rim brake one can not when the works are wet or gunked up.

Regarding skid, yes, I have let even front wheels skid. Mostly on
slippery downhill sections to let the bike "slosh" into turf where more
deceleration could be achieved. Then also the last time I accidentally
blew past a turn on singletrack. There was a short gravel bed ahead of
me, at the end of which lay a large pile of rocks which could have
resulted in a very abrupt end of the ride. If I hadn't locked up the
front and let the bike dig in I'd have smacked into those rock. Of
course, MTB riders instinctively drop way low behind the saddle when
that happens. There is a reason why the front tire on a MTB doesn't last
as long as on a road bike.

[Joerg]

On 2016-04-23 14:19, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-4, W. Wesley Groleau
> wrote:
>> On 04-23-2016 16:25, Joerg wrote:
>>> When I went to college and cycled well north of 5k miles/year I
>>> went through one bike/year.
>>
>> My commute for a couple of years was 13 miles each way, five
>> days/week.
>>

Probably not with heavy loads and in hilly terrrain.

>> More than six thousand miles a year, plus other trips. (And a
>> shorter commute for a year before that.) One bicycle, for which I
>> paid four hundred dollars. I was not aware of anything wrong with
>> it for a couple years after that (when it was stolen in Boston).
>>
>> -- Wes Groleau
>
> You probably looked after it whereas according to many of Joerg's
> posts he abuses his bike until something brakes.
>

Granted, in my student days I did that. But mostly because fixing was
way more expensive than just replacing the bike with another used one
every year.

Some of the damage was more structural. For example, BB bearings (or the
sorry things they called bearings in the 80's) would sometimes work
themselves loose in the cups or a cup cracked and it wore out the BB.
When I noticed it and re-tightened or replaced the bearings it was
sometimes too late, wouldn't hold anymore. Then the stupid "concept" of
cotter pins for mounting the cranks. That was so bad that I sometimes
welded on the cranks. Of course this made the BB area non-serviceable,
dooming the bike once the BB set went. But at under $50/bike not so bad.