HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Posts: 5066
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
11.4 wrote:
Easier, just put a wobble thread on the skewer nut. This is one that lets you tilt the rod of the skewer sideways a few degrees and then the nut pulls right back, and reverse to tighten up. When it tightens up flat against the fork tip, it is engaged in the threads and won't move.
I don't really understand this, so 2 questions.

1) Does this defeat the intended safety benefit of the lawyer tabs? I.e., does this cause the lawyer tabs to not hold the wheel on when the skewer is open?
2) Will the wobble thread have to be provided as part of the skewer design so as to not negate the no modifications provision?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:08 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 714
HammerTime2 wrote:
11.4 wrote:
Easier, just put a wobble thread on the skewer nut. This is one that lets you tilt the rod of the skewer sideways a few degrees and then the nut pulls right back, and reverse to tighten up. When it tightens up flat against the fork tip, it is engaged in the threads and won't move.
I don't really understand this, so 2 questions.

1) Does this defeat the intended safety benefit of the lawyer tabs? I.e., does this cause the lawyer tabs to not hold the wheel on when the skewer is open?
2) Will the wobble thread have to be provided as part of the skewer design so as to not negate the no modifications provision?


If you mean you want to create a way to do it yourself on your own wheels, just find a wobble nut the same thread as your skewer. They all tend to be big, like the size of your quick release skewer nut, but be sure they are definitely large. Don't worry about serrations on the facing surface because it's the teeth on the cone lock nut inside that really hold the wheel in place and prevent slipping.

If a wobble nut comes loose, it can tilt sideways and just pull off. So no, it's not as safe as regular skewer nuts with lawyer tabs. But it is as secure as a regular skewer nut as long as it's tight, and if a regular skewer nut loosens without lawyer tabs, the wheel comes off anyway. So you aren't in any worse situation. If an official inspects for lawyer tabs, will they stop your quick release nut? After all, you can swap quick releases at will, so they aren't necessarily subject to the UCI rules on not being modified. It's one of those weird black holes in the rules that they don't seem to have dealt with, and can only be dealt with when all hubs have to come with factory skewers and the whole unit gets a UCI sticker.

Anyway, is any part of this thread serious? This whole area of regulation is a joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Shetland, Scotland
1.3.02 "Equipment must meet applicable quality and safety standards" :smartass: :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 714
CarlosFerreiro wrote:
1.3.02 "Equipment must meet applicable quality and safety standards" :smartass: :wink:


Which means nothing of course. This from the guys who want to send you down a col in the Spanish Pyrenees at 100 km/hr on rough roads on tires weighing 185 grams? Right. They'd be better off establishing better helmet safety standards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 714
This thread needs to be read along with the "drill holes in frame!" thread on this forum as well. Read them together and you'll get confused between them. Both are about idiotic ideas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Shetland, Scotland
It means that if you do something and the UCI wants to take action against you, they will probably be able to find some kinds of grounds for it.
It doesn't mean too much in terms of any practical benefit to anybody, no.

I'd be interested to hear from anybody with design experience in the area, but I suspect that helmet design is difficult to improve much without increasing the physical thickness of the material (making the helmets much bigger) as you'd be looking to manage a faster impact speed with the same deceleration limits?
Or you go to airbags etc....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:11 pm
Posts: 84
Velonews article: "UCI begins enforcement of fork lawyer tab rule in Qatar"

This is the beginning of the end of the quick release lever as we know it. Soon the UCI is going to mandate that wheels use thru-axles instead of the quick release.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Posts: 5066
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
You guys are probably thinking that the lawyer tab rule is retarded for pro cycling, that lawyer tabs serve only to protect against unknowledgeable people who use QR's as a wingnut rather than using the cam, and that of course, all pro mechanics, and pro riders, know how to use a QR. But I believe that argument against the lawyer tab rule could be overcome were the UCI to enact an additional rule requiring QR levers to be spun as wingnuts and prohibiting use of their cams - with that additional rule in place, then the lawyer tab rule would indeed prove vital. This probably makes sense according to Pat McQuaid's perverted and contorted logic.

But back to the real world of lawyer tabs and properly used QR's. Presuming that QR's which don't require adjustment to install or remove the front wheel over lawyer tabs are not used, then by virtue of the lawyer tab rule, mechanics (or riders) making quick "in race" wheel changes may not adjust the QR's so carefully, thereby increasing the chance that a wheel will become loose and held in only by the lawyer tabs, which I presume is not a good situation for control of the bike. And this would be more dangerous than the previous paradigm of no lawyer tabs, used in conjunction with QR's which are already properly adjusted prior to installation of the wheel. Comments?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: UCI meets NJS
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 714
HammerTime2 wrote:
You guys are probably thinking that the lawyer tab rule is retarded for pro cycling, that lawyer tabs serve only to protect against unknowledgeable people who use QR's as a wingnut rather than using the cam, and that of course, all pro mechanics, and pro riders, know how to use a QR. But I believe that argument against the lawyer tab rule could be overcome were the UCI to enact an additional rule requiring QR levers to be spun as wingnuts and prohibiting use of their cams - with that additional rule in place, then the lawyer tab rule would indeed prove vital. This probably makes sense according to Pat McQuaid's perverted and contorted logic.

But back to the real world of lawyer tabs and properly used QR's. Presuming that QR's which don't require adjustment to install or remove the front wheel over lawyer tabs are not used, then by virtue of the lawyer tab rule, mechanics (or riders) making quick "in race" wheel changes may not adjust the QR's so carefully, thereby increasing the chance that a wheel will become loose and held in only by the lawyer tabs, which I presume is not a good situation for control of the bike. And this would be more dangerous than the previous paradigm of no lawyer tabs, used in conjunction with QR's which are already properly adjusted prior to installation of the wheel. Comments?


I think we're about to see a resurgence of Campy as the dominant group. Simply because they have the designs for the two-speed rear hubs and wing nuts on the front and cottered cranks and so on.

Actually, I think everyone is wrong about the UCI wanting to get rid of track cycling. They just want all road riders to have to do Alpe d'Huez and Mortirolo on a fixie.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beanbiken, Google [Bot], poppiholla and 60 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:38 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB