human909 wrote:CKinnard wrote:simply simple! the land of personal anecdote trumping everything.
Yep. I've been guilty in this thread of that. But so have you..... Like I've said the vast majority of bikes aren't constructed with precisely measure torquing of bolts. I have noticed you have yet to accept this.
On the more analytical side of things you have consistently failed to respond when your doubtful claims have been challenged.
CKinnard wrote:P!N20 wrote:
Not to mention mechanical failure still being a possibility even with every bolt precisely torqued.
so in your safe space, all possibilities are equal.
You seem to be trying to reduce discussion into a circular black hole. One might conjecture that you cannot engage in debate in a rational way so you resort to strawman tactics.....
My personal experience includes a professional interest in the personal interest of many others - via hospital A&E, ICU, orthopedics wards, outpatients, and being a safety consultant and medical aid on many large charity rides. If you want to open your eyes about mechanical failures, cruise a big charity ride (or large road race) in a sag wagon or mobile mechanic vehicle.
How many nursing homes residents does your personal experience include? Do you want to hear about the ex-cyclists confined to wheel chairs or having permanent brain injuries I've worked with? Funnily enough the cycling industry and media, like most cyclists, turn a blind eye to this side of the cycling experience. Even if one cycling media story in ten million covered disabling injuries, the 'cycling industry' would be ranting too much attention is being given to low probability events, and unnecessarily scaring people from riding.
As I said earlier, cyclists are brilliant at being insouciant PollyAnna's riding around without a care in the world, full of adrenalin, enkephalin, and endorphins, thinking they've got one up on the rest of life, b#lls overriding brains, thumping chests hollering crashin's part of racin, .....
full of the confidence that comes with ignorance....until they break bones and can't ride for months or ever. Then, it is back to Mum's.
As for what the industry convention might be for torquing to spec for 'most bikes', I've seen enough new and serviced bikes with inappropriately torqued bolts, to believe anyone who outsources to sub $20/hour labour, puts a similar value on their life and limb. If you think torquing to spec can be universally pilloried, you haven't watched enough criterium sprints - loose pedals, cleats, bars, stems, failed bars, stems, wheels.... One of the reasons I stopped racing is because of pervasive racer ignorance about keeping their bikes in safe working order.
Physics is physics. Every bolt is designed with an optimal torque range, that optimally resists vibration and the torque of moving components they secure (pedals, cranks, cassettes). The cycling industry is a an 'industry' that is want to push the limits of doing as little as possible, including ignoring physics, in order to make an easier quicker carefree buck. Most bikes don't do more than 50km a week. If you want to ride 200km/week much at speed, on a bike maintained for 50km/wk, Darwin understands.
As I've said, it takes a few hours to read up, understand, and put into practice, torquing to spec. Young people generally are mechanically illiterate these days. Why encourage that? The lessons learned with bicycle maintenance are a foundation for competence with all things mechanical. The goal of life shouldn't be to get through it with the least self sufficiency and comprehension of machinery and equipment one critically relies on. Young males in particular overwhelmingly get enormous self confidence and security from mechanical aptitude. Manual know how should be encouraged over the alternative - a few hundred extra hours computer gaming and social media.
Probability should also be better understood by the risk-o-philes. In my game there's about a 1 in 100,000 chance of severely debilitating or fatal trauma with an upper cervical rotational manipulation (of the neck). An x-ray can reduce that probability substantially. By some of the comments here, some think taking that x-ray is for meowing cats.
next