Torque wrenches

Rick Onanian

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:02:03 -0400, ML <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
>Rick:
>Come on, I'm waiting for you to show me where it's written. You're the

Er...haven't enough others posted links?

>one who started this so it's up to you to prove your point. If you
>can't give me a definitive statement all these posts are going back to
>the top!

Whatever you like; us non-top-posters will just continue to bitch
and complain. Like you said, it's a religious thing.

>g.daniels is entertainment the way having your gums scraped is
>entertainment. Something I can do without. I pretty much just ignore
>all his posts.

Just save yourself some time and killfile him. Personally, I enjoy
dissecting them and responding to bits and pieces as if they were
not insane ravings. Here's an example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&se...28kt2%404ax.com

>MOO (My Opinion Only),

You're wrong. Moo is my opinion too.
--
Rick Onanian

Benjamin Lewis

mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Thanks for your post. Of all the posts thus far, this is the only one
> that attempted to justify the argument. I think I'll still argue that
> it's a newsreader issue. And the fact that different newsreaders
> encourage one form of posting over the other says to me that there is a
> large difference of opinion on the subject.

I believe you have your cause and effect backwards. Before a certain
occurrence of a single newsreader with 90% (or something) of the market
share, top posting was a much rarer beast than it is today.

> I find that inteleaving is the worst form of response. Unfortunately,
> sometimes it's necessary. The problem with this is that now you end up
> with no clear time sequence to the thread.

On the contrary, there is an extremely clear, unambiguous time sequence,
provided that no one top posts. Every response occurs chronologically
after the quote block directly above it, and this is recursive. This is
the easiest possible time sequence for us to read, since we are used to
reading from top down, and it puts responses to particular points
physically closer together in the script.

It is in my feeling, although I can't prove it, that the people who argue
against top-posting tend to be those who've thought about the issue
carefully, and that arguments for top-posting tend to be knee-jerk defenses
of they way the arguer was originally encouraged to do things. I see many
more people being converted from top-posting to bottom-posting than the
other direction, which I feel strongly supports my argument, at least to
myself.

> Personally, I will be bottom posting for a while to see how I feel on the
> issue. If I find it revolting then I will revert to top-posting. This to
> me is a "religion" issue, and I'm really not religious.

Well, we certainly can't force you. We can only try to encourage you to
appeal to reason, which is a much nicer way to try to run society
anyhow.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

ML

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks for your post. Of all the posts thus far, this is the only one
>>that attempted to justify the argument. I think I'll still argue that
>>it's a newsreader issue. And the fact that different newsreaders
>>encourage one form of posting over the other says to me that there is a
>>large difference of opinion on the subject.
>
>
> I believe you have your cause and effect backwards. Before a certain
> occurrence of a single newsreader with 90% (or something) of the market
> share, top posting was a much rarer beast than it is today.

Which unfortunately is the way of the world. The gorilla gets the
banana. In two years (+/-) everyone will be telling you to quit bottom
posting!

>
>
>>I find that inteleaving is the worst form of response. Unfortunately,
>>sometimes it's necessary. The problem with this is that now you end up
>>with no clear time sequence to the thread.
>
>
> On the contrary, there is an extremely clear, unambiguous time sequence,
> provided that no one top posts. Every response occurs chronologically
> after the quote block directly above it, and this is recursive. This is
> the easiest possible time sequence for us to read, since we are used to
> reading from top down, and it puts responses to particular points
> physically closer together in the script.
>
Now if this thread continues over the course of a couple weeks, all
these inlne responses will be lost in the noise of bottom posted
responses. That is unless everyone posts inline in response.


> It is in my feeling, although I can't prove it, that the people who argue
> against top-posting tend to be those who've thought about the issue
> carefully, and that arguments for top-posting tend to be knee-jerk defenses
> of they way the arguer was originally encouraged to do things. I see many
> more people being converted from top-posting to bottom-posting than the
> other direction, which I feel strongly supports my argument, at least to
> myself.
>

No knee-jerk reaction here. All my mail responses are top posted, and
all the people I deal with at work & outside top post. We've all read
the previous posts so the next one down is what we are responding to.
If there is more information needed, then we just scroll down to find
it. If not, then it's just forwarded on as supporting material for the
note. Works fine.

>
>>Personally, I will be bottom posting for a while to see how I feel on the
>>issue. If I find it revolting then I will revert to top-posting. This to
>>me is a "religion" issue, and I'm really not religious.
>
>
> Well, we certainly can't force you. We can only try to encourage you to
> appeal to reason, which is a much nicer way to try to run society
> anyhow.
>

Wow, a civil society. I love it!

Enjoy your day,
Matt

DRS

ML <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
407EED50.20706@us.ibm.com

[...]

> Now if this thread continues over the course of a couple weeks, all
> these inlne responses will be lost in the noise of bottom posted
> responses. That is unless everyone posts inline in response.

Inline posting is merely a variation of bottom-posting. The answer still
follows the question.

[...]

> No knee-jerk reaction here. All my mail responses are top posted, and
> all the people I deal with at work & outside top post. We've all read
> the previous posts so the next one down is what we are responding to.

Not necessarily. That is an entirely unsafe assumption.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Rick Onanian

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:15:12 -0400, ML <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
>All my mail responses are top posted, and
>all the people I deal with at work & outside top post. We've all read
>the previous posts so the next one down is what we are responding to.

Private email is different from public discussion. In these
discussions, not only do you have people reading the thread who
haven't necessarily read any of it before, but each thread branches
off into many sub-threads, all with the same "Subject:" line.

As a result, when skipping to the next new message, one often finds
one's self in the midst of a sea of branches of a given thread. The
only way to determine who and what the current message is replying
to is to read [part of] the previous message.

Quoting just enough of the previous message to establish a clear
context results in a clear communication. Quoting it above the new
message doesn't force people to scroll down or read out-of-order
just to figure out whether Joe is replying to Brad's post or Mike's
post -- or whether Joe is replying to Brad's first post or Brad's
third post. The reader finds out immediately that Joe is replying to
Brad's idea that foo is indeed part of bar but not part of fnord.

All names used in example above are fictional characters, not based
on any people in real life. Any resemblance to existing people is
purely coincidental. Should such a thread actually exist, I will
make absolutely sure to continue doing whatever it was I was doing
anyway.
--
Rick Onanian

eric h

In article <107k2shlg5rpf4@corp.supernews.com>,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>A woman who worked for me twisted the heads off crank bolts.
>More than once.
>"tightening the crap out of them" is a pretty wide range.

Yeah, I suppose I should amend that to say somewhere in the range between
tightening the crap out of em and tight enough to strip the bolt head. I
guess if you don't know what that range is from experience, then you might
want to get a torque wrench.

I know it's a pretty wide range, but since manufacturers can't even make
up their mind about whether the tapers should be lubed, I suspect that
from a practical point of view, the range of acceptable torque is pretty
wide.

The point is that crank bolts don't need the precision of head bolts on a
type 4 VW engine, say. Not that it would hurt anything, of course, to
have that kind of precision, but if you now you need 30 ft lbs, you can
always go press on the bathroom scale until it reads 30 lbs, and then push
with about that much force on a foot-long socket wrench. Not precise
enough for cylinder head bolts, but for crank bolts, where undertorquing
is far more common, it should get you in the ballpark, anyways.
--
---
"I never had to pretend I felt the lyrics. I could always relate to the words."
--Teddy Pendergrass

Calvin Jones

A quick scan on the various topics floating at rec.bicycles.tech will
always show several topics involving fastener tension (cranks
loosening, chainring bolts, spoke tension). There is a range of
"correct" or acceptable torque for any bolt. The idea of torque is to
arrive at enough tension in the fastener. If you could simply pull on
the bolt enough with your fingers, and run the nut down, it would work
as well. There are more accurate ways than a torque wrench for
determining thread tension. However, a torque wrench is simply the
most practical.

Again, a torque wrench in only a measuring tool. Using a torque wrench
cannot replace thinking and paying attention, but it does give
mechanics of all types a common language. Working with a torque
wrench can help a mechanic develop a sense of what 360 inch pounds
(many crank bots), or 4 inch pounds (Hollowtech II crank caps) "feels"
like. Experience with measured torque will allow useful conversations
between mechanics themselves, and between engineers/manufacturers and
mechanics. Without knowledge or experience in torque, it seems we
will continue to exchange poetic verse, such as "tighten the crap out
of it", "snug it up", "thumb tight", "loosey goosey", "pretty tight",
or, "%@!$! Tight".

H. M. Leary

In article <aeaee867.0404160409.4555cc13@posting.google.com>,
info@parktool.com (Calvin Jones) wrote:

snip
Without knowledge or experience in torque, it seems we
> will continue to exchange poetic verse, such as "tighten the crap out
> of it", "snug it up", "thumb tight", "loosey goosey", "pretty tight",
> or, "%@!$! Tight".

Great! You have a torque wrench from ShelBroCo too!

http://sheldonbrown.com/tork-grip.html

HAND

--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution