User talk:AndrewDressel/Archive 7

DYK for American Star Bicycle

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Final numbers are 7,601 hits for a rate of 950 hits/hour. -AndrewDressel (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

shimano shifter

Shimano 7-speed index shifter

I cam across an image of a shimano 7-speed index shifter with your name after it. It is what I am trying to fix (in an 8-speed model) but can't find any reference to them anywhere. Are they old/outdated? My problem is with the right shifter being very stiff and hard to shift up on. Any ideas for a fix-it-yourself-guy? Or do you know the name of these shifters? It seems to say "CI-Deck plus" on the housing but I can't be sure as it is faded. I can't seem to find them on any shimano related site. Dave B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.72.177 (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I did take the photograph, but I don't know any more about that shifter than what we can see in the image. As for improving the performance of old shifters, my best advice is "flush and lube". Use some good solvent to remove old, possibly sticky, grease, along with continuous actuation, and then relubricate. Good luck. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Home built Recumbent Trike

I am getting ready to build a home built recumbent trike and I am trying to find someone who sells the front mono shock suspension assembly. I like the image that you have of the Cannondale Lefty shock. Can you point me in the right direction of where I can find someone who would sell this item seperately from the bike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.221.203 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New Toothed CVT

Dear Mr. Dessel, The section I added is relevant to a CVT. People can learn from it and improve it. Although ideas for the CVT are for sale on the linked website, many other CVT’s described on wikipedia are also for sale. If you have strong objections to my post please let me know, otherwise I will post it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvtreserach (talk • contribs) 09:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable third-party source, feel free to re-add that material with such a reference. Otherwise, it is not appropriate. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 01:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unit conversions and convert template

Hi,

I noticed that you modified a correction made by UnitBot, and replaced the conversion with Template:Convert. The fact that UnitBot doesn't (yet) use Template:Convert is a feature rather than a bug, as there is a certain amount of controversy about the entire template. Therefore, a bot which went around massively increasing its use would also be controversial. If you're interested in the UnitBot project, you could join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/UnitBot_(reopen).

Regards — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 11:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Friction

Hello AndrewDressel, you deleted my edit in the article Friction. Can you please explain the "several flaws" of the picture? The picture uses common German abbreviations. I don't insist that the picture remains in the article, but I want to improve the description page of the picture. Thanks for your answer and Greetings! --Kdkeller (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure:

1. The block and arrows are small with respect to the image and so difficult to see. The caption does not explain what any of the symbols represent.
2. I can guess that F_N is a normal force, F_G is the force of gravity, and F_R is the force of friction, but I do not know what F_H is.
3. While F_G and F_R appear to be the force of gravity and friction applied to the block, respectively, the direction of the arrow suggests that F_N is the normal force that the block applies to the surface on which it rests. A free body diagram should only contain forces applied to the object.
4. Figures 2 and 3 suggest that the maximum static friction magnitude equals the kinetic friction magnitude, when the article already states that "kinetic friction ... is usually less than the coefficient of static friction for the same materials."

-AndrewDressel (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that was a constructive answer and you helped me. (F_H is the force that acts parallel to the road; it actually pulls the body downwards. F_G is decomposed into F_H and F_N, that's why F_G is crossed out.) --Kdkeller (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspension

Hi Andrew, can you define suspension in terms of a bicycle for me please, Eddaido (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty much the same for all vehicles, and I think the bicycle suspension article does an adequate job:

A bicycle suspension is the system or systems used to suspend the rider and all or part of the bicycle in order to protect them from the roughness of the terrain over which they travel. Bicycle suspensions are used primarily on mountain bikes, but are also common on hybrid bicycles, and can even be found on some road bicycles. Bicycle suspension can be implemented in a variety of ways: suspension front fork, suspension stem (although these have fallen out of favor), suspension seatpost, rear suspension, suspension hub.

The operative part of the definition is isolating the rider and as much mass of the vehicle as possible from terrain roughness. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the way you choose to use the word for your purposes. I have responded several times now! Eddaido (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no purpose other than reflecting the available sources. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What fork is this on this MTB?

Hey, About the fork in this pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mountain_Bike_Fork.jpg What fork is that? Looks like an Manitou with the reverse arch, right? --DerWasmachineman (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't take the original picture, so I don't have access to the original bike, but the one pictured here appears to be similar and it is described as having a Manitou Minute :03 fork. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Question on Burley Canto recumbent bike

Hi Andrew,

My name is Mark, and I saw with interest your pic of the Burley Canto all set up for touring at Niagara Falls.

I am a fairly avid bicyclist, but am sometimes bothered by neck and shoulder issues on a standard bike. For this reason I have been looking for a recumbent. I am also interested in doing some self supported touring, and you looked like you have your Canto all set up for touring. I wondered if you would mind sharing your thoughts on your Canto both on the ergonomic pros/cons, as well as it's efficacy as a Touring platform.

I notice you also have your Canto set up in the shorter wheelbase configuration in the photo, and wondered what your insight was on the SWB vrs. LWB configuration.

I have an opportunity to purchase a lightly used Burley Canto in the $400's, so any thoughts you wish to share are appreciated.

Thanks, Zmkk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmkk (talk • contribs) 03:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Burley Canto is great for touring. It is certainly not the fastest recumbent out there, but it is quite adjustable, and I was always comfortable on it all day for pretty long days. I averaged about 12.5 mph over 5000 miles and had several 100+ mile days in a row. It is actually in the long wheelbase configuration in that picture. Although I could never ride it no-hands, it felt very stable on high-speed descents, and I believe I hit 45 mph while fully loaded. The only thing I regretted about that setup was not springing for a better rear tire. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Camber thrust

I'm confused by the graphic. If the thrust direction shown is the force developed by the tire I think it's in the wrong direction. I also think the new contact patch is curved on the camber side resulting in a leading edge pointed in the direction of the camber adding to slip angle if present. Comments please. Thanks, Paul Haney, paul@tvmotorsports.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.20.191 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The arrow in the diagram follows the convention used by Cossalter and shows the force of the ground acting on the tire, which is in the direction of the lean. The diagram does not show the contact patch. The dotted oval is the path of a point on the outer surface of the tire. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Road and recumbent

Thanks for your response. Here's my deal- This bike happened because I biilt a chopper bicycle, which worked great on flat terrain, but was too hard to pedal uphill-- so I added a front seat. It is a fantastic bike- I jump back and forth between the front and back seat without having to stop and my butt elbows wrists and neck don't start to hurt or get stiff on long rides. It's a gift I want to give to bicyclists. Yes I would like to profit from my work, but I don't offer bikes for sale, and it says so at my site. I put a .com on my site, but it could have been .net. The only reason I tried to link to the site is because there are videos of the bikes capabilities. The last 10 or so page saves I made did not say "Roadrecumbent" or link to the site. The picture link in the last few page saves linked to a new picture at Commons that's different than any pics at my site. If I start a new article as you suggest, how will people find it? It's a completely new idea, it doesn't have a name or discription anyone is familiar with. That's why I tried to include it in "recumbent bicycles". I suppose I can put a link on the recumbent bike article if I start a new article? 2 more questions, if you will

1. Would you call this a recumbent bicycle? The rear seat is higher than most, but 2 of the bikes on the recumbent page have cranks below the hips. The seat is very recumbent style being wide with a backrest.
2. If it is a recumbent bicycle in your opinion, would you reconsider inclusion in the recumbent article if there's no question of spamming? Thank you for your time.Green ethyfoam (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The main issue, with respect to having your bicycle included in Wikipedia, is notability. I think it is great that you have developed something new, and great that you wish to share it, but that is not the concern of an encyclopedia. If you wish to promote your bicycle, you should focus your attention on the news media, such as Bicycling magazine, VeloNews, BikeRadar, GizMag, and the like. Also note that someone has already patented a bike that converts between upright and recumbent: Your design may have advantages, but the idea is already out there. Finally, I don't have a great recommendation for what to call it. It is a hybrid between an upright and a recumbent, but "hybrid" is already used to mean something else. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Bicycle braking

As I am a complete Wiki newbie, please excuse any excessive stupidity on my part. Please also feel free to email me at rv@simulations.plus.com....

I was wondering whether the section on braking would benefit from some additional text and illustrations, both to illustrate the equations and to expand on their implications.

It might -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The images that I would add are enclosed...

• 
• 
• 
• 

These are nice, but I would recommend a couple of changes:

1. Place the head of the force arrow at the point of application of the force. Otherwise it appears that the forces Nr and Nf are acting at the hub of the front and rear wheels.

2. Use a thicker line to represent forces than that of dimensions

3. Label all force arrows -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The text that I would add is that

Different ground surfaces have differing coefficients of friction.

When a ground surface is 'poor' and the coefficient of friction is low, both Fh and Bh are small. The weight of the rider is relatively evenly distributed and both brakes can contribute towards the reduction in speed.

When a ground surface is 'good', the brakes can give large horizontal forces Fh and Bh. When Fh and Bh are large, Mh is large. This increases Fv onto the front wheel and Fh becomes much larger than Bh, helping much more towards speed reduction. This means that it is essential that the front brake is in good working order. (Ultimately in good road conditions there is no force Bv at all and hence no Bh.)

What are "Fh", "Bh", and "Mh". I do not see them on any diagram. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In all cases both front and rear brakes should initially be applied at the same time, to maximise the time available for braking.

This contribution was initially prompted by a discussion with friends as to whether or not it is best to brake first with the rear brake - there is a long-standing theory to this effect which I believe to be incorrect.

That is fine, but to be included in Wikipedia, any detail must be backed up by a reliable external source. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to your comments!

Roger Vila

presta valve: filling procedure

Hey Andrew, I am sorry to see that you removed my contribution to the article. You may be aware of the procedure for attaching a hand pump to this valve but I certainly wasn't. Many other riders too are unaware. As the result the grommet is degraded quickly if one simply pushed it on or pulls it off without first relieving the compression on the grommet. Why don't you allow this info to be part of the information? -Roland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfinston (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary:

1. Your comments are unsourced and come across as original research. Is some manufacturing providing these instructions? Some industry expert?
2. They are pretty specifically how-to comments, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide
3. They are about certain hand pumps, and not specific to presta valves.

If you disagree, or would like a second opinion, please begin a discussion on the article talk page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Lefty old model

Hi, Hope you may be able to assist me. I need a maintenance manual on the Lefty. I am not able to change the setting on the fork and it is in the fixed position ( for going up hills ) no suspension. Reason that the little metal connector on the top of the shock has broken. I need to solder another connector on. I do not have the money to send the bike to Johannesburg (1000 kilometer transport). Am not sure if it is a 9 volt or 6 volt battery required. The bike must be all of 10 to 15 years old. The bike is otherwise in immaculate condition. Please try and help to get me going again. All the best for the New Year. Look forward to any help. Cheers Willy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.251.197 (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I took that picture in a bike shop, and am no expert on Leftys. From your description, it sounds like you have a Lefty ELO. The Cannondale documentation suggests that it takes a 9 volt battery. Here's a link to the PDF, which contains pictures and might help you get up and running again. http://media.cannondale.com/media/Manuals/2002_lefty_elo_owners_manual_supplement_en.pdf Best of luck. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nay sayers (copied and continued from User talk:JzG)

I can't find any mention of the certificate on the CTC site. Do you know where I might find it online? It might help silence the nay sayers. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"silence" the nay sayers huh? That sounds like some serious WP:POV and "trust me" fallacy right there. By default, if its not WP:V, its a nay. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have a serious point of view, and it is that the contributors who have worked to create an article have done so in good faith. I do not think that all opinions stink. I work to create and improve articles about topics I like, know something about, or wish to learn about. And I assume that other editors do so as well, until they demonstrate otherwise. I think that "nay sayer" is an accurate and sufficiently mild description of editors who appear to assume hastily that other contributors have done something wrong. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The certificate exists and was mentioned in CTC's magazine Cycle at the time, the copy on Sheldon's site is a true copy, I was the one who posted it to him (for boring pragmatic reasons). WP:V allows for the possibility that you might actually have to visit a library to check something. In this case you won't, all you have to believe is that neither I nor the late and much lamented Sheldon Brown are liars, but if you really really want to check it for yourself the CTC website has a contact form and I am confident they will answer promptly. I think this is the most stupid discussion I have ever had about sources on Wikipedia. Nobody has, to the best of my knowledge, found a single source that disputes Sheldon Brown's status as an authority on cycle maintenance, and I would be surprised to find any that did. Jobst Brandt is an opinionated fellow and inclined to piss people off (especially if they support the cycling equivalent of phlogiston theory, tied and soldered spokes), Sheldon was a jovial and relaxed kind of guy and I can't recall a single person getting into a real argument with him. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)