Re: Suspension losses

Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:

On 1/13/2025 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:47 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
 

On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>

To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device
and _see_ what's wrong....

>

That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.

>
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.

>
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working,
its lifetime is over! Throw it out!

 
That's far too simplistic.
 
It depends.  For my purposes, I indeed prefer bicycles that may need
repairs and modifications over their lifetime, for various reasons. I
change over my lifetime, so do my bicycles.  But there are limits. Want
it cheap, longlived, lightweight and functional? Choose any two.
 
 

>
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw
it away."

 
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many
complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime.  Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change.  There are technical limits. So far, I haven't
heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40
years, as you ask for.  To be precise, I don't know of any that I would
like to use or that I would risk using.

>
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced
consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
and occasionally a chainring.

That way, any bicycle qualifies. There is essentially no part of a
bicycle that isn't "consumable".  If you are lucky, all consumable items
are consumed at the same time.  So you can just buy another bike, call
it the repaired one and throw out the old one. :-)  Given that declaring
something consumed is a rather arbitrary decision, you have quite a lot
of slack with that.

I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
equipment is exceptionally durable.

That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally
durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
reason.

>
For one example: The square taper cranks that Tom mocks still work
perfectly well. I had to replace the original sealed bottom bracket one
time, but there was no confusion about compatibility (and my cranks did
not fall off!). The Stronglite roller bearing headset has also lasted
decades, with one parts replacement. The SunTour rear derailleur is
still perfect, although I did cheat a bit. When I powder coated our
bikes, I traded my derailleur for my wife's, figuring hers had many
fewer miles; but both still work just fine. Wheels are not original
because I switched from 27" to 700C, but they're 20 years old.

So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
need his bicycle anymore? 

I guess you don't drive a Ford Model T and you don't use an grammophone
that needs a steel needle for playing shellac records.

Personally, I am more concerned about how to use a bicycle rather than
other modes of transport and optimising the bike for that purpose, and I
am less concerndedabout whether the bike choosen it will last ten,
twenty or thirty years.

How long a bicycle lasts depends upon how much it is used and under what
conditions. A bicycle that lasts more than thirty years is most likely a
display piece. That some people like you have the time, space and energy
to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal
conditions doesn't prove the opposite.  That is not an argument against
repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not
talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.

>

Anyway, I see no reason why the wireless shifting of our bikes shouldn't
outlive a similar purely mechanical one...

>
I guess we'll see, eventually.

If we don't try, we certainly won't see it. Try to see it the following
way: _you_ don't have any reason to try a group with wireless shifting
like the one I built our bikes with, I understand that.  So just let
people like us who experience, like and sometimes need the benefits pay
the money, try this innovation, and serve as guinea pigs.

>

There was a similar problem with our TV, too many separate components. I
solved that by using a power strip combined with a separate central
switch at an easy to reach location.  Powering on/off needs two actions:
central switch plus a button on the PC, powering off is done via
keyboard and central switch.  That way, all that stuff doesn't consume
standby power, when not in use.
 
 

I pump the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, which
has its own remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working),
the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had a friend
house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how to run the system.

 
This can actually be automated quite easily for devices with IR remote
controls. However, it does require a little programming and soldering
work.

>
About that: A few years ago I got annoyed at the number of remotes. I'd
read a good review about a programmable universal remote, and bought it.
I followed the tedious instructions to program it so I could hit one
button for "Watch TV", another button for "Play CD", another button for
"Listen to radio" etc.
>
It's less than ideal. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the
devices use the same signal code as a toggle for "power-on" &
"power-off", as opposed to a separate code for "On" and "Off." If a
device is left in the wrong state, things don't work. There was also
some dimly remembered problem where commands from the remote had to
arrive at the TV at the proper instant - not too soon, not too late -
and the program couldn't manage that, despite the nice lady at the 800
help number trying over and over to cure. (I suppose I could dig back
into the programming, but I'm not motivated.)

Some years ago, I helped extending a library that implements both
reading (decoding) and sending (generating) IR codes, the primary author
was quite prolific in extending it to any protocol that he got
specificattions and/or samples for. I only wrote a driver part for a not
yet supported microcontroller, but that was good enough to understand
some of its workings.  Sadly, the project has mostly stalled after 2015.
The code is still working and small microcontrollers and IR remotes
don't change that much.

From your description, I cannot deduce whether a single button press on
your IR control serves as an "invert the boolean that denotes  specific
state" (power on/off, for example), or if it is something else.  Some
universal remotes are just simple and stupid recorders, recording and
replaying a bitstream without decoding, perhaps after some signal
cleanup. Others decode and work from tables.

From memory, most IR remotes use the NEC protocol, after extracting an
abstract code from the bistream, that code essentially is triple (device
address, command number, modifier), device denoting a specific tv model,
for example, command number some arbitrary numbering of the keys on the
remote, modifier in this case just a single bit denoting "this is
comming from a repeating, still pressed keys).

Usually, the behaviour of a IR remote control is as simple as that. 

So much about the basics. Knowing neither your universal control, nor
anything about the remote control in question, I can't even guess what
is causing that problem.   I could tell you what I would do to analyze
and perhaps solve it, but that won't help you, because you don't have
the necessary equipment (and knowledge). And even I have stored away
most of the stuff I need for such work, in order to get space to build
and maintain our bikes. 

>

I've seen many such fans, radiant heaters and the like, where the pull
chain or drawstring had been lost or damaged. But I have rarely
misplacted an IR remote, simply because there is no point in moving it
out of the room where the controlled device is located.

>
Your rooms must be much less messy than mine!

Not really. It's just that the remotes sit on top of the devices that
they control, when not in use. Most of the time, that is.

>

...when we
did our first tours with Peugeot bicycles bought in 1978, we were young
and we mostly rode on the flat. A piece of cake, even with only 2 x 5
and without indexing.

>
As I get older and older, I'm trying to get more comfortable with being
an old guy who avoids mountains. Maybe some guy in a Frank Patterson
drawing:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/frank-patterson-cycling-artist-500010568

Well yes, I get the feeling, believe me.  I've ridden exactly 4.9 km
outside, over the last five months. :-/ I'm trying hard not to become
comfortable with that. :-) But that's a different story and not one for
this forum. Just this much: I've never cycled as far and as high on a
single day as I have done repeatedly since we retired. Becoming old is
an obstacle, no question. But you can postpone the consequences of
ageing, at least for a while.

--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions